What are the strengths and limitations of the methods which can be used in investigating the context in which hygiene practices occur?
Updated - Monday 28 November 2005
What are the strengths and limitations of the methods which can be used in investigating the context in which hygiene practices occur?
In the following table the advantages and disadvantages are listed of the following methods:
| Methods/Tool and its respective strengths and limitations |
||
| Method/Tool | Strengths | Limitations |
| + Helps investigators to get a general feel of the study site and people (involves all their senses) in a short period of time + Allows investigators to conduct spot-check observations, to get known by members of the study population, to recruit participants for group discussions and to identify key-informants relatively quickly and easily. + Allows investigators to explore relevant issues, to identify possible leads of inquiry and/or formulate hypotheses in an informal way. | - May lead to wrong first impressions and important issues may be overlooked if investigator are not alert, do not have the right attitudes or are inadequately trained. - May need to be done repeatedly to cover different times of day or different seasons, and thus require considerable time and other resources (especially if access to the study site is difficult) for the identification of relevant issues and revising choice of methods and tools. Note: This may be overcome b y extending the period of preplanning to include the conduct of health walks in the study site(s). |
|
| + Provides systematic information which can be quantified. + Allows the collection of relatively accurate information (compared with reported information) unobtrusively and so is good for crosschecking information (triangulation) | - Requires skilled and disciplined investigators to manage the information/field notes, to analyze and document findings. - Does not allow feedback, or enhance active participation by members of the study population. |
|
| + Allows investigators to gain in-depth knowledge of the subject under study. + Provides rich sets of information which can be used for exploring certain issues further, crosschecking/triangulation purposes and for the interpretation of findings. + Relatively easy to document findings, e.g. without investing in visual aids. | - May introduce bias to the study, if the number of key-informants is limited or not representative of more than one section of the study population. - Requires prolonged engagement with the key-informant and thus more time, unless investigators are already well known to the informants. - Requires time and skills to manage and review information from detailed field notes. |
|
| + Good for establishing or improving rapport with the study population by demonstrating that their version of local history is valued. + Useful for finding out how local people see themselves, which historical events and/or personalities are important to them, and why. + The results can be easily presented to a larger meeting of the study participants for confirmation or correction. | - Information obtained requires cross-checking with documentary sources, if available, and thus requires more time for analysis.
|
|
| + Quick, effective, inexpensive and accurate way of gathering basic information. + Allows study participants to engage in investigative and analytical processes, increasing their level of participation and awareness of the issues at hand. + The map can be easily presented to a larger meeting of study participants for confirmation or correction. + Gives project personnel and study participants an easily accessible visual documentation which can serve as a record in itself and as a tool for monitoring progress. + Heightens study participants' awareness of and reflection on their situation. | - Requires well-trained, skilled facilitator(s) and note-takers. |
|
| + Useful for articulating and systematically documenting local knowledge. + Provides insight into local patterns of climate, disease and subsistence activities and the reasons behind certain practices (some of which may be water/sanitation-related). + The results can be easily presented to a larger meeting of study participants for confirmation or correction. + Heightens study participants' awareness of and reflections on their situations. | - Requires skilled facilitator. - Information obtained requires cross-checking with documentary sources, if available, and thus may require additional time for analysis and interpretation. |
|
| + Quick and effective for exploring gender issues with (pictorial) reference to gender-specific roles and management of resources in a given culture. + Provides investigators with insight into the role of women, children, and men in preserving existing hygiene practices. + Increases awareness of gender issues among study participants- a step towards instigating change where it may be necessary. | - Requires time and special skills to prepare, pre-test, and subsequently modify the pictures. - Requires skilled facilitators. - Difficult to document results by using words only, thus costly in time and money to document. |
|
Source: Almedom et al., (1997). Hygiene evaluation procedures: approaches and methods for assessing water- and sanitation-related hygiene practices, Boston, MA, USA : International Nutrition Foundation for Developing Countries.
