A focus group is a form of qualitative research in which a group of people are asked about their perceptions, opinions, beliefs, and attitudes towards a product, service, concept, advertisement, idea, or packaging. Questions are asked in an interactive group setting where participants are free to talk with other group members. The first focus groups were created at the Bureau of Applied Social Research in the USA, by associate director, sociologist Robert K. Merton. The term itself was coined by psychologist and marketing expert Ernest Dichter.In the social sciences and urban planning, focus groups allow interviewers to study people in a more natural conversation pattern than typically occurs in a one-to-one interview. In combination with participant observation, they can be used for learning about groups and their patterns of interaction. An advantage is their fairly low cost compared to surveys, as one can get results relatively quickly and increase the sample size of a report by talking with several people at once.In usability engineering, a focus group is a survey method to collect the views of users on a software or website. This marketing method can be applied to computer products to better understand the motivations of users and their perception of the product. Unlike other methods of ergonomics, focus group implies several participants: users or future users of the application. The focus group can only collect subjective data, not objective data on the use of the application as the usability test for example.[5]

Alan Cooper, in his book "The inmates are running the asylum", suggests that although focus groups might be effective in many industries, they should not be relied upon in the software industry.Types Variants of focus groups include:

Two-way focus group - one focus group watches another focus group and discusses the observed interactions and conclusion Dual moderator focus group - one moderator ensures the session progresses smoothly, while another ensures that all the topics are

covered Dueling moderator focus group - two moderators deliberately take opposite sides on the issue under discussion Respondent moderator focus group - one and only one of the respondents are asked to act as the moderator temporarily Client participant focus groups - one or more client representatives participate in the discussion, either covertly or overtly Mini focus groups - groups are composed of four or five members rather than 6 to 12 Teleconference focus groups - telephone network is used Online focus groups - computers connected via the internet are used

Traditional focus groups can provide accurate information, and are less expensive than other forms of traditional marketing research. There can be significant costs however : if a product is to be marketed on a nationwide basis, it would be critical to gather respondents from various locales throughout the country since attitudes about a new product may vary due to geographical considerations. This would require a considerable expenditure in travel and lodging expenses. Additionally, the site of a traditional focus group may or may not be in a locale convenient to a specific client, so client representatives may have to incur travel and lodging expenses as well.Discussions

Group discussion produces data and insights that would be less accessible without interaction found in a group setting—listening to others’ verbalized experiences stimulates memories, ideas, and experiences in participants. This is also known as the group effect where group members engage in “a kind of ‘chaining’ or ‘cascading’ effect; talk links to, or tumbles out of, the topics and expressions preceding it” (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002, p. 182)[6]

Group members discover a common language to describe similar experiences. This enables the capture of a form of “native language” or “vernacular speech” to understand the situation

Focus groups also provide an opportunity for disclosure among similar others in a setting where participants are validated. For example, in the context of workplace bullying, targeted employees often find themselves in situations where they experience lack of voice and feelings of isolation. Use of focus groups to study workplace bullying therefore serve as both an efficacious and ethical venue for collecting data (see, e.g., Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvik, & Alberts, 2006)

Focus group data analysis The analysis of focus group data presents both challenges and opportunities when compared to other types of qualitative data. Some authors have suggested that data should be analysed in the same manner as interview data, while others have suggested that the unique features of focus group data - particularly the opportunity that it provides to observe interactions between group members - means that distinctive forms of analysis should be used. Data analysis can take place at the level of the individual or the group.Focus group data provides the opportunity to analyse the strength with which an individual holds an opinion. If they are presented with opposing opinions or directly challenged, the individual may either modify their position or defend it. Bringing together all the comments that an individual makes in order can enable the researcher to determine whether their view changes in the course of discussion and, if so, further examination of the transcript may reveal which contributions by other focus group members brought about the change.At the collective level, focus group data can sometimes reveal shared understandings or common views. However, there is a danger that a consensus can be assumed when not every person has spoken: the researcher will need to consider carefully whether the people who have not expressed a view can be assumed to agree with the majority, or whether they may simply be unwilling to voice their disagreement.A focus group discussion (FGD) is a good way to gather together people from similar backgrounds or experiences to discuss a specific topic of interest. The group of participants is guided by a moderator (or group facilitator) who introduces topics for discussion and helps the group to participate in a lively and natural discussion amongst themselves.The strength of FGD relies on allowing the participants to agree or disagree with each other so that it provides an insight into how a group thinks about an issue, about the range of opinion and ideas, and the inconsistencies and variation that exists in a particular community in terms of beliefs and their experiences and practices.FGDs can be used to explore the meanings of survey findings that cannot be explained statistically, the range of opinions/views on a topic of interest and to collect a wide variety of local terms. In bridging research and policy, FGD can be useful in providing an insight into different opinions among different parties involved in the change process, thus enabling the process to be managed more smoothly. It is also a good method to employ prior to designing questionnaires.Detailed Outline of the ProcessFGD sessions need to be prepared carefully through identifying the main objective(s) of the meeting, developing key questions, developing an agenda, and planning how to record the session. The next step is to identify and invite suitable discussion participants; the ideal number is between six and eight.The crucial element of FGD is the facilitation. Some important points to bear in mind in facilitating FGDs are to ensure even participation, careful wording of the key questions, maintaining a neutral attitude and appearance, and summarising the session to reflect the opinions

evenly and fairly. A detailed report should be prepared after the session is finished. Any observations during the session should be noted and included in the report.FGDs can be also done online. This is particularly useful for overcoming the barrier of distance. While discussion is constrained, the written format can help with reporting on the discussion. What is a focus group?A focus group is a small-group discussion guided by a trained leader. It is used to learn more about opinions on a designated topic, and then to guide future action. Examples:

A focus group of parents of pre-schoolers meets to discuss child care needs. Parents share their views on local child care programs, and on what could be done to improve them.

A focus group of senior citizens meets at the new senior center. What do they think of the programs being offered? What are their own suggestions and ideas?

An agency wants to open a group home for mentally handicapped adults in a quiet residential area. It convenes a group of prospective neighbors. What are their concerns? Can this work?

How are focus groups different from regular "groups"? A focus group is different in three basic ways:1. The main difference is that it is focused. The group has a specific discussion topic. The group's task is to stay on it, and not wander all over the place. 2. The group has a trained leader, or facilitator. The leader's job is to keep the group on course. 3. The group's composition and the group discussion are carefully planned to create a nonthreatening environment, in which people are free to talk openly. Members are actively encouraged to express their own opinions, and also respond to other members, as well as to questions posed by the leader. Because focus groups are structured and directed, but also expressive, they can yield a lot of information in a relatively short time. Why are focus groups used?Focus groups help people learn more about group or community opinions and needs. In this respect, they are similar to needs assessment surveys. But needs assessment surveys typically have written, closed-ended, relatively narrow questions which are quantitatively scored. The person being surveyed often responds with a numerical rating, rather than with a verbal statement. Such surveys can be very useful; but they usually can't capture all that a person is thinking or feeling. Responses in a focus group, on the other hand, are typically spoken, open-ended, relatively broad, and qualitative. They have more depth, nuance, and variety. Nonverbal communications and group interactions can also be observed. Focus groups can therefore get closer to what people are really thinking and feeling, even though their responses may be harder -- or impossible -- to score on a scale. Which is better? Both of these methods are useful. And both can be used together, to complement each other. Which should you use in a specific situation? That depends upon your own needs and purposes, and the resources available to you. The next heading explains this further. When should you use a focus group?

When you are considering the introduction of a new program or service. When your main concern is with depth of opinion, or shading of opinion, rather than simply with whether people agree or disagree. When you want to ask questions that can't easily be asked or answered on a written survey. When you want to supplement the knowledge you can gain from written surveys. When you know, or can find someone, who is an experienced and skilled group leader. When you have the time, knowledge, and resources to recruit a willing group of focus group participants.

Prepare your questions. When you go into the group, go in prepared. Don't wing it. Instead, you should make up (and write out in advance) a list of topics and questions you want to ask. This doesn't mean you will recite your questions from your prepared list, one-at-a-time. Your question list is a guide, rather than an exact script; but have that guide with you. Below are some examples of general questions. These apply largely to groups discussing a current program or service, but they can be adjusted for planned programs, as well as for groups dealing with other concerns. The precise language and order of presentation will depend on your topic and group, but some of these questions may be adapted to your own needs.

"What are some of your thoughts about what's going on now?" "Would you say you are satisfied with the current situation, with the way things are going on?" (If so) "What are you satisfied about? Why is that?" (Or, "What's going well...?") "Are there things you are dissatisfied with, that you would like to see changed?" (Or, "What's not going well...?") (If so) "What are they? Why is that? How should they change? What kinds of things would you like to see happen?" "How about this particular aspect (of the topic). What do you think about that?" Repeat for different aspects of the topic, with variations in style. For example, if the main focus group topic was "community

policing," some key aspects to cover might be visibility, sensitivity, interaction, respect, etc. "Some people have said that one way to improve X is to do Y. Do you agree with this?' (Or, "How do you feel about that?") "Are there other recommendations that you have, or suggestions you would like to make?" "Are there other things you would like to say before we wind up?" Some "probes", or follow-ups", designed to get more information on a given question:

"Can you say more about that?" "Can you give an example?" "Jane says X. How about others of you. What do you think?" "How about you, Joe. [Or, "you folks in the corner over there...."] Do you have some thoughts on this?" "Does anyone else have some thoughts on that?"

WHAT IS A FOCUS GROUP?

Focus groups were originally called "focused interviews" or "group depth interviews". The technique was developed after World War II to evaluate audience response to radio programs (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). Since then social scientists and program evaluators have found focus groups to be useful in understanding how or why people hold certain beliefs about a topic or program of interest.A focus group could be defined as a group of interacting individuals having some common interest or characteristics, brought together by a moderator, who uses the group and its interaction as a way to gain information about a specific or focused issue. A focus group is typically 7-10 people who are unfamiliar with each other. These participants are selected because they have certain characteristics in common that relate to the topic of the focus group. The moderator or interviewer creates a permissive and nurturing environment that encourages different perceptions and points of view, without pressuring participants to vote, plan or reach consensus (Krueger, 1988). The group discussion is conducted several times with similar types of participants to identify trends and patterns in perceptions. Careful and systematic analysis of the discussions provide clues and insights as to how a product, service, or opportunity is perceived by the group. WHAT FOCUS GROUPS CAN TELL YOU:* Give information on how groups of people think or feel about a particular topic * Give greater insight into why certain opinions are held * Help improve the planning and design of new programs * Provide a means of evaluating existing programs * Produce insights for developing strategies for outreachADVANTAGES OF USING FOCUS GROUPS* Takes advantage of the fact that people naturally interact and are influenced by others (high face validity). * May be one of the few research tools available for obtaining data from children or from individuals who are not particularly literate* Provide data more quickly and at lower cost than if individuals interviewed separately; groups can be assembled on shorter notice than for a more systematic survey. * Generally requires less preparation and is comparatively easy to conduct.* Researcher can interact directly with respondents (allows clarification, follow-up questions, probing). Can gain information from non-verbal responses to supplement (or even contradict) verbal responses.* Data uses respondents' own words; can obtain deeper levels of meaning, make important connections, identify subtle nuances* Very flexible; can be used with wide range of topics, individuals, and settings* Results are easy to understand and mor accessible to lay audiences or decision-makers than complex statistical analyses of survey data DISADVANTAGES OF USING FOCUS GROUPS* Have less control over group; less able to control what information will be produced. * Produces relatively chaotic data making data analysis more difficult.* Small numbers and convenience sampling severely limit ability to generalize to larger populations* Requires carefully trained interviewer who is knowledgeable about group dynamics. Moderator may knowingly or unknowingly bias results by providing cues about what types of responses are desirable* Uncertainty about accuracy of what participants say. Results may be biased by presence of a very dominant or opinionated member; more reserved members may be hesitant to talk. HOW TO CONDUCT A FOCUS GROUPConceptualization PhaseDetermining the purposeConsider why focus groups should be conducted. What types of information are of particular importance? Who wants the information? Consider information needs: who will use it? What information is needed? Why is it needed?Determining whom to study Who can provide the needed information? Consider special groups (e.g., advisory board, employees, clients). Demographic characteristics such as age, gender, occupation, education, ses, etc. become key in determining who should be invited.Developing a plan and estimating needed resources Specify procedure, time line, and proposed budget. Allow others (e.g., colleagues, focus group experts, etc.) to review the plan.

Interview Phase Developing the questionsQuestions should be carefully planned but appear spontaneous during the interview. For best results, a focus group session should include around five or six questions. It should always include less than ten questions. Other suggestions in developing questions for focus group sessions include:a. Use open-ended questions and avoid "yes" or "no" questions.Appropriate question: What did you think of the program?Inappropriate question: Did you like the program?b. "Why" questions are rarely asked in a focus group. Why questions tend to imply a rational answer.c. Questions should be systematically prepared but has a natural flow to them. You should get feedback on the set of questions from others.d. Arrange questions in logical sequence.e. Allow for unanticipated questions.f. Pilot test focus group interview.Moderating skillsModerators (interviewers) play a key role in the success of focus groups. Moderators should have characteristics that are similar to participants and be skilled in group processes. Their role is to keep discussions flowing and on track, guide discussions back from irrelevant topics, make transitions into another question, and be sensitive to mood of the group. Know when to move onto another question. Moderators should also have some background knowledge about the topic being discussed. Other suggestions for the moderator role include:

a. Use of a moderator team. One should consider using a moderator team with divided tasks. The main moderator should direct the discussion and take minimal notes. The assistant can take comprehensive notes, operate tape the recorder, handle environmental conditions, and respond to unexpected interruptions (e.g., late comers, children someone brought, etc.).b. Be mentally prepared. Moderators should be mentally alert, listen well, and think quickly on their feet. Questions should be memorized. c. Have a Presession strategy. Small talk is essential just prior to group discussion. The moderator should greet the participants and begin small talk while avoiding issues to be discussed during the focus group session. This time will allow a moderator to observe the interaction. Name tents can be strategically placed around the table after observing participants. For example, you may want to strategically place those who are extremely shy or those who may dominate the discussion.d. Record the discussion. Discussions should be recorded via tape recording and note taking. Notes are essential. Notes should be so complete that it can be used even if the tape recorder did not work. One should never rely completely on a tape recorder. Someone, other than the moderator should take detailed notes. e. Begin the discussion. The recommended pattern of discussion is welcome, overview and topic, ground rules, first question. The overview should provide an honest discussion of the about the purpose of the study and the importance of the topic of group discussion. Ground rules are suggestions that will help guide the discussion and include rules such as: minimize or eliminate side conversations, one person will speak at a time, don't criticize what others have to say, and treat everyone's ideas with respect. The first question should be one that "breaks the ice" and encourages everyone to talk.f. Pause and Probe. As a general rule, a moderator should pause for five seconds after a participant talks before beginning to talk. This five second pause gives other participants a chance to jump in. Probes, such as "would you explain that further?" or "Would you give me an example?" should be used to request additional informationg. Responding to participant comments. Moderators should avoid head nodding, and short verbal responses such as "ok", "yes", "uh huh", "correct", "that's good" etc. h. Be aware of group dynamics. Moderators should watch for the expert, the dominant talker, the shy participant, the rambler, etc. I. Selecting the focus group location. Locations should be easy to get to. Participants should sit facing each other. A table should be available for participants to sit around. The room should also be accessible for setting up tape recorders. k. Being prepared for the unexpected. Moderators should be prepared for unexpected evens such as no one showing up (make sure you bring list and phone numbers), only a few showing up (hold group anyway), meeting place inadequate, group does not want to talk (ask individuals questions, go around the room and everyone answers specific question, the group gets involved and don't want to leave (have formal ending), hazardous weather (call everyone and cancel), early questions take up too much time (make sure important questions at the end of question rout get answered).l. Concluding the focus group. Thank the group for participating. The moderator may choose to summarize what was said and ask if anything was missed. ParticipantsFocus group participants should be systematically and purposefully selected. The following provides some guidelines in selecting potential participants:a. Purpose of study should guide who to invite.b. Focus group participants should be characterized by homogeneity, but with sufficient variation to allow for contrasting opinions. Homogeneity is most often sought in terms of occupation, social class, educational level, age, education, or family characteristics, and gender (unless interaction across these groups is what is driving the study). c. Participants should not be familiar with each other (those who know each other tend to form small group discussions).d. Size of the group is typically around 7-10. Groups of over twelve have often proven to be too big while under four have shown that not enough total experiences exist.e. Focus groups require a flexible research design and not randomization. In selecting participants, it is critical to remember that intent of focus groups is not to infer but to understand, not to generalize but to determine the range, not to make statements about population but to provide insights about how people perceive a situation. f. A helpful rule of thumb in determining the number of groups needed is to continue conducting interviews until little new information is provided. Typically, the first two groups provide a considerable amount of new information but by the third or fourth session, a fair amount may have already been covered. If this occurs stop.g. To get people to attend, one should personalize invitations, establish meeting times that don't conflict with existing community activities or functions, contact potential participants via phone 10-14 days prior to, send personalized invitations one week before session, phone each person the day before to remind them. If feasible, incentives are also helpful in getting people to attend. Analyzing and Reporting PhaseAnalysis Analysis should begin by going back to intent of the study. For example, if purpose of the study is narrow, elaborate analysis may be unneeded and inappropriate. The process of data analysis must be systematic (follow a prescribed, sequential flow) and verifiable (another person would come to a similar conclusion using the available documents and the raw data). Ideally, the moderator or assistant should also do the analysis. A sequence of analysis may follow the following format:a. Process begins during presession small talk by observing levels of familiarity between participants. b. Immediately after the session, moderator and assistant spot checks the tape recorder to make sure it recorded. If tape cannot be salvaged, moderating team should reconstruct the discussion immediately. It may be helpful to tape-record this debriefing. c. The moderator and assistant write down summary comments and listen to the complete tape to write a more complete summary of the discussion. This written summary should be prepared within hours after the session and before the next focus group. Moderator and assistant compare notes, share observations, talk about participant responses to key questions. ReportingOnce again, the objectives of the study should determine how and for whom the information needs to be reported. As a general rule, numbers and percentages are not appropriate for focus group research and should not be included in report. Reporting should be descriptive and present the meaning of the data as opposed to a summary of data. Data can be examined and reported at three levels, including 1) the raw data, 2) descriptive statements, and 3) interpretation (Kreuger, 1988). Raw data present statements as they were said by respondents. The data might be ordered or categorized by natural levels or themes in the topic.

Descriptive statements summarize respondents' comments and provide illustrative examples using the raw data. Decisions must be made as to which quotes to include. Interpretation is most complex. Interpretation builds on the descriptive process by providing or presenting meaning of the data rather than simply summarizing the data. In giving meaning to the descriptions, one should be reflective about own biases in interpretation.

A VARIATION IN USING FOCUS GROUPSOne useful variation on focus groups is the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) suggested by Stewart and Shamdasani (1990). This technique allows you to take advantage of some of the benefits of focus groups under specialized conditions including: 1) uses with very specialized groups of people who can't easily be assembled on short notice (such as government officials, senior executives, etc.); 2) uses where there is a significant power differential among members (supervisors/subordinates, parents/children); or 3) uses when high levels of conflict or polarization over an issue exist, so that a minority/dissenting viewpoint might be inhibited."Nominal groups" are groups in name only. Participants do not interact and may not even meet. During this technique, each member is interviewed separately (possibly by phone). Anonymous summaries of each person's perceptions/ideas are provided to each other member for comment. While it is not as spontaneous as a typical focus group session, this technique still allows participants to react to and be influenced by comments made by others. Participatory rural appraisalParticipatory rural appraisal (PRA) is an approach used by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other agencies involved in international development. The approach aims to incorporate the knowledge and opinions of rural people in the planning and management of development projects and programmes.Origins of participatory rural appraisal The roots of participatory rural appraisal techniques can be traced to the activist adult education methods of Paulo Freire and the study clubs of the Antigonish Movement. In this view, an actively involved and empowered local population is essential to successful rural community development. Robert Chambers, a key exponent of PRA, argues that the approach owes much to "the Freirian theme, that poor and exploited people can and should be enabled to analyze their own reality."[1]

By the early 1980s, there was growing dissatisfaction among development experts with both the reductionism of formal surveys, and the biases of typical field visits. In 1983, Robert Chambers, a Fellow at the Institute of Development Studies (UK), used the term Rapid Rural Appraisal to describe techniques that could bring about a 'reversal of learning'.[2] Two years later, the first international conference to share experiences relating to RRA was held in Thailand.[3] This was followed by a rapid growth in the development of methods that involved rural people in examining their own problems, setting their own goals, and monitoring their own achievements. By the mid 1990s, the term RRA had been replaced by a number of other terms including ‘Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)’ and ‘Participatory Learning and Action’ (PLA).Chambers acknowledges that the significant breakthroughs and innovations that informed the methodology were not his, but that development practitioners in India, Africa and elsewhere were responsible for this. Practitioners such as James Mascarenhas, Parmesh Shah, Meera Kaul, John Devavaram and others in India collaborated with Chambers to explore emerging techniques and tools. These early pioneers were responsible for the spread of PRA to Africa and elsewhere. In Africa, the methodology found enthusiastic advocates in Kenya (Charity Kabutha, Daniel Mwayaya), South Africa (Kamal Laldas Singh and others), Zimbabwe (Sam Chimbuya, Saiti Makuku), Ghana (Tony Dogbe). Chambers raised funding for South-South Exchanges which were seminal to the internationalisation of the PRA community of practice. Kamal Laldas Singh who joined Chambers at the IDS, helped catalyse the South-South and in-country networking that attempted to encourage reflection and learning amongst practitioners. The rapid spread and adoption of the methodology led to issues of abuse and quality.[4]

Overview of PRA techniques Hundreds of participatory techniques and tools have been described in a variety of books and newsletters, or taught at training courses around the world. These techniques can be divided into four categories:

Group dynamics, e.g. learning contracts, role reversals, feedback sessions Sampling, e.g. transect walks, wealth ranking, social mapping Interviewing, e.g. focus group discussions, semi-structured interviews, triangulation Visualization e.g. venn diagrams, matrix scoring, timelines

To ensure that people are not excluded from participation, these techniques avoid writing wherever possible, relying instead on the tools of oral communication like pictures, symbols, physical objects and group memory. Efforts are made in many projects, however, to build a bridge to formal literacy; for example by teaching people how to sign their names or recognize their signatures.A 'new professionalism' for development A key idea that has accompanied the development of PRA techniques is that of a new professionalism. Robert Chambers has explained this as follows:"The central thrusts of the [new] paradigm … are decentralization and empowerment. Decentralization means that resources and discretion are devolved, turning back the inward and upward flows of resources and people. Empowerment means that people, especially poorer people, are enabled to take more control over their lives, and secure a better livelihood with ownership and control of productive assets as one key element. Decentralization and empowerment enable local people to exploit the diverse complexities of their own conditions, and to adapt to rapid change".[5]

To be an external agent of change within this discipline implies two-way learning. Development agents learn to both appreciate and lever the power of oral culture and the transformations that are possible within it. Walter J. Ong has argued that “many of the contrasts often made between ‘western’ and other views seem reducible to contrasts between deeply interiorized literacy and more or less residually oral states of consciousness.Participatory rural appraisal (PRA)Brief DescriptionParticipatory rural appraisal (PRA) is a set of participatory and largely visual techniques for assessing group and community resources, identifying and prioritizing problems and appraising strategies for solving them. It is a research/planning methodology in which a local community (with or without the assistance of outsiders) studies an issue that concerns the population, prioritizes problems, evaluates options for solving the problem(s) and comes up with a Community Action Plan to address the concerns that have been raised.

PRA is particularly concerned that the multiple perspectives that exist in any community are represented in the analysis and that the community itself takes the lead in evaluating its situation and finding solutions. Outsiders may participate as facilitators or in providing technical information but they should not 'take charge' of the process.

In PRA, a number of different tools are used to gather and analyse information. These tools encourage participation, make it easier for people to express their views and help to organize information in a way that makes it more useful and more accessible to the group that is trying to analyse a given situation. In this appendix, a number of tools are presented that might be useful in a PRA studying the institutional aspects of a community forestry activity. These are by no means the only tools that would be useful in such a study and those which are proposed here would have to be adapted to any particular situation. They are intended to give a sense of what information can be obtained by using different tools and how diverse issues can be looked at from multiple angles. In no case are these tools ends in themselves. Rather they will help to provoke discussion and bring up issues that can then be followed up in interviews (which will often take place around the diagram that has been produced) focusing on relevant institutional issues. The key, in other words, is not just to make a Venn (or some other) diagram but to use the diagram to probe further and ask questions about how decisions are made, -what happens in different conflictual situations, etc.

It is hoped that the presentation of these tools will help stimulate the facilitator's ideas about how to gather the kinds of information recommended by this manual and will help people who are already familiar with PRA to get an idea of how the participatory toolkit might be applied to these institutional issues. Readers who do not yet have experience with PRA but who are interested in applying it to an institutional analysis are encouraged to contact an experienced practitioner or consult the literature for more extensive information on the correct use of the methodology.Some features of PRA which make it well-suited as a learning and problem-solving tool for the rural poor are:

It encourages group participation and discussion The information to be processed is collected by group members themselves It is presented in highly visual form, usually out in the open and on the ground, using pictures, symbols and locally available

materials Once displayed, the information is “transparent rather than hidden” - all members can comment on it, revise it and criticize it. This

assists in cross-checking and verifying collected data.HistoryParticipatory rural appraisal evolved from rapid rural appraisal-a set of informal techniques used by development practitioners in rural areas to collect and analyze data. Rapid rural appraisal developed in the 1970s and 1980s in response to the perceived problems of outsiders missing or miscommunicating with local people in the context of development work. In PRA, data collection and analysis are undertaken by local people, with outsiders facilitating rather than controlling.When to usePRA supports the direct participation of communities, with rural people themselves becoming the main investigators and analysts. Rural people set the priorities; determine needs; select and train community workers; collect, document, and analyse data; and plan and implement solutions based on their findings. Actions stemming from this research tend to serve the local community. Outsiders are there to facilitate the process but do not direct it. PRA uses group animation and exercises to facilitate information sharing, analysis, and action among stakeholders.PRA is an exercise in communication and transfer of knowledge. Regardless of whether it is carried out as part of project identification or appraisal or as part of country economic and sector work, the learning-by-doing and teamwork spirit of PRA requires transparent procedures. For that reason, a series of open meetings (an initial open meeting, final meeting, and followup meeting) generally frame the sequence of PRA activities. A typical PRA activity involves a team of people working for two to three weeks on workshop discussions, analyses, and fieldwork.How to useParticipatory mapping

Create a wall or ground map with group participation. Members should do the marking, drawing and colouring with a minimum of interference and instruction by outsiders.

Using pencils, pens or local materials (e.g. small rocks, different coloured sands or powders, plant material) members should draw maps that depict/illustrate certain things. Each group member is then asked “to hold the stick” to explain the map or to criticize it or revise it.

Create resource maps showing the location of houses, resources, infrastructure and terrain features-useful for analysing certain community-level problems.

Create social maps, showing who is related to whom and where they live - useful in conducting PPP baseline surveys, etc.

Seasonal calendarsThese charts show monthly changes in climate (rainfall or temperature) or agricultural activities (agricultural hours worked, different activities undertaken, crop cycles). The calendars are useful in identifying planting and harvesting times, labour constraints and marketing opportunities.

MatricesThese are grid formats used to illustrate links between different activities or factors. They are useful in information gathering and analysis. An example is “problem-solving matrices,” where a series of problems affecting a group are placed on the vertical axis and their possible causes placed on the horizontal axis as below: The matrix technique is useful for identifying and prioritizing problems, in spotting inter-relationships, etc.What is Social Mapping?Social mapping can be used to present information on village layout, infrastructure, demography, ethno-linguistic groups, health pattern, wealth and other.Almost everyone knows what a map is and how to use it. However, how many people are familiar with social maps? Social maps give us a look at information in cyberspace and tell us about the social atmosphere and how people fit into it. Here is more information about social mapping and why you need to know what it is.

Social mapping has many different definitions. The one that most people are, or should be, concerned about today is the digital profile that social mapping creates on people based on their internet usage and social networks. Digital profiles can be created in many different ways and may contain a variety of data that gives marketers, friends, family and others insight into what you do online and why. This kind of information can be very valuable and powerful, whether people choose to use it for good or bad. One of the reasons that social mapping is so powerful is because it blends both historic and current data to show what you’ve done and what you are likely to do when you are confronted with a particular situation. MarketersSocial mapping is useful to marketers because it can help them understand what you are likely to do before you actually make a purchase decision. Have you ever been on a website and seen that the featured ads seem tailored to you and your interests? That’s because they are. Many websites collect information from your computer, in the form of cookies, that provide them insight into your location as well as your interests or searches on a particular page. The more times you search for a particular item or type of product, the more likely you are to actually buy it. Friends and familyFriends and family can use social mapping to stay in touch with you and keep track of you using mobile devices and GPS tracking technology. This technology combined with social networking sites can help friends and family stay in touch while they are on the go. These ways of connecting can be great resources to connect with each other, too. Social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter can help you and your family to stay in touch even when you’re not at home. They can also be useful for parents trying to keep track of their kids. Other peopleOne problem that people have with social mapping is it allows the general public access to information most people don’t want shared. The digital world is full of bad people who will use other people’s information for no good. The information about one’s identity is very important and protecting it is even more important.Cost–benefit analysisost benefit analysis (CBA), sometimes called benefit–cost analysis (BCA), is a systematic process for calculating and comparing benefits and costs of a project, decision or government policy (hereafter, "project"). CBA has two purposes:

1. To determine if it is a sound investment/decision (justification/feasibility),2. To provide a basis for comparing projects. It involves comparing the total expected cost of each option against the total expected

benefits, to see whether the benefits outweigh the costs, and by how much.[1]

CBA is related to, but distinct from cost-effectiveness analysis. In CBA, benefits and costs are expressed in monetary terms, and are adjusted for the time value of money, so that all flows of benefits and flows of project costs over time (which tend to occur at different points in time) are expressed on a common basis in terms of their "net present value."Closely related, but slightly different, formal techniques include cost-effectiveness analysis, cost–utility analysis, economic impact analysis, fiscal impact analysis and Social return on investment (SROI) analysis.TheoryCost–benefit analysis is often used by governments and other organizations, such as private sector businesses, to evaluate the desirability of a given policy. It is an analysis of the expected balance of benefits and costs, including an account of foregone alternatives and the status quo. CBA helps predict whether the benefits of a policy outweigh its costs, and by how much relative to other alternatives (i.e. one can rank alternate policies in terms of the cost-benefit ratio).[2] Generally, accurate cost-benefit analysis identifies choices that increase welfare from a utilitarian perspective. Assuming an accurate CBA, changing the status quo by implementing the alternative with the lowest cost-benefit ratio can improve Pareto efficiency.[3] An analyst using CBA should recognize that perfect evaluation of all present and future costs and benefits is difficult, and while CBA can offer a well-educated estimate of the best alternative, perfection in terms of economic efficiency and social welfare are not guaranteed.[

Process The following is a list of steps that comprise a generic cost-benefit analysis.[5]

1. List alternative projects/programs.2. List stakeholders.3. Select measurement(s) and measure all cost/benefit elements.4. Predict outcome of cost and benefits over relevant time period.5. Convert all costs and benefits into a common currency.6. Apply discount rate.7. Calculate net present value of project options.8. Perform sensitivity analysis.9. Adopt recommended choice.

Valuation CBA attempts to measure the positive or negative consequences of a project, which may include:

1. Effects on users or participants2. Effects on non-users or non-participants3. Externality effects4. Option value or other social benefits.

A similar breakdown is employed in environmental analysis of total economic value. Both costs and benefits can be diverse. Financial costs tend to be most thoroughly represented in cost-benefit analyses due to relatively abundant market data. The net benefits of a project may incorporate cost savings or public willingness to pay compensation (implying the public has no legal right to the benefits of the policy) or willingness to accept compensation (implying the public has a right to the benefits of the policy) for the welfare change resulting from the policy. The guiding principle of evaluating benefits is to list all (categories of) parties affected by an intervention and add the (positive or negative) value, usually monetary, that they ascribe to its effect on their welfare.The actual compensation an individual would require to have their welfare unchanged by a policy is inexact at best. Surveys (stated preference techniques) or market behavior (revealed preference techniques) are often used to estimate the compensation associated with a policy; however, survey respondents often have strong incentives to misreport their true preferences and market behavior does not provide any information about important non-market welfare impacts.One controversy is valuing a human life, e.g. when assessing road safety measures or life-saving medicines. However, this can sometimes be avoided by using the related technique of cost-utility analysis, in which benefits are expressed in non-monetary units such as quality-adjusted

life years. For example, road safety can be measured in terms of cost per life saved, without formally placing a financial value on the life. However, such non-monetary metrics have limited usefulness for evaluating policies with substantially different outcomes. Additionally, many other benefits may accrue from the policy, and metrics such as 'cost per life saved' may lead to a substantially different ranking of alternatives than traditional cost-benefit analysis.Another controversy is valuing the environment, which in the 21st century is typically assessed by valuing ecosystem services to humans, such as air and water quality and pollution.[6] Monetary values may also be assigned to other intangible effects such as business reputation, market penetration, or long-term enterprise strategy alignment.Time and Discounting CBA usually tries to put all relevant costs and benefits on a common temporal footing using time value of money calculations. This is often done by converting the future expected streams of costs and benefits into a present value amount using a discount rate. Empirical studies and a technical framework[7] suggest that in reality, people do discount the future like this.The choice of discount rate is subjective. A smaller rate values future generations equally with the current generation. Larger rates (e.g. a market rate of return) reflects humans' attraction to time inconsistency—valuing money that they receive today more than money they get in the future. The choice makes a large difference in assessing interventions with long-term effects, such as those affecting climate change. One issue is the equity premium puzzle, in which long-term returns on equities may be rather higher than they should be. If so then arguably market rates of return should not be used to determine a discount rate, as doing so would have the effect of undervaluing the distant future (e.g. climate change).[8]

Risk and uncertainty Risk associated with project outcomes is usually handled using probability theory. This can be factored into the discount rate (to have uncertainty increasing over time), but is usually considered separately. Particular consideration is often given to risk aversion—the irrational preference for avoiding loss over achieving gain. Expected return calculations does not account for the detrimental effect of uncertainty.[citation

needed]

Uncertainty in CBA parameters (as opposed to risk of project failure etc.) can be evaluated using a sensitivity analysis, which shows how results respond to parameter changes. Alternatively a more formal risk analysis can be undertaken using Monte Carlo simulations.[9]

History The concept of CBA dates back to an 1848 article by Jules Dupuit and was formalized in subsequent works by Alfred Marshall. The Corps of Engineers initiated the use of CBA in the US, after the Federal Navigation Act of 1936 effectively required cost–benefit analysis for proposed federal waterway infrastructure.[10] The Flood Control Act of 1939 was instrumental in establishing CBA as federal policy. It demanded that "the benefits to whomever they accrue [be] in excess of the estimated costs.Accuracy The value of a cost–benefit analysis depends on the accuracy of the individual cost and benefit estimates. Comparative studies indicate that such estimates are often flawed, preventing improvements in Pareto and Kaldor-Hicks efficiency[citation needed]. Causes of these inaccuracies include[citation needed]:

1. Overreliance on data from past projects (often differing markedly in function or size and the skill levels of the team members)2. Use of subjective impressions by assessment team members3. Inappropriate use of heuristics to derive money cost of the intangible elements4. Confirmation bias among project supporters (looking for reasons to proceed).

Interest groups may attempt to include or exclude significant costs from an analysis to influence the outcome.In the case of the Ford Pinto (where, because of design flaws, the Pinto was liable to burst into flames in a rear-impact collision), the company's decision was not to issue a recall. Ford's cost–benefit analysis had estimated that based on the number of cars in use and the probable accident rate, deaths due to the design flaw would cost it about $49.5 million to settle wrongful death lawsuits versus recall costs of $137.5 million. Ford overlooked (or considered insignificant) the costs of the negative publicity that would result, which forced a recall and damaged sales.[35]

In health economics, some analysts think cost–benefit analysis can be an inadequate measure because willingness-to-pay methods of determining the value of human life can be influenced by income level. They support use of variants such as cost–utility analysis and quality-adjusted life year to analyze the effects of health policies.[36]

In environmental and occupational health regulation, it has been argued that if modern cost-benefit analyses had been applied prospectively to decisions such as whether to mandate the removal of lead from gasoline, build the Hoover Dam in the Grand Canyon, and regulate workers' exposure to vinyl chloride, these measures would not have been implemented even though they are considered to be highly successful in retrospect.[37] The Clean Air Act has been cited in retrospective studies as a case where benefits exceeded costs, but the knowledge of the benefits (attributable largely to the benefits of reducing particulate pollution) was not available until many years later.[37]

Cost Benefit AnalysisA cost benefit analysis finds, quantifies, and adds all the positive factors. These are the benefits. Then it identifies, quantifies, and subtracts all the negatives, the costs. The difference between the two indicates whether the planned action is advisable. The real trick to doing a cost benefit analysis well is making sure you include all the costs and all the benefits and properly quantify them. Should we hire an additional sales person or assign overtime? Is it a good idea to purchase the new stamping machine? Will we be better off putting our free cash flow into securities rather than investing in additional capital equipment? Each of these questions can be answered by doing a proper cost benefit analysis. Example Cost Benefit AnalysisAs the Production Manager, you are proposing the purchase of a $1 Million stamping machine to increase output. Before you can present the proposal to the Vice President, you know you need some facts to support your suggestion, so you decide to run the numbers and do a cost benefit analysis. You itemize the benefits. With the new machine, you can produce 100 more units per hour. The three workers currently doing the stamping by hand can be replaced. The units will be higher quality because they will be more uniform. You are convinced these outweigh the costs. There is a cost to purchase the machine and it will consume some electricity. Any other costs would be insignificant. You calculate the selling price of the 100 additional units per hour multiplied by the number of production hours per month. Add to that two percent for the units that aren't rejected because of the quality of the machine output. You also add the monthly salaries of the three workers. That's a pretty good total benefit.

Then you calculate the monthly cost of the machine, by dividing the purchase price by 12 months per year and divide that by the 10 years the machine should last. The manufacturer's specs tell you what the power consumption of the machine is and you can get power cost numbers from accounting so you figure the cost of electricity to run the machine and add the purchase cost to get a total cost figure. You subtract your total cost figure from your total benefit value and your analysis shows a healthy profit. All you have to do now is present it to the VP, right? Wrong. You've got the right idea, but you left out a lot of detail. What is Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E)?This section provides a brief introduction to what M&E is, together with a selection of recommended reading and further links to help you get started. Monitoring...is the systematic and routine collection of information from projects and programmes for four main purposes:

To learn from experiences to improve practices and activities in the future; To have internal and external accountability of the resources used and the results obtained; To take informed decisions on the future of the initiative; To promote empowerment of beneficiaries of the initiative.

Monitoring is a periodically recurring task already beginning in the planning stage of a project or programme. Monitoring allows results, processes and experiences to be documented and used as a basis to steer decision-making and learning processes. Monitoring is checking progress against plans. The data acquired through monitoring is used for evaluation.Evaluation...is assessing, as systematically and objectively as possible, a completed project or programme (or a phase of an ongoing project or programme that has been completed). Evaluations appraise data and information that inform strategic decisions, thus improving the project or programme in the future. Evaluations should help to draw conclusions about five main aspects of the intervention:

relevance effectiveness efficiency impact sustainability

Information gathered in relation to these aspects during the monitoring process provides the basis for the evaluative analysis.Monitoring & EvaluationM&E is an embedded concept and constitutive part of every project or programme design (“must be”). M&E is not an imposed control instrument by the donor or an optional accessory (“nice to have”) of any project or programme. M&E is ideally understood as dialogue on development and its progress between all stakeholders.In general, monitoring is integral to evaluation. During an evaluation, information from previous monitoring processes is used to understand the ways in which the project or programme developed and stimulated change. Monitoring focuses on the measurement of the following aspects of an intervention:

On quantity and quality of the implemented activities (outputs: What do we do? How do we manage our activities?) On processes inherent to a project or programme (outcomes: What were the effects /changes that occurred as a result of your

intervention?) On processes external to an intervention (impact: Which broader, long-term effects were triggered by the implemented activities in

combination with other environmental factors?)The evaluation process is an analysis or interpretation of the collected data which delves deeper into the relationships between the results of the project/programme, the effects produced by the project/programme and the overall impact of the project/programme.What is monitoring and evaluation?Monitoring is the systematic collection, analysis and use of information from projects and programmes for three basic purposes:

learning from the experiences acquired (learning function); accounting internally and externally for the resources used and the results obtained (monitoring function); taking decisions (steering function) (PSO, 2004).

Evaluation is assessing as systematically and objectively as possible an ongoing or completed project, programme or policy. The object is to be able to make statements about their relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. Based on this information, it can be determined whether any changes need to be made at a project, programme or policy level, and if so, what they are. What went well, where is there room for improvement? Evaluation thus has both a learning function - the lessons learned need to be incorporated into future proposals or policy - and a monitoring function - partners and members review the implementation of policy based on objectives and resources mobilised.Monitoring and evaluation are complementary. During an evaluation, as much use as possible is made of information from previous monitoring. In contrast to monitoring, where emphasis is on the process and results, evaluation is used to provide insight into the relationships between results (for example, the strengthened capacity of an organisation), effects (for example, improved services / products) and impact (for example, improved living conditions for the ultimate target group).Three reasonsTo summarise, M&E can be used for three reasons:

steering: steering and adjusting current programmes and projects; learning: learning more about what works and what does not; monitoring: accounting for the resources used in the light of objectives formulated in advance and results achieved.

'Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of development activities provide government officials, development managers, and civil society with better means for learning from past experience, improving service delivery, planning and allocating resources, and demonstrating results as part of accountability to key stakeholders. Within the development community there is a strong focus on results - this helps explain the growing interest in M&E.' (World Bank, 2004, Monitoring & Evaluation, Some tools & approaches)'Monitoring means comparing actual progress in activities and results to the objectives formulated in advance. Generally this will give you little more than a broad indication of whether these objectives were achieved.' (War Child, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation, 2006).

Definitions: Monitoring: This type of evaluation is performed while a project is being implemented, with the aim of improving the project design and functioning while in action. An example given in the World Bank Technical Paper, Monitoring and Evaluating Urban Development Programs, A Handbook for Program Managers and Researchers by Michael Bamberger, describes a monitoring study that, by way of rapid survey, was able to determine that the amount of credit in a micro credit scheme for artisans in Brazil was too small. The potential beneficiaries were not participating due to the inadequacy of the loan size for their needs. This information was then used to make some important changes in the project. Bamberger defines it as: “an internal project activity designed to provide constant feedback on the progress of a project, the problems it is facing, and the efficiency with which it is being implemented” (Bamberger 1)Evaluation: An evaluation studies the outcome of a project (changes in income, housing quality, benefits distribution, cost-effectiveness, etc.) with the aim of informing the design of future projects. An example from Monitoring and Evaluating Urban Development Programs, A Handbook for Program Managers and Researchers describes an evaluation of a cooperative program in El Salvador that determined that the cooperatives improved the lives of the few families involved but did not have a major impact on overall employment.Bamberger describes evaluation as “mainly used to help in the selection and design of future projects. Evaluation studies can assess the extent to which the project produced the intended impacts (increases in income, better housing quality, etc.) and the distribution of the benefits between different groups, and can evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the project as compared with other options” (Bamberger 1).Monitoring and evaluation need not be expensive or complicated, nor do they require specialists or grand calculations. The complexity and extent of the studies can be adapted to fit the program needs. The job of the project manager in this process is to point out those areas in need of monitoring or evaluation. If this is left to the researchers, the studies may tend to be too academic and not as useful to project management.Evaluation and monitoring systems can be an effective way to:Provide constant feedback on the extent to which the projects are achieving their goals.Identify potential problems at an early stage and propose possible solutions.Monitor the accessibility of the project to all sectors of the target population.Monitor the efficiency with which the different components of the project are being implemented and suggest improvements.Evaluate the extent to which the project is able to achieve its general objectives.Provide guidelines for the planning of future projects (Bamberger 4).Influence sector assistance strategy. Relevant analysis from project and policy evaluation can highlight the outcomes of previous interventions, and the strengths and weaknesses of their implementation.Improve project design. Use of project design tools such as the logframe (logical framework) results in systematic selection of indicators for monitoring project performance. The process of selecting indicators for monitoring is a test of the soundness of project objectives and can lead to improvements in project design.Incorporate views of stakeholders. Awareness is growing that participation by project beneficiaries in design and implementation brings greater “ownership” of project objectives and encourages the sustainability of project benefits. Ownership brings accountability. Objectives should be set and indicators selected in consultation with stakeholders, so that objectives and targets are jointly “owned”. The emergence of recorded benefits early on helps reinforce ownership, and early warning of emerging problems allows action to be taken before costs rise.Show need for mid-course corrections. A reliable flow of information during implementation enables managers to keep track of progress and adjust operations to take account of experience (OED).How Monitoring and Evaluation Findings Can Be Fed Back into Decision MakingIn projects where operating performance standards are quoted as an objective, or where decentralized processes call for localized capacity to plan and manage work programs and budgets, designers will need to describe how and when M&E findings will be used to shape work plans and contribute to program or policy development. In Mexico, for example, the Second Decentralization and Regional Development Project plans to incorporate monitoring of implementation into its regular management procedures. Annual plans are to be prepared for each component, including an element of institutional development, and these will form the basis of annual monitoring. The analysis of implementation will depend on the functioning of a central database about sub-projects, created in each state from standardized data sheets. The database will produce the reports required for the project approval procedures, giving an incentive to field staff to use the system. Results from the implementation database will be analyzed in order to target field reviews and a mid-term review. The project has no specific monitoring and evaluation unit. Instead, each management sub-unit responsible for technical oversight of a component is responsible for ensuring the quality and timeliness of data collection, and for producing and analyzing reports. These reports will be presented by project component and be used to help diagnose technical and institutional implementation issues, propose and conduct studies, and plan institutional development and training.