VI. Scope of Work

Ultimately, the partners in EPIC desire to collect data from every country of the world. Realistically, we may not be able to do so for some time. Consequently, the organizations will work to complete data collection from 180 countries in three stages: 1-30 countries; 2-60 countries; 90 countries.

The approach to completing a project like EPIC can be very complex. Our experience from ACE, other data-collection projects such as the International Directory of Election Offices, the Buyer's Guide for Election Services, Supplies, and Equipment, and a variety of election-related surveys completed in recent years is that an initial 'minimalist' approach which ensures success at an early stage, while building a firm foundation for subsequent phases, is most productive. Further, it is absolutely necessary that a project plan be laid out, in detail, on paper, particularly when those involved in the project are spread around the world.

Tools for Gathering Data
The EPIC partners have determined that the data-gathering process should, whenever possible, follow a quantitative rather than narrative approach in collecting information, using questions which offer multiple-choice answers, rather than allowing for answers which are open-ended. In the long run, this will allow for analysis that is more scientific and will build a foundation for subsequent analysis which can also involve less scientific answers.

The PMT will assemble a research instrument which can be used effectively in the research "pipeline" outlines below. This instrument should focus only on the national-level electoral systems. In addition, since the project intends to focus on the topic areas currently being considered in the ACE Project, each ACE lead writer should participate fully in determining what type of data was not available to them while they were formulating text for their topic area. The lead writers will be integral to targeting this information.

The Steering Committee has indicated that they want the instrument to be minimalist in nature, so as to ensure that the data collected is sustainable in the future. Further, individuals with expertise in the field of data collection should be used in its development. The instrument should take into account the various stages, and type of researchers, that will participate in the research process.

The Research Instrument is found in Appendix 3.

Infrastructure for the Research Pipeline
A system for gathering and housing the secondary documents-the documents that will validate our data-will be assembled at an early stage. This system will important throughout the research and confirmation stages. To confirm data, we will require a hard copy source that will back up our data. When an inconsistency is determined, we will need to find an additional source which confirms one or the other item.

The information from these secondary sources will be organized and placed into a hard copy of the research instrument. This information should be inputted into a database as it becomes available. In recent months, online database technology has advanced significantly. At a minimum, EPIC will require a database system which allows EPIC project workers to input information from anywhere in the world. Through ACE, we have learned a great deal about the advantages of such a system.

Before beginning research, therefore, an online database, allowing accessibility from anywhere with web access, should be constructed. At each step in research, these files can be updated and made accessible while the project is underway. Unlike in the ACE Project, in which the public was not given access at the outset, the public could have access to the information that has been accumulated from the outset. Because the data does not require significant editing, this type of openness can be allowed through the process. We will also be able to solicit feedback and additional leads throughout the process from interested readers on the World Wide Web.

The Research Pipeline
In ACE, the project's success was often based on the fact that equal tasks were assigned to each partner institution. Each partner was responsible for generating three of nine topic areas while web site production remained a "shared" effort. This approach will not prove as efficient in EPIC. The EPIC partners have instead determined to follow a 'pipeline' methodology in completing the necessary research for this project. Because the project focuses on data-collection, rather than on writing secondary text, a research 'pipeline' approach will prove more efficient.

In using a pipeline approach, a lucid methodology must be developed. Many research efforts begin by simply posing questions to staff at election authorities with an expectation that they will provide accurate, non-partisan information. We know that this is not always the case, however, based on experience from completing these type of surveys in the past. In some instances, a staff member without the knowledge and background required to answer the questions is assigned the task, answering the questions incorrectly. In other instances, a question may be answered incorrectly if even a knowledgeable staff member feels that the answer will reflect poorly on him or her.

To avoid this, a research project is better off diversifying its data collection efforts, beginning by gathering a corpus of the information it seeks from secondary sources available in major research institutions and on the Internet. Following this, individuals with expertise on a given electoral system are targeted to confirm this information. Next, those questions which cannot be answered by a targeted expert are given to a non-election authority staff person within a country, who is trusted by that institution, to seek an answer. After this, the election authority is asked to confirm the answers to those questions that have already been answered-in most instances, this will be the majority-and to answer those questions for which data was not available. By following this approach, the risk of gathering incorrect information is diminished immensely.

This methodology has a proven track record. After nearly two years of collecting data, the Election Information System (EIS) at IFES follows these steps in order to avoid inaccuracy. It would be much easier to skip the initial steps, going directly to the election authorities. EIS tried this, but failed the accuracy test in the first few weeks, reverting to a more diversified approach.EPIC should learn from the errors already committed and follow a more "diversified" approach.

The steps proposed for EPIC follow here: ·

Step 1: Complete Introductory Research: A significant amount of the information that will be collected for EPIC should already be available through secondary sources in the libraries of research institutions. To reduce costs, a team of interns should be assembled in one location working under one individual. Once the partners determine what information should be collected, this team will begin the process of using secondary sources available to "fill in the blanks." For each piece of data, a copy of the source will be collected and kept on file. Once the research institutions in that location are fully utilized and no more data is available, a member of the team will visit other selected institutions outside that region. ·
Step 2: Target 'Outside' Experts: Following Step 1, a group of country experts who do not work for the given election authority will be consulted. Each individual will be asked to confirm the information that has already been collected by the introductory research team and provide any of the information that the introductory research team could not find. In each instance, they will be asked to provide a photocopy of their source. This step will prove particularly helpful as country experts often have on hand information that is not readily available, even by those work with the election authority. In addition, the outside experts act as people from outside the politics of the organization, offering a balanced view and alerting research to data that is suspect. We should not underestimate the amount of work that will be required in contacting these individuals and getting them to agree to complete the work within a given schedule. It is time consuming.
Step 3: Engage 'In-Country' Staff Person (paid): In this step, national consultants will be required in the countries selected to participate in the project to conduct interviews in order to secure relevant electoral documents and other related sources. By not utilizing these individuals until the third step, costs will be reduced dramatically. What paid staff time is used can be focused on collecting information that can be reached in no other way than being on sight in that country.
Step 4: Have Election Authorities confirm: Once all this information is collected and assembled, Election Authorities will be asked to confirm the information that has been collected. As has been the case with EIS, the confirmation will go much more smoothly than if the election authorities were to do it themselves. The simple fact is that election authorities are, in the majority of instances, unable to respond quickly and with the accuracy that is required because they are overwhelmed with the day-to-day work that needs to be done. Further, research is not their forté or their mission, so requests for information may go unanswered unless we are able to provide a simplified process which speeds the work.

Stages Involved
The process of collecting information, outlined under "The Research Pipeline" (above) will be followed in each of four stages for this project:

Stage 1: 3 countries: A 'pilot' stage will be used initially to set out a detailed structure for later stages. In this stage, the PMT will solicit data from Canada, the United States, Sweden, and India, completing all the steps above. The data from this initial step will then be used in developing a 'pilot' website. This first stage will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the research pipeline that is assembled, allowing us to learn from our errors, and implement better processes when required.
Stage 2: 30 countries: In this stage, the number of countries to be considered should be limited to 30 countries. IFES and International IDEA will submit a list of 10 countries each to the United Nations. The United Nations will then select 10 countries which do not overlap the IFES and IDEA lists. IFES will select those from the group in which it has a field presence. International IDEA will select from its member countries. The United Nations will select from countries where it has a particularly strong field presence. Following the second stage, the research pipeline will again be re-evaluated for effectiveness and efficiency.
Stage 3: 60 countries: The third stage will involve an increased number of countries which is still manageable, but will allow us an opportunity, again, to fine tune the process. Following the process outlined in Stage 2, each partner will select 20 countries from a list of nations in which they have contacts.
Stage 3: 90 countries: This will be the final stage in which we attempt to secure data from those countries which have not yet been targeted. Each partner will select 30 countries from the remaining set using the process outlined in Stage 2.