Building skills in qualitative research to inform pro-poor policy: experience from a Bangladeshi NGO

Abstract

This paper describes the research methodology followed in the ‘Livelihoods of the Extreme Poor Project’, a collaborative research project in Bangladesh between PROSHIKA (a large national NGO) and DFID (the UK government department for international development). The dual purpose of this project was to learn about poor people's livelihoods and train the PROSHIKA research team in the use of qualitative research methods. The research findings were to be fed directly into policy formulation and the planning of new development interventions for the poorest people in Bangladesh. The paper provides an assessment of what the approach used achieved both in terms of building staff capacity and in policy influence, concluding that it has been largely successful in achieving its purpose.

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on a project funded by PROSHIKA and DFID. The views expressed are not necessarily those of PROSHIKA or DFID.

We are thankful to PROSHIKA and DFID Bangladesh for funding this project. We are indebted to a number of people who contributed to this research, first and foremost all the women, men, and children in the study areas who shared their information and time with us. We also thank Qazi Faruque Ahmed, Mahbubul Karim, Serajul Islam, Md. Shah Newaz, Masrurul Islam,.Fawzia Khondoker, Sahadat Hossain, Dipak Kumar Biswas, Nuru Miah, Abu Naser, Donal Brown, Clare Hamilton Shakya, Alistair Fernie, Donald Couper, Martin Leach Tamsyn Barton, Gautam Shuvra Biswas, Nasrin Sultana, S.M. Zubair Ali Khan, Azmal Kabir, Abu Naser, Ahmed Borhan, Salim Ahmed Purvej, Shazzad Hossain, Atiqur Rahman, Israil Hossain, Shamsun Nahar, Mayee, Mohammad Kamruzzaman, Anila Pervin, Hugh Goyder, Catherine Locke, Fletcher Sewall, Jane Bartlett, Jo Jones, and Karen Parsons. We are grateful to Bruce Lankford for his helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper, and for the perceptive comments and suggestions of an anonymous reviewer.

Notes

1. In December 2002 PROSHIKA had a staff of 8700 working 188 Area Development Centres, scattered in 57 Districts of Bangladesh. PROSHIKA implements a range of programmes for poor people including non-formal education, micro-credit, and natural resource development.

2. PROSHIKA works on the basis of five-year ‘planning phases’ for their programme of different development activities for which a budget is prepared and funding sought from various sources.

3. Statement from the Memorandum of Understanding between PROSHIKA and DFID for the Livelihoods of the Extreme Poor Project, 2001.

4. Defined as an average intake of less that 2122 kcal per capita per day (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics 2004:2).

5. BRAC (2000); World Bank (1999); PROSHIKA (1999); Rahman and Hossain (1995); Rahman (2000); Sen (1995).

6. The contrast we would make here is with academic research, which may be done by independent researchers whose purpose is to contribute to knowledge on a subject through reports and publications. Such an approach may inform policy makers through the dissemination of their results but they may not have a formal relationship with local and international policy makers and may not be expected to feed findings directly into policy formulation as the research progresses (Spray 2003). Academic researchers in development studies are under increasing pressure to produce policy-relevant results that can be disseminated quickly and widely; this presents a challenge to those doing long-term qualitative research.

7. We choose not to call these ‘life histories’ given that this term is used for a specific technique used to gain access to personal data (Travers 2001:20).

8. According to PROSHIKA's definition of ‘extreme poor’ and the PROSHIKA baseline study (Sultana 2002).

9. Two to three thana were chosen from each agro-ecological zone, where PROSHIKA is working and where PROSHIKA's baseline survey shows that 70 per cent of the population is classified as ‘poor’.

10. At the time of the project review, in August 2002, an additional theme was added, food insecurity, on which a brief thematic research report was written (because this topic had not been researched in detail it was difficult to write up a detailed study).

11. Most of the team had used RRA/PRA tool before, so this training was tailored towards refreshing their knowledge and selecting a limited range of tools for use in this study, while reminding the team of the limitations as well as the strengths of the approach.

12. The ethical issues arising from this research and the approach to be taken by the team were discussed at length during team meetings and with the research guides. It was agreed that the team should inform the PROSHIKA staff at the Area Development Centres about the very poor people they met so that they might be given appropriate help.

13. Data from the study were used to illustrate the different types of poverty in Bangladesh, providing information that was fed into discussions on pro-poor policy and social protection in particular.

14. BIDS researchers played a key role in the preparation of the interim PRSP.

15. All names were changed in the case studies to protect the identity of individuals, this was particularly important as time went on because respondents shared sensitive information with the team as they came to know them better.

16. During one visit, for example, a man mentioned having six daughters, the next time they visited he mentioned a seventh daughter, who was married. He explained that he had not counted her last time because she was no longer his responsibility. The team realised that if they had made only one visit to the household they would have missed this information.

17. Each team member produced a monograph on her or his theme or the village overview. The thematic reports are: Biswas and Khan (2003); Borhan (2003); Chakma (2003); Hossain Mohammad Shazzad (2003); Hossain, Munshi Israil (2003); Kamruzzaman (2003); Mayee (2003); Purvez (2003); Sultana (2002). A collection of the case studies has been published as LEP team (2003). All project reports and other documents are available at www.livelihoods.org.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Janet Seeley

Janet Seeley lectures at the School of Development Studies, University of East Anglia and is a member of the Overseas Development Group (ODG). She was previously a Social Development Adviser in the DFID Rural Development Group in New Delhi, and is currently engaged in short-term consultancy and research in Bangladesh, Nepal, India, and Pakistan.

Iqbal Alam Khan

Iqbal Alam Khan is a Deputy Director of PROSHIKA, a guest lecturer in the Department of Mass Communication and Journalism at the University of Dhaka, and one of the Bangladesh Main Researchers of the Well Being in Developing Countries (WeD) Research Project at the University of Bath, UK.