Part 3: The sexual exploitation of adolescent girls in the Kanungu District, Uganda: barriers to the implementation of the “Sugar Daddy Awareness” lessons

Methodology

In this study, both primary (interviews and questionnaires) and secondary sources (online academic journal articles, donor facilitator resources, government censuses and surveys, policy reports, and unpublished essays, concept notes and briefing papers by U-SHAPE) were used. The research is designed to address: teacher’s attitudes towards the SDA programme, confidence in teaching sex education, the quality of training received to facilitate the SDA lessons and problems faced by teachers.

The interviews were carried out in a two-week time frame. They were conducted in English with 4 teachers (including 1 senior man and 1 senior woman teacher) – 2 from Kazuru Primary School (a government-funded school) and 2 from Mothercare Primary School (a privately-funded school), 2 head teachers – of Kazuru and Mothercare, 2 pastoral lead teachers – 1 from KPPS (private school) and 1 from Kindergatten (public school), the local district schools’ inspector, and the facilitator of the SDA lessons.

32 questionnaires were administered, of which only 24 returned, at a STiR Education meeting at Great Lakes Regional College on Thursday 23rd June 2016 which was attended by 16 teachers from 9 of the 15 primary schools.

The discussion of sugar daddies, HIV/AIDS transmission risks and teenage pregnancies fell under the category of sexual behaviours and/or activities; so, it was vital to identify the sensitive issues and not ask personal or derogatory questions. Before conducting interviews, questions relating to the collective responsibility of schools in delivering the SDA lessons, what it aims to resolve, the hindrance that teachers confront in implementing the classes and sex education were constructed.

During this inquiry, it was important to be mindful of my positionality. According to the Bantu language term used by Ugandans, I acknowledge my position as a “Mzungu” (a person of European descent and/or outsider) and/or “Mhindi” (a person from India). Being a British Indian, Western-educated woman, I recognise that my privilege establishes a “difference” between myself and the researched, which has ramifications for the fieldwork. Nevertheless, my previous experience of volunteering with VU in the Kanungu District in 2015, combined with my gender, ethnicity and race, affected the fieldwork by creating an open dialogue with participants. Due to the positive bilateral relations between India and Uganda, my ethnic identity has been valuable to building respondent rapport as I am regarded as a naturally “honest” person by Ugandans.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s