Exercise 6. Matrix comparison

Name of exercise: Matrix comparison, preference matrix or matrix ranking

Tools: Pen, paper, objects (or names written on paper) to be ranked; stones, seeds or other markers to assign value in the matrix.

Time needed: 1 – 2 hours

Description: Matrix comparison is a technique for ranking objects or concepts based on multiple dimensions defined by participants in the exercise. It provides insight into the characteristics and qualities the objects, revealing some of the rationale behind people’s preferences. The technique can be used for a broad range of applications, from judging the popularity of various food plants, to the suitability of basketry materials or the appropriateness of trees for agroforestry systems.

How to do it: Identify knowledgeable people who are willing to participate in the exercise, and have them define the items that are to be ranked (this can be based on earlier steps of free-listing and simple ranking, explained in exercises 4 and 5). Have participants record the selected items in a row on a large piece of paper, whiteboard or even on the ground. After they discuss the characteristics which define the value and usefulness of the objects, they should choose 3 – 5 key features to be used for ranking. These features should be listed across the top of the matrix, heading the columns. Individually or in small groups, participants should rank the objects according to each of the defined characteristics, using a consistent ranking system (e.g. one is lowest and five is highest, or vice versa). Once the objects have been ranked on each characteristic, sum the assigned values across each row. Based on the totals, assign a final rank for each object. After the matrix comparison is completed, have participants record their observations on the comparative qualities of the ranked objects.

References:

IIRR. 1996. Recording and Using Indigenous Knowledge: A Manual. Silang, Cavite, International Institute of Rural Reconstruction. Pages 88 – 89 "Matrix"

Martin, G.J. 1995. Ethnobotany: A Methods Manual. London, Chapman and Hall. Chapter on anthropology.

Rastogi, A. 1999. Methods in Applied Ethnobotany: Lessons from the Field. Discussion Paper Series No. MNR 99/1. Kathmnadu, International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development.

Selener, D., N. Endara and J. Carvajal. 1999. Participatory Rural Appraisal and Planning Workbook. Quito, International Institute of Rural Reconstruction. Pages 76 – 78 "Preference ranking".

Example:

The fifth year students of the Department of Pharmacognosy and Pharmaceutical Botany of Khon Kaen University split into small groups to devise a matrix ranking for five of the fruits mentioned in the original free list. In order to understand the popularity of these fruits, one group of students first defined several dimensions that contribute to "preference": taste, availability, nutritional value and cost. The matrix was then sketched onto paper. Using 15 large seeds, the students came to a consensus on how to rank the fruits according to each of the dimensions. For example, bananas – considered to have the best taste – was assigned 5 seeds, followed by papaya (4 seeds), salacca (3), longan (2) and longong (1).

BACK