Terminology and Approach of the Research and the Analysis Report While preparing the question set of the field research that is the subject of this report, and while analysing the data and writing the report, we took a rights-based approach as a basis: We noted the cultural background of the interviewees with the name of the country they came from, not their nationality, such as ‘Afganistanlı (from Afghanistan)’ instead of ‘Afghan’. While paying attention to the diversity of the interviewees in the neighbourhoods where the surveys were conducted, we analysed the data carefully in order not to cause any stigmatisation or discrimination against those communities. As we have been saying for years, one of the ethical responsibilities of this research was not to ignore the fact that child, early and forced marriages cannot be attributed to certain geographies and that this violation of rights can occur anywhere in the world for similar reasons. While preparing the question set, we focused on asking the questions in the most understandable way, taking into account that the level of knowledge and perception of the people we will encounter in the field may differ, and we kept the concepts pronounced by the respondents intact while transferring the answers we received to the data analysis report. For example, we used the expression ‘housewife’, which we do not see as a profession and prefer to define as ‘unpaid domestic worker’, without changing it, again in line with research ethics. In the question set, we also included some propositions to measure perceptions and attitudes. These were some prejudices, presuppositions or opinions that we always encounter in everyday language shaped by the dominant culture in the country we live in. For example, ‘It is understandable for a boy who impregnates a girl to marry her’. The responses of the participants to these propositions provided important information about the view on the phenomenon of child marriage in the society. We did not prefer to abbreviate some concepts/terms as we have frequently encountered in other sources related to our study topic. Thus, we tried to express our approach that ‘Rights violations cannot be abbreviated’ in this report. For example, we wrote child, early and forced marriages instead of CEFM, and gender-based violence instead of GBV. Both during the research phase and in the writing of the report, we also referred to the bases of our information, data and interpretations: national laws and international conventions to which we are party, which have been developed to protect children from all forms of neglect, abuse, violence and discrimination. We did not adopt a language that accuses a community, region or institution; we reminded constitutional obligations and tried to produce information and data that would form the basis for policies to be developed to prevent child marriages. 6