Overview of Research Design

This study is based on a qualitative multi-modal research design that brings together an extended case method and PAR principles. As Figure 2 below shows, I

embed a collaborative assessment in which I took part within a broader constructivist qualitative study, and I employ different analytical tools to explore different layers of meaning- making. Principles of PAR undergird the whole design, even those pieces that were not collaborative (the outer two rings in the figure below), in the sense that I approach the study reflexively with a focus on knowledge construction, in the interest of partnership and transformative action, and that I measure validity as much as possible in terms of authenticity (Lincoln and Guba 2000: 180-181). As the inset circles in Figure 2 suggest, there was also an inside-outside dynamic to the design of the study, which corresponded to the different phases or layers of the project. At the core is a collaborative action research project, followed by an initial thematic analysis, which co- researchers and I conducted. Moving toward the outer two rings or circles, I stepped

outside of the collaborative process to critically examine it and supplement its results with additional interviews. I then applied my own discursive and narrative analysis to the findings of the initial collaborative assessment, process of collaboration itself, and the additional qualitative data I collected.

The study relied on a series of data collection tools, including semi-structured interviews, key informant interviews, and interpretive focus group discussions carried out in an iterative and collaborative way. Figure 3 illustrates how these various methods interacted. This subsection is followed by a more detailed discussion of the dissertation’s methods.

An advisory group made up of fifteen representatives from seven

organizations, including four

unregistered Burmese CBOs, one Thai NGO, and two international NGOs formed to put together a study that would inform the work these

organizations do on protecting women and children from violence. Many organizations represented had

previously worked together in the mid- 2000s to write up a coordinated response plan to rape. I solicited the participation of these groups and others that had emerged in the last ten years as important voices for migrant women’s rights. The advisory group and I developed the primary research questions for

Collaborative design of assessment Peer interviews &

focus groups

Revise Qs Debrief

Group analysis Interpretive focus group

Follow up interviews with co-researchers

Final analysis

the assessment, decided where to conduct it, which methods to use, and what the sample sizes should be in each site. They decided on two communities in Mae Sot and two in Phob Phra with the goal of conducting in-depth interviews with women and community

leaders and focus group discussions with women, men, and community workers, separately (see Figure 4, left). The group chose to structure focus group discussions around community mapping exercises for some groups and the discussion of particular case studies with others. With these basic elements of the design in place, the advisory group transitioned into a team of co-researchers. Some members from the former joined the latter.4 In other instances, their organizations chose to send somebody else as a representative or chose not to participate in the data collection phase.5 I provided training on research methods and ethics to the group, and they also engaged in

4

Half of the advisory group members later took on the role of co-researchers. For those organizations whose representatives did not become co-researchers, some sent other staff to join. Two organizations represented in the advisory group chose not to participate in data collection and sent no one as co- researchers.

5

Organizations that decided not to participate in the data collection phase typically did so because the locations where the advisory group had decided to conduct the research were not familiar to them or their staff. For example, one health organization that was in the advisory group played an instrumental role in designing the study based on their decades of experience providing healthcare to women who had

experienced violence, but they do not go out into migrant areas to provide care and therefore felt it was not the best use of their staff s time to participate in data collection (in this particular case, it is worth noting

*This category includes teenagers who participated in focus groups In-depth interviews 10-15 ppl/community 4 Communities Mae Sot: 2 Phob phra: 2 Focus-group discussion 6 groups/community (25-30 ppl/community)

Women* Men Community _workers (M/W) Community

leadership (M/W)

discussions on issues related to gender-based violence. Together we made plans for the recruitment of participants via a chain-referral, or “snowball” method, and moved from the main research questions developed by the advisory group to more detailed interview and focus group discussion guides.

The co-researchers collected data in a semi-iterative fashion. We met every day before they went to conduct interviews and focus group discussions to “debrief” from the day before, a chance to discuss both logistical issues and the research process. While we did not engage in cycles of analysis and data collection, the group worked to refine the method based on reflections on how research participants were responding. After multiple visits to each site, the group had conducted 74 interviews and focus group discussions with a total of 154 people. We hired two transcribers and translators to produce English-language transcripts. The two transcribers were asked to review each other’s work in an effort to triangulate and minimize translation error. Co-researchers and I conducted an initial analysis of the data and then held a meeting with the remaining members of the advisory group for a discussion of the results, analysis, and possible actions that could emerge for the organizations involved.

In the following months, I conducted key informant interviews with the directors of three out of four Burmese CBOs involved in the assessment and with nearly every co- researcher to gain their interpretation of the assessment and understand their background in more detail.6 At the time of writing, the members of the advisory group are involved in different stages of action, some together with the other members, and some on their own.

It is important to interrogate the power relations implicit in the process of working together to develop the research design. Each step along the way consisted of decisions made through the exchange of different perspectives. We did not have a method to evaluate or ensure consensus, but we tried to make space for everybody who wanted to speak to do so. It is inevitable that some participants in the advisory group refrained from speaking at various moments. For me, I entered the process with the desire to have a participatory method that adequately collected information in a way that achieves

“validity as authenticity.” I tried to remain open but involved though I recognize that my support of certain ideas over others introduced a less democratic aspect to the process.