16.4.1 Step A: Focus Group Discussions with Children
and Youth
Participatory FGDs were the core of the method applied to evaluate, test assumptions, and hear the perspectives from children and youth about their experiences of
the CC-CBA project. The focus groups were designed for small groups of 8–12
children, but in practice larger groups who attended were managed flexibly with a
similar process.
The team conducting the focus group discussions comprised a facilitator, documenter and a few observers, all from the project or research team. The children
were familiar with the facilitators, who were specifically selected as members of the
implementation team who had worked closely with the children through various
activities. Although familiarity between evaluators and participants is sometimes
thought to adversely affect the “impartiality” of the process,
30 in this situation
encouraging participation and ensuring children were comfortable with the adults
present was considered paramount to inclusive participation, consistent with the
rights-based approach to the project, and particularly important given the sensitive
and potentially troubling issues discussed related to the lived experiences of
children through typhoons, landslides, floods and other climate change impacts.
“Bias” resulting from the familiarity was effectively managed through careful FGD
design and implementation.
31
The facilitators were well placed to encourage children to participate. However,
some children were at times hesitant to speak, at least initially, when there were
several adults present as observers in the background (including one to three not
from the Philippines). Over repeated visits throughout the research process children
became familiar and comfortable with the Manila- and Australia-based members of
the team – by the end of the project activities, familiar enough to notice and ask
about where we were when some or a few of us were not present. In other cases
some younger children were reluctant to offer views if the groups were dominated
by older children, although overall working with teachers beforehand generally
ensured children within a group were fairly consistent in age. Separate FGDs were
conducted with out of school youth groups. However, there were challenges in
organising to hear from children with disabilities and from ethnic minorities.
Adults from the community – parents, teachers, and local government members –
were generally not present at the focus groups with children, as we sought to avoid
power imbalances that would discourage children from sharing their perspectives.
However, in some focus groups, local government or some teachers attended,
discretely in the background. In these cases, team members familiar with these
adults (who were also project participants), gauged that they would not inhibit
30 House, E R. 2005. “Deliberative Democratic Evaluation.” in Sage Encyclopedia of Evaluaiton.
31 Chong, Joanne, Anna Gero and Pia Treichel. 2015. “What Indicates Improved Reslience to
Climate Change? A Learning and Evaluative Process Developed from a Child-Centred, Community-Based Project in the Philippines.” New Directions for Evaluation.
16 Evaluating Climate Change Adaptation in Practice: A Child-Centred. . .
299
and Youth
Participatory FGDs were the core of the method applied to evaluate, test assumptions, and hear the perspectives from children and youth about their experiences of
the CC-CBA project. The focus groups were designed for small groups of 8–12
children, but in practice larger groups who attended were managed flexibly with a
similar process.
The team conducting the focus group discussions comprised a facilitator, documenter and a few observers, all from the project or research team. The children
were familiar with the facilitators, who were specifically selected as members of the
implementation team who had worked closely with the children through various
activities. Although familiarity between evaluators and participants is sometimes
thought to adversely affect the “impartiality” of the process,
30 in this situation
encouraging participation and ensuring children were comfortable with the adults
present was considered paramount to inclusive participation, consistent with the
rights-based approach to the project, and particularly important given the sensitive
and potentially troubling issues discussed related to the lived experiences of
children through typhoons, landslides, floods and other climate change impacts.
“Bias” resulting from the familiarity was effectively managed through careful FGD
design and implementation.
31
The facilitators were well placed to encourage children to participate. However,
some children were at times hesitant to speak, at least initially, when there were
several adults present as observers in the background (including one to three not
from the Philippines). Over repeated visits throughout the research process children
became familiar and comfortable with the Manila- and Australia-based members of
the team – by the end of the project activities, familiar enough to notice and ask
about where we were when some or a few of us were not present. In other cases
some younger children were reluctant to offer views if the groups were dominated
by older children, although overall working with teachers beforehand generally
ensured children within a group were fairly consistent in age. Separate FGDs were
conducted with out of school youth groups. However, there were challenges in
organising to hear from children with disabilities and from ethnic minorities.
Adults from the community – parents, teachers, and local government members –
were generally not present at the focus groups with children, as we sought to avoid
power imbalances that would discourage children from sharing their perspectives.
However, in some focus groups, local government or some teachers attended,
discretely in the background. In these cases, team members familiar with these
adults (who were also project participants), gauged that they would not inhibit
30 House, E R. 2005. “Deliberative Democratic Evaluation.” in Sage Encyclopedia of Evaluaiton.
31 Chong, Joanne, Anna Gero and Pia Treichel. 2015. “What Indicates Improved Reslience to
Climate Change? A Learning and Evaluative Process Developed from a Child-Centred, Community-Based Project in the Philippines.” New Directions for Evaluation.
16 Evaluating Climate Change Adaptation in Practice: A Child-Centred. . .
299