Strengths and Weaknesses of Each Methodologic Feature of the SNET
| Method | Research Questions | Advantages of This Method | Threats to Validity | Key Insight or Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Problem tree analysis | What are the root causes that prevent couples from using modern contraception? | Sparked a conversation about causes of a behavior of interest. | The project team, based in Kinshasa, must try and represent the perspectives of all regions (many far from Kinshasa) and subgroups (a wide range of religious, economic, and ethnic backgrounds). |
The project team had to repeatedly reference the SNET to discuss whether causes discussed did or did not focus on norms but felt they had limited resources in the SNET to make those determinations. The root causes often surfaced common sayings (e.g., “children are wealth”); even among project staff, it was difficult to produce answers to why these sayings are widely believed and repeated. It may be easier to derive root causes from examples, experiences, or observations than to enumerate them directly. |
| Identifiction of reference groups | Were the reference groups identified consistent with the definition of reference groups in the social norms literature? |
Rapid analysis of which community members men consider influential to their behavior around family planning. Sample frame is tailored to each site. |
Groups identified were not limited to reference groups but included sources of family planning information such as health care providers. Influential groups with whom men do not feel comfortable talking about family planning were not captured |
Men are influenced not only by social norms but also by knowledge of family planning methods. To keep the study focused on norms, inclusion criteria for what constitutes a reference group should be developed. Questions should attempt to identify enforcers of social sanctions as well as supporters of the behavior of interest. |
| Vignette of a couple making decisions about family planning | Did scenarios serve to identify ways in which reference groups influence men’s involvement in and decisions about family planning? |
Present a specific scenario for men to respond to rather than an abstract concept. Men may feel more comfortable responding to questions about someone else rather than talking about their own experiences. |
Certain aspects of the scenario were confusing or not well understood. Too many hypotheticals made the scenario overly complicated. Some men may not feel comfortable responding to certain questions. | Vignettes were well received overall, during both interviews and FGDs. The version used in the interview guide had too many plot points. Future applications of the SNET should keep the vignette short and straightforward and could use a “fill-in-the-blank” framing to allow participants to co-create the scenario with the facilitators. |
| Focus groups with site-specific reference groups | Did focus groups effectively identify ways in which reference groups influence men’s involvement in and decisions about family planning? |
Triangulation between men’s perceptions of what others in the community expect of them and what these influential persons actually expect. Different reference groups may hold different norms. |
Groups identified were not limited to reference groups but included sources of family planning information, such as health care providers. Influential groups with whom men do not feel comfortable talking about family planning were not captured in Phase 1, although the decision to include them was made by the team during data collection. |
Health care providers, such as doctors and nurses, while not necessarily reference groups in the way, are defined in the SNET and are still privy and subject to the social norms operating in their communities. Findings from the FGDs provide a fuller picture of the context around family planning norms and practices. |
| Five Whys exercise | Did exercise identify root causes of why men do or do not engage with family planning decision-making or allow their partners to choose a method independently? | The goal of the exercise was to delve a level further with each “why?” to deepen understanding of why a norm or behavior exists. | In many cases, the 5 Whys provided were 5 separate responses to the initial “why” instead of digging into the underlying norms. |
This exercise was too complicated, requiring the moderator and note-takers to decide in the moment which reasons were most in line with a normative framework and pursue that line of questioning. We would not recommend this method in future applications of the SNET. |
| Participatory analysis workshop |
How well did participants understand concepts like social norms, injunctive norms, and sanctions? Did participants benefit from introduction of these concepts? Was the workshop productive in identifying interventions? |
Collaboration between different stakeholders. Intercoder discussion at various levels to compare findings from urban and rural sites. Validation of themes developed through inductive coding before workshop. |
Participants did not have a deep understanding of social norms, and certain concepts (e.g., the idea of social sanctions) were misunderstood. Social norms are not intuitive, and participants did not find social factors to be the most important influence on behavior. Insufficient time was given for the analysis. |
Hosting a participatory analysis workshop may increase buy-in from stakeholders and decision-makers. However, if participants do not see social norms as a priority, it will be difficult to maintain a focus on social factors throughout. Workshops should be longer than 5 days or based only on a subset of data or data that has been distilled or pre-coded. |
Abbreviations: FGD, focus group discussion; SNET, Social Norms Exploration Tool.