Conducting Analysis Using IONA
IONA is a method for collecting and organizing data. Its framework of issues, problems, objectives, and solutions activities are intended to capture the needs articulated by respondents around specific social problems. These needs are reduced to potential intervention objectives for which solutions activities are identified. Although this discipline ensures that all relevant data are at hand for analysis, it does not eliminate the need for creative and insightful analysis by the assessment team.
Beginning in Stage 2 and continuing in Stage 3, the assessment team is asked to create clarity out of the large body of information that is collected through the interview process. During Stage 2, the team receives numerous descriptions of needs, which must be reframed as objectives corresponding to concrete problems. During Stage 3, the team must take a large set of potential solutions and develop media intervention strategies that address the identified objectives.
IONA provides the data structure (or frame) that allows the assessment team to draw insight from the data quickly and effectively. By tagging individual pieces of data when they are entered into the frame, the assessment team can manipulate or cut the full body of collected information into different data clusters that can be compared and evaluated. For example, cutting the full body of information to include only data about one particular issue allows the assessment team to develop insight about the objectives for an intervention targeting that issue.
Further cutting data by effectiveness will provide direction as to what activities have worked well in the past in addressing problems in this issue area. A common denominator may emerge that suggests a new solution to the problem that is currently confounding the target society. By iteratively cutting the entire data set, the assessment team can gain perspective on the issue and develop a successful media intervention strategy.
No matter how the assessment team organizes its data in practice (on notepads, in Word documents, in spreadsheets, and the like), at minimum the team needs to be able to tag and manipulate the information from its interviews with the following identifiers:
Likewise, at minimum, to create the necessary data clusters for analysis, the assessment team must be able to manipulate data stored in IONA in the following ways:
Developing this functionality using a paper-based approach is a major challenge. USIP has developed a spreadsheet-based prototype tool called IONA Frame Manager that overcomes many of the problems with a paper- based approach. Visit USIP's Center for Media, Conflict and Peacebuilding at http://www.usip.org/publications/iona to access to this tool.
Requirements for Analysis
The time and personnel required to perform an IONA study depend very much on the SOW. This is determined in negotiation with the organization sponsoring the assessment and is detailed in the SOW document developed during Stage 1 of the assessment process.
Time
Critical to the effectiveness of the assessment mission will be the allocation of sufficient time in Stage 1. Factors that influence the amount of time required include team member experience with the society under study, the amount of existing research, and access to others with experience in the target country. Similarly, the amount of time required in-country will be influenced by the ability to move around, access sectoral and thematic experts and communities themselves, and address any other logistic constraints. For example, the Afghanistan assessment was designed to take 3½ months, with five weeks allocated to each of the three stages. The Stage 3 analysis after returning from the field is not time consuming if care is taken to organize collected data during the fieldwork. Thus, the preliminary results of the assessment should be available within two to three weeks of returning from the field. However, validating intervention designs with in-country experts, getting sign-off on designs from the donor organization, and writing the assessment report can extend this stage substantially.
Personnel: Assessment Team
The assessment team as a whole should possess both conflict and media analysis skills. It is helpful if at least one member of the team has deep experience in the application of media to peacebuilding and another is experienced in conflict analysis. Specific understanding of the media in the target country is a benefit, but not absolutely required. Lack of knowledge, however, must be factored into the amount of time allowed for work prior to entering the field as well as for work in the field. Likewise, although contacts in-country are a plus, the presence on the team of someone with an extensive list of existing contacts cannot be expected. Making contact with in-country experts is part of the development of an interview strategy during Stage 1.
The assessment team should be independent of any organization currently implementing media interventions in the society to be assessed. This will ensure that the results are impartial and have greater credibility.
Personnel: Project Manager
The project manager is an employee of the organization sponsoring the assessment and is the single point of contact between the organization commissioning the assessment and the assessment team. As such, the project manager's responsibilities change during the assessment process.
During Stage 1, the primary tasks for the project manager are to communicate the sponsor's goals in defining the SOW, help the assessment team access various resources, and ensure the team is ready to work when they enter the field. For example, the project manager works closely with the assessment team to develop a well-defined SOW. The project manger also may have contacts in the field and can help develop an interview strategy.
In Stages 2 and 3, the primary task of the project manager is to ensure that the project team is making progress and reaching the milestones defined in the IONA process. The manager continues to provide insight and other resources as the assessment team's understanding evolves.
Timeline and Deliverables
To ensure that the IONA process is on track, prior to the end of each stage, the project manager should hold a review meeting at which the assessment team delivers a set of documents that consolidate the results of that stage's work and support the investigation in its next stage. The meeting should include a discussion about what the assessment has learned, challenges to the team's advancement to the next assessment stage, and how preparations for the next stage have progressed. Ideally, the project manager will advocate the sponsoring organization's interests and help the assessment team solve problems. The completion of each stage occurs when the project manager formally accepts all deliverables for that stage. At that point, the team moves to the next stage in the assessment process.
As a rule, the timeline for IONA encourages the assessment team to do as much work as possible prior to entering the field so that fieldwork consists primarily of testing and validating hypotheses developed during Stage 1. The timing and deliverables for each review meeting are suggested in table 6.
Because the project manager may make acceptance conditional on improvements to the deliverables, the review meetings must occur sufficiently in advance of the end of the stage to allow for corrections, particularly in Stage 1.9 The timing of the review meeting in Stage 2 depends on the scope of the study and, consequently, how long the assessment team expects to spend in the field. To allow the results of the review meeting to affect interviewing activity, the review meeting for Stage 2 should be scheduled no later than three-quarters of the time into Stage 2. The Stage 3 review does not have similar time constraints but should occur within two weeks after returning from the field so that the material is still fresh in the assessment team's minds. At minimum, the team should have completed the first two Stage 3 tasks (Finalize Intervention Objectives and Design Media Interventions) and sent the preliminary intervention designs to the expert panel as preparation for the Stage 3 review.
Table 6. Review Meeting Timing and Deliverables for
