Cross-border citizens’ network for human security in Turkey and the Western Balkans

1. Cross-border citizens’ network for human security in Turkey and the Western Balkans Dr Sally Stares 8 November 2013 Belgrade meeting Research methods and methodologies

2. Introduction • This research programme is rich in both its diversity and its shared core • in project themes • in methodological approaches • In this presentation, some ideas for how to strengthen the connections between the different projects, in terms of • research questions • methodological approaches

3. Quick sketch of methodologies proposed • Desk research – e.g. • To identify key themes, and background information, e.g. statistics, legal frameworks, institutional arrangements, advocacy context • Case selection – e.g. • Probability (random) sampling – crucial for generalisation, inference • Key informants, volunteers? • Comparative (or single) case studies: selected for characteristics of interest • Data collection – e.g. • unstructured/semi-structured interviews, focus groups, media • structured interviews, questionnaires, secondary analysis of existing data • Data analysis – e.g. • content analysis, narrative analysis, discourse analysis • counting frequencies or proportions of certain behaviours or perceptions

4. Illustrations of diversity of our research questions • Questions of exploration: • What kind of threats exist to young people in virtual spaces? • What are perceptions of insecurity? • Questions of distribution: • What is the scale of conventional crimes committed by Roma population in North-Northwest Bulgaria? • Are legal limits/standards of working time and sick support observed? • Questions of process: • What is the mechanism of controlled voting in small municipalities in Bulgaria? • How are schools compromised as safe spaces? • Questions of causation: • What are the consequences of housing reforms in Montenegro? • How has the privatisation process increased vulnerability of former workers?

5. Examples of methods for exploration • Qualitative approaches are well indicated, especially where respondents are free to raise issues, to set the agenda • Interviews • Focus groups • Desk research and analysis of existing data sources may reveal key insights • e.g. survey results, text data • Quantitative data collection methods not so directly useful, because of their highly structured format, predetermined by the researchers • Although, multivariate analyses can reveal interesting patterns and associations

6. Examples of methods for distribution • Quantitative data collection methods are the most obvious choice • e.g. surveys • Then, sampling strategy is crucial • For results to be generalisable to the target population, probability (random) sampling must be used • Typically outsourced to survey agencies who have necessary sampling frame information, field force, etc. • Desk research and analysis of existing data sources may be a key tool here, if primary data collection cannot be done • Possibility of a quantitative data collection exercise at a later point in the research programme?

7. Examples of methods for process • Qualitative approaches again well indicated • Interviews • Focus groups • Suggest that a narrative approach to these methods might be useful? Encouraging respondents to relay sequences of events, etc. • Desk research and analysis of existing data sources may reveal key insights, and suggests avenues of enquiry for primary qualitative data collection • Quantitative data collection methods typically not so directly useful; tend to comprise a snap-shot of components rather than information on the dynamic links between them

8. Examples of methods for causation • Gold standard: randomised control trials! • To make claims of a causal relation between two phenomena (say, housing reforms and insecurity), need to fulfil three requirements: • Demonstrate an empirical association between them • Establish the one doing the causing happened before the one that suffered the effect • Rule out all other possible explanations for the association between them • Extremely difficult to achieve claims of causality, and harder as the extent of desired generalisation increases • However…connects to approaches such as process tracing, which maps on nicely to a more general narrative approach • …and, I think, is expressed in softer form in core human security questions…

9. Core research focus • Understanding the spaces and forms of insecurity in the region, using violence as a proxy for insecurity • Key overarching questions: • How does the particular form of violence under study happen, how is it manifested? • How do people respond to it? • What do people want to change? What would they wish the situation to be? • If possible to answer: how could that be achieved? • 1 and 2 speak to questions of exploration and process • 3 speaks to process and tentatively to questions of causation • None speak directly to questions of distribution! Maybe 1 is indirectly linked?

10. Questions for discussion (1) • Can your existing research questions be reframed in terms of these? • I have a hunch that they can, but I may be wrong! • Means in many cases a slight rearrangement, e.g. • CRDP wants to inquire on conditions of occupational safety in infrastructure projects in Kosovo, and examine the institutional support available to the vulnerable workers of this industry • Please tell me what it’s like to work here. What’s good, what’s not so good? • How about your working hours, what are they like? And holidays? • If people have problems, e.g. injury, what happens then? • How do you manage the difficult aspects of working here? • Do you have any support, e.g. from the company, some security from contracts? • In an ideal world, what would you like it to be like here? • In the abstract, and in practice - any thoughts on what you would like to change? • Consider effects of calling security into question; double hermeneutic?

11. Questions for discussion (2) • Can we arrive at a shared strategy/elements of a shared strategy for case selection? • I think case selection is key • Being explicit about the communities we are studying • How far we intend the results to be generalisable • Empirical generalisation, e.g. classic case of opinion poll • Analytical generalisation, mapping out and identifying themes and issues • Suspect that formal sampling may not be possible in many instances? • For qualitative research, can adopt a strategy of corpus construction, i.e. trying to discover all the relevant themes – keep sampling respondents until you are not hearing any new themes • Whichever way, explicit documentation of respondent selection will be key to methodological rigour and quality of our research

12. Questions for discussion (3) • (Broader version of second question)… • Exactly which parts of the different projects are core, shared, and which are unique or peripheral or idiosyncratic? • In terms of • Substantive topic (e.g. youth violence) • Social group (e.g. Roma) • Methods (e.g. types of information gained from interviews, from focus groups, etc.) • A while ago I developed a taxonomy of choices in research, which I find helpful for clarifying the scope and nature of different pieces of research • Then facilitates comparisons of different studies • Others have found it useful, but don’t be obliged! Here it is anyway…

13. Taxonomy of choices Substantive research topic Substantive theoretical framework Research method / tool Observations and data Generalisability Levels of analysis Ways of representing (analysing and reporting) Relationship between researched and researcher / research instrument Validation

14. Taxonomy of choices Substantive research topic Substantive theoretical framework Research method / tool • Substantive research topic: • Concrete questions; Mary’s what, when, how, who, why? Observations and data Generalisability Levels of analysis Ways of representing (analysing and reporting) Relationship between researched and researcher / research instrument Validation

15. Taxonomy of choices Substantive research topic Substantive theoretical framework Research method / tool • Substantive theoretical framework: • Human security • Other tacit frameworks of knowledge? • Contextual social, cultural knowledge • Theoretical framework may play a major or minor role Observations and data Generalisability Levels of analysis Ways of representing (analysing and reporting) Relationship between researched and researcher / research instrument Validation

16. Taxonomy of choices Substantive research topic Substantive theoretical framework Research method / tool • Research method / tool: • e.g. survey, interviews… • Broadly, • How to select participants • What mode of data collection to use • Key variation in extent of: • Personal contact with subjects (internet surveys vs. in-depth interviews) • Intervention (covert observation vs. action research) • Formality of structure (experiments vs. participant observation) Observations and data Generalisability Levels of analysis Ways of representing (analysing and reporting) Relationship between researched and researcher / research instrument Validation

17. Taxonomy of choices Substantive research topic Substantive theoretical framework Research method / tool • Observations and data: • Observations = information in its rawest form (e.g. tape recording of interview) • Data = information in analysis format • A set of observations can be converted into different types of data • Data not ‘given’, but involve creative choices • Sometimes observations = data (e.g. questionnaires); sometimes several steps from observations to data (e.g. text coded from interviews) Observations and data Generalisability Levels of analysis Ways of representing (analysing and reporting) Relationship between researched and researcher / research instrument Validation

18. Taxonomy of choices Substantive research topic Substantive theoretical framework Research method / tool • Ways of representing • How to represent data to oneself as researcher: analyse • How to represent findings to an audience • Sometimes synonymous, sometimes two distinct steps • Conceptual question: nature of representation (prose, numerical system?) • Technical questions: details of system (e.g. for statistical models) Observations and data Generalisability Levels of analysis Ways of representing (analysing and reporting) Relationship between researched and researcher / research instrument Validation

19. Taxonomy of choices Substantive research topic Substantive theoretical framework Research method / tool • Validation • Reassuring audience and oneself of quality of research • For quantitative approaches, many angles • E.g. convergent validity, discriminant validity, reliability • For qualitative approaches, no direct equivalents, but… • Quality markers, e.g. richness of data, ‘thick description’, openness to surprise • Key that is often lacking: how would I know if this finding were wrong? i.e. guard against verificationism Observations and data Generalisability Levels of analysis Ways of representing (analysing and reporting) Relationship between researched and researcher / research instrument Validation

20. Taxonomy of choices Substantive research topic Substantive theoretical framework Research method / tool • Generalisability • Of substantive findings, to broader population/setting? • Requires probability sample • Of research instrument? • E.g. questions asked in interviews; standardised questionnaire • Empirical and analytical generalisation Observations and data Generalisability Levels of analysis Ways of representing (analysing and reporting) Relationship between researched and researcher / research instrument Validation

21. Taxonomy of choices Substantive research topic Substantive theoretical framework Research method / tool • Levels of analysis • E.g. intra-individual, inter-individual, individual-group, societal-level, individual-societal • May employ multiple levels of analysis • Structural conditions for violence • Individual agency in the face of violence • Clarity on levels of analysis used is often lacking • Harre’s ‘distributed’ and ‘collective’ representations Observations and data Generalisability Levels of analysis Ways of representing (analysing and reporting) Relationship between researched and researcher / research instrument Validation

22. Taxonomy of choices Substantive research topic Substantive theoretical framework Research method / tool • Relationships between researcher, research instrument, research subjects • i.e. what happens during the research process, and how prominent this issue is • E.g. questionnaires assume respondents understand and answer questions in basically the same way; where they don’t it is a nuisance • E.g. in action/participatory research, relationship defines the project • Ethical concerns key here • Key nature of human security Observations and data Generalisability Levels of analysis Ways of representing (analysing and reporting) Relationship between researched and researcher / research instrument Validation

23. Possible next steps? • Desk research completed • To clarify substantive and theoretical frameworks; set out research questions • Level and/or type of generalisability agreed • Levels of analysis greed • Method(s) selected • To best serve research questions, and given capacities, time frame etc. • Cases selected • ‘Sampling’ procedure explicitly defined • Relationship between researchers and subjects explicitly defined, especially re ‘transformative’ potential of human security as a topic; measures for managing expectations, duty of care to respondents and all affected; advocacy implications • Plan made for forms of observations and data • E.g. interview notes coded in any way? • Plan for how data will be analysed and reported • Different for individual projects than regional report? Can we devise a common core? • Can we devise a scheme for validation/quality assurance? E.g. a standard reporting frame for how the respondents were selected?