perspectives as ‘audience’ members of children’s advocacy, both formally through
project activities (e.g. radio programs) and through other informal communication
channels, such as at home. Local government members were asked specific questions to inform the “policy” sub-set of indicators, including about how children and
their communities were involved in Barangay-level planning for disaster risk
reduction and CCA, The policy impact of the project relied not solely on advocacy
by children and their communities, but also critically by directly supporting local
governments to: provide opportunities for children and community’s to share
perspectives in forums (such as PCVAs); and then use these perspectives to inform
their planning and budgeting for CCA activities and development of CCA-related
policies and regulations. These issues were explored during supplementary
interviews.
Project implementers, reflecting on these supplementary interviews in comparison with the focus groups, noted in some cases how children and youth had
developed a much more sophisticated understanding of climate change science,
impacts and adaptation solutions than some of the corresponding adult participants
in the project. These supplementary interviews thus provided project implementers
with useful information about priorities for continuing their work with duty-bearers,
including particularly on advocacy activities.
16.4.3 Step C: Reflection and Analysis via Team Debrief
The analysis of FGD and interview results was mostly conducted through structured
‘debrief’ sessions involving facilitators, documenters, observers and interviews
closely after each community was visited. This approach to analysis was driven
by the practical realities of project implementation – the busy schedules and limited
time for team members to conduct further desk-based analysis – as well as
recognising the value of involving the team in joint reflection exercise.
The main purpose of the debrief session was to foster learning through structured
reflection on the FGDs and interviews. Through the debrief sessions, the team also
captured additional observations from the FGDs that were not possible to capture in
detail at the time of the FGD; to reflected on what went well and less so about the
FGD and facilitation itself to inform future FGDs and briefings required; and to
identify learnings from the FGD and interviews, and how these might help inform
future program activities. Debriefs also involved capturing representative example
quotes from children in a structured away against indicators areas that showed how
well children’s knowledge improved, their communication and advocacy, and the
impact on practice and policy – with a reminder to link to participation in the
program.
Although the emphasis was on qualitative investigation, the project team also
considered it could be useful to formulate scalar measures of the indicators,
potentially to enable comparison and, beyond the original thinking for applying
the indicators, to assist reporting for accountability purposes. This required the
16 Evaluating Climate Change Adaptation in Practice: A Child-Centred. . .
301
project activities (e.g. radio programs) and through other informal communication
channels, such as at home. Local government members were asked specific questions to inform the “policy” sub-set of indicators, including about how children and
their communities were involved in Barangay-level planning for disaster risk
reduction and CCA, The policy impact of the project relied not solely on advocacy
by children and their communities, but also critically by directly supporting local
governments to: provide opportunities for children and community’s to share
perspectives in forums (such as PCVAs); and then use these perspectives to inform
their planning and budgeting for CCA activities and development of CCA-related
policies and regulations. These issues were explored during supplementary
interviews.
Project implementers, reflecting on these supplementary interviews in comparison with the focus groups, noted in some cases how children and youth had
developed a much more sophisticated understanding of climate change science,
impacts and adaptation solutions than some of the corresponding adult participants
in the project. These supplementary interviews thus provided project implementers
with useful information about priorities for continuing their work with duty-bearers,
including particularly on advocacy activities.
16.4.3 Step C: Reflection and Analysis via Team Debrief
The analysis of FGD and interview results was mostly conducted through structured
‘debrief’ sessions involving facilitators, documenters, observers and interviews
closely after each community was visited. This approach to analysis was driven
by the practical realities of project implementation – the busy schedules and limited
time for team members to conduct further desk-based analysis – as well as
recognising the value of involving the team in joint reflection exercise.
The main purpose of the debrief session was to foster learning through structured
reflection on the FGDs and interviews. Through the debrief sessions, the team also
captured additional observations from the FGDs that were not possible to capture in
detail at the time of the FGD; to reflected on what went well and less so about the
FGD and facilitation itself to inform future FGDs and briefings required; and to
identify learnings from the FGD and interviews, and how these might help inform
future program activities. Debriefs also involved capturing representative example
quotes from children in a structured away against indicators areas that showed how
well children’s knowledge improved, their communication and advocacy, and the
impact on practice and policy – with a reminder to link to participation in the
program.
Although the emphasis was on qualitative investigation, the project team also
considered it could be useful to formulate scalar measures of the indicators,
potentially to enable comparison and, beyond the original thinking for applying
the indicators, to assist reporting for accountability purposes. This required the
16 Evaluating Climate Change Adaptation in Practice: A Child-Centred. . .
301