Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
acceptability-and-engagement [2017/05/06 21:40] 127.0.0.1 external edit |
acceptability-and-engagement [2018/08/01 14:18] (current) thorsten [3.2 Analysis of results] |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | //This page was developed by F. Goutard, CIRAD and C.Calba, CIRAD//\\ \\ **Publications**: [[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26489602|Calba et al.]], 2015, PVM ; [[http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0159041|Calba et al., 2016]], PLOSONe; [[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5339697/|Schulz et al., 2017, Nature Scientific Report]]; [[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27601050|Schulz et al., 2016, BMC Vet. Res.]]\\ \\ **RISKSUR Case studies**: [[/CSF%20Surveillance%20in%20wild%20boars%20in%20Germany|CSF surveillance in Wild boars]]\\ \\ [[/Acceptability%20and%20engagement#Accept%20method|AccEPT METHOD]] | + | //This page was developed by F. Goutard, CIRAD and C.Calba, CIRAD//\\ \\ **Publications**: [[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26489602|Calba et al.]], 2015, PVM ; [[http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0159041|Calba et al., 2016]], PLOSONe; [[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5339697/|Schulz et al., 2017, Nature Scientific Report]]; [[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27601050|Schulz et al., 2016, BMC Vet. Res.]]\\ \\ **RISKSUR Case studies**: [[/CSF-Surveillance-in-wild-boars-in-Germany|CSF surveillance in Wild boars]]\\ \\ [[/Acceptability-and-engagement#Accept|AccEPT METHOD]] |
| - | ====== Table of Contents ====== | + | |
| - | [[#x-1. WHAT IS ACCEPTABILITY?|1. WHAT IS ACCEPTABILITY?]][[#x-1. WHAT IS ACCEPTABILITY?-1.1. Definition and importance in the evaluation process|1.1. Definition and importance in the evaluation process]][[#x-1. WHAT IS ACCEPTABILITY?-1.2. Elements to take into consideration|1.2. Elements to take into consideration]][[#x-2. HOW TO EVALUATE ACCEPTABILITY?|2. HOW TO EVALUATE ACCEPTABILITY?]][[#x-2. HOW TO EVALUATE ACCEPTABILITY?-2.1 Participatory Tools|2.1 Participatory Tools]][[#x-3. AccEPT|3. AccEPT]][[#x-3. AccEPT-3.1 Tools|3.1 Tools]][[#x-3. AccEPT-3.1.1 Relational diagrams & smileys|3.1.1 Relational diagrams & smileys]][[#x-3. AccEPT-3.2.1. Flow diagrams & proportional piling|3.2.1. Flow diagrams & proportional piling]][[#x-3. AccEPT-3.3.1. Impact diagrams & proportional piling|3.3.1. Impact diagrams & proportional piling]][[#x-3. AccEPT-3.2 Analysis of results|3.2 Analysis of results]]\\ \\ | + | |
| ===== 1. WHAT IS ACCEPTABILITY? ===== | ===== 1. WHAT IS ACCEPTABILITY? ===== | ||
| ==== 1.1. Definition and importance in the evaluation process ==== | ==== 1.1. Definition and importance in the evaluation process ==== | ||
| Line 25: | Line 23: | ||
| * Step 2 - Representing the information flow within the system and assessing the trust devoted to fulfil its objective(s), with the use of flow diagrams associated with proportional piling. | * Step 2 - Representing the information flow within the system and assessing the trust devoted to fulfil its objective(s), with the use of flow diagrams associated with proportional piling. | ||
| * Step 3 - Assessing the satisfaction of the information flow (i.e. positive and negative impacts following a suspicion), with the elaboration of impact diagrams associated with proportional piling. | * Step 3 - Assessing the satisfaction of the information flow (i.e. positive and negative impacts following a suspicion), with the elaboration of impact diagrams associated with proportional piling. | ||
| - | \\ \\ \\ =\\ {{file/view/Image1.png/562256563/394x244/Image1.png|Image1.png}}\\ =\\ \\ Each element was assessed using specific participatory appraisal tools, adapted and developed to collect data related to specific questions as stated in the following table.\\ \\ \\ {{/file/view/Image2.png/562256733/751x404/Image2.png|Image2.png}}\\ \\ \\ | + | \\ \\ |
| + | {{ :files:image1.png?nolink |}} | ||
| + | \\ Each element was assessed using specific participatory appraisal tools, adapted and developed to collect data related to specific questions as stated in the following table.\\ \\ | ||
| + | {{ :files:image2.png?nolink |}} | ||
| ===== 3. AccEPT ===== | ===== 3. AccEPT ===== | ||
| - | \\ The assessment of the acceptability using participatory approaches can be implemented with all types of stakeholders in the system, from farmers and hunters to Veterinary Services. Nonetheless, each meeting should join only one type of actor. The preferred way to implement the process is by the organisation of focus group discussions. It is better not to have too many people involved in each group. Five participants appeared to be manageable. It is also feasible to implement the approaches through individual interviews. A focus group will last approximately three hours; an individual interview approximatively two hours.\\ Several steps will be implemented for each meeting, as describe below. You will have to start first with introductions, from your side (e.g. project, objectives) and from participants’. You should specify that the information that will be collected will be anonymous. Also, an important point the participants need to understand is that there is no question of judgement in this process. The objective is to assess their point of view, and to understand about their feeling regarding the surveillance system targeted.\\ Finally you will have to present them the organisation of the day. “Three exercises will be implemented with you. The first one will target your professional network and your relations. The second one will be related to the sanitary information. And the last one will be related to the consequences of some specific event.”\\ \\ \\ {{/file/view/Image3.png/562257321/476x621/Image3.png|Image3.png}}\\ It is better to implement these tools with a team: one person in charge of facilitating the discussions, and one (or two) persons in charge of taking notes and of observing participants’ behaviour. If you have no choice than implementing it with only one person, it is advisable to use a digital recorder. Indeed, you will not be able to facilitate the meetings and taking notes in the same time.\\ \\ | + | \\ The assessment of the acceptability using participatory approaches can be implemented with all types of stakeholders in the system, from farmers and hunters to Veterinary Services. Nonetheless, each meeting should join only one type of actor. The preferred way to implement the process is by the organisation of focus group discussions. It is better not to have too many people involved in each group. Five participants appeared to be manageable. It is also feasible to implement the approaches through individual interviews. A focus group will last approximately three hours; an individual interview approximatively two hours.\\ Several steps will be implemented for each meeting, as describe below. You will have to start first with introductions, from your side (e.g. project, objectives) and from participants’. You should specify that the information that will be collected will be anonymous. Also, an important point the participants need to understand is that there is no question of judgement in this process. The objective is to assess their point of view, and to understand about their feeling regarding the surveillance system targeted.\\ Finally you will have to present them the organisation of the day. “Three exercises will be implemented with you. The first one will target your professional network and your relations. The second one will be related to the sanitary information. And the last one will be related to the consequences of some specific event.”\\ \\ |
| + | {{ :files:image3.png?nolink |}} | ||
| + | \\ It is better to implement these tools with a team: one person in charge of facilitating the discussions, and one (or two) persons in charge of taking notes and of observing participants’ behaviour. If you have no choice than implementing it with only one person, it is advisable to use a digital recorder. Indeed, you will not be able to facilitate the meetings and taking notes in the same time.\\ \\ | ||
| ==== 3.1 Tools ==== | ==== 3.1 Tools ==== | ||
| ==== 3.1.1 Relational diagrams & smileys ==== | ==== 3.1.1 Relational diagrams & smileys ==== | ||
| - | Relational diagrams are used to identify respondents’ professional network and interactions between stakeholders. This tool is a good way to introduce the evaluation process with participants as they are talking about their professional relations. The objective here is not to focus on relations related to the surveillance system, but to have an overview of participants’ relations.\\ After drawing the diagram with participants, the objective is to assess their satisfaction level for each relation. Five smileys will be used on the relational diagram, representing five levels of satisfaction: very unsatisfactory, unsatisfactory, medium, satisfactory, very satisfactory. The objective is to have one, and only one smiley per identified stakeholder/organisation.\\ \\ **__Method__**\\ **1.**Draw a box in the middle of a flipchart, with the status of participants (e.g. farmers, hunters).\\ **2.**Ask respondents about stakeholders or organisations they have interactions with in the frame of their activity (e.g. farming, hunting). Draw a box for each of them.\\ **3.**Ask respondents to describe these relations. Are these interactions on one side only or on both sides? Could these interactions be defined as //(i)// not enough, //(ii)// enough, or //(iii)// more than necessary? Draw arrows accordingly.\\ **4.** For each interaction ask //(i)// what information / services do stakeholders exchange, and //(ii)// why did they define them as not enough, enough or more than necessary.\\ **5.**Summarize the discussions by going through the diagram. Be sure no stakeholder / organisation are missing in the diagram.\\ **6.**Once the diagram is drawn, ask participants to devote one and only one smiley per box according to their satisfaction. Be sure participants understood that it is not a judgement but a representation of their own feelings. Ask them to explain their choice.\\ **7.**Summarize the discussions and the results by going through the diagram.\\ \\ {{/file/view/Image11.png/562257539/Image11.png|Image11.png}}\\ \\ | + | Relational diagrams are used to identify respondents’ professional network and interactions between stakeholders. This tool is a good way to introduce the evaluation process with participants as they are talking about their professional relations. The objective here is not to focus on relations related to the surveillance system, but to have an overview of participants’ relations.\\ After drawing the diagram with participants, the objective is to assess their satisfaction level for each relation. Five smileys will be used on the relational diagram, representing five levels of satisfaction: very unsatisfactory, unsatisfactory, medium, satisfactory, very satisfactory. The objective is to have one, and only one smiley per identified stakeholder/organisation.\\ \\ **__Method__**\\ **1.**Draw a box in the middle of a flipchart, with the status of participants (e.g. farmers, hunters).\\ **2.**Ask respondents about stakeholders or organisations they have interactions with in the frame of their activity (e.g. farming, hunting). Draw a box for each of them.\\ **3.**Ask respondents to describe these relations. Are these interactions on one side only or on both sides? Could these interactions be defined as //(i)// not enough, //(ii)// enough, or //(iii)// more than necessary? Draw arrows accordingly.\\ **4.** For each interaction ask //(i)// what information / services do stakeholders exchange, and //(ii)// why did they define them as not enough, enough or more than necessary.\\ **5.**Summarize the discussions by going through the diagram. Be sure no stakeholder / organisation are missing in the diagram.\\ **6.**Once the diagram is drawn, ask participants to devote one and only one smiley per box according to their satisfaction. Be sure participants understood that it is not a judgement but a representation of their own feelings. Ask them to explain their choice.\\ **7.**Summarize the discussions and the results by going through the diagram.\\ \\ |
| + | {{ :files:image11.png?nolink |}} | ||
| ==== 3.2.1. Flow diagrams & proportional piling ==== | ==== 3.2.1. Flow diagrams & proportional piling ==== | ||
| - | Flow diagrams are used to assess participants’ knowledge about the flow of information following a suspicion and to identify the different pathways where this information can circulate. This exercise is based on stakeholders’ experience, knowledge and/or future attitude. This diagram highlights the knowledge of the system by stakeholders.\\ \\ \\ \\ **__Method (for hunters)__**\\ \\ **1.**Ask respondents if they once had a sanitary problem with animals. If yes, ask them what did they do? If no, ask them what they would do? Go through the discussion to identify which actor or organization will have the information related to a suspicion in wildlife.\\ \\ **2.**Once the first(s) stakeholders receiving the information (i.e. suspicion) has been identified, ask participants if they know where the information is going. List the stakeholders who will have this information and draw arrows to show this information flow.\\ \\ **3.**Once the flow up of information has been completed, ask participant if they know if the information is going down, and how? Do they have feedback after reporting a suspicion?\\ \\ **4.**Once the diagram is drawn, ask respondents if they know why this system is in place? What is the objective of implementing surveillance?\\ \\ **5.**Using 100 counters, start implementing the proportional piling. First, ask participant to divide the counters into two piles. One pile representing their trust in the system, and the other one representing their lack of trust. Remember, the more you put counters the more you trust/don’t trust the system. Be sure to explain participants that this is not a question of judgement. The objective is to take into consideration every aspect: human and/or budget constraints, relations between stakeholders, etc.\\ \\ **6.**Using the counters devoted to the trust in the system, ask participants to split them on the stakeholders / organisations represented in the diagram. Once more, the more you put counters the more you trust the stakeholder.\\ \\ **7.**Ask participants to explain about their choices. By going through the diagram, sum up the results to be sure to probe the data.\\ \\ \\ {{/file/view/Image5.png/562257651/372x374/Image5.png|Image5.png}}\\ | + | Flow diagrams are used to assess participants’ knowledge about the flow of information following a suspicion and to identify the different pathways where this information can circulate. This exercise is based on stakeholders’ experience, knowledge and/or future attitude. This diagram highlights the knowledge of the system by stakeholders.\\ \\ **__Method (for hunters)__**\\ \\ **1.**Ask respondents if they once had a sanitary problem with animals. If yes, ask them what did they do? If no, ask them what they would do? Go through the discussion to identify which actor or organization will have the information related to a suspicion in wildlife.\\ \\ **2.**Once the first(s) stakeholders receiving the information (i.e. suspicion) has been identified, ask participants if they know where the information is going. List the stakeholders who will have this information and draw arrows to show this information flow.\\ \\ **3.**Once the flow up of information has been completed, ask participant if they know if the information is going down, and how? Do they have feedback after reporting a suspicion?\\ \\ **4.**Once the diagram is drawn, ask respondents if they know why this system is in place? What is the objective of implementing surveillance?\\ \\ **5.**Using 100 counters, start implementing the proportional piling. First, ask participant to divide the counters into two piles. One pile representing their trust in the system, and the other one representing their lack of trust. Remember, the more you put counters the more you trust/don’t trust the system. Be sure to explain participants that this is not a question of judgement. The objective is to take into consideration every aspect: human and/or budget constraints, relations between stakeholders, etc.\\ \\ **6.**Using the counters devoted to the trust in the system, ask participants to split them on the stakeholders / organisations represented in the diagram. Once more, the more you put counters the more you trust the stakeholder.\\ \\ **7.**Ask participants to explain about their choices. By going through the diagram, sum up the results to be sure to probe the data.\\ \\ \\ {{ :files:image5.png?nolink |}} |
| ==== 3.3.1. Impact diagrams & proportional piling ==== | ==== 3.3.1. Impact diagrams & proportional piling ==== | ||
| - | Impact diagrams are used to assess both positive and negative impacts of a specific event and to document the consequences as experienced directly by respondents. The specific event experienced here is a suspicion.\\ \\ **__Method__**\\ **1.**Ask participants to detail the potential consequences of a suspicion at their own level. If you have the information related to a suspicion, what will you do? Do you think your relations will change?\\ **2.**Ask participants if the consequence is positive, negative or both, and ask them to explain about their choice.\\ **3.**Once all the impacts are identified, sum up the discussions by going through the diagram.\\ **4.**Implement the proportional piling in two steps. First, ask participants to divide the counters on the positive and on the negative part according to influence on their activity. Be sure they understand that the more they put counters the more the influence will be high.\\ **5.**Ask respondents to split the counters of each category (i.e. negative or positive) according to the probability of occurrence of each impact. The more they put counters the higher the probability of the impact is.\\ **6.**Sum up the discussion in order to probe the results.\\ \\ \\ {{/file/view/Image6.png/562257709/549x239/Image6.png|Image6.png}}\\ | + | Impact diagrams are used to assess both positive and negative impacts of a specific event and to document the consequences as experienced directly by respondents. The specific event experienced here is a suspicion.\\ \\ **__Method__**\\ **1.**Ask participants to detail the potential consequences of a suspicion at their own level. If you have the information related to a suspicion, what will you do? Do you think your relations will change?\\ **2.**Ask participants if the consequence is positive, negative or both, and ask them to explain about their choice.\\ **3.**Once all the impacts are identified, sum up the discussions by going through the diagram.\\ **4.**Implement the proportional piling in two steps. First, ask participants to divide the counters on the positive and on the negative part according to influence on their activity. Be sure they understand that the more they put counters the more the influence will be high.\\ **5.**Ask respondents to split the counters of each category (i.e. negative or positive) according to the probability of occurrence of each impact. The more they put counters the higher the probability of the impact is.\\ **6.**Sum up the discussion in order to probe the results.\\ \\ |
| + | {{ :files:image6.png?nolink |}} | ||
| ==== 3.2 Analysis of results ==== | ==== 3.2 Analysis of results ==== | ||
| - | In order to make the assessment of the acceptability, you will have to analyse the diagrams drawn by participants and the discussions they had during the meetings.\\ The first step of the process will be to analyse the result for each individual interview and for each focus group implemented. To obtain the final scores, you will just have to calculate the mean obtained.\\ The following tables present the evaluation criteria developed to provide score for each element of acceptability.\\ \\ \\ {{/file/view/Image8.png/562257957/556x371/Image8.png|Image8.png}}\\ {{/file/view/Image9.png/562257995/573x268/Image9.png|Image9.png}}\\ \\ {{/file/view/Image10.png/562258079/311x419/Image10.png|Image10.png}}\\ \\ | + | In order to make the assessment of the acceptability, you will have to analyse the diagrams drawn by participants and the discussions they had during the meetings.\\ The first step of the process will be to analyse the result for each individual interview and for each focus group implemented. To obtain the final scores, you will just have to calculate the mean obtained.\\ The following tables present the evaluation criteria developed to provide score for each element of acceptability.\\ \\ |
| + | {{ :files:image8.png?nolink |}}\\ | ||
| + | {{ :files:image9.png?nolink |}}\\ | ||
| + | {{ :files:image10.png?nolink |}}\\ | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| - | \\ \\ [[/#_ftnref1|[1]]] RISKSUR Consortium definition | + | [[/start|[1]]] RISKSUR Consortium definition |