Often while doing fieldwork, we come across respondents who don’t understand the questionnaire and tend to interrogate more about the same. They usually find questions bizarre and challenging.

We recently did a psychometric study for the University of Virginia on Environment, travel, and well-being in Delhi.  The study tried to understand how the residents of Delhi feel about their surroundings and environment.

Enumerator: “Where would you like to live in Delhi?”

Respondent: “Why? Are you buying a house for me?”

Further, after this question, she also seemed a little irritated on the kind of questions that were being asked and started to focus on her work. 

Thus, we can observe that even simple questions can often become the reason for respondent’s fatigue if the background of the study and the type of questions that will be asked are not explained in the right manner. This implies that it is crucial to make sure that before starting any survey the enumerators must explain the background of the study and the type of questions in a proper manner. 

The first step to smooth data collection is to develop a well thought out and sound field plan. However, even meticulous planning cannot always prepare you for the curve-balls that are thrown your way when you are on the field. In such situations, thinking on your feet and improvising are the only ways to ensure that data collection progresses unhindered.

Improvisation was our greatest tool in completing our fieldwork in North 24 Parganas district of West Bengal. However, we did learn a valuable lesson.

The greatest take away from our field experience in West Bengal was to never enter the field without all prerequisite permissions and clearances. The study was to understand the role played by elected representatives of Gram Panchayats in local governance and development. Due to the politically sensitive nature of this study in a politically volatile

environment characterized by the polarization of parties, elected representatives in many of the Gram Panchayats expressed distrust, and suspicion towards the motives of such an exercise, refusing to consent to be surveyed in the absence of formal permission from local authorities. As such, we faced great difficulty on the field in meeting the initial sample requirements and had to modify our sampling strategy mid-way which had many operational and budgetary implications.

Lesson Learned: It is imperative to get requisite permissions from local bodies, as far as possible,

before entering the field for data collection. While this may not be necessary for household studies, it is absolutely vital for studies that are politically sensitive.

We are taught to expect the unexpected when on the field. However, little did we expect what befell us in Araria, Bihar. Since our guide contained sensitive questions and the respondents were 15-19-year-old girls, we requested privacy to conduct our focus group discussions in the local primary school. However, the next day when we returned to the school, we were surrounded by a crowd of agitated villagers who refused to let us continue for fear that we may kidnap their children.

Eventually, after we managed to calm them down, we thoroughly explained the purpose of the study to them. However, the situation had spiraled to such an extent that we had to exit that village and drop it from our sample. It was only later that we found out that the reason for such animosity towards outsiders stemmed from an incident that had occurred a couple of months ago. Apparently, two young girls of the village were taken to Mumbai on the pretext of getting employment. Instead, their organs were harvested and they were sent back to the village on a train.

Lesson learned: We should have entered the village a day prior to our interviews and explained our study to the Pradhan. This would also have helped us gain the confidence of our respondents.

A question on the labor status of an individual seems pretty easy to explain when looked at from the outside. But as you delve deeper into it, you discover the multiple layers. In a training session that we conducted, while giving examples on how to categorize an individual's current labor status, one field enumerator asked, "What is the kind of employment of a priest?"

Another enumerator answered, "Self-employed".

This led to a long drawn discussion among the field enumerators on how it is neither of the above and the ambiguity had to be resolved with the following explanation, given the context of the assignment. A priest employed by a temple trust and paid a monthly salary will be categorized as a "salaried employee". On the other hand, a priest who conducts ceremonies as and when required at houses of people or other places will be marked as "other" in the options list and be specifically listed as a "daily wage earner”. This simple question of a field enumerator led to a very important probe being incorporated in implementing the survey instrument as and when such a response is received.

Lesson learned - Even the simplest of questions come with its own set of connotations and may require in-depth probing to arrive at the desired answer.