# **3.2 Survey implementation and sampling**

To collect the outcome variables of interest for this paper, I implemented surveys with women and one of their household members at the respondents’ homes. For funding reasons, these took place after the conclusion of the promotion program discussed in the previous subsection. For the analysis of the effects on the promoted women, which I call the “promotion analysis”, the field team targeted all 243 women who were nominated and eligible for the promotion program by the 27 factories.<sup>21</sup> This sample was interviewed twice in person at their homes. The first wave took place on average four months after the beginning of the promotion program in the factories, and the second wave on average ten months after the beginning of the program.<sup>22</sup> For power reasons, I also conducted biweekly phone surveys to collect additional measurements for a subset of outcomes of interest.

The sample for the analysis of role model effects on the women working with female supervisors, which I call the “role model analysis”, was determined during the follow-up surveys for the promotion program in the factories. On each trial line to which a participant of the promotion program had been assigned to trial as supervisor, female operators were sampled for the household surveys.<sup>23</sup> These are the so-called “exposed” operators. The trial lines had been chosen by the factories as needing a new supervisor before the start of the promotion program. In addition, in each factory, the same number of comparison lines was sampled from all other lines not involved in the promotion program, and from these lines, female operators were again sampled to be interviewed in the household. These latter operators are the “non-exposed” group, who are mostly supervised by men. Overall, 715 operators were sampled. The interviews for the exposure analysis took place on average nine months after the start of the promotion program.<sup>24</sup> For the home surveys, a team of one female and one male enumerator visited the respondents’ homes and administered the questionnaire simultaneously and separately. In advance, phone-based pre-surveys using contact details collected during factory visits were employed to agree on a time for the visit that fit the respondents’ busy work schedule, determine the location, identify the second household member to be interviewed, and find an arrangement to ensure privacy of the

> 21In addition, we also surveyed 93 nominated and ineligible operators. Of these, 52 nominees failed the literacy and numeracy tests, 16 were absent during the evaluation and 25 withdrew before treatment assignment. They are excluded from the analysis since they are arguably not comparable to the nominated and eligible women.

> 22For logistical reasons, the promotion program was implemented sequentially. This ensured that class sizes for the training were manageable and that all trainees were taught by the same trainers. The household surveys followed this pattern. I therefore present the time line in reference to the beginning of the promotion program in the factories. See Figure B.3 in the Online Appendix for a detailed time line. The first wave of surveys took place between June and December 2017, the second wave between December 2017 and August 2018.

> 23The sampling of lines and operators was implemented using simple randomization implemented by a computer script.

> 24These surveys were implemented between August 2017 and March 2018.

11