2. METHODOLOGY This study seeks to answer the following research questions: 1. How is information disorder understood and defined in sub-Saharan Africa? 2. What types of organizations are working to combat information disorder? 3. What types of responses and key methodologies are used by these organizations? 4. What are the main organizational, resourcerelated, and operational challenges faced by organizations in the region? 5. Which policy and legal environments circumscribe the work of these organizations? Considering the expansiveness of the African continent and the number of countries involved, we decided to primarily adopt a regional approach. In the search for actors, we therefore focused on identifying as many initiatives as possible across the continent, without attempting to obtain comprehensive coverage of any particular country. Further, in order to ensure that francophone regions were not overlooked, a French-speaking team member was assigned to gather information on francophone countries. The data collection process consisted of three steps: 1. Collection of publicly available information from websites and other sources: Actors were identified mainly through online searches between April and August 2021. Due to the lack of publicly available information on actors working to counter information disorder, we also followed up word-of-mouth leads, based on our own personal networks and recommendations from the actors we interviewed. The definition of an actor was kept very broad—other than the requirement that the actor had to be working to counter mis- or disinformation, there were no exclusion criteria. Having a broad definition enabled us to explore a variety of actors, including those who do not fit the typical mold. For example, some of the actors do not explicitly classify their work as countering information disorder; rather, their main objectives might include promoting access to information, promoting democracy, or ensuring the right to press freedom or freedom of expression generally. 2. Coding of information: Basic information about the actors and their initiatives was collected from their websites and a coding scheme was devel- I N FO R M ATI O N D I SO R D ER IN THE GLOBA L SOUTH oped to capture various characteristics. It must be noted that coding was mostly based on the research team’s interpretation of information from websites and therefore might not be 100 percent accurate. 3. Interviews with actors: All seventy-nine initiatives identified were contacted with a request for an interview. We did not receive responses from all initiatives; it was particularly difficult to secure interviews with the actors based in Africa. Ultimately, twenty-five of the initiatives were interviewed in August and September 2021. Interviews were conducted on the Zoom and Microsoft Teams platforms, and the standard ethical protocols of the University of Cape Town (UCT) and Research ICT Africa were adhered to. The names of all interviewees are withheld in this report to preserve anonymity. 3. INITIATIVES TO COUNTER INFORMATION DISORDER Overall, we identified seventy-nine initiatives or organizations in sub-Saharan Africa (see Annex A), although not all were confirmed as active. While this group does not necessarily represent the total number of initiatives in sub-Saharan Africa, the analysis in the following sections gives a picture of general trends and the distribution of certain characteristics among initiatives in the region. 3.1 HOW ACTORS PERCEIVE INFORMATION DISORDER The actors participating in our interviews generally agreed that information disorder in sub-Saharan Africa has both global and local dimensions. There were mixed views, however, on whether there are uniquely African aspects to this phenomenon. For example, some actors believe information disorder is worse in sub-Saharan Africa than in other world regions, due to high levels of distrust in governments and media. Others argue that information disorder is worse in other world regions because of higher levels of digital access and use. Yet others believe that there is no difference. Overall, there are possibly more similarities than differences in terms of the basic forms of mis- and disinformation and the underlying motivations for the spread of these. Some distinctions do appear in a few areas. Sub -Saharan Africa – 1 41