Week 6: Rebecca

SHG  members gather at SST center to participate in survey

SHG member filling out survey

After many discussions with SST staff and faculty at CUSSW, JC and I developed a project for the remainder of our time here. We are examining the impact of SST supported SHGs on the wellbeing of women. We are assessing the level of improvement across SST’s six development sectors: environment, agriculture, economic development, health, education, and infrastructure. We also included a brief section on women’s empowerment.

Narrowing the project questionnaire was far from an easy process. When the survey was originally drafted it was a whooping 18 pages. It was too long, but there were so much content to explore within each sector that I found it hard to compromise depth for length. Knowing that a three hour survey was unrealistic for both staff and SHG members, we collaborated to prioritize certain question types.

The SST surveys we have reviewed generally assess quantitative measurements, therefore this survey could be used as a tool to also assess qualitative measures. The questions are structured to elicit responses which assess the member’s perception and priorities. 

SST staff administered the survey to a small focus group and three problems arose: length, complexity and literacy level. The main challenge was the 15 or so open-ended questions. SST staff informed us that many of their surveys are filled out by the administrator in a face to face interview, so this may be the first time participants were asked to write their responses. I assumed that the question format would be somewhat self-explanatory and took for granted that surveys are culturally specific documents. SHG members had difficulty understanding questions that asked them to rank their responses numerically. Most skipped over the open-ended questions. I thought that rating questions could be answered regardless of literacy level, however, illiterate women could not recognize the numerical values. SST staff suggested reframing open-ended questions into rating questions and to offer more assistance to women with low literacy proficiency.

The entire process was tedious and frustrating, but worthwhile. Once finalized, the survey was successfully completed by 103 participants (possibly more if it is administered today). JC and I are beginning to analyze the results for an internal report to the Chairman of the organization. I feel proud of the questionnaire we’ve developed with SST and hope the results provide insight for future development programs. None of the work over the last few weeks would have been possible without the insight of SST staff, our advisors at Columbia University School of Social Work and the SHG members, thank you all!

Week 6: JC

Rebecca and I have been developing a survey tool that SST can use to evaluate its impact on the lives of SHG members. It has been a wearisome process involving several false starts and many modifications. The first time SST administered the survey, the frequency of one entry stood out significantly in the Excel results: “NR”. As Rebecca and I examined the data we talked about the many reasons for these No Responses. A combination of miscommunications, delays, confusing survey questions, and other factors contributed to participants’ survey-fatigue and my own feelings of exasperation. With these things in mind, we then strategized with SST staff to prepare for next time. What could be done to improve the survey and the survey-taking conditions so as to encourage total question response?

I learned some sound advice about working with people during my first year studies. HBSE made me more cognizant of the way multi-level factors influence individual and collective action. In Research Methods I was taught that making one’s own measurement tool is extremely difficult, and that one should use an existing tool whenever possible. In Intro to Community Organizing students discussed ways to run an effective community meetings, such as offering refreshments as an incentive and courtesy, starting the meeting on time, and making sure that administrative tasks were delegated beforehand. Had all of these learning points been implemented perfectly, there is a much larger chance that our first survey attempt would have run more smoothly. But it’s harder than it sounds to put it all into practice. The reality on the ground is that even with the best theories behind you, and even with the best of precautions in place, unforeseen challenges may still surprise you. There’s nothing to do but to roll with it and problem-solve as best you can. The way you approach the situation can help too, as one’s expectations are culturally informed. Baskar reminded me that patience is a skill that social workers must learn, and he’s right. I would rank patience right up there with empathy. It’s frustrating for me at times to have to work through translators or to have our schedule changed last minute, but patience, flexibility, and a sense of humor have helped me re-frame these otherwise stressful situations into golden learning opportunities.

SST administered another round of revised surveys again this week. This time I had a good feeling about the results. As SST staff thoroughly explained the concept behind the Likert scale questions, Rebecca and I offered tea and biscuits to the attentive women whose time and honest answers were greatly appreciated. There were also some delays this time around but more importantly there was good participant turnout and an excellent response rate. Rather than being exasperating, the experience was pleasurable—which is how interacting with others is supposed to be.