Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- acceptability-and-engagement [2018/08/01 14:16]
thorsten [3.1.1 Relational diagrams & smileys]
+++ acceptability-and-engagement [2018/08/01 14:18] (current)
thorsten [3.2 Analysis of results]
@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 {{ :files:image11.png?nolink |}}
 ==== 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 ====
-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 ====
-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