Approaches followed & lessons learned – Group Feedback –Kolu Gelan Keble

1. Approaches followed & lessons learned – Group Feedback –Kolu Gelan Keble SLATE Training for Africa RISING / NBDC Addis Ababa / Jeldu. 1 - 5 April 2013

2. Facilitation • Criteria for selection of key informants - sampling was not proportional or representational – assumption based on the second day of research where farmers had greater access to assets - Geographic representation (those close by/ convenient)/ potential problem of interaction with DA when researcher has no knowledge of site • Less time allocated to identification/ evaluation of indicators – needed more time (Basic household data especially) • Different approaches in 3 kebeles – some included key informants in survey/ some excluded – which is best? SOLUTION- A clear idea of how many samples (proportional or equal numbers etc.) and exploration of potential census lists/ time for scoping in the field for basic stratification is needed to reduce DA AND questionnaire bias – time must be taken to reflect on outputs from key informants (and more detailed notes taken in focus group – potential experiments on participatory methods such as resource maps?)

3. Weighting and Scoring • Different level of understanding of enumerators – indicators and process – meant that farmers were also not always aware of the difference between weight and score and the way to address their own circumstances SOLUTION- must have pre-testing (day in class to discuss differences between weight and score- how to phrase/ consensus of approach etc. plus time in the field to try out – development of more detailed methodology – in field techniques etc.) • Weighting – relative weight for each indicator (if list is too long farmers find it difficult – farmers tend to rank rather than give proportionate score especially when the indicators are very hard to compare) • Scoring – relationships to weight are complex – issues with lack of negative scores – did not adequately show difference between rich/ poor farmers and their relative dependence on different sources of capital • Enumerators skill to challenge / question the farmers answer/ give examples of positive/ negative contribution SOLUTION- demonstration (interactive process – to minimise enumerators bias and to incorporate participatory process) – pictures and grains?

4. Data entry and Analysis • Similarity/ differences in questionnaires from each Kebele based on differences in sites - especially for key basic information across sites – must be decided because some lists are more detailed than others • SOLUTION IS DIFFICULT - merging indicators would be convenient for analysis but lists of indicators could be exhaustive – reducing list could exclude key incomes/ niche assets etc. – want to capture all typologies and not exclude • Accessibility of tool – copying/ sharing data etc. • SOLUTION- need to know how to merge datasets and more on data analysis

8. Low asset holder

9. High asset holder