**Table 1.  Summary of Survey Module and Institutional Mapping Themes and Tools**

|Instrument|How administered|Themes|Tools|
|---|---|---|---|
|Survey module|Random-stratified<br>sample administered<br>through existing<br>survey instrument (can<br>be administered to a<br>sub-sample)|•Location details (1)<br>•Respondent details (2)<br>•Intermediate indicators of<br>agency (asset ownership)<br>(3)<br>•Direct indicators of<br>empowerment measuring:<br>(i) opportunity to use<br>influence; (ii) use of<br>influence; and (iii)<br>effectiveness of use of<br>influence (4)|Survey module questions<br>(1) Section 1<br>(2) Section 2<br>(3) Section 3<br>(4) Section 4|
|Institutional<br>mapping|Socially stratified<br>focus groups<br>composed from sub-<br>sample of<br>questionnaire survey|Enactment of rules<br>(processes) in the following<br>areas:<br>State<br>•Justice systems (primary<br>tool – 1; additional tool – 5)<br>•Political representation<br>(primary tool – 5; additional<br>tool – 4)<br>•Access to and quality of<br>services (primary tool – 5;<br>additional tools – 1, 4)<br>Market<br>•Credit provision and<br>services (primary tool – 1;<br>additional tools – 4, 5)<br>•Labor market and<br>employment conditions and<br>choices (primary tools – 1,<br>3)<br>•Asset entitlements and<br>consumption (primary tool<br>– 4; additional tools – 1, 2)<br>Society|Participatory tools<br>(1)_Preference ranking or scoring_– This method involves ranking or scoring people’s priorities, problems,<br>or preferences. Disaggregation of groups performing the analysis by age, gender, class, ethnic group,<br>etc. enables comparative analysis and exploration of people’s experience, perceptions, priorities, and<br>choices based on criteria identified by them regarding a range of subjects from resource allocation to<br>service provision to choice of employment (e.g. how do people rate different justice systems or health<br>services according to effectiveness, cost, accessibility etc.?).<br>(2)_Well-being (or wealth) ranking_– This method involves ranking different individuals, households, or<br>communities according to an overall view of well-being. Within the context of the measuring<br>empowerment study, it can be adapted to allow expression of people’s own definitions of<br>empowerment and also enable them to identify, using their own criteria, who in their communities is<br>more or less empowered. It can be used only within the limitations of the shared mutual knowledge of<br>the group carrying out the analysis (detailed knowledge is needed to establish the ranking). Performing<br>such exercises for communities as well as households or individuals can illustrate the significance of<br>factors and assets which affect empowerment at the community or group level (e.g. distance from<br>local/regional government offices or road infrastructure).<br>(3)<br>_Charts illustrating cyclical change (seasonality, daily activities etc.)_– These methods address the<br>distribution of phenomena over time in more or less predictable cycles (e.g. employment options<br>through the year or the distribution of tasks and workload over a woman’s day). They enable temporal<br>analysis of, and the trends evident in relation to, selected variables, and can also enable an<br>understanding of the links among variables.<br>(4)_Social mapping, modeling and transects –_These methods enable situational analysis of social<br>structures and services. Representations of spatial distribution and location of resources, social groups,<br>f<br>iliti<br>t<br>h l<br>l<br>f<br>d<br>f<br>i ti<br>i<br>d id<br>tif<br>i<br>th t|

82