Highlights from Concave Alpha – Field Research Foundations training for field officers in Nigeria

Written by Rosemary Pierce-Messick

We are at a crossroads moment, where we go from here will shape a future generation. – Quote from a Concave Alpha training participant

OVERVIEW 

High-quality research output is essential for designing effective solutions for complex challenges. It is undeniable that research relies on researchers. However, not all researchers have access to the same training and professional development opportunities – this is particularly true in contexts that have been historically overlooked.  To ensure high-quality research we must invest in developing skilled researchers who can navigate the nuances of real-world data collection and analysis. ResearchRound has developed an innovative programme to address this skills gap. From March 25-27, ResearchRound delivered its inaugural Concave Alpha: Field Research Foundations program where 10 field officers from 8 research organisations deepened their skills in fundamentals of qualitative research and effective moderating techniques in an intensive 3-day onsite bootcamp. This article gives a background of the program, key pillars of the program, what we learnt plus some feedback from the participants.

BACKGROUND

The Tale of Two Researchers

Consider the paths of two researchers: one in the UK and one in Nigeria.

In the UK, a researcher left graduate school and joined a research agency. They learned how to moderate focus group discussions (FGDs), design research, and manage projects from the ground up. Through years of hands-on learning and mentoring, they eventually built a career capable of running projects independently.

In Nigeria, a researcher also graduated from university but struggled to find a job. Eventually, a friend recruited them for a project, where they started collecting surveys. Gradually, they moved into moderation, with little formal training—just a guide and instructions on who they would speak with. They took on various contracts in the same way. Some clients offered minimal teaching, but without structured mentorship, their learning was limited. Unsurprisingly, they have not performed well, and are unlikely to get hired for future qualitative work.

The difference is clear: In Nigeria, the informal and contractual nature of field research means researchers struggle to develop the necessary skills, and research standards remain low. At ResearchRound, we aim to raise the bar and build a stronger foundation for researchers through practical, hands-on training.

Some key pillars of the program: 

At ResearchRound, we believe that research careers are not built on theory alone. While theoretical knowledge is essential, it is through practical, real-world experience that researchers truly develop the ability to tackle complex problems. Our training program is designed to foster critical thinking, equipping researchers with the tools and confidence to navigate real-world challenges. Some of the highlights and key pillars of the programme included the following: 

1. Hands on-learning:

The foundation of a successful research career is built on hands-on learning. Many researchers have refined our skills through repeated practice and feedback from mentors. Theory and textbooks can only take a researcher so far; real-world practice is essential.

For example, we can teach researchers how to manage time effectively and respect participants, but it’s only when they face the reality of an excessively talkative participant that they truly understand the challenge of maintaining control. It’s in these uncomfortable moments that they learn the most.

What we did in the training: 

The programme was designed to give as much practice as possible. This came primarily by using a discussion guide to moderate an IDI or FGD with other participants roleplaying as respondents. They were then given feedback immediately after these short practice sessions, helping to unlearn bad habits and build positive ones. 

For example, some participants initially treated an FGD session like a series of individual interviews, asking one respondent at a time. We worked with them to open up the conversation, encouraging rich, dynamic discussions instead of a rigid Q&A format.

2. Thinking critically about research

Researchers who have never been encouraged to think beyond the basics of following a guide—simply “here’s a set of questions, ask these people them”—often don’t reflect on the deeper purpose of their work. Researchers often go from survey collection to qualitative moderation without much training, which does not encourage them to think beyond the questions themselves.

For example, let’s say we give a researcher a discussion guide about vaccines. If the researcher asks, “What do you think about X vaccine?” and the respondent replies, “They are not good,” the moderator might simply move on to the next question. But, by not following up, the moderator misses valuable insights. They may think they’ve done their job because they followed the guide, however their real task is to guide the conversation in a way that draws out meaningful insights.

What we did in the training: 

We provided participants with a research topic about improving adherence to prenatal supplements (iron and folic acid tablets). The research questions were:

1. What are the barriers to pregnant women taking the supplement?
   
2. What are the facilitators to pregnant women taking the supplement?
   

Participants worked in groups to develop relevant questions, which we refined together into a discussion guide. Then, they practiced moderating with the guide, refining the questions as they identified areas for improvement.

A participant remarked, “The skills I have learned during the program will enable me to ask questions about the guide before setting out to the field for data collection.” 

3. Engage with the topic and the client

Effective research also involves engaging with the client to understand the topic deeply and ensure the research is contextualized. Researchers must ask clarifying questions to determine what the client is truly interested in so they can tailor their questions accordingly. Additionally, researchers can provide valuable feedback to the client, such as ensuring the language in a guide is culturally appropriate.

For example, in a project about family planning, the term “family planning” might not be appropriate in certain parts of Nigeria. Instead, using the term “child spacing” would be more effective. Researchers must also be proactive in flagging any issues with the guide once they’re in the field. If something isn’t working, it’s essential to let the client know so adjustments can be made.

Many participants were surprised to learn they could even ask clients questions about the topic at hand.

‘I did not know I could ask clients questions’ – Quote from participant

What we did in the training: : 

As part of the training, the lead facilitator, Rosemary, acted as the ‘client,’ providing participants with the opportunity to ask questions to clarify expectations. For example, when given a guide on healthy diets, participants realized they needed to probe deeper to understand the client’s true interest—whether it was exploring a range of dietary beliefs or confirming a specific assumption.

In another session, we worked on a guide about climate change. Some participants realized that certain respondents had vastly different levels of understanding about the topic, which made the focus group ineffective. We demonstrated how they should approach the client and suggest adjustments to the recruitment strategy. Many were surprised to learn that they could bring such issues to the client’s attention.

4. Shared Learning

 One of the most rewarding aspects of the training was the shared learning experience. Participants coming from different backgrounds and experience levels each contributed valuable insights. We fostered this collaborative environment by encouraging everyone to provide feedback during moderation exercises.

As participants took turns moderating with the same guide, all participants shared both positive feedback and suggestions for improvement.

As one participant shared, “I like that all the facilitators are approachable. It made it easy to share my thoughts and receive feedback.”

Participants expressed overwhelmingly positive reviews

All 10 participants who attended all 3 days gave positive feedback.

My overall experience today was awesome.

Session was stimulating and involved lots of critical thinking which are valuable skills every researcher needs.

Seriously I am overwhelmed and grateful for having this opportunity

Overall, the workshop was a 10, and I would highly recommend it to my colleagues and friends.

I know here in Nigeria your ability to get work is mostly based on recommendation and connection but if those we had this training together will be good enough to recommend us to their various organizations when they have a qualitative survey it will help us alot and the more work we get the better we become in our career.

What is next: 

We are excited to expand this program and engage with more researchers across Nigeria.

Our first step will be conducting an ongoing evaluation to assess participants’ performance in their work. This will include follow-up interviews with both participants and their supervisors after they’ve had the opportunity to complete some fieldwork.

Next, we will explore various models to ensure the program is sustainable, cost-effective, and accessible to researchers nationwide.

If you’re interested in learning more about our work, please visit our website and feel free to reach out to: