Recruitment and procedures

In terms of recruitment, participants can be divided into two categories, namely individuals and institutions. The individuals are those targeted for their individual identity. These included the independent authors (i.e. the researchers who were not affiliated with any governmental or non-governmental entity inside Sudan when conducting their research in Darfur) and the IDPs. The institutional representatives included those recruited for their affiliation to an institution, namely NGOs (both national and international), and the bodies responsible for the regulation of humanitarian and research activities in Sudan.

The recruitment strategies that I used in the different phases of the project can be also divided into two categories, namely direct and indirect contact (Table 6-1).

Table 6-1: Description of recruitment strategies used in this project and those targeted by each strategy

Direct contact Indirect contact Description of

strategy Those for whom I could find contact information in the public domain and could thus contact directly without the need for prior permission

Those whose contact information was only available or who could only be contacted through another person(s)

Targeted

participants Independent authors INGO staff

Directors of the INGOs Directors and staff of NNGOs Directors of the humanitarian

6.3.1 Direct contact

● Independent authors

Independent authors were identified from their names on the reports/manuscripts included in the systematic review. They were contacted by email using addresses available in these publications and asked to complete a data collection form, which was available online, as the authors were in various countries. If an author did not provide their contact information in the publication, the website of their affiliated institution was searched for an email address. I sent the authors the project’s participant information sheet and an invitation to participate by email. Reminders were sent to those who did not respond within two weeks of the initial invitation.

This strategy did not seem to be very effective. Of the 120 authors who were emailed, only 15 responded, of whom 7 completed the data collection form. The other 8 explained that they had not completed the form either because they thought their work did not involve the collection of human data or samples (five respondents), or they considered their role as ‘supervisory’ or ‘peripheral’ (three respondents).

Despite this low response rate, this strategy led to an important addition to the project. One of the respondents suggested and facilitated my visit to the Centre for Research and Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) in Brussels, where I could access hard copies of the reports on research conducted in Darfur that were not accessible online.

● Governmental humanitarian and research regulatory bodies

Humanitarian and research activities in Sudan are overseen by the HAC and the National Research Department at the FMOH, respectively.

The director of each institution was identified by visiting the respective department/body. After identifying the relevant individual, a participant information sheet and an invitation to participate were sent to his/her office. Both directors were given the option of nominating a member of staff to be interviewed rather than being interviewed themselves if they thought this was more appropriate.

● Directors and heads of mission of the INGOs

I targeted the UN Specialised Agencies and the NGOs that had undertaken the greatest volume of research, as identified in the systematic review. The director of each of the selected UN agencies or INGOs was identified through the agency’s or INGO’s website and then sent the participant information and an invitation to take part.

The success of this approach seemed to have depended on the ability to talk directly to one of the technical staff (i.e. not the administrative and the security staff). The UN agencies in Sudan have complicated security checks. No one can go beyond the reception desk unless there is a specific person waiting for him/her. I did not have personal contacts with many of these agencies. I therefore had to deliver the participant documents to the reception or the post office. Given the short time available for data collection, I had to (re)visit each of the agencies that did not respond within a week of the initial invitation, seeking an update every 7-10

days. It took an average of five visits to each UN agency to progress to an invitation. Out of the three high-security UN agencies, one refused to participate without giving reasons, and the other two did not respond.

Generally, apart from the exceptions mentioned above, this recruitment method was quite unsuccessful, and was certainly the least efficient, being ineffective when compared to the intensive labour required.

6.3.2 Indirect contact 6.3.3 NGO representatives

Given the slow pace of response and the few yet important refusals to participate, I had to rely more on the focus groups to compensate for the lack of participation in the interviews. This adaptation of the method was facilitated by the support of the health coordinator of the HAC. She facilitated the contact with the main NGOs that attend the monthly health cluster meeting. Afterwards, I sent these NGOs SMSs to introduce myself, explaining how I had obtained the number and why I had sent the message. Those who responded were given more information about the study and were offered participant information sheets to read. This process resulted in more than 30 staff of UN agencies, INGOS, or NNGOs agreeing to attend the FGDs. A date and time convenient to the majority of these participants were chosen and 34 participants were recruited from FMOH, HAC, INGOs, NNGOs, and UN agencies (see Chapter Eight).

The FGDs were conducted in workshop style, with the participants divided into three groups meeting simultaneously, each with one facilitator and co-

facilitator in a separate room in one of the FMOH training centres. The facilitators and co-facilitators were FMOH staff with experience in qualitative methods, whom I had trained using the discussion guide and informed about related issues, including gaining the participants’ consent and respect for confidentiality.

6.3.4 Darfur community representatives

The recruitment of representatives of the Darfuri community required passing through several sets of gatekeepers. In addition to the official approvals (see 1.2.2 above), I had to obtain the approval of the ‘community leader’ to access the community and for help with identifying potential participants. He gave repeated hints that ‘these people have needs’ and if I wanted their collaboration, I would have to meet some of these. I was clear about this point with him and later with the IDPs, indicating that I was a researcher, not a humanitarian aid worker, and that I was not affiliated with any humanitarian agency. Perhaps the presence of the HAC representative, which was a condition for the security approval, raised their expectations. The accompanying HAC staff member reiterated my position. He offered to listen to their needs and promised to do his best to help them, regardless of their contribution to my study.

The community leader approached the heads of the households (all men), who agreed to receive more information about the project. I gave this information verbally, obtained their consent, and held two FGDs with those who agreed to participate. However, the involvement of women was resisted and initially refused on cultural grounds. Fortunately, this refusal was withdrawn when it was made clear that the women’s groups would be facilitated solely by female RAs. The

female research assistants then approached the women, provided information and sought consent.

All the documents that I presented to the IDPs, the community leaders, and the Sudanese authorities were in simple Arabic, translated from the English versions that had received ethical approval. More detailed information was provided to the IDPs than to the interviewees, specifically in relation to the voluntary basis of participation, privacy and the confidentiality of the information that they shared in the FGD.

The information sheet and the consent form were read to the IDPs, and they were offered the choice of having them re-read to them by someone else of their choice. Every participant in the FGD was given the choice to either sign the informed consent form or to give witnessed verbal informed consent. Overall, the participants preferred not to sign and gave verbal consent.

The privacy of the participants in the FGDs was protected as much as possible. The IDP FGDs were held in the most isolated place in the neighbourhood that was feasibly accessible19_{, away from other residents and} humanitarian, governmental or administrative staff. The participants, after consulting the community leader, expressed a preference for using one of the houses temporarily occupied by the IDPs. There was no clinic or school in the area where they lived, and I avoided holding the FGD in the community leader’s house as this may have influenced the participants’ ability to express their opinions freely.

19 _{‘Feasibly accessible’ refers to a location within reach on foot, calculated based on the distance}

6.4 Structure and facilitation of interviews and focus group discussions