Technical Competency
Responsible Use of Information
Assessing
How to assess or score: for non-subject matter experts
Whatever your question (if you choose or adapt a question from the Anchoring section or create your own), the Deep Dive table can help you identify positive and negative aspects – green or reg flags in a candidate’s answers.
For a simple scoring or assessment scheme, you can simply assign +1 to positive or green flag content and -1 to red flag answers.
For a scoring system of say 0-3 for each question, we would recommend the following matrix to be used in combination with the Deep Dive table for each value or competency. We recommend printing copies of the Deep Dive tables, as well as the full Murad Code, so that these can be easily consulted when assessing a candidate.
| Scoring / grading | Values |
|---|---|
| 0 | Misaligned (harmful, unsafe, or dismissive answers) with red flags - No elements demonstrated or more than 1 limiting behaviors shown. |
| 1 | Weak alignment (superficial, misses core principles) with 1 or 2 red flags - Only 1 or 2 elements demonstrated, with more than 1 limited behaviour also shown. |
| 2 | Partial alignment (mentions some key elements but incomplete) with 1 or no red flags - A good number of elements demonstrated but also 1 red flag or concern raised. |
| 3 | Strong alignment (clear survivor-centred reasoning, practical actions, responsibility) with no red flags - Multiple elements demonstrated and no red flags or limiting behaviours raised. |
Below, there is also an assessment guide to the sample questions provided in the Anchoring section.
Sample written test examples
Hypothetical (can be based on relevant context and job requirements):
1. You are in the comms team at an INGO/international organisation, you have been tasked with reporting both to HQ and donors about documentation work with SCRSV survivors in Myanmar. What are your primary considerations for reporting?
Main elements of a good answer: immediate contextual awareness of security risks (repressive government); emphasis on confidentiality and anonymity for participants; prior planning and donor waivers if information too sensitive/risks to participants; focus on informed consent process and records (match purpose, audient and external use); consideration of accurate, responsible portrayal of survivors and violence (including use of non-stigmatising language or review to ensure not perpetuating stigma); do no harm more broadly including organisational safeguarding and ethical reporting guidelines; as well as then reporting requirements, attuned to the audience and balancing do no harm with demonstrating impact and importance.
Red flags: main emphasis on donor advocacy and influence, any sensationalisation of material for audience effect, no mention of safeguarding, security, confidentiality or consent, dignity or accuracy of portrayal, anything that perpetuates stigma and misunderstandings about survivors or SCRSV.
2. You are asked to lead a team undertaking open-source research about SCRSV and other gender based human rights violations in Afghanistan. How would you apply Murad Code Principle 8.3 into the planning and operationalise of the project?
Main elements expected in answer: identifies implications and harms/risks from collection AND use of open-source materials including: survivor confidentiality and harm, survivor autonomy/consent for use – amplification, criminalisation risk from collecting child abuse material (child sex abuse/exploitation material - CSAM/CSEM) or other sensitive information regulated in relevant countries, information bias, search bias, risk of harm to researchers from vicarious trauma or exposure to SCRSV content, cyber-surveillance/tracking, etc. Expect answer to include risk assessments, creation and training on protocols and safe-guarding measures during preparation and planning stage, response systems and protection in relation to CSAM/CSEM, self-care and vicarious trauma measures for staff, incorporating context and language expertise on team.
Red flags: mining or prioritising quick or wholesale data dumps - collections or preservation without consideration of content or perpetuating harm through viewing or use; no recognition of harm of viewing or downloading material, assuming that if open-source and online then free for any use at all. No consideration of verifying intent and consents for use of materials or assessing risks.
Technical:
1. What strategies do you use to ensure accurate representation of survivor experiences without reinforcing stereotypes or exposing them to stigma?
Main elements expected in answer: consideration of information bias or risks of inaccuracy or non-representation-perpetuation of silencing or underrepresentation – consider what information is not already out there; reflect on own bias, listening bias (what we hear is not necessarily what was said or was trying to be communicated) and search bias (the output or results depend on what we search for, what search terms we use, etc.); understand stigma, myths, misassumptions, stereotypes and harmful gendered narratives about SCRSV or survivors or affiliation bias around perpetrators, use non-stigmatising language and ensure you know what this is; contextualise the sexual violence against other forms of violence and human rights violations taking place; apply a gender and intersectional lens on analysis and representation; ensure informed consent is upheld; consider survivor expert consultation (striving to engage survivors from diverse backgrounds) or review or insights prior to publication or co-authoring or supporting survivors to write things themselves.
Red flags: focus on emotional impact or sensationalisation – audience horror rather than survivors as resilient courageous multi-dimensional human being; using stigmatising language or the language of consensual sex or using passive language which remove perpetrators from recognition and discussions. No recognition of information bias or no self-reflection. No mention of survivor agency and self-representation or asking survivors to review your work.
2. As a downstream user of SCRSV information collected from survivors, what steps do you take to ensure survivor rights are respected in your use of that information?
Main elements expected in answer: ensure you know and respect survivor informed consent, if in doubt renew or don’t use – use diligence to determine reliable process to obtain; anonymise/deidentify if survivor requested that or any doubt about whether to deidentify; ensure non-stigmatising language and not perpetuating stigma, myths and assumptions or stereotypes; use a gendered and intersectional lens and approach it from a strength-based, human rights approach; consider information bias and accurate representation – reflect on own listener/reader bias.
Red flags: no mention of checking parameters of consent; no reflection on own biases or impact on accurate representation; focus on audience reaction not survivor dignity and rights; no mention of stigma, myths or misassumptions.
3. Explain how you mitigate the risk of information bias in your work.
Main elements expected in answer: identifies risks of information bias (e.g. researcher bias such as search bias or positionality/privilege/experience of researcher, censorship (self and state), imbalance of resources and access, etc.), self-reflection and risk assessment of bias including planning mitigation measures, open search terms, identifying and seeking out under-represented/marginalised groups.
Red flags: doesn’t recognise or is unable to describe risks of information bias, no self-reflection, no articulation of any mitigation measures, ignores hidden groups.
4. How important is accuracy in SCRSV work and why?
Main elements expected in answer: avoids perpetuating harms including stigmatisation, marginalisation, silencing, revictimisation; ensures professional standards and ethical standards to make work reliable, credible and effective; recognises that accountability, advocacy and justice is more inclusive and based on credible evidence, otherwise risk undermining access to justice and exercise of survivor rights e.g. inaccurate statements attributed to them and used to challenge their credibility or reliability. Also, reputational risk and risk of undermining other efforts in the same field.
Red flags: prioritises impact and immediate outcomes over accuracy and credibility; prioritises narrative appeal and audience engagement over strict factual correctness; unaware of long term harms to survivors and their rights.
Sample interview questions
1. Can you give an example of when you demonstrated responsibility when using sensitive survivor-related information?
Main elements expected in answer: detailed concrete example including something like ensuring accurate informed consent tracking and use correlation; adding a consent renewal or refresher protocol; encoding and use of pseudonyms; confidential storage and handling/access to information; pushing on non-consented proposed access or use; reviewing and editing for stigmatising language or sensationalised content; survivor consultation on work product.
Red flags: vague answer, no mention of survivor consent/autonomy, focus on audience impact.
2. Tell us about a time when you were concerned about the accuracy of the representation of SCRSV in your team and what steps you took to address the issue?
Main elements expected in answer: clearly identifies problem (sensationalising, non-contextualising, use of stigmatising or otherwise misrepresenting SCRSV or survivors, information bias, writer bias, non-representation or further silencing of groups, etc.), explains corrective steps, prioritises survivor rights and framing even under pressure or when required challenging colleagues.
Red flags: minimising issue, does not identify any issues of representation of SCRSV, no or insufficient corrective steps – problem likely to continue.
3. Please share an example of when you had to consider the risks of using open-source or third-party information about survivors. What did you do to ensure it was used safely and ethically?
See hypothetical Q2, technical Q2 and Q3.