A holistic guide to choosing your data collection method for IMM

In the Global South, and especially in rural Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), measuring social performance is no longer an optional or burdensome add-on. Technological advances and mobile phone penetration now make it possible to gather meaningful data efficiently, affordably, and directly from end-users, often the stakeholders directly affected by organisational interventions. For impact-focused organisations, the key challenge is not whether to measure impact, but how.

This guide offers a comparative overview of survey methods, with practical insights for impact organizations seeking to choose the right data collection tools for IMM (Impact Measurement and Management) in rural SSA.

The evolving landscape of impact measurement

Impact measurement is shifting from heavy, resource-intensive methods to more agile, tech-enabled approaches. Instead of attempting to prove attribution through control groups, many organizations now focus on stakeholder-reported outcomes, behavioral trends, and decision-relevant data. Emerging (digital) tools and methods balance practicability and academic rigor, while discovering highly relevant insights.

Mobile infrastructure in many rural regions now supports methods like CATI (Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing), SMS, WhatsApp surveys and even AI-driven voice agents, making it possible to collect real-time data on social outcomes at a fraction of previous costs. These shifts have the potential to democratise impact measurement, especially among resource-constrained organizations.

Method-by-Method overview

1. On-the-Ground Interviews / CAPI

CAPI (Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing) remains the gold standard for high-quality, contextualised data collection in rural areas. It involves trained enumerators visiting households with tablets or mobile devices to conduct structured interviews.

Pros:

• Enables in-depth probing and clarification of responses
• Provides observational and non-verbal context that enriches the data
• Ideal for complex, sensitive, or exploratory studies
• Not dependent on mobile or internet connectivity

Cons:

• High cost per respondent due to travel, staffing, and logistics
• Requires significant planning and coordination
• Vulnerable to field disruptions (e.g., weather, conflict zones)
• Risk of bias, especially: 
  
  • Social Desirability Bias
  • Interviewer Bias 
  • Hawthorne Effect 

2. Phone Interviews / CATI / IVR

CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) uses trained call center agents to conduct surveys via mobile phone. IVR (Interactive Voice Response) uses pre-recorded voice prompts that guide the respondent through the survey. Both methods offer a scalable solution for reaching dispersed populations.

Pros:

• Faster and less expensive than in-person fieldwork
• Supervised agents can ensure quality and completeness
• Can be adapted for multilingual contexts

Cons:

• Selection bias: Excludes those without phones or poor network access
• Lower rapport compared to in-person interviews
• Risk of dropout mid-survey, especially for longer interviews
• Lack of non-verbal and contextual cues, limiting detection of hesitation or emotional nuance
  ‍

3. SMS Surveys

SMS surveys are best suited for short, simple, and low-cost data collection. They are typically limited to a small number of multiple-choice or numeric questions.

Pros:

• Perceived anonymity can encourage more candid disclosure, especially on sensitive topics (reduces social desirability bias)
• Inexpensive and easy to automate
• Useful for basic demographic or behavioral data
• Reach is broad in areas with high feature phone usage

Cons:

• Selection bias: Excludes those without phones or poor network access
• Literacy-dependent; excludes low-literacy populations
• Poor fit for complex or open-ended questions
• Drop-off rates increase significantly after 7 questions (only applicable to very short surveys)
  ‍

‍4. Survey Links (via SMS, WhatsApp, or Email)

Survey links redirect respondents to external platforms (e.g., Google Forms, SurveyMonkey, KoboToolbox). The link itself can be distributed through SMS, WhatsApp, email, or other digital channels.

Pros:

• Supports more complex survey designs with multimedia, skip logic, and structured flows
• Easy to adapt or customise via external platforms
• Can handle longer surveys than SMS or IVR
  

Cons:

• Selection bias: Excludes those without phones or poor network access
• Higher dropout in rural SSA due to data costs and digital literacy gaps
• Incentives often necessary to sustain engagement
  
  

5. WhatsApp Integrated Surveys (Direct Questioning / Chatbots)

WhatsApp-based surveys use automated bots or conversational flows within the WhatsApp interface itself, rather than redirecting via links.

Pros:

• Conversational, interactive experience
• Multimedia capabilities (voice, images, video) enrich data collection
• High familiarity and trust among WhatsApp users
• Chatbots can manage 10–15 questions, including open-ended responses
  

Cons:

• Selection bias: Excludes those without phones or poor network access
• Lower feasibility in rural areas due to connectivity, phone-sharing, and data costs
• Less effective with older or less digitally literate populations

‍

6. AI-Driven Phone Surveys and Chatbot Solutions

Emerging technologies such as AI voice agents (e.g., VAPI, LiveKit, Pipecat) offer promising solutions for overcoming data collection challenges. These agents can conduct multilingual phone surveys with natural, human-like interaction, operate 24/7, and integrate seamlessly with CRM systems.

Pros:

• Multilingual capabilities, supporting local languages and dialects
• 24/7 availability, increasing scalability and flexibility
• Reduces interviewer bias and lowers labour costs
• Integration with CRM systems ensures streamlined data management
  

Cons:

• Limited ability to handle complex open-ended responses → Natural Language Processing (NLP) needs further developing
• Local dialect and accent recognition are still developing
• Significant upfront investment in technology and testing

Cross-cutting lessons from the field: Designing, monitoring, and improving in real time

Beyond selecting the right method, organisations should emphasise assessing data quality during collection. Monitoring responses as they are gathered makes it possible to identify gaps, inconsistencies, or biases early. This allows teams to intervene while fieldwork is ongoing, for example by retraining enumerators, refining survey questions, or adjusting the data collection channel. Continuous quality checks strengthen the reliability of the study and ensure that insights remain actionable.

1. Define objectives first: Clarify what information you need before choosing a method.
2. Match methods to context: Consider connectivity, phone access, language, and literacy.
3. Use hybrid approaches: Combine CAPI for baselines with CATI, IVR or WhatsApp for follow-ups.
4. Consider respondent burden: Keep remote surveys short (10-15 questions max).
5. Leverage existing infrastructure: Use sales teams, call centers, or product registration for outreach as it reduces cost and can serve as a customer relationship exercise.
6. Ensure cultural fit: Adapt tone, language, and consent flows for local settings.
7. Start small and iterate: Pilot each method in a controlled way and adapt.

A decision guide for tool selection

Reflections on practicality and scale

For impact organisations operating in rural SSA, cost is only one side of the equation. Inclusion, ethics, and usability are equally critical. Technologies like WhatsApp and AI may offer scale, but they should not be implemented without considering the social and infrastructural realities of the communities being served.

Simple questions often yield the clearest answers. Matching the complexity of your research question to the capabilities of your survey method can avoid frustration and wasted resources. For example, asking about household size may work well via SMS, but assessing income shocks or informal employment may require voice or in-person interaction.

Designing effective surveys also involves cultural sensitivity. Language, tone, length, and delivery mode all shape how respondents engage with a survey. In many cases, survey tools that offer respondents more privacy (such as anonymous SMS or WhatsApp bots) may yield more honest answers to sensitive questions.

Conclusion

There is no single best method for data collection in rural Sub-Saharan Africa. Each tool brings trade-offs in reach, quality, cost, and contextual fit. The most resilient and effective impact organizations will be those that understand these trade-offs and that embrace experimentation, iteration, and community co-design in building their data strategies.

By aligning data collection tools with local realities and organizational priorities, it's possible to build a flexible, ethical, and scalable IMM system that goes beyond numbers to reflect the lived experiences of the people we aim to serve.

‍