Introduction

Researchers deserve a full discussion of the theoretical and conceptual issues involved in devising a methodology for studying refugees, but given the wider audience to whom this book is directed, I will simply discuss how the statistical data were collected and point out a few of the pitfalls which await other researchers. Many of the problems are similar to those faced by earlier researchers who depended on a colonial administration for access to the subjects of their study. The imagery of refugees as a subject people could be pushed much further. (Asad 1973.)

This study was directed towards assessing the quality and effectiveness of an emergency assistance programme, but in general, such a focus is too narrow. Researchers would be advised not to introduce unnecessary problems by focusing their studies on 'refugees' to the exclusion of other people living in an area - even when the object of their study is some aspect of the refugee problem. To focus on the issue of refugee status in such an explicit way is to introduce additional incentives for respondents to withhold information. This is particularly the case when studying refugees who are assisted. Moreover, to include everyone living in a particular area in a study will generate more information on the relationships which obtain between refugees and their hosts. As a result, one will be able to more accurately assess the relative economic positions of both populations. This issue, who was the poorer, was always debated among the agency staff. As is the case with research which seeks to analyse race relations, one learns much more about social relations in a plural community by not studying race but by studying the economic, political and social relations between the various groups. (Harrell-Bond 1967.) Hosts and refugees hold stereotyped views about each other's communities, but people nevertheless relate to each other as individuals. A more authentic description of a complex social reality is obtained by observing actual relationships rather than by asking about ideas.

Although UNHCR is expected to monitor the quality of the assistance programmes implemented through the agencies it funds, it has devised no systematic method for achieving this. I did not set out to collect quantitative data, but monitoring aside, during 1982 I observed there was a continual and urgent need for empirical data upon which to plan the programme of assistance. Decisions were being made and budgets allocated on the basis of individual impressions or educated guesses. For example, the project to assist the specially vulnerable was planned on the assumption that no more than 10 per cent would need special assistance when food aid was withdrawn. The survey showed the numbers to be much higher. While not a perfect method, a survey designed to generate specific information, is likely to produce a more reliable basis for planning than guesses and impressions.

I also hoped to demonstrate that it is possible to organize a system to monitor assistance programmes which is cheap, rapid, and which could be replicated by every emergency programme simply by employing one permanent staff member having the appropriate research skills and experience. But quantitative data always raises more questions than it answers, so research must necessarily rely heavily on qualitative data, the sort of information which is generated by anthropological methods. Research which is an institutionalised part of an assistance programme would have the advantage of being able to develop and change methods of aid delivery, and of being able to constantly refer questions back to the informants for explanation.

If approaches to assistance were more flexible, if they responded to need, a different research approach to planning and monitoring would be required. For example, if food aid was needed to make up local deficits, one might need only to monitor market prices so that when prices paid to local producers started to fall below acceptable levels, the food aid could be withdrawn.[1] Providing credit schemes (or even giving money away) might have the desired effect (Harden 1985), and would call for yet a different method of evaluating the results. Instead of counting blankets issued per head, a study of fertility, morbidity, and mortality rates might be the most objective basis for assessing the effectiveness of assistance programmes. Rather than depending only on outsiders to conduct such research, it might be better organized through a local university, reducing another of the effects of the 'colonial-like' situation which refugee studies encounter.

One of the values of independent research which is consultative and participatory in approach, is its power to begin to bridge the chasm which now exists between hosts, refugees, and agency workers. I hoped that the participation of refugees in assessing themselves and the programme would not only help change their consciousness, but would also encourage a change in fieldworkers' attitudes towards refugees and stimulate more dialogue. The need for this was demonstrated by the response of one fieldworker to the presentation of the team's report to the inter-agency meeting held in Kala settlement in September 1983. (Appendix V.) Enroute back to Yei, he was overheard to ask, 'Who gave that refugee the right to speak to us like that?'

The survey

Settlements were laid out in blocks of 24 family or household plots and these were all numbered. A systematic random sample was drawn on the basis of a random starting number and a fixed interval. The questionnaire was devised in consultation with refugees, and the UNHCR programme officer. Its design drew heavily on my research findings from 1982 but it would still would have benefited from more detailed knowledge of the customary practices of both communities, of refugees and hosts. For example, insufficient attention was paid to how rights over land were allocated within households. While in retrospect I suspect that the practice of allocating land to male heads of households and the more general male bias of the programme had the effect of disenfranchising women, I cannot be sure that households did not make their own adjustments, giving women their own portion of the limited land available.

The questionnaire was translated into Madi, Lugbara, and Swahili and was tested and adapted in Otogo settlement in households other than those included in the sample.

Depending on the size of household, the interview took from 45 minutes to more than one hour. There are debates about the use of a long questionnaire and this book has not exploited all the data collected. Questions like, 'What are your main problems here ?' may be the most useful in opening discussions which lead the investigator into unexplored territory. One of the values of our long questionnaire was the manner in which it threw up interesting discrepancies which would not have been revealed through other approaches. A rather superficial example is the data concerning occupational background compared to numbers of years in school and other non-African languages spoken which revealed the numbers of ex-military personnel who were living in the settlements. But in general one may say that a long questionnaire is evidence that insufficient anthropological work has been done to determine first what differences require counting.

The team of interviewers included students whose education had been interrupted at 'A' level as well as university students, a qualified lawyer, and an economist. Most of the team had had previous experience as interviewers for the 1980 census in Uganda. The method they had learned for ascertaining ages of the elderly - relating age to historical events - was followed in the survey. Some might fear that using refugees as interviewers would inject a particular bias into the results; I cannot guarantee that at one time or other an interviewer did not collude with an informant to withhold information. However, I found my team as curious as I to learn about their community. Their ability to see the problems from a number of perspectives is demonstrated in the report they wrote for the inter-agency meeting, Appendix II. The survey began in Otogo settlement on 28 May and was completed on 19 September 1983. At first, using the Ugandans as translators, I conducted all the interviews. When confident that the first three could conduct interviews alone, I began to train more assistants.

A comparison of the results of a 5 per cent sample and the 10 per cent sample interviewed at Otogo suggested that a 5 per cent sample was sufficiently reliable. In Wudabi, Logobero, and Gumbari only 5 per cent of the households were interviewed. But once I had a sufficient number of trained interviewers, we reverted to the larger, 10 per cent sample.[2] I interviewed the larger sample not only because the smaller the sample, the greater is the chance that certain characteristics which occur infrequently will not be discovered at all, but because one of the objectives of the research was to involve refugees in assessing themselves in relation to the programme. The more people included in such discussions the more likely this objective would be achieved.

The possibility that a population might be 'over-researched' is often debated, but in fact, I found that once it had been agreed that the survey could be conducted in a settlement, people who were not included in the sample often expressed disappointment. Perhaps powerless people everywhere appreciate the personal attention given them in an interview. For refugees there were few possibilities to discuss and reflect on recent experiences in quite the way the interview permitted. Most of the women included in Oakley's (1984) study found value in the experience of being interviewed.

By September 1983 there were 22 settlements and 3 transit camps under the Yei office. As each new settlement opened, people were moved to it from transit camps. This mobility might easily have resulted in our counting the same people twice. The problem was avoided by the fact that we surveyed the new settlements and transit camps last; during September the transport system entirely collapsed, so no refugees were re-located at the time of these interviews.

Altogether there were 20,170 households in 25 locations and the average household size was 5.29, but varied between settlements and these data are shown in Table 3.4.

Introducing the survey

One of the most serious methodological issues facing a researcher studying refugees is the pervasive distrust which hangs like a cloud over all relationships. While still recommending that research should be an integral part of an assistance programme, a major problem for me was my close association with UNHCR. (This was complicated by the belief some held that I was a 'spy' either for the British, Obote, or both!) I worked to overcome these handicaps by the manner in which I presented myself and the research to refugees in settlements and whenever possible acted as a source of information, an advocate, or an intermediary for individuals who had problems. (Oakley 1981.)

On arrival at a settlement, the team and I held a meeting with the block leaders (and anyone else interested). I explained the purposes of the research, and that I was an independent researcher, paid by a university, and not an agency.

I attempted to demystify the research methods, by explaining why it was necessary to interview a sample of households. The questionnaire was explained and some questions read out. Everyone was offered the opportunity to read it (or have it read to them). I carried a pocket computer with which I demonstrated how the answers are reduced to numbers for analysis. One of those present was asked to draw the random starting number from a hat, and the entire sample was drawn in their presence. A rough schedule for interviews was drawn up at this meeting and block leaders were asked to inform their plot members, and later to accompany the interviewers to these households.

I pointed out that as a researcher, I was a student and had come to them to be taught. If I were to portray their situation accurately, I would have to rely on their willingness to instruct me. I made it clear that no one had to cooperate and that if the entire settlement decided against participation, we would leave with the next transport. I emphasised that even if a household agreed to be interviewed, they could refuse to answer specific questions and I explained why a 'no reply' was preferable to a false response.

Acknowledging their frequent complaint - that refugees have no voice - I promised to represent them and their situation as honestly as my skills and the information they gave permitted.[3] I emphasised that the results were unlikely to have any immediate impact upon their situation: I hoped for no more than that the study would contribute to the improvement of future assistance programmes for refugees elsewhere in Africa. I did promise to forward specific complaints and requests to the programme officer when I returned to Yei. Refugees are said by some to be 'overly demanding', but this stereotype was not confirmed by my personal experience, but then I usually said no even when asked for a cigarette.[4]

To illustrate the possible value of the research to other refugees, I explained how most policies are presently formulated by outsiders who have little information to guide them. This was demonstrated by asking how many had made their living through farming in Uganda and explaining that it was mainly through lack of knowledge that policy-makers had hit on agricultural settlements as the standard way of helping African refugees become economically independent. Perhaps many other refugee communities were like so many of the Ugandans who had many other skills which could be utilized, but had not actually been farmers.

The introductory meetings were never hurried. People were encouraged to discuss any topic or raise any question. I found that they knew scarcely anything about the organization and funding of aid programmes, and very little concerning their rights or responsibilities.[5]

The role of the Sudanese government was discussed. Refugees were annoyed at the replacement of their own settlement foreman by a Sudanese. I explained the structure of refugee aid programmes and asked them to recall how similar programmes had been organized in Uganda when the Sudanese were their guests. Questions about the Sudanese economy were discussed, the causes of its poverty, and I pointed out the fact that the Sudan was actually paying out the greatest costs of hosting refugees. I tried to help them understand why officials became so annoyed when the refugees sang songs in praise of 'Geneva', and reminded them how arrogance and insensitivity would jeopardize their aim to live peacefully in the Sudan. In each settlement, separate meetings were held with teachers, religious leaders, agricultural advisers and their productivity committees, women, medical staff, members of co-operatives, and former students.[6] The lawyer on the team met with the dispute committees and he also visited courts outside settlements. Once most of the interviews were being conducted by the Ugandan team, I spent my time learning from informal discussions with individuals. I let everyone know that I was available during all waking hours for discussions and they were encouraged to listen in and comment when going over interview results with the team.

Administering the interviews

A day in a settlement began with a team meeting at 7.15 a.m. to plan the schedule of interviews. Except for a lunch-break, work continued until evening. After dinner, the day's interviews were discussed and I read over the notes and verbatim statements recorded. One member of the team was responsible for cross-checking the coding of each interview.

Interviews were conducted in the household plot and every member was asked to be present. In order to increase the accuracy of answers concerning material resources owned by each household, interviewers were encouraged to position themselves so that they could look into the house. Assuming that the presence of one familiar person who also had some authority would be useful, the block leader was asked to be present at the interview. The value of this technique to encourage greater 'honesty' is dubious, but one consequence was that it gave the block leader an opportunity to become more intimately acquainted with his 'community' of 24 households. Each interviewer conducted no more than six interviews during a day.

The questionnaire was designed with the aim that refugees should regard their participation as a means of assessing their situation somewhat apart from the aid programme, to reflect on their experiences of flight and on how they survived outside settlements. But the problems of collecting reliable data from survey methods are increased by the refugees' general awareness that aid is distributed on a per capita basis. One means of overcoming this problem and one which could have been exploited much further, was to try to discuss how they were personally coping with shortages. Questions did allow refugees to describe their experiences of flight. When asked about material possessions, items not part of the aid package were also included. For example, when refugees said that they had no knives because none had been distributed, they were challenged with a question as to how they peeled cassava. (Those who had no knife either borrowed from a neighbour or used a panga, but we found many who had fashioned knives from the tent pegs supplied by UNHCR!) Other items such as cooking pots, buckets and blankets were actually counted by the interviewer and interviewee together, and since the plots afforded no privacy, it was difficult for informants to conceal any item.

Despite efforts to ensure that every member of the household was present for the interview, this was obviously not always possible. The period of the interviews - May to end September - coincided with the planting and weeding seasons. Not everyone was prepared to give up a day's work in the fields to be interviewed. A more serious obstacle was shortage of food. Rations were never complete, but WFP supplies from Mombasa stopped altogether from mid-July and this forced all the able-bodied to seek work from locals in exchange for food. Often people had to walk for many miles to find work and sometimes had to be away from the settlement overnight. Nevertheless we asked people not to go out to work, but to remain in their households the one day we were interviewing in their part of the settlement. In Wudabi we were asked to compensate people for giving up a day of leja-leja, and at the time this did not seem unfair. In this settlement, and in Logobero we gave each household 50 piastas after the interview was completed. Later, however, we dropped this practice and it did not seem to affect attendance.

Altogether, 78 per cent of household members were present at the interviews or just over one in five was absent.[7] Block leaders were asked to confirm that they were acquainted with any absent member. In only 22 cases did a block leader deny knowing an individual who was claimed to be a member of the household. Reasons given for absences of those present in the settlement included: attending the clinic for medical treatment; working in the fields; doing piece-work for locals; attending school; visiting the market; fetching water (which usually involved waiting hours in a queue at a borehole or travelling some distance to a river); and hunting. Others had travelled and were said to be visiting relatives in other settlements, harvesting crops on the border, travelling to Juba, Yei, or Kaya for one reason or another, or attending a funeral outside the settlement. Altogether 2,353 individuals were recorded as members of households but absent at the time of the interview.

In Chapter Five I have explored the problem of absentees in some detail. Obviously the survey missed an opportunity to collect data which would be more interesting than simply confirming or disproving UNHCR population estimates. We could have explored the details of relationships between refugees in settlements and those living outside them. And it would have been better to concentrate on modes of livelihood by examining what each member contributed to the household, what he was doing and, for those who were absent, where he was doing it. It would be better to begin a study from the assumption that refugees use the aid programme as only one part of their strategy for survival. My failure to understand this more fully from the outset unnecessarily limited the amount of such important information collected.

Another argument for surveying the total population in a refugee-affected area is that it would have produced more information concerning the use of refugee-labour. This study, biased as it was towards refugees, did not render enough information to comment, in more than a speculative fashion, on relationships between hosts and refugees. This is unfortunate since the aim of the assistance programme was to 'integrate' refugees with hosts, and thus this topic should have been included in the evaluation.

The response to the survey in settlements

It was possible to do some quick statistical analysis in the field, and at a final session with members of the settlement we told them something of what we had found. I soon learned that my team was not only able to present the purposes of the research at initial meetings but were much better than I in discussing the results with the leaders of the community after the survey was completed. At one of the last settlements surveyed, Morsak, I relieved them of the necessity of translating every sentence into English for my benefit and they took complete charge of the final meeting. In September we still had three new settlements and the three transit camps to survey. Given the few households in these settlements, we decided to split up, with smaller teams interviewing in Adio, Katigiri and Wundurubu.

The reactions of settlers at Adio, reported by Emmanuel Agala Olikare, were fairly typical of what we encountered in most settlements

...news was passed round the blocks for the meeting - we needed all the block leaders. It also happened to be the day when their food items in the store (cassava flour, beans, oil and biscuits) were to be distributed. The first rumour went that Barbara's children who convince people for repatriation, have come for a meeting to meet only block leaders.

The meeting took place, about two hours. We drew the sample for the blocks to be interviewed. There were 35 plots altogether. In the meeting we told them that through such a research their voices will be heard in the outside world. They said that at least each family should be interviewed because their problems are varied....They then asked us to read the questions all through before they could depart for their food distribution.

We could not begin the interviews before noon because all the block leaders and family heads are in the office premises [receiving rations]. On our way to Block I we got some people under a mango tree....they said we are Barbara's people who are military men from Uganda. Then one reasonable one came and greeted us and escorted us to block one. We later on came to find him to be the husband of the first person to be interviewed. (20 September 1983.)

However, the team that went to Katigiri met with considerably more resistance than normally had to be overcome. Ferdinand Vuciri Lali reports.

First of all I explained to them that the research team had come to compile an objective report on the experience of the refugees from entry into Sudan to their life in the settlements, their opinion, and impressions of the settlement programme. The research, we told them, would help to evaluate the implementation of the refugee programme.

...the settlers did not show any appreciation. They just waited and questioned us, especially on what we would do with death records.... of all the questions in our questionnaire, they appreciated the section on food which was the only problem they had in Katigiri, and their settlement officer was well-informed about that....They also argued that our sampling identified a few households....therefore, it was a voting or election system and they demanded to know for which government this was being done. That of Uganda or of Sudan ? It took us about a full hour explaining to them the sampling and why we had to interview a restricted percentage...

(a) No compromise

They finally accepted that they could be interviewed but only in teams of blocks or a general meeting...I finally declared to them, when all our efforts to explain seemed fruitless, that Katigiri was one the last settlements we had come to, and we couldn't afford to alter the procedures of the research;

Suggesting that they would leave if this was the settlement's final answer, the team promised

...for the sake of Katigiri hold a general meeting to elicit their general views and give them an outline of our findings there. [And, as an aside in the report] their proposals implied to me that the society was much more tuned to mob reaction.

Continuing his report, Lali lists some other objections.

(b) Fear of espionage

Some of the men further alleged that we were on a spying mission....They demanded the leader of our research team and said she was a woman whom they had known since Uganda.[8]

She had come around again to undo them. They feared that our immediate objective was to hoodwink the people into getting repatriated...

The meeting continued on, apparently for hours, until finally

...when it was already dark, without a lamp...the critics' tempers cooled and their words were less hard....They said they would not harm us or do anything to us ;....The meeting was adjourned informally because many people...slipped off silently.

The problem for the team was they could not leave, as there was no transport back to Yei. The next morning:

...it took us some time to decide whether we should venture to visit the homes or not. The memory of the threats remained fresh in our minds....We later plucked up our courage and went out. The first few interviews we conducted were slow, because the household heads were reluctant to answer the questions, but not courageous enough to boldly expel us....Eventually we gained momentum...people became increasingly encouraged to be interviewed as we visited more households.

In the end they were able to interview all of the households, having to replace only two in the sample because of refusals. The team also met with the different groups. At the meeting with the students:

...I talked with the students about the possibilities and necessity of forming a society that would be academically benefiting...l also gave them a talk about the progress at the Lutaya site....They were encouraged to hear about it [for the] first time, and promised to mobilize a team to participate in the exercise...my research colleague...talked to them about students as an instrument of consciousness in the society, a necessity in the settlements. (17 September 1983.)

The population in transit camps was very large. At the first meeting in Otogo transit camp those who attended were very hostile and even the Ugandan foreman was unco-operative. It was decided I should allow the team to get on with the interviews in transit camps on their own. Again the major problem was my identification with UNHCR, which refugees believed was encouraging repatriation. Moreover, many of these disgruntled people had been driven unwillingly by the drought on the borders, to register for settlements, and had then been forced to remain in crowded conditions for months with insufficient food.

The response to the survey at Goli represents the other extreme of attitudes we encountered. Charles Male reports:

...of the three transits the refugees term their co-ordinator - 'The right man in the right place'. For a transit camp such a person like Mr Yusuf Atuma is needed because in transits people are usually very stubborn, prepared to do anything....

After comparing the administration with others he had seen, Male goes on to point out the problem of accommodation which he described as

...really very acute, there are three to four family heads per tent and the average number of persons per tent is nine. At the meeting of the block leaders, the people expressed their thanks and gratitude to us for having turned up to see what is happening in Goli transit and report exactly whatever we see. I had to explain to them the importance of our mission....What we have already done and the few achievements, i.e. the abrupt changes and modifications in the agencies implementing UNHCR policies in the settlements.

After the survey, at another general meeting and the following message was sent back to me.

Thanks for all what you have told us, you have just hit the nail on the head, particularly by choosing our own brothers to assist her in the whole programme. Since our escape to Sudan, we never had such ideas and all what we thought of was our daily ration of rice which at times does not come. We were ignorant about the assistance...and all those involved in it...generally we are sorry for all the conspiracy about all what is happening on the Ugandan refugees now in the Sudan. Particularly we are sad to tell you about what happened here recently. On the 8th August, 1983 a visitor from Holland arrived...he uttered the following: 'We in Europe have heard that you refugees in southern Sudan are Amin's people and all of you are Muslims.' This statement really made us feel depressed and annoyed [sic]...this same man deceived us that his name was Peter with no title, but in the visitor's book, he signed 'van Kricken'....We refugees should have a newspaper so that we can present our problems to the outside world...despite all problems you might encounter, we still pray that your report will be effective. (20 September 1983.)

'Good' and 'bad' settlements

The extent to which the reliability of data relating to population totals varied between settlements and the varying responses to the survey, raise interesting questions concerning the social relations within every settlement and the attitudes that refugees developed towards the aid programme and the expatriate 'interveners'. Some settlements gained a reputation for being more 'troublesome' than others; there was a tendency among agency personnel to explain this by using negative stereotypes. That is to say, that certain ethnic groups who predominated in the 'problem' settlements, particularly the Lugbara from Aringa County were considered to be troublemakers.

I do not have sufficient data to support my own theory of why it might be that some settlements were more difficult to manage than others, but I suspect that there is a direct relationship between the logistical failures of the aid programme and the response of the refugees as a community. Adio settlement was established at a time of great shortages of food, tools, and transport to supply building materials which were not available on site. Refugees were being transported to Adio at a time when there were only four Sudanese households in the vicinity on whom they would have to depend for leja leja. One could expect Adio people to become disillusioned in a very short time. The report from Katigiri, where my team received such a cool reception and where there had already been a riot over food, provides another illustration of the relationship between logistics and community 'trouble'.

As Lali reports:

... Since the settlement is only in its third month of existence, the settlers rely entirely on food rations. Distribution of such rations has been variably spaced ... Distribution on 13 September was recorded as one bag of beans per block, two of milk and 24 tins of oil. On 8 July - 6 August and 13 August about four bags of rice were distributed to each block; an emergency food reserve was distributed a fortnight after.

The food crisis continued until the settlers came to the administration freely demanding food. There was no food and they demanded the blankets [reserved for the next arrivals] in store so that they could sell them to buy food. This commotion went on and sent the settlement officer hurrying to Yei for aid. He arrived back with 50 bags of cassava but the campaign for selling the blankets was already accomplished.

A good number ... still go for leja leja for their daily food, but cases of failure to find work are frequent; the factors being long distance ... (minimum 2 miles), few people to work for, and language problems ... Up to now some advertise their blankets and other household utensils in market ... and buy food with the money.

The whole of Katigiri is grown with so much bush that allocation of plots has become impossible and labourers ... have not been paid for the last two months. Among the implements distributed, one type of hoe and the axes could not be used. The former was too weak and the latter blunt. Spades were given for every two families and a pick axe for every four . . . Hoes are not enough. Some of the new arrivals have no hoes at all. Some of the hoes distributed are hopeless [SSRAP imported US garden-type hoes.] They are too weak for use ... There were 300 good hoes brought; this consignment was distributed up to a fraction of block 12, the rest ... received none. The weak hoes we could see were thrown about in the compounds of the settlement, unusable ... Only 50 pangas have been brought. These were distributed to eleven blocks and people share them. The axes are blunt and could be better used for crushing stones. All these could be seen in the compounds; nobody uses them. [Nor, apparently, could they even sell them.] The sickles were distributed to all families ... but because new arrivals have no hoes, they have been using the sickles for slashing and clearing their plots. Many are broken at the handles and long bamboo handles are improvised. There are also [only] five spades per block ... the settlers had to plant some seeds, i.e. groundnuts, 16 bags of 20 kg each. This is insufficient and there were bitter complaints. Millet, I bag, is insufficient; dura, I bag, insufficient; maize, sufficient; beans, sufficient; cabbage and vegetables, sufficient.

... there is no feeding programme in Katigiri (17 September 1983).

The study of the self-settled, unassisted refugees

As explained in the Introduction, I did not initially intend to include unassisted refugees in the research. According to UNHCR (which provided the Sudan government with its population estimates) there were only 20,000 unassisted refugees living in the Yei River District.[9] It was soon apparent that this was a considerable underestimate. The programme officer had drawn up a short questionnaire which was administered to about 120 households in late 1982. When the importance of the relationship between settlements and unassisted refugees became clear, I decided to extend the research to include both groups. Not expecting to be able to extend this research very far, I began by using the team of trained interviewers and administered the same interview schedule, despite its obvious limitations.

These interviews began near Kaya, an area densely populated with refugees. Before 1979 there had been fewer than 6,000 people living there now every inch of land, over the hillsides and stretching up to the rocks, was cultivated. It was possible to train some of the many educated refugees living in the area to continue the interviews under the supervision of John Avrudia, formerly a student at a teachers' training college in Uganda. The enthusiasm of these people at Kaya persuaded me to collect more data, but it was impractical at this point to revise the questionnaire.

When, however, we moved on to Panyume we met with serious resistance. The refugees there claimed to have seen me at Baze on the first repatriation mission in 1983, with the UNHCR lorries transporting 6,000 Ugandans (there were actually only 105) back to Arua 'to their death'. They assumed our study was a ruse organized by UNHCR to identify them in order to repatriate them forcibly to Uganda. In one compound my team met several men armed with bows and arrows who informed them that should they take a step nearer, it would be their last!

In Panyume, the refugees and Sudanese had jointly organized a number of projects and the local Sudanese chief recognized a 'refugee chief'. I discussed my problem with these chiefs, and the leaders of the SSU. It was decided that under the supervision of Asiku Romano, a Ugandan, formerly principal of the farm training school, Arua, the interviews would be conducted by refugee students living in the area. In the Kajo-Kaji area, two members of my team, together with the Sudanese principal of a primary school very near the Ugandan border, trained a team of local teachers and students to conduct interviews.

At the same time as these interviews were being conducted, one of my team, Gabriel Dramundru, collected data for his comparative study of schools in the self-settled areas and in settlements. Another member of my team, Atima Ayoub, responsible for the study of markets in the area, conducted some interviews of the self-settled south of Limuru settlement. Other assistants were employed to administer interviews in other areas where they lived. Father Peter Dada of the Catholic Centre held regular meetings of lay catechists who worked in the self-settled areas. At one of these I recruited some of these people to conduct interviews in the areas served by their chapels.

Altogether 3,814 interviews were conducted in the five areas shown on Map 3. Households were identified by their location in relation to a market. The interviewers identified 118 such market centres, most of them having been established since the 1979 influx of Ugandan refugees. The population of unassisted refugees accounted for by these interviews was 27,281, with an average household size of 7.15. Table III.2 shows the numbers of households interviewed in each of the five areas, the year the households first settled at the place interviewed, and the mother tongue of the residents. The results show a tendency for ethnic groups to cluster together.

Many areas known to be inhabited by self-settled Ugandan refugees were not included in the study, even in the border areas. Some are so remote that they are even difficult to reach by bicycle. Only a handful of the Yei interviews were conducted in the town; most of those interviewed from this area were living on the outskirts where there was agricultural land. It is possible that up to two-thirds of Yei town's population of 23,478 were refugees. While refugees were concentrated in the border areas and in Yei, households were also scattered throughout the district. For example, a cluster of self-settled - mainly Nubi refugees - lived near Limbe settlement on the Juba road, having moved there in 1979.

Population of the district

It is not possible to estimate the total population of unassisted refugees in the district from the interviews alone, but some census data were available. In 1981 a Social Monitor Study put the total population of the district at 149,824. From the survey of settlements and interviews from the self-settled areas, we know that at least 43,901 of the refugees were already living in the district by the end of 1980.

In March 1983, the official government census put the population of the district at 355,688. Given the numbers of Ugandans who had already entered the district by the end of 1980, one might assume that there are no more than I ()0.000 Sudanese in the population and that the number of refugees in YRD could be as high as 250,000. It is also worth noting that among the thousands registering tor settlements in June 1983, some were coming directly from Zaire and Uganda (and there was a major influx as late as December 1984).

Census data are never wholly reliable, and this is especially the case with those collected under the conditions which obtain in this part of the world. According to the 1983 census, the population of the region had doubled from around 700,000 in 1980/81 to 1.4 million in 1983. In a recent note, the economic advisor to the Ministry of Agriculture could not find 'any rational explanation' for this enormous increase. (Wade-Brown, December 1984.) She 'guestimated' that the number of self-settled refugees in the region was about 200,000 and asserted that the national census did not include those refugees who were living in camps. At the time of the census there were according to UNHCR, 48,627 refugees in settlements in Yei River District. But Wade-Brown's statement contradicts information obtained by the head of the Juba UNHCR office in September 1983 when it was affirmed that the census did include settlements.

In September 1983 there were, according to UNHCR, 70,000 Ugandans living in camps on the east bank of the Nile and no one knows how many are self-settled there or in Juba town itself. It would not be unreasonable to guess that there are as many as 350,000 Ugandans living in southern Sudan.[10]

The reactions of the team

Participatory team research has its own built-in hazards and rewards. To describe our team's relationships as intensive, or the work demanding, is to understate the dynamics of our relationships or the schedule that we maintained. We had two tents. I slept in one and the young men spilled out of the other. We travelled between settlements in lorries and on one occasion, we walked. We carried bicycles, food, and equipment, including stools to sit on. We worked from early till late at night. We argued, discussed, got angry, told jokes, sang, and we certainly laughed together a great deal.

A considerable amount of social levelling took place. One who first arrived for work in his coat and tie was immediately asked to cook and temporarily given the title 'minister of food'. If I failed to take a daily bath, I was given no peace, even though I argued that the wind was bitter cold. We ate better than refugees, at least we ate more - the ingredients were usually the same. Occasionally we bought dried fish and chicken, and we drank tea with sugar. They gained weight; I lost 20 pounds. On our last night together in Yei we sat down to reflect on the experience of the past few months. The excerpts from that conversation which follow suggest that refugees are capable of examining themselves as well as criticising the programme.

When I joined Barbara's team, I hadn't thought I would become a better lawyer, but more of an anthropologist. After learning that Dr Barbara had done a lot of research on the sociology of law, it made me think a lot about doing such research and I hope that I will get the chance ... I hope that my professional bias as a lawyer will one time come to an end and I will try to use my profession to the benefit of society ... My short time of work has helped me a lot to know about the outside world and I think will also assist the outside world in also learning about the conditions among our community ... conditions which have been neglected by the develop-- the so-called developed world.

As one of us has said, this research has made feel that once again we are in school . . . Now among our brothers we saw a lot of things. I found I was able to write some few reports about my fellow refugees. I have seen how people behave in various places ... there is fear in most of the refugees.

This research has touched us all, but me particularly ... I have seen the dangers of sitting waiting instead of assisting ourselves . .. I have seen how our people are divided up, each group following his own ideas. This research has helped to draw our attention away from our own sufferings and most of these experiences we have shared together and I am thankful for being made more aware of these things.

I want to talk about my technical experience. [This person did not work in the settlements, but coded the interviews of the self-settled households.] Self-settlers are living under terrible conditions. There are no schools, no dispensaries ... as they are refugees, under UNHCR protection, it's my opinion.that they must begin to assist them as well as those who are in settlements. As they have expressed their problems - their problems in fact are not many ... medicines, problems of food, problems of land.

Concerning the social side [of our team], it was positive. Because before coming here I was isolated ... how can I say, I was in an intellectual coma, so my brain was not functioning. But when I came here, I could work ... I found a very amicable social climate. I could work. My concentration is improving, it increased. The way of communication, it is very important to me.

As we moved from settlement to settlement, we have found out that UNHCR has failed to assist us in almost all areas ... the whole thing according to me has been a waste. If [only] there could be a new foundation laid to try to improve the settlements so that everything could go on in order ...

In one way or another we have been labelled as spies, the refugees think we are spies, the agencies think we are spies too ... I am taking this opportunity to say to each one of us that as we go back to our people we must represent ourselves as people who are ready to assist and not to spy on them ... to realize that our whole attitude is to unite and serve them, despite all conditions and ... to show our good qualities. Now we are aware, we have tried our best, knowing that we have one aim - to achieve progress one day.

We should go to the organization nearest us before going up to Geneva. We must ask OAU what it is doing about refugees in Africa.

As one of the older [i.e. first employed] members of the team, at first I looked on the research as passing time, but later I learned the usefulness of the whole thing. One of the first things was meeting people I never thought of meeting again, but because of the research work, I got to meet them. Secondly, I also learned how to make a questionnaire. I got help to transform it into Lugbara and into Madi. I learned a lot from that. Thirdly, the research ... educated me on what was happening all around the world.

I missed school since October 21st 1980. I didn't go to class after that. I came to Zaire. I left Zaire, came to Sudan, still was stranded without any purpose. I came to the Sudan, got myself employed, I left after a year and a half, and after staying for that six months ... I met Dr Barbara Harrell-Bond and of course, once again I was in class ... I got some little salary ...

When I went to the self-settled area, I thought about myself, what my own people thought of me, that I was representing them ... some day when they go through the files, they will find my name as somebody who was trying to assist fellow refugees, fellow people, not somebody who was a stranded student. [Referring to a report he wrote which was sent to Geneva] I felt I was responsible for my people, me with all my problems. At least some of us know what happened at that time and the assistance that we provided. I also was given some administrative skills. If I am not mistaken a third of the settlements were administered by me. As concerns the general research, I met a lot of people who were really suffering, others weren't suffering so much. I didn't meet these people before and I really know the problems of being a refugee. I thought of myself, but now I feel I am not one of the worst. I think anything small I should share with a brother or give to a brother who is really suffering...I've learnt of the administrations of the various settlements, about local government, I've been made to know that refugees have a voice .. I learned to actually think of other people or of other cases which are more serious ... I learned to judge what is good and what is bad through the settlements and through the self-settlers. l think all of here would say we have become better persons.

The Ugandan youth must become responsible, we have been misled, we must take over from the old ... it is high time we take responsibility for ourselves, we can't expect someone to come and do it for us. We must do it for ourselves and all this I learned through this research...

Summary

A number of points emerge from our experience of designing and implementing a major social survey among refugees in Sudan. Perhaps the most important general point is that qualitative data is absolutely essential if efforts to collect useful quantitative data are to succeed. By this I mean that general anthropological data will provide the information that will indicate what sorts of specific statistical data will be most useful; and it will also provide the context against which statistical data can more satisfactorily be interpreted.

A second more general point which emerged, is that the survey work provided the possibility of collaboration between groups who generally lived and worked in splendid and uninformed isolation. By this I mean not only the various religious and ethnic groups, but also the three major segments of the aid programme - the refugees, the local Sudanese and the aid agencies.

And a third general point to emerge is that social surveys and evaluative work can be done locally, provided that a person and funds are allocated for such work. Both expertise and initiative are available locally and there is no need to import yet another team of expatriate 'experts'.

There are of course, specific methodological problems that emerged during our research. The two major problems were dishonesty and fear. Both are related and either could have seriously distorted our results. However, once the causes of fear and dishonesty are understood, they can be more readily taken into account in research design. It is here that the value of qualitative data cannot be underestimated. I have pointed to the factors which encouraged the inflation of population numbers and the suppression of the death rate and to the factors which encouraged non-cooperation, as they entered into the narrative of the book. I have also discussed the statistical checks and repeat surveys that were used to validate our findings, and I have indicated the limitations of our findings. By including anecdotal and descriptive material, and by including documents written by the refugees themselves, I have tried to present a richer picture than that provided by the statistics alone. For all that, the statistical picture that emerges from the survey data. tells its own story. That story is that the aid programme is not working. The other data suggest why.

QUESTIONNAIRE 1983

A: Questionnaire administered to households in settlements

1. Name of settlement

2. Address

Questions describing household

3. How many people normally live in this household?

4. Number in household now present?

5. Where are the absentees?

6. Block Leader; do you know these absentees?

7. Who first came to this household?

8. When did you come?

9. In which year were you first disturbed by soldiers, whereby [sic] you were not settled in your household in Uganda?

10. Did you first run to Zaire?

11. Can you remember when you first entered the Sudan?

12. After entering the Sudan, where did you go next?

13. How long were you self-settled?

14. Why did you come to the settlement?

15. Many people have died both from natural causes and the war since the liberators (Tanzanians) came to Uganda. How many of your relatives have died?

16. How many have you buried in (settlement)?

17. How many babies have been born here in the household?

18. How many axes do you have?

19. How many hoes?

20. How many spades?

21. How many hammers?

22. How many knives?

23. How many saws?

24. How many sickles?

25. How many members of your household are capable of cultivating?

26. How many cattle did you bring to

(settlement)?

27. How many cattle have you now?

28. What happened to the missing ones?

29. Do you keep cattle for consumption, for bride-wealth or for cash?

30. How many sheep do you own now?

31. How many goats do you own now?

32. Did you have sheep or goats when you arrived in (settlement)?

33. What happened to them?

34. How many chickens do you own now?

35. Did you acquire them in (settlement) or did you bring them with you?

36. What do you use the poultry for?

37. How many children of school age are living in your household?

38. How many attend school?

39. How many children of school age are not enrolled?

40. Why don't these children go to school?

41. Who is the head of the household?

42. How many children in this household have no mother or father living?

43. How many have leprosy?

44. How many are widows?

45. How many are crippled?

46. How many are deaf?

47. How many are dumb?

48. How many are blind?

49. How many women are married whose husbands do not live in this settlement?

50. Clothing situation (objective assessment by interviewer)

51. Is your house complete?

52. Do you have a bath shelter?

53. DO you have a rubbish dump?

54. Do you have a latrine?

55. Do you have a grain store?

56. Do you have a drying table?

57. Do you have a kitchen?

58. Do you have a resting shelter?

59. Do you boil water before drinking?

60. How many containers for water do you have?

61. What do you sleep on?

62. How many blankets do you have?

63. How many cooking pots do you have?

64. How many stools/chairs do you have?

65. Did you grow vegetables last year?

66. What did you do with them?

67. How does your household get money?

68. How many of you worked for locals last week?

69. How many days altogether?

70. How many working days were lost last week because of illness?

71. How much land have you acquired for cultivation?

72. How did you acquire this land?

73. How do you see the future ?(prompt) Do you hope to return to Uganda in the near future?

74. Does your household grow cash crops?

75. How many members of your household are ill now?

76. How many huts are used by your household?

77. Do you read and write in your language?

78. How many bicycles does your household own?

79. Has anyone in your household got married since you came to (settlement)?

80. (If yes) What has been done to make the marriage acceptable?

81. Has your household borrowed money since you arrived in

(settlement)?

82. Are any members of your household living as refugees in Zaire?

83. Do you have relatives living as refugees in Zaire?

84. Do you have self-settled relatives in the Sudan?

85. Do you have relatives who have recently returned to Uganda?

86. Do you have relatives living outside the continent of Africa?

87. Do you think it is better to live on your own outside a settlement or in a settlement?

88. Does your household have any relatives living in other settlements in the Sudan?

Questions directed to each individual in the household

89. What is your relationship to the head of this household?

90. When did you arrive in

(settlement)?

91. What is your age?

92. Are you a member of any co-operative society in

(settlement)?

93. Where did you live in Uganda?

94. In which county did you make your home?

95. What is your mother tongue?

96. Do you speak Swahili?

97. Do you speak English?

98. Do you speak other foreign languages?

99. How many years did you attend school?

100. What standard did you reach?

101. What was your occupation in Uganda?

102. What is your religion?

103. Do you attend religious services in the settlement or with the Sudanese?

104. Do you hold any official position in the settlement?

105. Did you vote in the last settlement elections?

106. Do you hold a salaried position in the settlement'?

107. What can you do to earn money?

108. How did you earn money in Uganda?

109. Are you presently attending school?

110. When did you stop going to school in Uganda?

B: Questionnaire administered to households of self-settled refugees

1. Where is the location of your household?

2. When did you leave your home in Uganda?

3. When did you settle here?

4. Where did you settle before?

5. How many people live in this compound?

6. How many adult males?

7. How many adult females?

8. How many males aged 0-5 years?

9. How many females aged 0-5 years?

10. How many males aged 6-16 years?

11. How many females aged 6- 16 years ?

12. How many acres do you cultivate?

13. Is the cultivated land in the same area or broken up?

14. Where did you get your seeds?

15. What other sources of income have you?

16. What did your family eat yesterday?

17. Do your children go to school?

18. Which school do they attend?

19. When you are ill, which dispensary do you visit?

20. If none available, how do you treat illnesses?

21. How many people in your household have died since settling here?

22. How many people in your household have died since 1979?

23. How many children have been born in your household since settling here ?

24. What are your main problems here?

25. Why don't you register to go to an assisted settlement?

26. Are other members of your household now living in assisted settlements?

27. What is your mother tongue?

28. How were you taking care of yourself in Uganda?

29. How many cattle do you have?

30. How many goats do you have?

31. How many sheep do you have?

32. How many chickens do you have?

33. Who is the head of the household?

34. How many are ill or disabled?

35. Have you paid poll tax?

36. What is your religion?

____________________

[1] For example, in Yei River District certain areas produced surpluses, but farmers had no means of getting produce to the market in Juba where scarcity kept prices inordinately high. Yet food aid was transported from Kenya, through Juba to the district where prices were already depressed. With careful monitoring would it not have been possible to have sold the food aid in Juba and have given refugees money to buy local food? Such an approach would require a different methodology.

[2] The results from the three settlements have been weighted to correspond to the data from other settlements.

[3] This is a very casual statement about the profoundly disturbing role of the student of human society. John O'Neill has observed: 'A good part of what we call social science is the study of individuals who are miserable enough to be the object of sociological inquiry. The wealthy, for the most part, escape sociological investigation...But the poor...do not write memoirs. Their lives have to be documented, which means that their lives are the subject of ethnographies, questionnaires, and films. Thus the practice of sociology is entirely dependent upon the different forms of access to other individuals' lives, at the same time that sociology pretends to be a remedy for such inequality.' (1975:62.)

[4] Given my own smoking habit I could not have afforded to supply the thousands of other deprived addicts! My shameful answer to them was usually that I was afraid to give them tobacco knowing how Lugbara dealt with poisoners.

[5] Two Oxford university students joined the team for one month in 1983 and Ugandans were shocked to discover these two young people had only recently become aware there were refugees in southern Sudan. They could not believe their situation did not receive wide publicity in Britain .

[6] The latter were asked to write essays and it was through this means that I identified some of those whom I added to my team of interviewers.

[7] In some settlements interviewers found an empty plot in their sample. these, and the few refusals were replaced by taking the plot directly adjacent.

[8] See page, 22.

[9] This may not be the case for all African host governments, but the Sudan has no means of assessing the numbers of refugees who live outside of settlements. All 'official' figures are determined by agency officials. Again this is an important function which local university researchers should undertake. When I reported that rather than hosting only 20,000 unassisted refugees in Yei River District, the number was at least 100,000, the UNHCR representative asked why it was that Sudan under-estimated the burden it was shouldering when 'all over Africa other governments were 'exaggerating' theirs.

[10] Accepting this figure does not. of course. resolve Wade-Brown's problem of accounting for the entire 7()0.()00 additional people counted in 1983 as compared with the census in 1981. One must agree with her when she concludes that 'In the absence of any rational explanation of the difference between these two sets of statistics and of any other reliable and up-to-date population estimates, both of these sources should initially he considered suspect' (ibid.)