coding narratives of human rights violations a step-by-step handbook of coding procedure authored...

Coding Narratives of Human Rights Violations

A Step-by-Step Handbook of Coding Procedure

Authored by:Chelsea CattoVanessa HawkinsJeffrey HenigsonAlexandra MishinaNebiat Woldemichael

Copyright 2001 by the authors. All rights reserved. This publication is protected by federal copyright law. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,

or be used to make derivative work (such as translation or adaptation) without prior permission in writing from the authors.

Introduction

This handbook is a comprehensive guide for coding human rights interviews. After working through this handbook and the associated exercises, you should be able to code human rights interviews according to the parameters of your specific project. The project guidelines of your organization may require you to adjust some of the methods described here, particularly for security purposes, but the general coding process should remain largely consistent.

This handbook was developed while working with data collected in Kosovo in 1999. Names, dates, and other identifying details have been changed in all of the interviews that appear in the handbook.

Please move on now to the next screen

Organization of this Handbook

The handbook is organized into six main sections: Working with Variables Introduction to Coding a Simple Interview Introduction to Coding a Complex Interview Coding Actual Interviews Data Checking Product Completion


Using this Handbook

The six sections of this handbook each consist of several slides. Most of the slides have additional windows and information that either appear automatically or pop up when you click. Once you have seen all of the information that appears on a particular slide, you will be prompted to move on to the next slide.

Note that you can always move forward or back through the handbook by pressing PAGE UP or PAGE DOWN. ALT-TAB will take you to other applications you have open. When we get to the section on Coding Actual Interviews, ALT-TAB will allow you to move between the Handbook and the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet we will be using.


Working with Variables

VARIABLE SAMPLE VALUE MEANING/PURPOSE

IntID 26 Refers to the 26th interviewVioDATE 3/25/1999 Specifies the date of the violationLocNAME Suva Reka Specfies where violation occurredVicSEX F Identifies sex of victimVicAGE 39 Identifies age of victimVioTYPE EXEC Indicates the violation typeVicCOUNT 1 Indicates the number of victims

We use variables to represent important information about the human rights violations described in the interviews. Variables represent a range of information including the victim’s name, age, and sex; the location, date, and type of violation; the deponent’s relationship with the victim, and other information. Click to take a look at some of the basic variables we’ll be using. Note that the variable names have been reduced to codes for convenience.

IntID, or InterviewID, refers to the number of the interview you are currently coding. There can be multiple violations in a single interview. An interview may be as short as a single paragraph or as long as several pages.

VioDATE refers to the date of the violation that you are currently coding. As we will see, a single interview can contain several dates, which can either be exact or approximate.

LocNAME refers to the location where the violation occurred—this is often the name of a town, or city.VicCOUNT refers to the number of victims for a single violation. This is often 1, but there are cases where a violation will have multiple victims. There are also cases where a single violation will have an unspecified number of victims.

VicSEX refers to the sex of the victim (male or female), when known. There are many cases where this is the only identifying detail we know about a victim or victims.

VicAGE refers to the age of the victim, when known. This is another identifying detail that is important to record about each victim.


VioTYPE refers to the type of violation that has been committed. VioTYPE can have multiple values depending upon the needs of the coding project. In this handbook, we will be using two types of violation: EXECUTIONS and DISAPPEARANCES.

A Simple NarrativeNow we’ll take a look at a simple narrative which has been modified for use in this handbook. The narrative is the 14th interview out of a series of 47. Read the narrative, and then try to identify all of the potential variables that need to be coded. Clicking will reveal the answers. Interview 14It was March 25, 1999. Ten of us were at our home in Pagarusha hiding from the Serbs when they broke down the door. They forced us outside into the yard behind our house where they shot my husband, Hysen, in the back of the head right before my eyes. He was only 34 years old, and now he is dead.


Interview 14It was March 25, 1999. Ten of us were at our home in Pagarusha hiding from the Serbs when they broke down the door. They forced us outside into the yard behind our house where they shot my husband, Hysen, in the back of the head right before my eyes. He was only 34 years old, and now he is dead.

Violation TypeInterview 14It was March 25, 1999. Ten of us were at our home in Pagarusha hiding from the Serbs when they broke down the door. They forced us outside into the yard behind our house where they shot my husband, Hysen, in the back of the head right before my eyes. He was only 34 years old, and now he is dead.

Date


LocationVictim Name

Victim AgeVictim Sex


Coding the Simple Narrative

IntID VioDATE LocNAME VicNAME VicSEX VicAGE VioTYPE VicCOUNT14 3/25/1999 Pagarusha Hysen M 40 EXEC 1

In Pagarusha

That occurred on March 25, 1999

From Interview 14

This is an EXECUTION

NOTE: For security reasons, it may be necessary to enter a code in place of the victim’s name.

Now that we’ve identified all the variables and their values, we’ll code them into our spreadsheet. Click to see how the values reflect the information in the narrative.


Of one 40 year-old male named Hysen

A Complex Narrative

Interview 23Five days after the NATO bombing I left Ferizaj. It took us more than three days to walk to Lower Gadimia. On the way, I saw the Serbs shoot four men, one of whom was named Azem Daci, age 40. On April 5, 1999 we went to Lipjan, where we heard that the Serbs had taken away ten men earlier that day who haven't been seen since.

Now we’ll move on to coding more complex narratives. Coding complex narratives is not always straightforward, but may involve making value judgments, calculating information such as dates, and deconstructing the narrative to isolate specific information. Click now to read a complex narrative.


Separating the Violations Within the Same Interview

First ViolationFive days after the NATO bombing I left Ferizaj. It took us more than three days to walk to Lower Gadimia. On the way, I saw the Serbs shoot four men, one of whom was named Azem Daci, age 40. Second ViolationOn April 5, 1999 we went to Lipjan, where we heard that the Serbs had taken away ten men earlier that day who haven't been seen since.

The first thing the coder needs to do with an interview is to separate out all the relevant violations. Our complex narrative has two violations—an execution and a disappearance. Note that an interview could contain any number of violations.

Click now to see how our complex narrative breaks down into two separate violations.


Coding the First Violation

“Five days after the NATO bombing I left Ferizaj. It took us more than three days to walk to Lower Gadimia. On the way, I saw the Serbs shoot four men…”

VioID IntID LocNAME VioTYPE VicCOUNT37 23 Road to Lower Gadima EXEC 4

Violation ID number

Interview ID number

Location

Violation Type

Number of Victims

Now we’ll code the first violation. Click to see the text containing the violation, and continue to view the sample spreadsheet and a breakdown of its components.


Coding the Date of the First Violation

Identify the time references:

“Five days after the NATO bombing I left Ferizaj. It took us more than three days to walk to Lower Gadimia. On the way, I saw the Serbs shoot four men..”

The NATO bombing was on March 24, 1999Five days after is March 29, 1999The violation took place during the more than three-day walk

—around March 31, 1999

Note that the date is approximate

Next we’ll code the date of the first violation. Because the date is not stated directly, it is necessary to approximate it from the time references provided. Click to reveal the relevant information in the narrative, then click again to calculate the date.


Coding the Date of the First Violation: The DateCODE Variable

Now we’ll enter the values we calculated into the spreadsheet. Note that we’ll need to use a special marker to identify the date as approximate. We’ve added a new variable, the DateCODE, to indicate the accuracy of the date the violation took place.

Click to view the spreadsheet.

VioID IntID VioDATE DateCODE LocNAME VioTYPE VicCOUNT37 23 3/31/1999 A Road to L. Gadima EXEC 4

Added the violation date we calculated


Identified date as Approximate

Getting More Specific: Coding Victims and Victim Information

Problem:Specific information about one of the victims has been left out. Click now to reveal the missing information.

“…I saw the Serbs shoot four men, one of whom was named Azem Daci, age 40…”

Initial Coding:

VioID IntID LocNAME VioTYPE VicCOUNT37 23 Road to L. Gadima EXEC 4

“…I saw the Serbs shoot four men, one of whom was named Azem Daci, age 40…” Now we’ll take a closer look at coding victim information. One of the problems in coding narratives that contain violations with multiple victims is that we may leave out specific information about some of the victims, such as age, sex, etc. This information may be important later on when the data is analyzed.

Click to view how our initial approach codes only general information about the victims.


Getting More Specific: Coding Victims and Victim Information (continued)

“…I saw the Serbs shoot four men, one of whom was named Azem Daci, age 40…”

New Coding:VioID IntID IcdtID VicNAME VicSEX VicAGE VioTYPE VicCOUNT

37 23 23.1 Azem Daci M 40 EXEC 138 23 23.1 M EXEC 3

Identify two instances of the same incident

Add specific information where possible

Split the four victims into specific and general information

Now we’ll look at the revised spreadsheet which incorporates both the specific and general victim information. We’ve introduced a new variable code here, IcdtID or IncidentID, to distinguish between specific and general victims of the same incident. We’ll see another use of the IncidentID later in the handbook.


Multiple Victims: When to Code as Separate Violations


Do we have a name for any victim?

Y

Code as separate violation

Y

Code as separate violation

Code as separate violation for all victims of same sex

Y

Do we know the sex of any victims?

N

Do we have an age for any victim?

N

If no identifying information is available for victims, code as a single violation with multiple victims

N

It is not always easy to determine the best way to code an incident with multiple victims, especially when we have specific information on only some of the victims. The easiest way to remember when to code separate violations is to ask a series of questions.

Coding the Second Violation

“…On April 5, 1999 we went to Lipjan, where we heard that the Serbs had taken away ten men earlier that day who haven't been seen since.”

Using what we’ve already learned, let’s code the second violation in the complex narrative. Click through to see the text and spreadsheet.


VioID IntID IcdtID VioDATE DateCODE LocNAM VioTYPE VicCOUNT39 23 23.2 4/5/1999 E Lipjan DISP 10

Added a new violation type: disappearance, or DISP

Note that now the date is Exact

This is the second incident in Interview 23

Using the Incident Variable Within the Same Interview

The first incident in interview 23“Five days after the NATO bombing I left Ferizaj. It took us more than three days to walk to Lower Gadimia. On the way, I saw the Serbs shoot four men, one of whom was named Azem Daci, age 40.”

The second incident in interview 23“On April 5, 1999 we went to Lipjan, where we heard that the Serbs had taken away ten men earlier that day who haven't been seen since.”

We recently introduced the IcdtID, or the Incident ID. The Incident ID is used to identify different events that take place in the same narrative interview. A single incident occurs at a specific time and place and is carried out by the same perpetrators. A single incident can have more than one violation type, and multiple victims. It is particularly useful when coding interviews that contain both specific and general information about the victims. As we will see, it makes it easier to spot duplicate accounts of the same violations.

As you may have noticed, the IcdtID uses a decimal system to refer back to the IntID, or interview number. For example, incident 23.2 refers to the 2nd incident reported in interview 23.


Note that all of the incidents come from interview 23

VioID IntID IcdtID VioDATE DCODE LocNAME VNAME VSEX VAGE VioTYPE VCOUNT37 23 23.1 3/31/1999 A Road to L.G. Azem Daci M 40 EXEC 138 23 23.1 3/31/1999 A Road to L.G. M EXEC 339 23 23.2 4/5/1999 E Lipjan M DISP 10

Using the Incident Variable Within the Same Interview


The first incident is the execution of the 4 men

The second incident is the disappearance of 10 men



Coding the Deponent for the First Incident

Incident 23.1“…I saw the Serbs shoot four men…”

The deponent witnessed the violation

VioID IntID IcdtID VioDATE LocNAME DepTYPE VSEX VioTYPE VCOUNT37 23 23.1 3/31/1999 Road to L.G. W M EXEC 138 23 23.1 3/31/1999 Road to L.G. W M EXEC 3

Deponent type is Witness

We’ll now focus on the deponent, or the person being interviewed. For the sake of accuracy and credibility, it is important to distinguish between a deponent who directly witnesses a violation and one who hears about a violation indirectly. We use the DepTYPE, or Deponent type, to differentiate between Witness deponents and Hearsay deponents. The DepTYPE can also be used to identify a Report. The report value will be discussed later in the handbook.


Coding the Deponent for the Second Incident

Incident 23.2“…we heard that the Serbs had taken away ten men …”

The deponent heard about the violation

Deponent type is Hearsay

VioID IntID IcdtID VioDATE LocNAME DepTYPE VSEX VioTYPE VCOUNT37 23 23.2 4/5/1999 Lipjan H M DISP 10


Coding Actual Interviews

We’ve now covered enough of the fundamental coding procedures to begin coding actual narratives. We’ll look at three narratives that require the use of each of the methods we’ve learned so far.

As we proceed, we will be introducing some more advanced techniques to help you address some of the problems you may come across.

You will be using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to code each interview. By pressing ALT-TAB, you will be able to move between this Handbook and the spreadsheet, when prompted.


Coder Discretion

Up until this point, the problems we’ve encountered have been fairly straightforward. When coding actual narratives, however, a number of problems are likely to arise that require you as the coder to use your own discretion.

It is extremely important to be consistent in the coding decisions you make and to carefully document both the decisions and the reasoning behind them. We recommend that each coder keep a separate log of coding activities. This will allow you to take notes on problems that arise and decisions that are made as you go along. It will also make it much easier to check the data once the coding process is completed.


Team Coding

The most effective and accurate way of coding narratives is to make use of a team system. Responsibility can be easily divided between entering data into the spreadsheet, and marking and reviewing the packet of interviews. Partners can make decisions about how to code specific violations together, and the overall process is much quicker.

While the team approach is not absolutely necessary, it greatly facilitates the process and ensures a much higher degree of accuracy and reliability of coding.


Before Starting: Materials

ITEM SIGNIFICANCE

Situation Briefing Background information on the conflict that generated the rights violations.

Interview Packet This is the packet of transcribed interviews that you will code into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.

Location Codes Numerical codes associated with the cities, districts, and municipalities in the area where violations occurred.

Violation Codes Definitions of the specific human rights violations that you will be coding and their associated violation codes.

Area Map A map of the area where violations occurred.

Microsoft Excel Template

A blank Excel spreadsheet tailored to your specific project. We have provided you with a generic spreadsheet for the purposes of learning the coding process.

Before we begin, please take a moment to ensure that you have been provided with each of the following items:


First Steps: Preparing to Code

Once the coder receives the complete packet of materials, the following steps should be taken before starting the coding process:

Make a working photocopy of the interview packet Number every interview Read through the entire set of interviews Become familiar with all languages used for location names Have a map of the region available and be aware of area

designations

Note: While coding, remember to save major edits to the spreadsheet under different file names.


Opening the Excel Template

Please take a moment to open the HR_working.xls file located in the Handbook folder. The file consists of five Microsoft Excel spreadsheets:

An INTRODUCTION spreadsheet with information about the fileA BLANK spreadsheet where you will enter data*

Several answer sheets entitled:INTERVIEW (1A) and INTERVIEW (1B)INTERVIEW (2A) and INTERVIEW (2B)INTERVIEW (3A) and INTERVIEW (3B)MATCHID

Please DO NOT look at the answer sheets at this time. You’ll want to get an idea of how you code the narratives and see how your coding compares to the answer keys.

*Note: the columns in each spreadsheet have been formatted for the specific types of data they hold, i.e., the date column has been formatted to accept data in the dd/mm/yyyy format.


Interview One

Interview Date: 4/10/1999Deponent: Hasem Abdani, age 25, from Glinoc

It was the Sunday after the first NATO bombing. There was a lot of violence in Glinoc, so we decided to leave. We were traveling in a convoy from Glinoc to Gilanc, where the Serbs separated 10 men from the convoy. They took 2 men from our truck, a 54 year-old named Avin and his son, 22. The Serbs lined the men up on the side of the road. I saw them standing there when we left.

My cousin Veton and I stayed on the convoy to Prizren. We got to Prizren later that day. In the evening some drunken Serbs came up to our truck and demanded money. I gave them everything I had, but Veton didn’t have any money. They took him away and I haven’t seen him since. In the morning I heard that the Serbs took away lots of men that night, and nobody knows where they are.


Separating the Violations

VIOLATION ONEIt was the Sunday after the first NATO bombing. There was a lot of violence in Glinoc, so we decided to leave. We were traveling in a convoy from Glinoc to Gilanc, where the Serbs separated 10 men from the convoy. They took 2 men from our truck, a 54 year-old named Avin and his son, 22. The Serbs lined the men up on the side of the road. I saw them standing there when we left.

VIOLATION TWOMy cousin Veton and I stayed on the convoy to Prizren. We got to Prizren later that day. In the evening some drunken Serbs came up to our truck and demanded money. I gave them everything I had, but Veton didn’t have any money. They took him away and I haven’t seen him since. In the morning I heard that the Serbs took away lots of men that night, and nobody knows where they are.



“It was the Sunday after the first NATO bombing. There was a lot of violence in Glinoc, so we decided to leave. We were traveling in a convoy from Glinoc to Gilanc, where the Serbs separated 10 men from the convoy. They took 2 men from our truck, a 54 year-old named Avin and his son, 22. The Serbs lined the men up on the side of the road. I saw them standing there when we left.”

Note general information And specific information

In the blank Excel spreadsheet, code the first violation as completely as possible. Remember to differentiate between specific and general information. Check your answer against ours by taking a quick glimpse at Interview(1A) and account for differences. You’re now ready to code the second violation.

This is a disappearance of 10 men, two of whom are specifically identified by the deponent.



Note the date of the violation—determine if it is Exact or Approximate


Coding the Second ViolationMy cousin Veton and I stayed on the convoy to Prizren. We got to Prizren later that day. In the evening some drunken Serbs came up to our truck and demanded money. I gave them everything I had, but Veton didn’t have any money. They took him away and I haven’t seen him since. In the morning I heard that the Serbs took away lots of men that night, and nobody knows where they are.

This is a disappearance involving a single male victim named Veton.

This is the same disappearance involving an unspecified number of victims.

My cousin Veton and I stayed on the convoy to Prizren. We got to Prizren later that day. In the evening some drunken Serbs came up to our truck and demanded money. I gave them everything I had, but Veton didn’t have any money. They took him away and I haven’t seen him since. In the morning I heard that the Serbs took away lots of men that night, and nobody knows where they are.

Note the time references. You’ll have to check back to the text of the first violation to calculate the date.

Before coding the second violation in the Excel spreadsheet, we’ll first take a look at two new variable codes, VicMULT, which helps us when a deponent reports multiple unspecified victims, and RelCODE, which indicates whether the deponent is related to a victim. We’ll consider each in turn.


Coding Multiple Unspecified Victims

“I heard that the Serbs took away lots of men that night…”

It is important to distinguish between a specified and unspecified number of victims. When a deponent refers to the number of victims with terms like “a lot”, “many”, or “several”, we use the VicMULT code as an indicator. The VicMULT code has the values of 0 and 1, and is used as follows (click to view):

VicCOUNT VicMULT7 0

VicCOUNT VicMULT1 1

NARRATIVE: CODE AS:“They shot 7 people”

NARRATIVE: CODE AS:“They shot a lot of people”

Think of the VicMULT as asking the question: is the number of victims unspecified, but more than one? A value of 0 means No, a value of 1 means Yes. When the VicMULT is used (a value of 1 is entered), the VicCOUNT must be 1. It is customary to enter a note into the DataNOTES column with an excerpt of the relevant text for reference purposes.


When the Deponent and Victim are Related

“My cousin Veton and I stayed on the convoy to Prizren…they took him away and I haven’t seen him since”

Deponents who are related to the victim of a violation may recall the violation with a higher degree of accuracy than those without any relationship. We therefore use another variable code, RelCODE or Relative code, to indicate that a familial relationship exists. The RelCODE can have one of two values: 0 indicating that there is no relationship, and 1 indicating that the deponent is related to the victim.

DepTYPE RelCODEW 1

The relationship between deponent and victim is indicated by the presence of a 1 in the RelCODE column.


Code the Second Violation

Now it is time to code the second violation in the blank Excel spreadsheet. Remember to differentiate between specific and general information using the IcdtID variable code, and incorporate what you’ve just learned about the RelCODE and VicMULT variable codes. Don’t forget to enter any relevant notes in the appropriate column. When you have completed your entry, check your answers by clicking on the Interview(1B) tab in the Microsoft Excel file. Try to account for any differences.

VIOLATION TWOMy cousin Veton and I stayed on the convoy to Prizren. We got to Prizren later that day. In the evening some drunken Serbs came up to our truck and demanded money. I gave them everything I had, but Veton didn’t have any money. They took him away and I haven’t seen him since. In the morning I heard that the Serbs took away lots of men that night, and nobody knows where they are.


Interview Two


Interview Date: 6/22/1999Deponent: Dennis Schwartz, UNHCR Protection Officer

I have been stationed in Suva Reka for just over three weeks now. While I don’t think these numbers are exact, from what we’ve got on our own and from what IRC told us we’re estimating that there were around 400 executions and 700 disappearances in Suva Reka between March 1999 and now. You should probably talk to Erin Hawkins at IRC to confirm that.

I also heard about a mass killing of a family in central Suva Reka that took place on the 2nd of April, the day after I arrived here. It was prominent local family, the Hysa family, and I think altogether twelve people were killed. I remember someone saying that the father had just turned 50, and that his wife and a couple of his brothers were killed, but I don’t any of the details.



FIRST SET OF VIOLATIONSI have been stationed in Suva Reka for just over three weeks now. While I don’t think these numbers are exact, from what we’ve got on our own and from what IRC told us we’re estimating that there were around 400 executions and 700 disappearances in Suva Reka between March 1999 and now. You should probably talk to Erin Hawkins at IRC to confirm that.

SECOND VIOLATIONI also heard about a mass killing of a family in central Suva Reka that took place on the 2nd of April, the day after I arrived here. It was prominent local family, the Hysa family, and I think altogether twelve people were killed. I remember someone saying that the father had just turned 50, and that his wife and a couple of his brothers were killed, but I don’t any of the details.

It should be standard procedure by now to begin the coding process by thinking about how the narrative might be divided into incidents. If we logically divide this narrative, we end up with the UNHCR officer’s general report as the first incident and the hearsay account of the mass killing as the second incident.

Note that the first violation is actually a set of violations. Our process hasn’t changed; it’s just in this case we’re dealing with a report. We’ll learn more about reports soon.

Coding Reports


FIRST SET OF VIOLATIONS“I have been stationed in Suva Reka for just over three weeks now… we’re estimating that there were around 400 executions and 700 disappearances in Suva Reka between March 1999 and now…”

Rather than an eyewitness or hearsay account, the first incident in Interview Two is a summary by an international aid worker of all violations that occurred in the entire municipality of Suva Reka during the course of the conflict. We record such summaries as reports by adding an R value to the DepTYPE variable.

DepTYPER

The DepTYPE has three possible values: W for Witness, H for Hearsay, and R for Report

Press ALT-TAB now to navigate to the Excel spreadsheet. Code the above report into the Blank spreadsheet where you have already coded Interview One. When you’re done, check your work against the Interview(2A) spreadsheet.

Coding the Second ViolationSECOND VIOLATIONI also heard about a mass killing of a family in central Suva Reka that took place on the 2nd of April, the day after I arrived here. It was prominent local family, the Hysa family, and I think altogether twelve people were killed. I remember someone saying that the father had just turned 50, and that his wife and a couple of his brothers were killed, but I don’t any of the details.

As we’ve seen before, the second violation contains both general and specific information about an execution.

Press ALT-TAB now to navigate to the Excel spreadsheet. Code the above incident into the Blank spreadsheet where you have already coded the other incidents. When you are done, check your work against the Interview(2B) spreadsheet.


Interview Three


Interview Date: 5/21/1999Deponent: Member of Hysa family (name withheld)

We were in our house in Suva Reka the morning of April 2nd when the Serbs came in. They took my father Hajdin (49) and my three uncles out into the backyard. I heard some yelling and then heard gunshots. My aunt Tina ran out into the yard and they shot her, too. Then they came into the house. One of the Serbs told my uncle Faton (53), my brother Ismet (24), and four of my cousins to go out of the house and get into the back of their truck. Then they told us to leave or they would kill us and they set the house on fire. We went to Bellanica that night, but my mother Fatime stayed with my grandmother in Suva Reka. When we came back for them a week later, they were all gone. Someone told us there were bodies in the back of the school gymnasium. We went to look and they were all there. My mother, my brother, my grandmother, everyone. All dead.


FIRST VIOLATION (backyard execution): “…they took my father Hajdin (49) and my three uncles out into the backyard. I heard some yelling and then heard gunshots. My aunt Tina ran out into the yard and they shot her, too…”

SECOND VIOLATION (disappearance of the six relatives):“…One of the Serbs told my uncle Faton (53), my brother Ismet (24), and four of my cousins to go out of the house and get into the back of their truck…”

THIRD VIOLATION (execution of the six relatives and two women):“…but my mother Fatime stayed with my grandmother in Suva Reka. When we came back for them a week later, they were all gone… We went to look and they were all there. My mother, my brother, my grandmother, my uncle, everyone. All dead.”

We’ll begin as usual by identifying the violations. This is a particularly complex case, because the disappearance of the uncle, brother, and four cousins is ultimately revealed to be an execution when their bodies are later found by the deponent.

We could easily run into a problem if we were to encode all three of these violations as we have just identified them. A disappearance is used to describe victims who have disappeared and not returned but whose bodies have not been found. People who have been disappeared are commonly assumed to have been killed. In this case, we learn the status of the disappeared victims when their bodies are discovered by the deponent. If we were to code the same six relatives first as disappeared and then as executed, under some analyses their deaths would be counted twice, skewing the results.


SECOND VIOLATION (disappearance of the six relatives):“…One of the Serbs told my uncle Faton (53), my brother Ismet (24), and four of my cousins to go out of the house and get into the back of their truck…”

THIRD VIOLATION (execution of the six relatives and two women):“…but my mother Fatime stayed with my grandmother in Suva Reka. When we came back for them a week later, they were all gone… We went to look and they were all there. My mother, my brother, my grandmother, my uncle, everyone. All dead.”

The second violation, the disappearance, is replaced by the third violation, the execution of the six relatives. This should be coded as a separate incident from the execution of the mother and grandmother. Remember to code specific information.

IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT to understand that this does not apply to other types of violations that may occur before death such as rape or torture. If a victim is first tortured and then executed, we would want to record both violations, and not merely the second.




Press ALT-TAB now to navigate to the Excel spreadsheet. Code the above report into the Blank spreadsheet where you have already coded Interviews One and Two. When you’re done, check your work against the Interview(3A) spreadsheet.

As we’ve seen before, this violation contains both general and specific information about an execution.


Coding the Second and Third Violations


“One of the Serbs told my uncle Faton (58), my brother Ismet (24), and four of my cousins to go out of the house and get into the back of their truck. Then they told us to leave or they would kill us and they set the house on fire. We went to Bellanica that night, but my mother Fatime stayed with my grandmother in Suva Reka. When we came back for them a week later, they were all gone. Someone told us there were bodies in the back of the school gymnasium. We went to look and they were all there. My mother, my brother, my grandmother, everyone. All dead.”

Let’s summarize the victim information we have after combining the second and third violations:

Two named male victims with ages Four unnamed victims One named female victim One unnamed female victim

Press ALT-TAB now to navigate to the Excel spreadsheet. Code the above report into the Blank spreadsheet where you have already coded the previous interviews. When you’re done, check your work against the Interview(3B) spreadsheet.

Identifying Duplicate Accounts of the Same Violation


You may have noticed that the execution of the family described in Interview Two strongly resembled the execution of the 13 members of the Hysa family described in Interview Three. The fact that the violations occurred on the same date, in the same location, to a family with the same name, and with a similar number of victims, is a strong indicator of a match.

To prevent the double counting of victims in our spreadsheet, we flag duplicate accounts of the same violation so that only the most accurate account is included in the analysis.

Let’s take a look at the two accounts now and decide how they should be reconciled.

Reconciling Duplicate Accounts: Prioritizing the Better MatchSUMMARY OF INTERVIEW TWO: SECOND INCIDENT Mass killing of Hysa family Took place on the 2nd of April in central Suva Reka Twelve people killed altogether Details: father 50 years old, wife and brothers also killed Hearsay account; deponent not related to victims

SUMMARY OF INTERVIEW THREE Mass killing of Hysa family Took place on the 2nd of April in Suva Reka Details: Hajdin Hysa (50), three uncles, Tina Hysa, Faton (53), Ismet (24), four

cousins, Fatime, grandmother all killed Witness account; executions witnessed and bodies later found by family

member

Once you have determined that a match exists, you must decide which account to include in your analysis. The overriding rule is to prioritize more detailed accounts over general accounts. In this case, Interview Three is not only an eyewitness account, but also gives more specific information about the victims. It is is therefore more accurate and credible.Please move on now to the next screen

As a general rule, eyewitness accounts usually have better information than hearsay accounts. However, there may be cases where a hearsay account contains more accurate and credible information about a violation.

Reconciling Duplicate Accounts: The MatchID


We now need to find a way to flag Interviews Two and Three so that only the most accurate information about the Hysa killings is included in the analysis. We do this by introducing a new variable, the MatchID.

VioID IntID IcdtID MatchID VicSEX VicAGE VicNAME VioTYPE8 2 2.3 3.1 M 50 Hysa Father EXEC

11 3 3.1 M 50 Hajdin Hysa EXEC

When we are coding two duplicate violations, the least accurate violation is assigned a value in the MatchID column that refers back to the IncidentID (IcdtID) value of the violation it matches. Click now for an example.

The IncidentID value for the more accurate violation is entered in the MatchID column

The reason we assign the MatchID value to the least accurate violation is to make it easier to remove duplicate accounts when we begin our analysis, leaving only the best accounts in the spreadsheet.

Reconciling Duplicate Accounts: The MatchID


The actual value assigned in the MatchID column is less important than making sure that the most accurate account is retained in the spreadsheet. There may be cases where there is more than one duplicate account. In such a case, the coder must decide which account is the most accurate, credible, and complete. All other accounts must have values entered in the MatchID column so that they can be later removed from the spreadsheet. If you prefer, you may enter several IncidentID values into the MatchID column.

The MatchID concept can be very confusing at first. To refer to an example, press ALT-TAB now to navigate to the Excel spreadsheet. The last spreadsheet, labeled MatchID, demonstrates how to code Interviews Two and Three so that all of the duplicate accounts are properly labeled.

Summary of Variables


VARIABLE PURPOSE

VioID Allows for easy identification of individual records

IntID Identifies the interview from which the incident(s) has been encoded

IcdtID Refers to the specific incident within a particular interview

MatchID Identifies a duplicate incident to prevent double counting

VioDATE Identifies the date of the incident

DateCODE Indicates whether the date is Exact or Approximate

LocNAME Identifies the location where the incident took place

DepTYPE Indicates whether the deponent is Witness, Hearsay, or Report type

RelCODE Indicates whether the deponent is related to the victim(s)

VicSEX Refers to the sex of the victim(s)

VicAGE Refers to the age of the victim

VicNAME Refers to the name of the victim, if known

VioTYPE Indicates the type of violation

VicCOUNT Indicates the number of victims in the incident

VicMULT Flag variable indicating an unspecified number of victims (> than 1)

Data Checking

After the coding process is complete, it is necessary to check the newly created spreadsheet in order to ensure reliability and consistency.

There are a number of ways to do this, including checking your own work, as well as having your work checked by others who are familiar with the process.

Note: Producing a reliable spreadsheet is crucial. Conducting analyses on flawed information may generate skewed results and can damage the credibility of the project.


Coder Discretion and Consistency

The raw data the coder receives will not always be complete or precise. As we mentioned before, there will be times when the coder needs to determine how to code certain information that may not be clear or straightforward.

It is important to ensure that similar information is coded consistently throughout the entire spreadsheet.


Using a Log

Since coder discretion is often used in determining how to code certain variables, it’s important to keep a separate record of which decisions were made and why they were made. Click to view a sample entry.

Sample Log Entry:In Interview 12 the violation date was given as sometime between March 10th and March 20th. We chose to code the date as March 15th.

Note: The dataNOTES column in the spreadsheet should also be used for this purpose.


Using a Log (continued)

The log can also be used to document certain information found in the narratives that isn’t coded in the spreadsheet or when the decision has been made not to code a specific interview because it doesn’t contain any relevant violations. Click to view a sample entry.

Sample Log Entry:Interview 25 was not coded because it only contained the violation torture, which we aren’t required to code.


Single Team Approach to Data Checking

Double checking the spreadsheet in a team, rather than individually, is standard. A two-person team allows one coder to read the highlighted violations, while the other coder verifies that they appear correctly in the spreadsheet.


Two Team Approach to Data Checking

Data checking with a two team approach is even better than a single team approach because it ensures greater reliability. Coding and reviewing the data in two separate teams allows the coders to compare spreadsheets and identify possible coding errors or information that may have been overlooked.

However, it is still important for each team to code the entire dataset. Coding only a portion of the narratives will hinder the effective use of the MatchID variable since using them requires each team to be familiar with the entire spreadsheet.


Cross Checking: Inter-Coder Reliability

When comparing the spreadsheets of the two teams, check for some of the common errors that coders encounter, including:

Total number of entries that don’t match Approximate dates that don’t match Narratives that have been divided into different numbers of

incidents Inconsistencies with the MatchID Different values that have been assigned to victim

information


It may be necessary for both teams to re-examine interviews in order to resolve differences and perceptual conflicts. A consensus should be reached on which team’s entries to retain, and decisions that are made should be consistently applied throughout the entire data checking process.

Cross Checking: Examining Interviews


Double Checking MatchID Values

It’s important to double check MatchID values to verify that entries have been correctly referenced and all duplicate accounts have been identified. When matches are identified, it is necessary to ensure that the most accurate and complete entries are NOT assigned a MatchID value, so that they are kept in the spreadsheet for analysis.


Additional Error Checking: Sorting by Column

Sorting by column allows coders to check for spelling errors, ensure there are no null values where values are required, and identify other general mistakes, such as incorrect entries.


Data Checking under a Time Constraint

If coders are faced with a time constraint during the data checking process, it is not imperative to check the entire spreadsheet for reliability and consistency. Rather, it is acceptable to randomly select a small percentage of the violations to check (such as five percent).


Note: Regardless of time constraints, coders should always check all MatchID values and sort by column to check for errors.

Product Completion

Once your interviews have been completely coded and the data has been checked for errors, there are just a few more steps to prepare the data for analysis. This section will guide you through the last steps in the process.

Please note that different coding projects may have different requirements. This section addresses some of the typical scenarios.


Security Protocols

Different coding projects will have different procedures regarding security. There are many reasons why a coding project will be concerned with protecting the names of victims and deponents. Depending on the project, security measures may be taken that include:


Removing the victim’s names from the spreadsheet

Measures to protect the names of deponents

A separate sheet assigning codes to victim or deponent names—the codes are entered into the spreadsheet, and the sheet is held in a secure location

Adding Location Codes

Depending on the scope of the coding project, there will usually be a need to categorize the locations where the violations took place. In the Kosovo coding project, location names were assigned specific codes referring to the municipality where they were located. In other projects, locations may be divided into states or provinces.

It is the responsibility of the project manager to give each coder a list of location names and codes. Once the coding has been completed, the coder can then look up all of the location names in the spreadsheet and match them to the appropriate municipality code. This will facilitate the analysis process by allowing the analysts to isolate violations that took place in a specific geographical region. The most common method is to add a column to the spreadsheet where the location codes can be entered.


Checking the VioID Column

Before moving on, check at this point to make sure that all entries in the spreadsheet have values in the VioID column. Each entry should be numbered sequentially, with no null values and no duplicate values. These will be the numbers that are used to refer back to specific entries in the spreadsheet.


Saving the Spreadsheet

At this point, the coding process is complete. The data has been entered, checked, and any additional steps have been taken. Before moving on to analysis, the final spreadsheet should be saved, preferably as Read-Only. Any additional changes made during analysis should not be saved over the original.


Removing Duplicates and Reports

The last step before beginning the analysis is to remove redundant or duplicate entries from the spreadsheet. As we have seen, these can take two forms: two or more accounts of the same violations are coded, and later reconciled through the use of the MatchID; or there has been a Report summary of some or all of the violations that occurred over the course of the conflict.

Please click for instructions on how to eliminate these redundancies from the spreadsheet.


Steps for removing matched entries:

1. Sort the spreadsheet by the MatchID column. All entries that have been assigned a value under MatchID should be highlighted and deleted.

2. Sort the spreadsheet by the DepTYPE column. All entries that have been assigned a value of R under the DepTYPE column should be highlighted and deleted.

3. Save the reduced spreadsheet under a separate name than the original, complete spreadsheet.

Acknowledgements

This project would not have been possible without the guidance, encouragement, and wise counsel of Professors Herb and Louise Spirer, to whom each of us is grateful.

We would also like to acknowledge the contribution of Fred Abrahams of Human Rights Watch, who helped us develop the parameters of the project and provided us with the raw data.

coding narratives of human rights violations a step-by-step handbook of coding procedure authored...

Documents

coding human rights

screen slide

single interview

general coding process

variables introduction

particular slide

simple interview introduction

important information