Feasibility study on a capital-based income generation scheme for ...

Appendix 3: Methodology, check lists and
questionnaire used
The research used a mixture of quantitative data from a household survey and qualitative
information, gathered from group discussions and meetings with key informants (see list of
persons met, Appendix 2). Survey data was used to discover the current economic situation
of households (income and expenditure, assets, debt, recovery, household composition, etc).
Group discussions were used to understand community perceptions of poverty, the different
recovery possibilities for different kinds of households and issues associated with existing
cash transfers. The initial meetings in each village with ‘community leaders’ (mostly men)
concentrated on examining how different categories of households had recovered from the
tsunami, and what the likely scenario was for future recovery of these households. (These
meetings were used as an entry point to gain access to households which were ‘extremely
poor and labour-scarce, see below.) Separate discussions were held with women (one
women’s group in each village) and with children (under 18) to hear their perceptions of
poverty and how cash transfers have been used. (Checklists for the different group
discussions are given below.)
Time limitations (see below) meant that the number of villages which could be visited would
be low. As a result, it was not possible to consider random sampling since it was more
important to cover a range of different situations. The research was only concerned with the
immediate coastal area, and livelihood options were largely similar along its whole length.
The two most important variables which were considered for purposive sampling of the
villages were therefore the ethnic composition of the village, and whether the village was in a
government controlled (‘cleared’) or LTTE controlled (‘uncleared’) area. Both factors were
considered important for economic reasons. There were reasons to suppose that the culture
and religion of the Tamil and Muslim communities might affect their livelihood options and
choices (eg, relating to women’s economic life, the role of trade). The economic context in
uncleared areas in Trincomalee District is quite different from the rest of the district,
including differences with regard to markets, differences in the financial services available,
and the overall impact of the war on livelihood options. As a result, it was initially decided to
survey in three villages: one Tamil and one Muslim village in government areas and one
village (Tamil) in LTTE areas. One village in each of three divisions was therefore selected
by prioritising villages where a local NGO partner of Save the Children could provide a good
entry point and where the local NGO considered that the village was ‘not particularly
different’ from other villages along the coast. Factors of accessibility (which included
problems of floods) were also considered.
The original plan had to be modified because of more serious limitations of time and
security. The research unfortunately took place during the Sri Lankan presidential elections:
fears about possible unrest following the election limited, more than expected, the number
of days when it was possible to go to the field. Floods from heavy rain, which washed away
bridges, also made some meetings impossible. Additionally, three further days were lost due
to the LTTE Martyr’s Day holiday week, which prevented field work in Tamil areas. Advice
was then given that household-level surveys in LTTE controlled areas should be avoided in
favour of open meetings. As a result of all these problems, household surveys were only
conducted in two villages, one predominantly Muslim (Faisal Nagar, Kinniya Division) and
one predominantly Tamil (Gopalaporum, Kuchchavelli Division).
53