children’s participation, and considered there would be value in them hearing
children’s perspectives directly.
A nested approach was taken to translate the TOC indicator set into a series of
questions linking knowledge, advocacy and practice and policy. The questions in
the focus group were developed to investigate qualitative processes – for example,
whether, how and why were knowledge and advocacy activities have influenced
practices and policy? The FGDs focussed on those project activities which directly
involved children, particularly on knowledge and advocacy activities. The FGDs
were also used as a tool to explore whether children were aware of or involved in
other participatory, planning- and policy-oriented activities such as the PCVAs
conducted by local government. Beyond FGDs, policy impact was explored further
through supplementary interviews with local leaders (see section ).
In FGDs, children were specifically invited to share problems and barriers around
communicating to their families, schools, community and government members
about climate change adaptation, and project implementers found their responses
crucial to fine-tune advocacy program activities with both children and duty-bearers.
Children also shared with team members new stories of how they had influenced their
family members (including for example, family members who were also Barangay
leaders) to recognise the importance of climate change adaptation.
Attribution was a key consideration in designing questions – it was considered in
such a situation that establishing precise counterfactuals was not a realistic exercise, but the questions explicitly probed fact (e.g. what children learned from a
specific project activity) as well as alternative explanations (e.g. sources of information about climate change beyond the project).
The final topic of the focus groups was key to applying the rights-based approach
to the evaluation. We explored with children their vision for what climate change
adaptation would look like, including by asking what else they would like to do to
prepare for the impacts of climate change, and what else they would like to see
others do – family members, school, community and local governments. By giving
children a voice on this open question, useful information was provided to the
implementation team about ideas for future activities. By posing this discussion
topic, it also prompted children themselves to think creatively and independently
about how to adapt.
16.4.2 Step B: Supplementary Interviews with Adults
Supplementary interviews were conducted after the focus groups to gather additional perspectives on pathways of impact and changes that had occurred through
the project. Attention to the responsibilities of duty-bearers is fundamental to
rights-based programming and adults’ attitudes and actions were explored during
the supplementary interviews. Parents, teachers and local governments were asked
questions that were parallel to those posed in focus groups, around knowledge,
advocacy and practice and policy. For example they were asked for their
300
J. Chong et al.
children’s perspectives directly.
A nested approach was taken to translate the TOC indicator set into a series of
questions linking knowledge, advocacy and practice and policy. The questions in
the focus group were developed to investigate qualitative processes – for example,
whether, how and why were knowledge and advocacy activities have influenced
practices and policy? The FGDs focussed on those project activities which directly
involved children, particularly on knowledge and advocacy activities. The FGDs
were also used as a tool to explore whether children were aware of or involved in
other participatory, planning- and policy-oriented activities such as the PCVAs
conducted by local government. Beyond FGDs, policy impact was explored further
through supplementary interviews with local leaders (see section ).
In FGDs, children were specifically invited to share problems and barriers around
communicating to their families, schools, community and government members
about climate change adaptation, and project implementers found their responses
crucial to fine-tune advocacy program activities with both children and duty-bearers.
Children also shared with team members new stories of how they had influenced their
family members (including for example, family members who were also Barangay
leaders) to recognise the importance of climate change adaptation.
Attribution was a key consideration in designing questions – it was considered in
such a situation that establishing precise counterfactuals was not a realistic exercise, but the questions explicitly probed fact (e.g. what children learned from a
specific project activity) as well as alternative explanations (e.g. sources of information about climate change beyond the project).
The final topic of the focus groups was key to applying the rights-based approach
to the evaluation. We explored with children their vision for what climate change
adaptation would look like, including by asking what else they would like to do to
prepare for the impacts of climate change, and what else they would like to see
others do – family members, school, community and local governments. By giving
children a voice on this open question, useful information was provided to the
implementation team about ideas for future activities. By posing this discussion
topic, it also prompted children themselves to think creatively and independently
about how to adapt.
16.4.2 Step B: Supplementary Interviews with Adults
Supplementary interviews were conducted after the focus groups to gather additional perspectives on pathways of impact and changes that had occurred through
the project. Attention to the responsibilities of duty-bearers is fundamental to
rights-based programming and adults’ attitudes and actions were explored during
the supplementary interviews. Parents, teachers and local governments were asked
questions that were parallel to those posed in focus groups, around knowledge,
advocacy and practice and policy. For example they were asked for their
300
J. Chong et al.