Technical Competency
Understanding Gender, Diversity and Context
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 have been asked to conduct a rapid gender analysis on the conflict in [x], what are your main areas of interest and are your methodological considerations and concerns?
Main elements expected in answer: For areas of interest – power dynamics/decision-making and roles, education- finance/access to resources, protection risks/GBV, freedoms/restrictions (of movement in particular), changes from conflict. Methodological concerns - ensure community/local understanding/input (participatory approach), understanding public v. private dimensions, gender includes men, women, girls and boys and people of diverse SOGIESC, adopting an intersectional lens, information bias.
Red flags: focus only on women=gender, or published/open source demographics, no mention of cultural competency and community expertise and input.
2. You have been assigned the task of designing and planning SCRSV data collection work in a context which is highly patriarchal and in which women are significantly disenfranchised, what steps would you take to ensure the work is designed to be culturally sensitive, gender-informed and survivor-centred?
Main elements expected in answer: highlights survivor safety and confidentiality, power dynamics and backlash, expresses concern over perpetuation of discrimination and disenfranchisement, anticipates barriers such as stigma and male gatekeepers, considers access points for inclusive, safe approaches, women facilitators in safe spaces, consideration of ethics of solutions and working with community experts to co-design creative solutions.
Red flags: accept disenfranchisement and exclusionary practices as price to pay for access, including engaging male gatekeepers as decision-makers regardless of confidentiality/privacy and safety of female survivors. Fails to consider community expertise and prioritising safety and confidentiality.
Technical:
1. What does ‘intersectionality’ mean in the context of SCRSV, and how does it shape your approach to this work?
Main elements expected in answer: defines clearly to recognise overlapping and compounding forms of discrimination and exclusion [see MC 1.1], includes a good range of identities, groupings, status and other situational elements to show understanding (age, SOGIESC, religion, economic or health status, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, level of education, residential status including displacement, etc.) and can explain clearly with practical examples of how it shapes approach [see MC 5.2, 5.3 , 1.5, 1.3, and 1.8].
Red flags: no clear explanation or limited to age, gender and disabilities only. Cannot provide any practical example of adaptation to an individual’s unique circumstances. Approach and methodology stays the same whoever is before them.
2. How do you balance respecting cultural norms with ensuring that survivors’ rights and voices are upheld? And where would you draw the line if cultural norms and survivor rights were irreconcilable?
See Hypothetical Q2 above. Expect prioritisation of survivor rights, safety, confidentiality, and creative solutions co-designed through appropriate community expert engagement
Red flags: if defers to cultural norms, without recognising that some/many may be discriminatory, harmful, stigmatising, disenfranchising. If does not draw the line on the side of survivor safety and survivor rights.
Sample interview questions
1. Give us an example of when you considered gender or cultural dynamics in your work. What was the context, and how did it affect the outcome?
Main elements expected in answer: should be detailed relevant practical example, with concrete actions and outcomes, demonstrates clear understanding of gender and cultural dynamics contextualised and relevant to SCRSV, describes ethical, inclusionary decision making and outcome positive (nothing discriminatory or exclusionary).
Red flags: unable to give example, does not describe relevant gender or cultural aspect relevant to the work, not a positive outcome, no reflection or learning.
2. Can you tell us about a time when the cultural norms seemed to be in direct conflict with a survivor-centred approach, how did you address this and what did you learn?
See hypothetical Q2 above.
3. In your view, why is it important to integrate gender and diversity considerations into SCRSV data collection and analysis?
Main elements expected in answer: connects gender and diversity to 1) representation/inclusion, 2) accurate understandings, 3) effectiveness, and 4) attuned work which can take into account intersectional risks and barriers and design methods to reduce systemic/historical barriers; recognises that without considering gender – half the picture – their understanding can be inaccurate, and can cause unintended consequences, 5) gender and intersectionality are critical for safety considerations.
Red flags: cannot explain, minimises or dismissive, implies secondary or add-on rather than vital as a core part of design and planning, and monitoring/evaluation. Surface answer about giving women voices, without considering intersectionality, systemic and historical discrimination, etc.
4. How do you apply gender-informed approaches to your work? OR What kinds of approaches, tools, or methods have you used to ensure your work is gender-informed?
Main elements expected in answer: mentions specific approaches (with or without technical terms or recent terminology) such as conflict/context analysis which considers gender, age and other characteristics which can impact access and participation as a foundation, barrier analyses – considering gendered or intersectional (other characteristics or situational status which are can face inequalities and discrimination) barriers to access studies, co-design and participatory approaches (in which affected communities are consulted or engaged to help inform or shape design of activities), safe facilitation (survivor-centred and trauma-informed survivor engagement), disaggregated data (collection and analysis of gender, age and other characteristics to understand access and impact of work), feedback and evaluation/regular review. (NOTE: it matters less that the person uses or understands the term “intersectional” or “gender-sensitive”, and more that it is clear that they recognise that different groups and individuals face different forms of discrimination and inequalities which can impact whether they can access, how they access and what impact activities have for them.)
Red flags: no clear answer with no specific methodologies mentioned, no clear answer with no specific methodologies mentioned, use of buzz words with no explanation or substance described for approaches.
5. Can you give a concrete example of how intersectionality has changed the way you approached a piece of work?
See Technical Q1. Expect practical and detailed example.