home>who
WHO IS INVOLVED?
Who is to participate in a documentation process? Who needs to be involved? Is there a need for someone to co-ordinate the process, or to facilitate it? These are important questions, especially if we consider that, by definition, documentation is a participatory process.
I worked with loads of colleagues: farmers, extentionists, researchers. What should I consider when trying to involve everybody?
To consider when trying to get facilitators on board
Apoorva Mishra, ENRAP, New Delhi
(from the ENRAP online discussion)
From my experience, facilitators tend to get involved when there is only a couple of days before a documentatio nprocess starts. Facilitators should engage with eqach other much before, thus familiarising themselves with the methodology and dialogue. Maybe this can even take place online, for which it is necessary to hold an e-discussion on the different thematic areas with the project staff. But then, identifying suitably experienced facilitators has been a challenge, as they need to have a right balance of facilitation, research skills and understanding of the project. In some cases, the identified facilitators cannot make it for some reason at the last minute, so this has an impact on the quality of the exercise. A roster of facilitators could be built up.
And define what a facilitator is to do
Vincent darlong, NERCORMP-IFAD, Shillong, India
(from the ENRAP online discussion)
In theory, facilitators are meant to facilitate... But in practical situations, what does this mean? Often, from the projexct perspective, we have been expecting too much from the expert facilitators, such as to guide us how to design the study, what and how to collect the data, how to analyse and synthesize the data, and above all how to write. Our tem perhaps expected too much from facilitators in learning more how to organise the information, how to use this organised information into generating new knowledge and learnings, and how to present these lessons in a readable written format. And above all, perhaps we expected the facilitators to guide us in reching or concluding our focused enquiries through the process of systematisation... How feasible is all this?
Power and knowledge, interrelated
From "Transforming knowledge and ways of knowing" by Michel Pimbert, 2009 (Ch. 7 of "Towards food sovereignty")
"... All ways of knowing need to be attentive to the links between learning, power and organisational change. For example, spaces -including citizen spaces- are infused with power relations, affecting who enters them, who speaks with what knowledge and voice, and who benefits. This is particularly apparent, for example, when both professional knowledge and people's experiential knowledge are brought together in the same space and discussed... As power and knowledge are impossible to diosentangle, the struggle to involve the full diversity of civil society in the production of knowledge is part of the larger struggle for a more equitable distribution of power. And civil societies will often need to understand better which spaces offer the possibility for meaningful voices and shifts in power relations, and which do not..."
The reasoning behind farmers’ participation
Max Garcia, November 2008
The idea of participation is very much related to cultural differences. Urban professionals have very different lifestyles to people living in the rural areas. An important difference is between subordination and coordination. Farmers co-ordinate, while professionals are conditioned to be subordinate, and subordinate others. Consequently, there are differences in how we relate to things. Professionals look for the solution based on their own knowledge. Farmers look at their experience, pray, wait and see, always moving towards uncertainty. They know they will go somewhere, but do not know where. You need to walk together, the professional gives one idea, then the farmer adds one. This is building dialogue. Each needs to talk and hear. It is important to make clear that the professional is willing to stay, be there, make their interests clear. Farmers can then position themselves accordingly. We need to realise that farmers look at things in a different way, and will still be there after we are gone. With the term participation, we invite farmers to take part. But looking at it from the other side, how can we take part in their community? What is development for them? We take part in their development, not them in our project.
The need for real "representativeness"
CONCERN, June 2008
The word "representativeness" referes to the degree to which those participating in a documentation process are actually those that were involved in the field experience which is being documented. CONCERN was successful in having all stakeholders present in the workshops they organised in June (in Iringa and Mtwara). But even though they were successful, it was clear that many stakeholders have little time, and therefore have difficulties in being actively involved during the whole process (the representative of the Ministry of Land was present during the workshop’s first day, but not during the second). Another factor working against this representativeness is the fact that these organisations are invited to participate by the person or institution in charge of the process. For good or bad, this person or institution then decides who is to attend. A similar problem is seen with the participation of farmers: those who give their opinion do so because they have been asked to. The person or institution in charge is responsible for ensuring representativeness.
The important role of the facilitator
DURAS participants, June 2008
As many participants are involved during a documentation process, the facilitator has a very important role. This role includes presenting the method to follow, guiding the participants, and providing support. These ideas are well reflected in the opinions of some of the participants in the DURAS documentation processes: "During the workshop itself, some participants were very confused; we didn't know what method we were following", emphasising the role which the facilitator could have had here. Another complain was the feedback provided as part of the process. One participant mentioned that the facilitators could have showed more interest in what was being written at the moment; another one mentioned the lack of support after the workshop finished. "I did not have any contact after the workshop", "I tried different e-mail addresses, but there was no response."
Team synergy and co-ordination: "This was the best team I have ever worked with"
Intercooperation, Pakistan, May 2008
The workshops organised by IC-Pakistan showed that a regular exposure to communicative interaction (as part of the documentation workshop), to a plenary and self-critical analysis promoted ice-breaking, trust- and teambuilding among participants, which ultimately fostered a constructive group dynamic and conflict culture. The more SG members interacted with each other, the easier it became to be open to suggestions and opinions from others.
“This was the best team I have ever worked with. I have never experienced such constructive team-building and mutual respect in a group of such different people. Now, I know how much one can achieve by working in a group” (SG member, December 2007).
Generally speaking, the “process” is often considered at least as important as the “outcomes”. The IC process showed that this holds true especially in the run up of a collective exercise, where it is not only about concerted time-bound thematic efforts, but also about organizational development and, more specifically, team-building.
Post-workshop involvement
IADO, September 2007
Several months after the documentation workshop took place in Same, Tanzania, it was not possible to look at the participation of the different stakeholders in the documentation process. It has also been difficult to look at the participation of different staff members within one organisation. The interviews held with some of the IADO staff showed that participation is limited to a few staff members, with minimum involvement of external actors. This is related to their lack of time, or to the general idea that it is simply not necessary to involve others.
Disagreements within the team
VETAID, October 2007
The participation of different people in each workshop, all of them with different opinions and perspectives, almost always leads to discussions and disagreements, which can sometimes halt the whole process. This was clear in the work of the sub-groups taking part in the workshop organised by VETAID in Inhambane, Mozambique. Because of the strong opinions of a few individuals, one of the groups was unable to proceed. The methodology (or the facilitator of the documentation process) needs to stress the fact that consensus is not essential, and that it may even be better to show contrasting opinions.
On a longer term basis, the involvement of different stakeholders needs also to consider the possibility of having all those participating following one common programme, or agreeing on what needs to be done, distributing roles and responsibilities. As mentioned above, the participation of other actors generally responds to an invitation; they are therefore participating in the programme set by those who invited them. The documentation processes which focus on the work of one organisation have less problems.
© 2004-2010 ILEIA. For comments, please mail webmaster(at)ileia.nl.