Following the discussions that took place at the end of the roadshow, it seemed like a good idea to clarify aspects of the data collection methodology so that we all have a common understanding. The road governance initiative’s credibility is founded upon the validity of the data – so it’s essential that the data collection methodology is clear.

 

1. All of the data comes from drivers who voluntarily fill out questionnaires anonymously and then turn them in to the road governance field agents. So, the drivers have no reason to falsify the data willfully. Exaggerating data will not bring them any benefit – their employers are not informed that they are collecting data and they are not open to any retribution or advantage, aside from the occasional T-shirt or bumper sticker that we distribute to thank them for filling out the forms.

 

2. Of course, to er ris human and we are not immune to involuntary errors or to falsification for other reasons (perhaps a driver thinks if he exaggerates the payment of bribes, for example, his employer will give him more money to pay bribes on his next trip or that by reporting less in bribes paid he will protect the officers who ask for bribes). For these reasons, we have implemented a system since the debut of the initiative in 2006, which has been improved since 2009 to verify the validity of the data:

 

a. When collecting the forms, field agents, who are experienced in data collection, verify the veracity of data and ask drivers about any data that appears unusual or incomplete. The agents can correct a form or even rule it out if, for example, they find that the truck is not roadworthy or otherwise in violation.

b. Each quarter, when UEMOA sends the Trade Hub the raw data, unusual data are extracted automatically by the software. We then ask each focal point to explain and/or correct this incoherent data. 

c. The Trade Hub also reviews suspicious or otherwise notable data and asks focal points to explain or correct it. 

 

3. In addition to this process to verify data collected, it is essential to have a large quantity of data in order to apply the statistical methods we use in analyzing it. We obtain at least 75 forms in each direction for each corridor each quarter – about 900 forms per quarter, total. Consequently, an isolated error will only slightly affect the final analysis – if at all. Further, the more data we obtain, the more that errors are balanced out between errors that tend to exaggerate values and those that tend to minimize values. 

 

4. Finally, field agents or Trade Hub staff regularly conduct verification tours – they ride trucks the complete length of a corridor and collect data themselves, which is later compared to what drivers submit. To this date, no major discrepancy in the data has been revealed, which confirms that the good quality of the data drivers collect.

 

In conclusion, no data collection method is totally immune from errors and the road governance intiative’s method is no exception. We work diligently to minimize the risks through the verification efforts mentioned above within the limits of our means. A key factor to us is to ensure that no one has an interest of any kind in falsifying data – whether to exaggerate it or to minimize it, and to ensure that all stakeholders have the same ambition to represent the data faithfully and reflecting the reality on the corridors. 

 

An idea suggested at the road show – to include officers in civil clothing on the verification trips – is excellent. But it would also be important to compare the data they collect to those of drivers and the independent verification agents. 

 

Please know that we are always open to questions, comments and remarks! Send them to cbruyas [at] watradehub [dot] com (me)!