identify, probe and refine markers of an ability
Identify prominent topics of interest people in your community typically associated with money management.
Establish a common understanding regarding the ability in question
Verify people’s actual perceptions and refine the markers associated with a specific ability by conducting discussion rounds with community representatives and households
Assessing relevancy and a baseline for markers ⊗ positive ∅ negative neutral
Establish markers for maximum and minimum levels of Financial Capability according to your community’s common understanding; then refine.
C o n c e i va b l e A n s w e r s E x am p l e
The Ability to Use Remittances
Sam p l e Q u e s t i o n
Would you say that receiving or sending money to friends and family is a sign for handling money well or badly?
What are positive and what are negative markers for the ability to use remittances? Receiving remittances is a sign for good money management since it implies the generation of more income for the household.
⊗ Receiving remittances may imply that no other adequate work was available locally. As this could be due to low qualification of the worker this could hint to poor money management.
∅
* An existing or new one
Sending remittances indicates a migrant worker whose family is in need. Remittances may thus be a sign for a household’s ability to handle money being restricted.
∅
Level 1 to 5 of each ability
To refine markers according to financial capability levels 1 to 5, you can gear your line of questioning to the content of the existent Financial Capability matrix.
Sending money via a bank indicates knowledge of formal financial services and thus the likelihood for managing money well.
Example: The ability to spend money responsively / wisely
Guiding Questions
Identify locally viable markers that describe the evolution of an ability from (1) very low to (2) low, (3) medium, (4) high and (5) very high.
Markers describe the defining features of each level of a given ability.
Do households in your community who manage money very well (i.e. Financial Capability Level 5) typically receive remittances?
⊗
Use the answers of respondents to pinpoint what your community thinks defines a given ability when developed poorly, better, up to very highly.
If ‘No’, then do they send remittances?
I don’t know.
Or alternatively, who does receive remittances?
Sending remittances implies that the sender has enough money to spare and must hence be handling money well.
For example: A household with a very low ability to spend money wisely may spend too much on alcohol, while a household with a very high ability for wise spending might use the money essentially for good education. Features of an ability have thus clearly changed from level 1 to 5.
What about someone who handles money fairly well (Level 3)? Would people send or receive high or low amounts? How much?
⊗
NOTE: A repeated answer of ‘I don’t know’ may indicate that a particular marker (or even the ability) is neutral and does in fact not play an important role in people’s perceptions. Its value as an indicator for good/bad money management would thus be negligible.
minor adjustments
markers for min, max & medium
baseline of understanding
topics of interest
If need be, add (or delete) abilities and set and/or refine markers as per the statements of your community;
matrix of
local abilities measured in
local adaptation
local markers
major adjustments
Details for more exhaustive guidelines (including a script for conducting the FGDs) can be requested from MFO, Microfinance Opportunities, who developed the framework.
focus group discussion 3 General discussion
Ranking exercise
Short presentation of the purpose of the FGD, mutual consent to audio-record the session
Questions about what it means to manage money well in this particular community. Help participants focus on the topics of the exercise.
Introduce participants to a 5 level ranking*.
Defining the community Ensure a common understanding of context (physical and/ or social boundaries of the respondents’ community)
Probing Questions
When you think about a household, whether it is rich or poor, that uses and manages its money well, what comes to your mind? What for a household who doesn’t? What do they do differently from another? K e y S i t u at i o n s of M o n e y M a n ag e m e n t Pointers to use for guiding the discussion: • Day to day needs • Life cycle events • Emergency situations • Opportunities
NOTE: Divert focus from possessions or income as proxy of financial capability, inquire how households manage what they have
K e y F act s 1 moderator & 1 note-taker per FGD, 5-7 participants available for about 1.5hrs, note pad / laptop and recording device.
Se l ecti n g Partici p a n t s Depends on your focus/expectations:
5
4
Introduction
2
Statements > Codes > Topics > Abilities
microfinanceopportunities.org / info@mfopps.org
1
in-depth research for identifying abilities & markers
data analysis
10 min to deliberate on actual households of the community (on their own), followed by a description of these households. For the sake of anonymity, ask to not cite households by name.
Collect at least 8 to 10 statements per level (e.g. Level 1: ‘They only earn as daily wage labourers’ / ‘They fight a lot’ / ... Level 4: ‘They use loans from PACSs & banks (as compared to money lender in Level 1 & 2 for example).
Data entry and storage Enter all statements into an excel sheet, regrouped by level of Financial Capability (i.e. level 1-5); amend the data sheet by any demographic data gathered during each FGD; transcribe discussions where necessary.
1 Coding
2 From Codes to topics
3 From topics to principal themes and abilities
A code describes a commonality of statements, allowing for more appropriate clustering and analysis.
The topics are yet another level of aggregation that help synthesize the data step by step.
The principal themes represent the penultimate step of aggregation. By reviewing the formerly defined topics you should now be able to see common actions crystallizing within.
Statement
Code
‘They are small farmers’ ‘They have low income’
‘Low income’
‘They have petty business’ ‘They borrow frequently and from many people’ ‘They take small loans from many sources’
‘Borrows from multiple sources’
‘They have loans available from more than 4 MFIs’
Statement
‘They have small savings and infrequent’
Topic
‘Low income’
‘What income sources households have’
‘They are small farmers’
‘Low income’
‘What land households have’
‘They have low income/less earning’ ‘Low income’
‘How much income households earn’
‘Less paid than factory workers’
‘Has a bad job’
‘How much income households earn’
‘They are middle class people’
‘Has a good income’
‘How much income households earn’
‘They are into Business’
‘Has a good business’
‘What income sources households have’
‘They have good job’
‘Has a good job’
‘What income sources households have’
‘They try to save but cannot’, ‘They have small savings sometimes’
Code
‘They have a petty business’
‘Irregular savings’
‘They save irregular’
Probe differences between the levels. NOTE: Do not suggest answers! Only autonomous answers of the respondents will allow for a proper reflection of what the respective community perceives as relevant to define whether a household handles money well or badly
* 5 Level Ranking 1 very low 2 low 3 medium 4 high 5 very high
If you expect differences across financial delivery channels you may differentiate accordingly (e.g. participants consisting of equal part of SHGs, PACS, MFIs, etc.) If you are particularly interested in potential differences between villager and town dwellers you could select participants according to their urban, semi-urban or rural habitats
The analysis is a highly qualitative and iterative process that may require several rounds of review
NOTE: The assignment of a code to a statement might at times be ambiguous. An example: ‘They spend much on weddings’ could imply wasteful spending just as much as a high standing in the community.
iterati o n You may need to adjust (change, create, delete) codes several times relative to the integral data set.
c o n tr o l re s earc h er b ia s To minimize post-interview bias that might lead to inaccurate interpretations, always refer to the audio recordings and conduct the coding as soon as possible after the FGD (best, immediately to recall a statement’s actual meaning).
Statement
Code
Topic
PRINCIPAL
ABILITY
‘Less paid than factory worker’
Has a bad job
How much income How households households earn generate income
ABILITY to generate, sufficient income
Even with available credit they consume liquor
Spends on vices
what households spend on
How households spend money
ABILITY to spend money wisely
Intelligent girl in the house less expenses
spending on social obligations in future
how many people constitute the household
How people interact within the family and the community
Ability to coordinate within the family
Spend more on guests
show off
How the family interacts
How people interact within the family and the community
ABILITY to take part in community life
NOTE: Topics also help in indicating additional features of a statement where the code may have been ambiguous. This is why you will find that similar codes can lead to different topics.
i n ter p retati o n The process remains a fairly heuristic approach that allows for a clear margin of interpretation.
f l e x i b i l it y t o d efi n e n ew a b i l itie s Do not force topics into existing abilities if adding a new ability or refining one seems more pertinent (e.g. see the example of the ‘Ability to use Remittances’) Example : ’Spends money on guests – show off’ could also be associated with ‘what households spend on’ instead of ‘how the family interacts’ Ability to spend wisely