Chloe Litchfield

The data for the 2013 Cambodia CEDAW Shadow Report was collected May–August 2013. This data was collected in Phnom Penh, Cambodia from individuals who work for organizations that assist women throughout the country.

The data for this study was primarily collected from members of NGO-CEDAW affiliated organizations. I used data from recent research reports as well as open-ended, in-depth individual interviews and several focus groups. Criteria for participant selection were as follows: the participants must have been employed for at least two years at one of the NGO-CEDAW affiliated organizations. The participants were not selected randomly, as it was important to gather data from those who were most informed about their respective sub-committee topics. The participants were not selected based on their gender. However, I experienced a fairly female-heavy sample due to the large proportion of women in the nonprofit sector and the fact that the organizations involved deal with issues specific to women and girls. Snowball sampling was also used to a certain extent, as all those who were interviewed were also asked if they could refer us to any other experts in their field that could provide any additional information. I met several times with the leaders of each subcommittee in order to gather data and identify good candidates for additional interviewing and also deferred to the knowledge of the director of NGO-CEDAW, who set up my weekly interview schedule with key informants on a wide variety of topics.

As stated previously, the interview questions were derived from the 310 variables in the WomanStats Codebook. The WomanStats Project is the most extensive compilation of information on the status of women in the world. The Project entails the coding of all pertinent literature and expert interviews to gather both qualitative and quantitative data. These variables address each issue threefold: law, practice, and data. This combination of both quantitative and qualitative data allows for the most comprehensive account of each issue. For example, for members of the Gender-Based Violence and Law Committee, the following questions would pertain to domestic violence: DV-LAW-1 “Are there laws against domestic violence? Are there auxiliary laws such as concerning illegality of firing a woman in a shelter or in hiding, providing health care or education for those in shelters or hiding? Are there special penalties in cases where women have been subject to acid attacks, attacks over dowry disputes, or have been injured as a result of honor issues?” DV-LAW-2 “What are the punishments and how is fault decided?” DV-LAW-3 “Who can be a legal witness [e.g., must it be a male?] and does the woman’s testimony count?” DV-PRACTICE-1 “Are laws against domestic violence enforced? [Include conviction and incarceration rates.]” DVPRACTICE- 2 “Are there taboos against reporting domestic violence? [Include elements that work to fight against those taboos, such as women’s shelters, hotlines, etc.]” DVDATA- 1 “How prevalent is domestic violence? [Look for incidence, qualitative, or quantitative information; comparison of male/female victimization. Are there class or regional or religious or ethnic differences in practice?]”

These WomanStats variables were divided according to subcommittee topic and used as a guide for open-ended interviews. In total, I was able to conduct 25 in-depth interviews. I would travel to the participant’s place of work at the time they suggested in order to promote a sense of convenience for all those involved in the interview process. At the beginning of each interview, I introduced myself as well as my research project and then reminded them of the goals of NGO-CEDAW regarding the 2013 Shadow Report. Before referring to the interview guide, I would ask each participant to tell me about themselves and the organization they represent. I then would go over each of the main points that had been brought up in the subcommittee meetings and asked if they agreed or disagreed with each point and whether or not they had any additional information to support or refute it. Once I had gone over the previously discussed points, I would ask the participants if they had any other issues they felt had been overlooked in the government report that should be addressed in the Shadow Report. After these initial inquiries, I would then turn to the relevant questions from my interview guide. These interviews were loosely structured. My familiarity with the WomanStats Codebook allowed me to skip unnecessary questions or recall questions from other subcommittee guides that might be relevant for a particular participant. At the end of the interview, I asked each participant whether or not they had anything else they would like to add and if they had any suggestions for pertinent, recent research on the topic. To end the interview, I would exchange contact information with the participant in case they had any additional information to send me and so that I could ask them any necessary follow-up questions.

Each interview was digitally recorded and then later transcribed. The transcriptions were then coded according to Articles 1-16 of the CEDAW Convention. The report was structured according to article. After a first draft was written based solely on information gathered from interviews, it was presented at a conference with all the representatives of NGO-CEDAW affiliated organizations. At this meeting we focused on obtaining their feedback for revisions and asking for additional reports to find evidence for the claims made in the Shadow Report. Each subsequent draft of the report was submitted to all NGO-CEDAW members for additional comments until a final draft was approved by the organizations being represented.

Through this research process, we were able to complete the CEDAW 2013 Shadow Report to submit to the UN for review during their 56th session in September. I was able to publish this research as my Honors Thesis and hope upon my return from my mission to be able to continue work on this research.