Research Training Class 2013/2014

WITH PARTICIPANTS FROM SULAWESI AND KALIMANTAN

Research Training Class 2013/2014

The activity of research training is divided into eight sub-activities: (i) selection of participants; (ii) pre-research workshop; (iii) fieldwork; (iv) interim-meeting (monitoring phase); (v) writing draft report;  (vi) workshop on research report writing; (vii) writing final report, and; (viii) final evaluation. By the end of November 2013, five out of eight sub activities are done, and participants were on the process of writing a draft report to be presented at the next workshop on research report writing. Selection of participants was conducted in July to August 2013. With tighter requirements compare to our previous training, they were 16 (sixteen) candidates applying to participate out of whom we chose eleven consists of nine males and two females. The list of participants, their origins, institutions, and title of their research proposals is listed on the table 2 below.

 

dsc_0304

 

 Table 1. List of Participants to the Interseksi’s Research Training Class 2013.

Institution Name of the Representative Sex Title of Proposal
1 Lembaga Penelitian Universitas Ichsan Gorontalo (Lemlit UNISAN), Gorontalo Zulham Mahasin M Kajian Proses Interaksi Sosial Masyarakat dalam Membangun Integrasi Sosial di Desa Transmigrasi. Studi kasus: Program transmigrasi di Desa Ayumolinggo, Kecamatan Pulubala, Kabupaten Gorontalo.
2 LPS-HAM, Palu, Sulawesi Tengah Mohammad Affandi M Deredikalisasi di Tanah Sintuvu Maroso
3 Perkumpulan Bantaya, Palu, Sulawesi Tengah Mohammad Vahrun M Kebijakan Pertambangan Pemerintah Daerah Kabupaten Donggala dalam Izin Usaha Pertambangan dan Akibatnya pada Relasi antar Kelompok Masyarakat. Studi kasus: Pertambangan emas di kecamatan Balaesang Tanjung.
4 LAPAR, Makassar, Sulawesi Selatan Hamzah Eister M Sibaliparriq dan Tingkat pendidikan Anak dalam masyarakat Mandar. Kasus Perempuan Pappasar Suwu di Dusun Rappogading Utara desa Lampoko Kecamatan Campalagian Kabupaten Polewali Mandar Provinsi Sulawesi Barat.
5 Latar Nusa, Makassar, Sulawesi Selatan Edi Sumardi M Konsolidasi Politik Dinasti Yasin Limpo
6 Yayasan Betang Borneo, Palangkaraya, Kalimantan Tengah Gemma Ade Abimanyu M Pengaruh Pertambangan Batubara Terhadap Wilayah Kelola Masyarakat. Studi kasus: Masyarakat Dayak di Kecamatan Gunung Bintang Awai) Ada perubahan lokasi penelitian. Ada perubahan lokasi penelitian.
7 Lembaga Gemawan, Pontianak, Kalimantan Barat Muhammad Zuni Irawan M Analisis Peran Pemerintah Kabupaten Sambas Dalam Pencegahan dan Penanganan Konflik Lahan di Dusun Seburan, Kabupaten Sambas
8 Lazuardi Birru, Jakarta Muhammad Laila Maghfurrodhi M Dalam Bayang-bayang Multikulturalisme: Respon Kelompok Revivalis Islam di Yogyakarta atas Kebijakan The City of Tolerance.
9 Perludem, Jakarta Lia Wulandari F Politik Biaya Tinggi dalam Pemilihan Kepala Daerah.
10 Yayasan Interseksi, Jakarta Stephanie Amalia Johar F Kompensasi Sosial bagi Warga Tempatan dalam Pembangunan kota Mandiri BSD

 

Pre-Research Workshop was organized on September 2-6, 2013 at GG House Bogor. To the workshop we invited two resource persons from universities (Prof. Halilintar Lathief from State University of Makassar, Prof. Heddy Ahimsa-Putra from UGM Jogjakarta), one highly respected public intellectual, Dr. Daniel Dhakidae from Prisma, and one professional news photographer, Tantyo Bangun (ex-editor in chief of Indonesia version of National Geographic). Some members of the board of Interseksi Foundation were also participating in a research proposal discussion as professional reviewers.

Since some of the participants come from regions out of Sulawesi and Kalimantan, we just have to change the planned interim-meeting in Makassar to in situ supervision. Budget-wise it would not be cost-effective to bring all participants to Makassar and then send them back to each of their fieldwork locations. For participants from Jakarta, we did have a meeting in our office. Between October 28th and November 11th, we dispatched a supervision/monitoring team to Makassar, Palu, Palangkaraya, and Pontianak to see the participants during the course of their fieldwork.

After all the fieldwork has been through we brought all participants to the workshop on Research Report Writing on 6 – 9 January 2014, in Bogor, West Java. Dr. Semiarto Aji Purwanto of Department of Anthropology, University of Indonesia, shared his experience on how to write a research report based on empirical research. Mr. Purwanto has been the chief editor of one of the most respected academic journal in Indonesia, Jurnal Antropologi. We also invited Mr. Ahmad Suaedy of Abdurrahman Wahid Center, University of Indonesia, Bhatara Ibnu Reza of the Impartial Human right Monitor, Jakarta, and Amin Mudzakkir of LIPI, Jakarta, to give critical comments on each of the draft report. After the workshop, we brought the participants to our office in Jakarta to further enhance the report by providing them full access to our modest library.

 

Figure 4. Participants’ Perceived Improvement During Pre-Research Workshop in September 2013

pre_research

 

Figure 3. Participants’ Improvement After Report Writing Workshop in January 2014

 

after_report

On the scale of 1-5, the average improvement of the participants is 3.6. The improvement of the participants’ capacity is measured twice by distributing two set of questionnaires: the first one was distributed right after the participants completed the pre-research workshop last September, and the other one was in January 2014 after they are participating in the Report Writing workshop. We measured the improvements of participants with scoring of 1-5 (1 for the lowest and 5 for the highest). Figure 1 shows the result of the first questionnaire on how the participants perceived the level of improvement in certain aspects of the training. Figure 2 shows the participants’ perceived improvement on other indicators after they completed the fieldwork, writing field notes, and composing draft report.

As can be seen in the Figure 1 and Figure 2, among the selected indicators, the average score of participants in composing research design is at the lowest mark of perceived-improvements. Based on our previous experience, composing a good and doable research design is a rather complicated task for CSO’s activists as it requires the capacity to build the pieces of materials to become “the whole package”. Compounding the problem was the fact that the participants to our program come from different educational backgrounds and with diverse research topics.

From the participants’ perspective, all material presented by resource persons during the preparation workshop is not entirely focused on their respective research topic. Although this year (2013) we had organized a longer preparation workshop, the participants argued that the duration is not enough as the number of participants was also (slightly) increased and there was a new material on photography and media content analysis.

All things considered, we have to rethink and evaluate some of our strategies and assumptions in recruiting the participants, selecting the resource persons, and in structuring the workshop to accommodate the need of the participants.