Democracy in India: A Citizens' Perspective APPENDICES. Lokniti : Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS)

Transcription

1 Democracy in India: A Citizens' Perspective APPENDICES

2

3 Appendix 1: The SDSA II (India component) covered states of India. All major states were included in the sample. The smaller states of North East were treated as a single unit and Meghalaya was taken from the region. Owing to the small size of the state, Goa was not taken in the sample. The states covered, account for more than 97% of India's population. Why this study? Make comparisons with the findings of the first round. Identify the critical markers of change, both within each country and across the region. Estimate the impact of political development on the nature of politics and democracy in South Asia. Help in comparative assessment of development in the last decade and locating major accomplishments and critical challenges. Evolve the normative framework that can constitute the basis for guidelines to policy makers Duration of the Study: The SDSA II formally began in September 011 and the survey was completed by July 013 in all countries. The first formal meeting in this regard was held in September 011 at Nagarkot in Nepal. The second meeting was held in February 01 and members of the Global Barometer team along with collaborators from Maldives were also present. The third meeting was held on May, 01 at Delhi. In India, the field work was conducted from January 1, 013 February, 013. A discussion on the findings was organized in Delhi on July 19 and 0, 013. Collaborators from Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Nepal attended this meeting. Findings of the survey were presented by India, Sri Lanka and Nepal. Sampling method: Stage I: Sampling of Assembly Constituencies (ACs) In the first stage, sampling of Assembly Constituencies (ACs) (State legislature electoral constituencies) from states was done. Democracy in India: A Citizens Perspective 113

4 Assembly Constituencies were selected in states through systematic random sampling technique on the basis of Probability Proportionate to Size (PPS) method. Stage II: Sampling of Polling Stations (PSs) The second stage of sampling is that of selection of Polling Stations (PS) within each sampled AC. 336 polling stations (PSs) were selected within the sampled ACs by listing all the PSs within the sampled ACs in the serial order followed by the Election Commission. The selection of PS is also done using the random circular sampling method. Stage III: Sampling of Respondents The third and final stage of sampling was selection of the respondents. Respondents were selected from the latest electoral rolls of the selected polling stations. In every polling station, 0 respondents were selected from the electoral rolls using the Systematic Random Sampling technique. In each sampled polling station, a list of sampled respondents was prepared their name, age, gender and address. Substitution of respondents was not allowed under any circumstance (Table A1). Booster Sample: A total 670 respondents were sampled but 563 interviews were successfully completed. To ensure that sections that were underrepresented in the achieved sample were also tapped, we adopted the strategy of booster sampling. The booster sampling was done in urban localities of Uttar Pradesh (UP), Haryana and Delhi because urban constituencies were under represented. Two ACs each from Uttar Pradesh and Haryana were selected using the aforesaid method of sampling. Being the national capital and a cosmopolitan city, four ACs were selected in Delhi. 60 respondents were sampled for booster and 50 interviews were successfully completed during this exercise. The process and methodology for selecting booster samples was similar to the original sample set. After doing the whole exercise, 603 interviews were completed. Research Instrument a) Preparation Questionnaire: The english questionnaire was designed after a rigorous dialogue in a series of meetings and discussions. The main objective of the survey was to study citizens' 11 Democracy in India: A Citizens Perspective

5 opinions and attitudes towards democracy and democratic institutions. Along with this major theme, a decision was also taken to include some questions on service delivery through government institutions and citizens' approach towards governance. On the whole, questions were designed according to the Global Barometer Survey and South Asian Barometer Survey. Some country specific questions were also inserted in the questionnaire. Table A1: Sampling Framework States Size of Electorate Percentage of Total Electorate Sampled Assembly Constituencies Sampled Polling Stations Total No. of Sampled Respondents Uttar Pradesh Maharashtra Andhra Pradesh Bihar West Bengal Tamil Nadu Karnataka Madhya Pradesh Gujarat Rajasthan Orissa Kerala Assam Jharkhand Punjab Chhattisgarh Haryana Delhi Jammu &Kashmir Uttarakhand Himachal Pradesh Meghalaya Total Note: Total electorate has been taken from Election Commission of India: Lok Sabha Election 009 Statistical Report Democracy in India: A Citizens Perspective 115

6 Pre-testing and Finalizing the Questionnaire: To check the accuracy and credibility of the questions set in the questionnaire, it was necessary to administer it in the field. A qualitative pre-test of the governance section of State of democracy in South Asia (SDSA) questionnaire was conducted on June 16 17, 01. The areas covered were Sonepat (Haryana), Alwar (Rajasthan), Dadri (Uttar Pradesh) and Delhi (Seelampur, Mahipalpur, Rangpur, Timarpur). No sampling of any sort was carried out during pre-testing. The pre-test was conducted by the research team at Lokniti which was involved in the questionnaire designing. After getting inputs from the researchers, the questions were reframed, omitted and added. This process also gave insights to determine the length of questionnaire, writing instructions for field investigators and adding and omitting some new options to answer categories. Translation: It was not justifiable to use a single language questionnaire in a multi lingual country like India. Therefore, translation was done for each state by the regional team which was familiar with the language of each region before administering the questionnaire in field. Questionnaire was translated in twelve (Urdu, Punjabi, Bangla, Marathi, Kannada, Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, Assamese, Oriya, Gujarati and Khasi) languages. Training Workshop: A two-day training workshop was organized in each state before the survey fieldwork started in order to train the field investigators (FIs) and supervisors who carry out the fieldwork operations. Trainers conducted an intensive and interactive workshop for training field investigators on conducting face-to-face interviews based on the questionnaire. The investigators underwent an orientation programme and were trained rigorously about interviewing techniques and communication with the respondents. A comprehensive and detailed interviewing guide, designed on the basis of the questionnaire and survey methodology, was prepared for the interviewers. For a better understanding of the questionnaire, mock interviews were also conducted by the interviewers. b) Field Work Field Investigator: Field investigators, who were mainly students and researchers in social sciences belonging to colleges and universities, were selected to carry out the field work. In total 1 field investigators went to the field for interviews. A team of two investigators was sent in each AC and there they contacted and interviewed the sampled respondents. Table A shows the number of investigators appointed in each state. 116 Democracy in India: A Citizens Perspective

7 Table A: Number of Investigators in each State State Name No. of Investigators Uttar Pradesh 30 Maharashtra 16 Andhra Pradesh 1 Bihar 1 West Bengal 1 Karnataka 10 Tamil Nadu 10 Gujarat Madhya Pradesh Rajasthan Kerala 6 Orissa 6 Assam Haryana Punjab Delhi 1 Jharkhand Chhattisgarh North East Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Uttarakhand Total 1 Supervisor: A team of supervisors was also constituted to assist and guide field investigators during their field work. Field investigators could contact supervisors for resolving any matter during field work and other issues. Supervisors also guided field investigators during field work about how to approach sampled respondents, how to persuade the respondents if he/she gave no response or was unwilling to continue the interview etc. Democracy in India: A Citizens Perspective 117

8 Spot Checking: To avoid any kind of inconsistency and to check the credibility of data, supervisors also did spot checks. They either visited the field or telephonically contacted the investigators when they were in field. If they found any inconsistency in administering the questionnaire, they instructed the investigators on how to ask questions properly. c) Data Processing d) Data Coding & Cleaning: All questionnaires were manually screened for consistency and quality check. The questionnaire had codes (of pre-coded questions) that were used for data punching. A team was constituted for checking the codes and making corrections if there were any mistakes. e) Data Entry: Codes on the questionnaire were punched into an electronic database. Punched data was then edited through a specially written edit program, which checked for eligibility criteria, range and logic errors. Table A3 Representativeness: In Survey Actual Population Male Female 6.6. Rural Urban Scheduled Caste (SC) Scheduled Tribe (ST) Hindu Muslim Christian.0.3 Sikh Buddhist Jain Other Religion Note: All figures are in percent. Actual population is taken from Census of India 001 and Democracy in India: A Citizens Perspective