# 2. MEASURING SOCIAL COHESION

<mark>As the conceptual understanding of social cohesion has evolved, so have the approaches deployed to measure</mark> it. This section aims to provide guidance and identify resources to design a strategy for measuring social cohesion at a project level. Given the need for approaches to be grounded in context, there is no one size fits all approach – instead, the focus in this section is on identifying what diagnostic and measurement approaches suit the context and purpose of specific interventions, and most relevant tools and sources for those. It is by its nature not comprehensive, as additional data sources may be or become available or new measurement methods developed. Rather, it is intended as a starting point to ground discussions of measuring social cohesion.

Despite a growing number of data sources, measuring social cohesion remains challenging because it involves high levels of abstraction and the integration of multifaceted constructs. Beyond a sound conceptualization of social cohesion, its measurement requires an understanding of its practical manifestations and of the different categories of actors involved in these manifestations. To be adequately measured, social cohesion must also be contextualized. Measurement strategies must be adapted to different countries, cultures, or socio-economic environments. Tracking the evolution of different dimensions of cohesion can be necessary to better understand how communities are faring: for instance, trust in state services remain unchanged, even while attitudes towards outgroups deteriorate. Tracking both indicators over time is necessary to understand changes in overall social cohesion.

When developing a project level monitoring and evaluation strategy, it can be helpful to think of approaches to measuring social cohesion as falling along a continuum covering diagnosis, monitoring anticipatory analytics developments, and evaluation. Indicators and methods must be adapted to each of these dimensions. The adequacy of indicators – e.g. their quality and temporal coverage, along with the frequency of collection and the context within which they are collected – may change depending on their intended use: diagnostics require credible data, over time and across countries, and specific understanding of the local context. Monitoring requires an understanding not only of the intervention at hand, but also which indicators most closely track anticipated changes. Anticipatory analysis requires identifying key elements that precede changing situations in conflict regions and the ability to collect and analyze them quickly. Evaluation requires recognition of consistent indicators that are responsive to interventions and can be collected over time.

## 2.1. MEASURING SOCIAL COHESION: TOOLS AND DATA SOURCES

There is a myriad of existing and emerging quantitative and qualitative tools to measure social cohesion that draw from research methodologies from economics, behavioral sciences, sociology, political science, and anthropology. Different tools can be employed at different project stages, depending on the purpose of measurement. Some tools are helpful in setting and informing practitioners of the context in which their program will function, while others are useful in diagnosing challenges or formulating hypotheses on the issues a program will address, monitoring the outcomes of a program, predicting future conflicts, or evaluating program effectiveness. No specific tool offers a clear pathway to the right answer. Combining several tools is often necessary. It an offer the flexibility required to adapt to a range of practical and political constraints (including time and budget constraints). It also helps validate initial insights and triangulate findings. For instance, while existing surveys may help identify an issue between ethnic groups in a community, focus groups or interviews may aid practitioners in identifying and confirming a more nuanced understanding of inter-group 13 | P a g e