Running surveys can be a time-consuming and costly thing. More often than not, obtaining representative results is even harder. (Participants tend to be from middle class backgrounds).

Combining quantitative sources (survey results and statistics) with qualitative sources (face to face interviews and insights on the field) leads to better representation and a more comprehensive picture.

In order to reach the best representativity, the toolbox has to be accessible and inclusive, available for different research contexts and varying degrees of computer literacy.

In certain contexts, face to face interviews or a workshop will yield better results than a survey. On the other hand, surveys can provide more responses. Why choose? All methods are available.

National, regional and even local statistics can fail to represent the finer details of citizen’s situations - using city-wide data at best, there’s a struggle to represent inequalities in cities. Averages erase discrepancies between neighborhoods.

By collecting geographically-precise data at the neighborhood level, we hope to produce better, more faithful picture of cities and their challenges, and to best identify the most pressing issues.

Reality by the numbers is only a partial view. Our initiative strives to shift data perceptions within local governments to help them see the value in a mixed methods approach (qualitative and quantitative data combined).

By bringing evidence & data closer to decision-makers, we hope to help policy makers become data-informed.

Cities are getting more and more involved in rethinking how public value is created, cultivated and used to solve societal challenges.

They are opening up to enablers within citizens and community organisations to open their doors to being participatory and resilient.

Some things, like the benefit of citizen engagement, are hardly quantifiable.

Creating an information commons accessible to all is part of the core values of the project. Refined geographical data will be collected, but no personal data (neither age, gender, faith, sexual orientation or otherwise).

The data produced can therefore be open by default.

Although we aim to make a replicable toolkit to measure wellbeing and inequalities, there’s little chance the questions wills be “one size fits all”. The tools are free to use and adapt to suit the needs of the people using them.

Whether you are a citizen, a community organisation or a local authority, these tools can help you create a system to collect the information you’re seeking.