Data collection tools are specific techniques designed to collect primary data – i.e. data collected directly from first-hand sources through interviews, surveys, observation, etc. – and encourage joint analysis, learning and, in some cases, action.
Data collection tools can provide relevant quantitative and qualitative information to plan, implement or monitor an intervention. Because they are focused on specific information needs, participatory tools support evidence-based analysis and action. Additionally, they facilitate partnership, empowerment, capacity development, effectiveness and efficiency.
While different data collection tools may be used at different stages, they are generally used in combination to ensure triangulation and therefore reliability of the data collected. Table 1 presents information on specific participatory tools organized by level of participation expected, intervention phase and type of communication entailed.
Table 1: Data collection (Participatory) tools matrix
Tool | Level of participation | Phases of the intervention path | Communication types |
|---|
Information sharing | Consultation | Decision-making | Initiating action | Identification | Formulation | Implementation | Monitoring | Evaluation | Visual | Oral | Written |
Brainstorming | |
| | | | | | | | | * | |
Seminar/workshp | | | | | | | | | | * | * | * |
Case study | | | | | | | | | | * | | * |
Field visit | | | | | | | | | | * | * | * |
Focus group | | | | | | | | | | | * | |
Expert panel | | | | | | | | | | | * | * |
Survey | | | | | | | | | | | * | * |
Interview | | | | | | | | | | | * | * |
Observation | | | | | | | | | | * | * | |
Source: Adapted from the Tool matrix presented in Participatory approaches: a facilitator's guide, Voluntary Services Overseas (VSO). 2004. Figure 12: Toolkit matrix.
- EU staff and relevant partners in charge of intervention design and implementation
- Independent experts in charge of external monitoring and evaluation
See Table 2.
Key elements
Participation may take various forms depending on the nature of the intervention and the roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders involved. The nature, scale and scope of the intervention, as well as the context, will orient the choice of the tool/tool mix. This should be based on a realistic estimation of what is feasible, and of the skills and capacity of participating stakeholders. Examples of criteria could be:
- Specific data needs
- Setting, reachability of stakeholders
- Resources availability (financial, time…), implementation time
- Availability of qualified local experts,
- Capacity development needs of local implementing partners
Table 2: Summary of the most used data collection (participatory) tools
Tool | Purpose | Advantages | Limitations | Resources/capacity |
|---|
Brainstorming | Group creativity technique aimed at collecting the broadest possible range of options on a proposed subject, that are then (jointly) evaluated, and the best option selected. | - Breaks down preconceptions about the problem/topic.
- Encourages creative solutions.
- Assists in developing collaboration and cooperation among participants.
| - Ideas proposed are unrestrained and may be unachievable.
- Requires an experienced facilitator to maintain focus and manage possible conflicts.
| MEDIUM |
Workshop | A gathering of people working on a common problem or task with the aim of resolving issues and building consensus for action. | - A structured environment where key stakeholders can openly discuss specific topics results in a more informed decision-making process, and increased ownership and consensus.
- The focus on a specific topic by a particular target group allows for a more fine-tuned understanding of the issue/task.
| - If not properly structured and conducted, may be unfocused.
- If participants are not strategically selected and fully committed, workshops may lose the opportunity to harvest key issues.
| MEDIUM |
Seminar | Similar to a workshop but generally shorter and with a more didactic function of imparting information through speakers and panellists; participation is limited to question-and-answer sessions. | Allow knowledge on a specific topic to be increased in a very focused manner, and therefore in a relatively short time. | Application of lessons learned is left to participants, who generally have no further opportunity to engage with speakers; ideally, a seminar should be followed up with a workshop. | MEDIUM |
Field visit Field visits are particularly relevant for EU Delegation staff, as, according to KPI 19 of the EAMR, at least 80% of an EU Delegation portfolio should be visited at least annually.
| Usually conducted jointly with development partners and/or other sections in the EU Delegation, field visits enable first-hand knowledge of an intervention's activities, results and issues, and typically comprise other participatory tools such as interviews, focus groups and direct observation. | - Allow for learning on how an intervention is progressing.
- Provide monitoring support to implementing partners and stakeholders.
- Allow staff to directly observe the context of the intervention.
| In practice, operational managers may have limited time and resources to perform field visits, particularly in instances where security considerations exist. | MODERATE – HIGH |
Focus group | A facilitator-led gathering of a small group of participants representative of the stakeholder population for a particular intervention to elicit perceptions and promote mediation across different interest groups on a given topic. | - Allows for a quick understanding of stakeholder diversity, and therefore the positioning of an intervention.
- Helps different stakeholders understand each other's positions through direct dialogue.
- Limited implementation costs.
- Time efficient.
| - Logistics can be challenging where stakeholders are geographically, culturally or ideologically disparate.
- In most cases, the mediator must have a specialised knowledge (e.g. of local behavioural norms).
- Particularly at the beginning of the design phase, it may be difficult to identify relevant stakeholders and their representativeness.
| MODERATE-HIGH |
Expert panel | A gathering of independent experts to primarily (but not exclusively) elicit technical conclusions and recommendations to support analysis of a specific issue, on the basis of given criteria and a work plan. | - Facilitates a deep understanding of the topic.
- Highly effective in terms of time and costs, as well as in the credibility of the conclusions.
| - As experts are requested to deliver recommendations based on group consensus, minority points of view are not reflected in the conclusions.
- A single expert may disproportionately influence the process.
- Experts may go beyond their field of competence, or present recommendations not well rooted in specific contexts.
| HIGH |
Survey | Data collection method aimed at building knowledge (generally linked to behaviours or opinions) on a specific group and topic, with data collected through a population sample targeted by the intervention. | - Data are reliable and margin of error can be defined in advance.
- Focus on 'soft' data (opinions, perceptions).
- Large numbers of stakeholders/beneficiaries can be surveyed.
- At the end of an intervention's implementation, a survey helps identify outcomes – particularly those of most relevance to for different stakeholders.
| - Requires certain minimal pre-existing data.
- Requires significant organisation and logistics.
- A reliable local partner must be identified and trained.
- Broad surveys require a large number of staff.
- Identifying a representative sample may be difficult.
| MODERATE |
Interview | Structured dialogue, generally performed at the individual level, which can be used to collect a broad range of information supporting the design or evaluation of an intervention. Three main types of interviews can be carried out: - Questionnaire: a set of questions is presented in the same wording and order to interviewees, who choose between a limited set of answers.
- Unstructured: a free-flowing conversation, where the interviewer intervene only to stimulate further comments on the topic.
- Semi-structured: the interview follows a guiding list of questions, whose order can be changed and further questions added.
| - Lends itself to tailored adaptation (language, approach, setting), while maintaining a comparative focus among stakeholders (e.g. the same questionnaire may be adapted to a variety of counterparts).
- Can be extremely focused.
- Allows for collection of information which may be indirectly linked to the intervention, but useful for others and/or for organisational knowledge.
- Once designed, may require ongoing investment (drafting of questionnaire, sampling of beneficiaries, etc.) but has low implementation costs.
| - Trained professionals must design the questionnaire and perform the interview, as these must take into account local behavioural norms, especially when addressing delicate/taboo topics (e.g. HIV, disability).
- Respondents may not constitute a representative sample.
- The interviewer can bias responses.
| MODERATE-HIGH |
Observation | Qualitative research method allowing data to be gathered by observing people, physical objects, events, processes, behaviours, actions and interactions | - Allow for very detailed information on phenomena of interest.
- A qualified observer can quickly adapt the approach adopted to a changing environment.
| - The presence of an observer can limit the spontaneity of behaviours.
- If the observer is not properly trained, observation conclusions may exhibit a high degree of subjectivity.
- The relation between the observer and the observed may in itself influence conclusions.
| HIGH |
See Table 2.
Tips and tricks
- The selected mix of participatory tools should be at a fairly homogeneous technical level, adapted to the stakeholders concerned, the level of information required and the context. For example, it is pointless to use sophisticated tools if the necessary information cannot be obtained with satisfactory precision – or if that level of precision is not needed.
- The wider the scope and questioning, the greater the risk of loss of focus. However, a well-structured participatory tool can facilitate the collection of broader information which may enrich organisational knowledge.
N/A
My INTPA: Global Development Data Tool - GDDT - DG INTPA 
My INTPA: Knowledge Management Tools and Practices 
The European Commission, 2022. Participatory Leadership Guide 
The European Commission. Directorate General External Relations. Directorate General Development. EuropeAid Co-operation Office. Joint Evaluation Unit. 2006. Evaluation methods for the European Union's External Assistance. Evaluation Tools. Volume 4. (Summary available at Capacity4dev. Evaluation methodological approach).
The European Commission, 2019, Guidance on internal monitoring for results
The European Commission, 2004. Aid Delivery Methods. Volume 1. Project Cycle Management Guidelines.
The European Commission, 2019. Guidance, Tools and Good Practices for EU operational managers for Interventions Financed by the European Union within the Framework of its External Assistance. Internal Monitoring for Results.
The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, 2007. Tools for Institutional, Political, and Social Analysis of Policy Reform. Chapter 9. Micro-level analysis. Page 182.
