participatory approaches for cooperative group events · “participatory working and training...

152 91PA

DeutscheStiftung für internationale Entwicklung

German Foundation for International Development

Participatory Approaches forCooperative Group Events

— Basic Concepts, Case Study, Practical Tips —

Gabriele J. Ulirich — Uwe Krappitz — Eberhard GohI

ZELDSE-ZENTRALSTELLE FÜR ERNAHRUNG UND LANDWIRTSCHAFT - FELDAFING

Food and Agriculture Development Centre

nr— — — —

I — — —

DSE

152—13533

DOK 1637 C/aTK 74-222-89ex

Published by:Deutsche Stiftung fürinternationale Entwicklung (DSE)German Foundation forInternational Development (DSE)Food and AgricultureDevelopment Centre (ZEL)

Distribution:DSE-Documentation CentreHans-Böckler-Str. 5D-5300 Bonn 3Federal Republic of Germany

Printed by:vervielfältigungen f.u.t. müllerbaderFllderstadt

November 1991

(Second, completely revised edition)

I~~33LO’ H~Z ~flf~A

PARTICIPATORY APPROACHESFOR

COOPERATIVE GROUPEVENTS

- Basic Concepts, Case Study, Practical Tips -

i

Foreword to the first edition

After a seminar, a training course or any other typeof event we have all at one time or another experienced thefeeling that the event contributed very little to the solu-tion of the problems involved in our work, that we were notin a position to contribute to the discussions, and that wedid not acquire any new knowledge. This negative impressionmay be explained by the choice of subject, the compositionof the group of participants, or by the didactics applied.

Conventional training provides for long lectures with— in most cases — little time reserved for discussion. Evenduring these discussions it is always the same persons whomake the contributions. They are made in order to show thatone knows how to speak on the subject; it is rarely possi-ble , however, to present probi ems which must be solved dur-ing one’s daily work. The majority of didactic methods donot allow this kind of active participation in seminars.

For some years now, efforts have been underway to de-velop methods which will overcome the negative experienceof participants in group events. The Deutsche Stiftung furinternational e Entwi ckl ung (DSE ) is also trying to adaptits methods to the needs of its seminars which are designedto facilitate exchanges of experience in the field of de-velopment and advanced professional training.

The Food and Agri cul ture Devel opment Centre ( ZEL ) ofDSE was caused by different developments to start workingwith new seminar approaches: the increasing focus of policyon participation by the target groups in the rural develop-ment process had to be reflected in training methods. As aprecondition for such methods it is necessary to preparetrainers and participants for a dialogue and to create afavourable situation for participation. Experience in DSE/ZEL seminars also showed how unsati sfactory conventionaltraining responded to these requirements, how it causedfrustration and ended up in a ‘blind alley”. At the sametime, research in psychological science proved that partic-i patory approaches to group events can mobilize the atten-tion, memory and cooperation of participants to a muchhigher extent than conventional training methods.

For the Food and Agriculture Development Centre (ZEL)of DSE methods of this kind are — although used in variousfields — of special importance with respect to the promo-tion of rural development and above all of cooperative or-ganizations. In this field the dialogue with the targetgroups is essential in order to initiate a developmentjointly with and not only for these target groups.

The didactic method must constitute the basis oftraining and the cooperative exchange of experience aimingat participation by the members of the cooperatives.

I I

Against this background a participatory approach wasdeveloped during various seminars on rural development andabove all in the field of cooperatives*. It started withattempts to allow experts and trai ners n specific fieldsto gain experience as moderators in the participatory ap-proach by applying it in events together with trainingmethod specia1ists.~/ Through this process the methodswere adapted to the special requi rements of rural develop-ment

It turned out that now moderators had to be introducedto these seminar approaches. Thus, workshops were organizedfor the preparation of moderators and the seminars they hadto act in. Thereby experience was gained in “training thetrainers” in such methods.

The first seminar of DSE/ZEL which had as its objec-tive to exchange views and acquire knowledge on participa-tory approaches was held in 1984 together with Africantrainers and persons in charge of training within self-helppromotion institutions. As a result of this seminar it wasseen that introduction to the participatory approach andexamples of its application are needed in written form inorder to facilitate work with such methods.

The discussions during the seminar provided the basisfor the description contained in this booklet. It is ad-dressed to those who participated in the seminar and whowish to apply these methods. However, it is addressed aswell to those who have gained experience of participatorymethods at other events and who want to make use of themtogether with a team of new moderators.

Therefore, the booklet provides a brief introductionto the essential elements and the description of the semi-nar as one case of application. The dpproach itself has tobe kept flexible and adaptable to the needs of the targetgroup and the possibilities of a given situation. The in-troduction tries to describe results of a development pro-cess which is still underway and makes it, hence, a diffi-cult task. It does not attempt to provide either a

* It is above all Eberhard Grosser (consultant), Carl

Kohibach (OSE/ZEL) and Dr Gabriele Ulirich who have mod-erated such seminars and influenced the development ofthese approaches.

** Initial impulses were given by a consulting firm called“METAPLAN” (see: The Metapian Method, communicationtools for planning and learning groups, series No. 7(Eberhard Schnelle) and Interactional Learning, A Guideto Moderating Groups of Learners (Wolfgang Schnelle, In-ga Stolz), as well as in German: Moderationsmethode (K.Kiebert, E. Schrader, W. Straub).

iii

scientific analysis or a “magic tool box”. It is intendedto stimulate a process of trial and error and to provide abasis for “learning by doing”.

However, describing seminar approaches which stem fromexperience and a continuous process of adaptation in writ-ten form runs the risk of being misunderstood by those whohave never come into contact with methods of this kind. Forthese readers the booklet may be of limited value.

With a view to these constraints and limitations,DSE/ZEL would appreciate any suggestions, comments, adviceand criticism the reader feels might be useful for futurework with these methods as well as with this booklet.

Dr Erhard Krusken

DirectorFood aid AgricultureDevelopment Centre

Feldafing, 1986

iv

Foreword to the completely revised second edition

Six years after the first publication on ParticipatoryApproaches for Cooperative Group Events in English the Food andAgriculture Development Centre (ZEL) of the DSE presents a com-pletely revised version. This second edition uses a more recenttraining event as a case study to illustrate the basic concepts ofparticipatory approaches. It is again a case of the ZEL programmepromoting cooperatives and other self—help organizations for whichthe participatory approaches are of specific relevance. The intro-duction to the basic concepts and practical tips were supplementedaccording to the experiences gained with the English, French,Spanish and Portugese versions of the book.

Some of the problems which these former publications werefacing are, however, of principal nature and could not be solved:

— Is it at all possible to write down the manifold and continu-ously developing experiences? \.~hich ones is one to select? Isit at all advisable to make available in a written formapproaches which can only be understood by the experience onemakes while working with them? Will it produce misunder-standings and misinterpretations by readers who have not seenthe described methods in reality?

— What should be the sequence of issues in the outline of such aguide to participatory approaches? How can it be made under-stood that there is no hierarchy in the rules which would haveto be strictly adhered to? That these are all interlinked andneed to be applied simultaneously?

— How could the importance of mobile visualisation to facilitateand initiate participation be stressed without creating theimpression that the technique of visualisation alreadyconstitutes a participatory approach in itself? How can it bemade clear that participation is also possible without visual-isation, but that the level of particapation can be signifi-cantly increased through it?

— How could it be made clear that methods like METAPLANand ZOPPwork with the same techniques but that the methodology appliedand continuously developed by the ZEL goes one step further incontributing towards a holistic approach to participatoryrural development in which all actors have to play their role?

It is hoped that this version makes some of these aboveissues clearer, however, we do not expect this publication to givea final answer to such questions. This task is rather fulfilledin the continuous training of moderators who are to carry out andfurther develop the described appoaches in dialogue with theparticipants. This publication is specifically made for the use bysuch moderators and participants.

Dr. Erhard Kcüsken Feldafing, October 1991Director, DSE—Food andAgriculture Development Center

v

CONTENTS

Part I: Basic Concepts of Participatory Approaches

1 Introduction 3

2 Point of Departure 5

3 The Basic Steps of the Approach 7

3.1 Animation and Introduction 7

3.2 The Group Work 8

3.3 Sharing of the Results 9

3.4 Continuous Evaluation 10

4 Situations to Apply the Approach 11

4.1 Training and Learning Situations 11

4.2 Planning Situations 12

5 Groups of Participants 14

6 The Roles of the Facilitator 15

6.1 The Moderator 16

6.2 The Resource Person 19

6.3 The Team of Facilitators 20

7 Basic Elements and Techniques 21

7.1 The Vision 21

7.2 Mobile Visualization 22

7.3 Asking Questions 26

7.4 Alternation between Plenary and Group Sessions 28


7.6 Climate Favourable to Participation 32

7.7 Documentation 32

8 A Last Warning 34

vi

Part II: Case Study: DSE Training Course“Participatory Working and Training Approaches

within Self—help Promotion”Jakarta, June 19B9

1 Introduction to the Case Study 37

2 Background of the Training Course 37

3 Planning of the Training Course in the Team . 38

4 Seminar Procedure: Using the Basic Elements

and Techniques 40

4.1 Climate Favourable to Participation 40

4.2 Alternation between Plenary and Group Sessions 45

4.3 Asking Questions 51

4.4 Mobile Visualization 53


4.6 Documentation 61

Part III: Practical Tips for the Applicationof the Participatory Approach

1 Would you like to try the participatoryapproach’ 65

2 What are the limits of the participatoryapproach’ 67

3 Many appropriate participatory approachesmay already exist in your country 68

4 How to identify the contents and objectives? 69

5 How to plan a participatory event’ 70

6 How to prepare a participatory event’ 72

7 How to conduct a participatory event~ 74

vii

said is not yet heardheard is not yet understood

understood is not yet approvedapproved is not yet applied

applied is not yet continuously appliedcontinuously applied is not yet being satisfied

1

Part I

Basic Concepts of

Participatory Approaches

Gabriele J. Ullrich, liwe KrappitzEberhard Gohl for transfer of Portuguese version to English

3

1 Introclnction

We all know the feeling of frustration after working sessions(meetings, conversations, planning sessions, courses, semi-nars, conferences, etc. ) which ended without a minimalcontribution to the solution of the problems related to ourwork. Perhaps we could not even participate actively in thediscussions because of some “born orators”, perhaps we couldnot even acquire new knowledge due to a didactically inade-quate method.

But, when we are conscious of the importance of participa-tion, we become aware that many classical methods and instru-ments are direct expressions of a dominant and patriarchalattitude, meaning “I know more than you, therefore I willthink and decide for you.”

This attitude directly contradicts and prevents participa-tion. The individual manifestation in the decision-makingprocess is hampered. However, we must consider that thissituation persists not only due to ill will or fear of changebut due to lack of methods to catch and integrate adequatelythe wishes and hopes of all the persons involved.

In view of this situation, we are exploring and developingforms and techniques which aim at a major intensity andquality in the communication between persons, groups, andinstitutions.

The decisive impulses came from a consulting company calledMETAPLAN. From this and other sources a constant process ofadaptation and development of new options for new fields ofaction evolved, facing the acute necessity for forms andinstruments to enable and facilitate an effective participa-tory working method.

In this sense, the publication “Participatory Approaches forCooperative Group Events” tries to contribute didactic meanswhich facilitate the training or the exchanges of experienceand make the planning, execution and evaluation processesmore transparent and democratic.

We are not going to present a “new method”, fruit of andbased on scientific research. The method described in thisbooklet is based on a multitude of experiences which havebeen observed in different professional fields such aspedagogics, sociology, psychology, and economics.

There is, however, an innovative principle which is indispen-sable in the application of the participatory approach: thecontinuous and mobile visualization of the verbal utterances.

4

This visualization- facilitates active participation, because all the partici-

pants help in the visualization of the contributions- it reinforces the learning effect and raises the quality of

communication through the activation oe the other sensesapart from the hearing

- it makes the working process more comprehensible andexplicit by increasing significantly the Integration of thegroup.

These reasons make visualization a vital element in thisapproach. But visualization alone does not make a meetingparticipatory. It is mentioned already now to enable a betterunderstanding of its importance and will be dealt with ingreater detail, jointly with the other eLements and basictechniques, in the following chapters.

As a first step in participation and its practice, it shouldnot be contempLated theoretically but must be experiencedand experimented with, repeatedly through trial and error.Therefore it is difficult to write about a participatoryapproach. Its application, observation, and reflection revealmany experiences which can never be documented.

Accordingly, this publication is addressed primarily to thosepersons, who are already experimenting with this type ofmethod. It may be used as a source of support and referenceto all those who work with participatory techniques and whowant to continue to work in a team of moderators.

It should be kept clear that: the participatory approachis not just the addition of techniques within a definitive

and dogmatic vision, because in its application, it dependsabove all, on the attitudes and behaviours of the personsinvolved in a group process

- is not a “closed package” but an entity of elements andinstruments which are extremely variable and adaptable

- is not a magic box of ready recipes and answers, becauseevery situation is different, asking for much creativity tofind new forms, to search for new ways, basing on positiveand negative experiences.

The participatory approach as a whole is a systematicapproximation to a group event, which tries to describe thelinkages and interactions of its elements. We hope that theapproach will be made transparent in this booklet and that itwill offer some practical contribution in the search fordemocratic communication patterns in human relationships.

5

2 Po±nt of Departnre

A group event (conference, seminar, training course, teammeeting, general assembly etc.) may be necessary if there isa common problem for a group of persons which should not bedecided by an individual but by all persons concerned. Theproblem can consist of a political task (such as sensitiza-tion), or it can arise due to lack of knowledge, skills orattitudes.

The focal point of the required group event is not the exper-tise or the knowledge of the trainers and experts from out-side, but the need to solve the given problem by the partici-pants themselves. Therefore, it is most important to befamiliar with the group of the event. Homogeneity of thegroup is desirable, but heterogeneity can be stimulating tohelp solve complex problems.

A participant’s need for solving his problem will not be metonly by the external facilitator, be he expert or trainer,but also by other participants who already have experience ofthe problems involved.

need

The contents, programme and subject of discussions at a groupevent are determined by the participants’ need for solvingthe prevailing problem. The identification of this problemwithin its context is very difficult and must be undertakentogether with them. But it is not easy for the participantsto formulate their need!

problem >

need forproblem-solving

contents> of group

event

context the real world

6

On this basis the team of facilitators of a group event mustcreate a group situation. In case of a training course thetrainer has twofold functions: he is at the same time one ofthe participants in the group. This is the basis for partici-patory learning and mutual training.

The participation practised by members of cooperatives intheir work should be reflected in cooperative training andplanning by adopting a participatory approach. Generally,active participation in meetings at the same time increasesmotivation and communication among the participants.

In order to achieve greatest possiblecive training and working situationsdepends on several factors, e.g.:

- training or working procedure

- type of subject- composition of the group and

participants’ communication capacity

- ability of the facilitators

- application of the basic elements ofthe participatory approach

- intensity of preparations andorganizational flexibility

~participation, condu-must be created. This

(---> chapter 3)

(---> chapter 4)

(---> chapter 5)

(---> chapter 6)

(---> chapter 7)

(---> part III)

It is necessary to stress that all the “magic power” of theparticipatory approach is useless if there is no importantreason, no common problem, which motivates the group to worktogether.

7

3 Ttie Basic SterDs of tFie A~~roacfl

There are four basic steps that form the procedure of alltypes of group events:

animation andintroduction

groupwork

sharingof results

continuousevaluation

These four elements are comparable e.g. to the basic steps ofa dance or to the strings of a violin, which form the baseof at least one thousand and one variations that can beshaped according to the specific situation. Only the entityof the four elements will guarantee the necessary shiftbetween action, reflection and new action in a process oflearning or planning.

3.1 Animation and Introduction

In order to warrant the quality of the work, a good beginningis fundamental. It is indispensable that all the participantsand the team of moderators get familiar with

the participants:Who are we? What is our personal and institu-

tional environment?What are our fears, our expectationsand motivations?

the contents:Why do we meet? What is our intention?

What is the reality around thecontent?What could be a possible contribu-tion to the solution of the problem?

the methods:How are we going towork?

How shall we proceed?What do I know about the “rules ofthe game”?Which questions should we ask toapproach the topic?How can we arouse utmost interest?

The techniques and the instruments which can be used in thisinitial phase are numerous, depending on the concrete circum-stances. The objective of this first step consists ofcreating rapidly a suitable atmosphere of learning anddiscussion, and in sensitizing and motivating the group.

8

3.2 The Group Work

Once we have prepared the ground, the group begins theelaboration of the topic in question. As the quality of thegroup results depends directly on the individual contribu-tions, it is necessary to ensure sufficient space for allthe participants to contribute and reveal their opinions.

What is my viewof the problem ?

What do I wantto say ?

What do theothers tell me ?

Why do we formsmall groups ?

It is known that it is necessary to thinkbefore speaking. Similarly, beforestarting a discussion in the group, it isnecessary to give sufficient time andsilence so that every person can reflectindividually on the topic.

Once every participant has formed hisopinion on the topic, it is evident thatthere will be different views. An equili-brated exchange will occur if everyindividual has the same space to expresshimself. Therefore it is important tofind forms of democratic conversation toensure this~

The diversity of opinions forms therichness of the group. In order not toleave them on the individual level, wemust perceive these ideas in order toconfront them, analyse what is valid inthe different opinions and what is to berejected. So we will work out specificaspects and start to resolve the commonproblem.

In order to exchange opinions, confrontideas, analyse a problem and to deepen atopic with highest intensity, it will benecessary in most cases to divide theplenum into small groups (3 to 7 persons,according to the task and the contents).Thus the active participation of all theparticipants, also of the most quiet andtimid ones, is stimulated, resulting in amajor identification.

Whatresult ?

is our Aiming at sharing the results of thesmall groups, we have to decide how toorganize and structure the conclusionswhich we have reached. We must take carenot to impose our own results as final orcomplete.

9

What is missing? Have we dealt with all the aspects of theproblem? Have the working groups broughtup all the other ideas yet? Is it neces-sary to complete some aspects, toquestion again some solutions whichpreviously seemed so evident?

Therefore it is fundamental to provide sufficient time forall the steps: the individual reflection, the discussions inthe groups, and the presentation of the results.

3.3 Sharing of the Results

This step is very important in order to get feedback andenrichment of the group process making sure that the plenumcan leave the event with a common result that includes allthe different opinions.

This does not mean that we always finish up with harmony orconsensus. Conflicting visions, contradictory points of view,opposite opinions and different convictions are expressionsof the great variety of human perception.

Therefore the overall goal of a group event is the integra-tion of all the currents in order to come up with an agree-ment or a compromise in which every member of the group canfind his own ideas. Thus we open the way for the implementa-tion of the recommendations, we guarantee the continuity ofthe process, and we avoid the marginalization of some and theisolation of the others.

do weour

How do we obtaininteraction ?

We should be short and precise in thepresentation in order to avoid over-burdening the capacity to absorb and toprocess information during the group pre-sentations (which easily occurs if thereare more than 3 groups). By giving anauthentic and concise summary of ourdiscussion and our results, we open upspace for the interaction with theplenum, thus enriching our results.

- searching for creative forms ofpresentation

- stimulating the comparison with otherresults

- motivating a discussion without fallinginto self-defence

- respecting different points of viewwithout judging who is right and who iswrong

- discovering and raising new questions:

Howpresentideas ?

10

Thus we can reach group interaction andconclusions which - even if they areprovisional and intermediate - reflectthe contribuLtions and the wishes of everymember of the group. Then we can speakabout “sharing of group results”.

Nobody can warrant from the start the gc’od quality of theresults. They are fruits of an active irLteraction and theidentification of the group with the conclusions. When a stepin the group process is finished, it is important to reflectabout the results achieved and the way of proceeding:

What should wereflect ?

- What was our proceeding?- Why did we reach our objectives, or why

did we not?- How did we feel during this process?

can we - In which moments should we have actedin a different way?

- What are the conclusions for the nextsteps?

Why doevaluate ?

What makes theevaluationdifficult ?

What issolution ?

we In the evaluation we have to considerthe future activities and to have aprogressive orientation. Reviewing pre-vious steps will shape a base for abetter projection of the next ones.Therefore, both the positive experiencesand the errors are helpful. Sometimes wehave to go one step back and repeat astep.

Trying to be sincere in the evaluationalso means asking first: what did I door did I avoid to do? But we all knowthat we can only speak about ourselves,about our feelings, in an environment ofconfidence.

To obtain this atmosphere in a groupevent is fundamental in the participatoryapproach. This requires all of us to optfor an open and pluralistic attitudebefore knowing the techniques.

the

3.4 Continuous Evaluation

Whatlearn ?

These and other questions indicate that an evaluation has notmuch point if it is only done retrospectively saying whatwas good and what was wrong.

11

‘~ Sitaations to ArnD1v tI-ie A~~roacI-i

What are situations appropriate for the application of theparticipatory approach? Are there limitations through thecomposition of the group of participants (chapter 5) orthrough the type of subject? Certainly there are situationswhere the approach is useless (chapter 8). However, in mostlearning, training and planning situations the participatoryapproach is extremely helpful.

4.1 Training and Learning Situations

The initial level of knowledge and the suitability of thesubject itself are of particular importance.

We distinguish between two principal types which are inse-

parable and in many cases overlap.

Subiects which are part of the participants’ experience

If the subjects of a group event are already part of theexperience or knowledge of the participants, the goal ofthe meeting is an exchange of experience. Through thisexchange of experience, it is hoped to acquire new know-ledge.

If one sees how another person in a comparable situationhas solved a similar problem ( e.g. mobilization of humanresources in a cooperative) one can get an idea of how tosolve one’s own problem. It is known that the sum total ofexperiences and know-how in a group can accomplish morethan the mere theoretical addition of this know-how.

This type of subject necessitates mobilizing the creativityof the participants and of the team of moderators, becausethe solution of these problems is not determined before-hand; it will be elaborated during discussions.

Subjects outside the experience/knowledge of theparticipants

Training comprises a large number of subjects which arecompletely new to the participants and therefore not to bediscussed but to be learned. Such a situation exists, forexample, when future accountants learn the bookkeepingsystem prescribed by law. There is no possibility whatso-ever of developing this know-how through discussion withother participants. And yet in this case, too, activeparticipation can be mobilized. Case studies may be used tofamiliarize the participants with experiences or knowledgewhich they have not acquired in reality, but which areprerequisites for the application and discussion of newknow-how.

12

In the case of exchange of experiences as t~ell as in the caseof a conventional training situation, the reality of theparticipants’ work determines the choice of the content. Onlyif the trainer knows the problems in detail can he offer anappropriate solution. He first of all Learns from the parti-cipants in order to be able to train them appropriately.This is another form of mutual or participatory training.

4.2 Planning Situations

To resolve a complex problem requires communication, planningand decision-making. The more persons, interest groups orinstitutions are involved, the more difficult it becomes.

The question whether to involve more or less persons in aplanning process, allowing them the right of voice in deci-sion-making may also cause controversial discussions.

Below, we will give three examples which illustrate this“participation dilemma” well:

communication:

planning:

decision-making:

If participation means “one person = onevote”, is then participation onlypossible in small groups? Normally, inlarge groups, one-way communication isdominant: the teacher,. the coordinator,the “born orator”, all find the “rightway”, exert their “authority” and trans-form the other participants into areceptive herd. Of course if everyoneabused his/her right of speaking, a deci-sion could never be taken.

Complex problems requLre an interdisci-plinary and multisectorial approach toplanning. Unfortunately, the results areoften such voluminous reports that theylust disappear in a drawer. Even if theycontain creative and viable solutions,most people cannot understand them orsimply have no time to read them.

Will every good decision be taken to-gether and in a participatory manner?Often the “directorate” decides whatshould be done and who is going to do it.Later on, it may be found that theresults were not as hoped because therewere misunderstandings, resistance,negligencies, and even obstruction.

13

In order to resolve complex problems we need something morethan just technically appropriate solutions. We must considerthe individual as an active subject in the planning processand not as an object.

One should take into account that it is difficult for indivi-duals to change their attitudes. There exists a great reluc-tance of the individual to change his status quo. Thus, it iseven more difficult when it comes to changing attitudes inlarge groups.

And if we want to change this reality, we should also trans-form the process of planning, execution and evaluation intomutual learning. To achieve this, we have to involve theparticipants in working conceptually and engage them inimplementation and execution of matters together. Throughsuch tasks they will gain knowledge and experience, thuspromoting a sense of confidence and conviction.

In this context, the participatory approach is dynamic. Thecase study in the second part of this publication illustratesvery well the potential which is offered by this approach, aswell as some of the difficulties mentioned above. Moreover,we can see that in every complex situation involving manypersons, we can only achieve viable and durable solutions byefficient group work.

As a first step, and before applying the method in directcontact with the rural or urban target population, it may beuseful to conduct “self-training” sessions in the preparationof activities within one’s own institution. The effects ob-served provide a basis for reflection, decision and one’sown position with respect to the real situation.

14

S Groti~s of ~artici~ants

Frequently, discussions arise as to whether the approach isonly appropriate for certain target groups.

Through our experience, all the persons who are ready tocommunicate and to cooperate are able to work with thisapproach. It has been shown that this approach has evenintegrated heterogeneous groups, thus proving its function.Even the disposition to communication can be mobilized andactivated. The major resistances are often shown by those whoconsider themselves “specialists”.

A frequent argument against the approach is that - due to thenecessity of visualization - this method cannot be used inworking with illiterates, as is frequently the case in ruralareas. However, there are various examples of successfulvisualization through pictures and symbols adapted to thecultural reality of less literate societies. A very impres-sive method is the approach of GRAAP’ (“Research and SupportGroup for Farmers’ Self-Help”, in Burkina Faso, West Africa)which can be utilized by any extensionist, trainer, con-ference director or any other type of group organizer.

The approach described here is principally for those who knowhow to write. It can be used in an office meeting or in aninternational symposium. Considering the large number oforganizations involved in rural development, there is a lotof scope for applying the participatory approach.

As the question of participants is entirely linked with thatof the facilitators the next chapter continues with theanalysis of the functions which can be exercised by anextensionist, trainer, conference director or any other typeof group organizer.

‘ Groupe de Recherche et d’Appui pour l’AutopromotionPaysanne (GRAAP): Pour une pédagogie de l’autopromo-tion. 5ême edition 1987.GRAAP, B.P. 785, Bobo Dioulasso, Burkina Faso

15

6 Trie Roles of trie Facilitator

The development of the approach during the last years hasmade clear that success depends not just on the communica-tion techniques utilized, but above all on the attitudes ofthose who work with them. Hence in this chapter we will tryto give an idea of how we understand the role of the facili-tator.

In contrast to a teacher, a lecturer, or a superior, we talkabout a facilitator. In working or training events with alarger number of participants, there is often a team offacilitators with a distinction between the role of moderatorand of resource person.

The moderator helps the group to define its objectives andintentions and facilitates to work out solutions. In thissense, he is the catalyst in the learning and decision-makingprocess. He does not interfere in the content of the discus-sions.

The resource person provides the group with specific informa-tion. He helps in the understanding of the topic treated, andassists in finding alternative solutions.

The same person can act as moderator and resource person,but he should not perform these two functions at the sametime. Sometimes, if there is only one facilitator, an over-lapping of the two roles cannot be avoided. However, it isappropriate to form a team allowing members to change theirfunctions. Thus one avoids overburdening one person withfunctions and importance, giving him a role which is toodominant in a participatory training situation.

One has to take into consideration that

because

every resource person is a participanteach participant is a resource person

nobody knows everythingeverybody knows something

16

6.1 The Moderator

Within the participatory approach the moderator of a group

event has the following functions and duties:

- The moderator mobilizes the creative energy and theexisting knowledge of the participants, he opens space forthe active interaction of all.

- He selects appropriate techniques to orient the contentsof the event to the participants’ problems.

- He motivates by means of questions to the participants andavoids setting tasks.

- He creates a relaxed and informal atmosphere and tries togain the confidence of the group.

- The moderator facilitates the exchange of information (noone-way information!) and the solution of conflicts in thecourse of the discussions. He does not participate in thediscussions directly; he passes on the questions to beanswered by the other participants or possibly the resourceperson.

- If necessary, he encourages discussions to reveal hiddenconflicts. Thus, all the opinions will be transparent andaccessible for better integration of all participants inthe working process.

- The moderator introduces rules and techniques of participa-tory approaches, submitting his proposals for consensus ofthe group. He asks for confidence in this method and thesupport and cooperation of the participants.

- To achieve more clarity, the moderator explains carefullythe questions for the group work. He should preferablyvisualize the procedures in the working groups, where aparticipant should assume the role of a moderator. Theobjective is to have an autonomous group working with theleast interference possible.

- In order to facilitate a joint vision of the group process,he recalls the last steps and gives an outlook for thefollowing programme. Every morning he summarizes brieflythe results of the preceding day, introduces the partici-

The moderator must be flexible by adaptingthe programme to the participants’ needsas far as possible. But: the consequences

of a change in the programme must be pointed out.

17

pants to the subjects of the day, and indicates the pro-gramme stage reached. For this purpose it is recommendedplacing a visualized programme structure in the conferenceroom.

- In order to maintain a tight contact with the group, it isnecessary that there is a co-moderator who observes thenon-verbal signs of the group. Moreover, he helps intechnical questions, visualizes the discussions of thegroup and observes the process as a whole.

- The moderator avoids discussion of methodology when dealingwith the subject matter, because many times it serves as anoutlet to elude difficult or uncomfortable discussions.

- The moderator never reacts directly to criticism or con-flicts. The conflicts are transmitted to the group, dis-cussed and if no agreement is reached, they should bevisualized with a flash. If they do not concern the subjectdirectly they may be visualized on a separate board orpossibly be settled after the session. (Beware of for-getting these items!)

- He does not justify his procedure (“one who excuses him-self, accuses himself”). The moderator should be quiteself-critical in the use of moderation rules and in theevaluation of his own function, admitting errors in frontof the group.

The purpose of all these functions and targets aims at givingsome rules by which the moderator may orient and control hisconduct.

The following rules for his attitude are the result of manyyears of experience and should be seen as a guide for self-discipline, however, they cannot substitute one’s ownpractice.

- Our attitude vis-a-vis others and how we see the group isalways transmitted to the participants. Without beingconscious of it, all our movements, mimic, gestures andeven the sound of our voice are registered by the group andreflected in its reaction. In order not to pretend some-thing which does not correspond to us, it is important toknow our strong and weak sides. Only when we know our fearsare we able to support another member of our team in acritical situation. So we avoid transmitting our ownproblems to the participants and creating unnecessarytensions and barriers.

Convince the participants of the method by applyingit with them. Attention: don’t be too missionary!

18

- In all group events there also ex:Lst, sometimes subcon-sciously - besides the “objective” ~ords — subjectivefeelings of the participants. Hunger, thirst, cold, fear,boredom, sadness directly influence the working results.Therefore we need an aerial to receive the signals (quiteoften non-verbal) of these interferences which might hinderthe search for solving the problems under discussion.

- In the interaction with a group of persons we always judgeand assess the situation of the persons involved. However,one has to be careful not to draw false conclusions of thegroup’s behaviour and to act wrongly according to thisassessment: we might find ourselves “offside”.

- Very often in inconvenient situations we are criticizeddirectly and rather frequently. In such moments we shouldbeware of abusing our position even if remarks occur like:“the moderator should steer more; has more overview; shouldmaintain the discipline; summarizes better; the procedureis wrong; the question is badly put; the work is notproductive; first we have to discuss the method ...“

When we react to this type of attack we fall automaticallyinto defence and justification. As “to justify means toexcuse” each direct reaction produces fruitless discussionwhich consumes the energy needed for problem solving.Often such provocative critics are used as scapegoats todirect the discussion into another direction which avoidsdiscussing the group’s own problems.

- Certainly this does not mean that we cannot commit errorsas moderators by selecting a certain procedure or behavingin a certain way. Yet the solution does not consist of ex-changing accusation and justification. We should evaluateour errors with the other members of the team at the nextopportunity and clarify at an appropriate moment with theparticipants the reasons for the procedure and possiblealternatives. In many cases a little reflection and a shortexcuse may solve the tensions.

- As was already said: to moderate means to facilitate thegroup’s opinion-finding process. As moderators we givemethodological and instrumental support without interferingand directing, we restrain from our own objectives andvaluation. In this way we avoid abusing our position,evaluating and judging the participants’ contributionaccording to our own opinions.

It is easy to talk about rules for attitude- but it is difficult to practice them.

19

It is not sufficient “to learn” the rules. We only managethem when we apply them almost automatically. Sometimes it iseven necessary “to forget” about the rules explicitly inorder to be in a position to act flexibly, according to theparticipants’ needs and the specific situations.

The best moderator makes himself superfluous.

6.2 The Resource Person

The function of the resource person should be separate fromthat of the moderator. If a facilitator acts as resourceperson, it is preferable that during that time another memberof the team acts as moderator.

- The resource person provides a brief introduction to asubject or specific problem whenever this is required bythe programme or participants. These presentations arevisualized and followed by discussion with the partici-pants. The discussion itself is facilitated by the modera-tor.

- It is important that the information is not imposed on theparticipants by the resource persons, pushing them in thedirection wanted. The information should be provided whenthe participants are in a position to “digest” it. Ofcourse, the resource person must also prepare his presenta-tions in advance. But he should react flexibly when theinformation is needed by the group.

- Hence it is necessary for the resource persons to stay inthe sessions with the participants for the entire durationof the event in order to offer advice at any time. If theresource persons only attend the sessions during theirlectures, it is quite certain that the participants willnot ask all the questions they wish to ask in order tosatisfy their needs.

- In a situation of participatory training it is necessarythat every resource person should act like a participant byobserving the same rules. The resource person can andshould also learn from the other participants and theirexperiences. Even with respect to subjects which seem to beoutside the experience of the participants, there areopportunities for participatory training. As we saidbefore:

nobody knows everythingeverybody knows something

20

6.3 The Team of Facilitators

The resource persons and the moderators form the team offacilitators or - in case of training courses - seminar team.In comparison with conventional training, individual domi-nance is automatically reduced.

The roles in this team should preferably change. For example,every day another team member should act as moderator andassume responsibility for the preparation and organization ofthat day’s work.

Due to the complexity of the targets and length of timerequired, we recommend that for moderationE exceeding one dayat least two moderators should be provided. For largerevents, at least three persons should form the team with thefollowing functions being taken up on a rotational basis:

- one person should act as moderator

- one person should act as co-moderator and observe boththe group of participants and their reactions, and theconduct of the moderator

- one person should act as resource person.

One can introduce specialists to the team to answer specific

questions but they should be weLl integrated into the team.

Acting in a team demands from the members the same abilities

as working in a group demands from the participants:

- one must follow the rules which were accepted at the

outset

- one must respect the opinion of others

- one must reach consensus (above all on methods)

- one must find a cooperative style of work.

One person should be responsible for coordinating the team.This person should initiate the development of the programmebeforehand with the team. This is an important stage forcreating consensus in the team. During the programme theteam meets every evening after the last session in order toevaluate and possibly adapt the programme.

Among the participants and the team members a cooperativestyle of work should be created, according to the slogan:

Everybody helps everybody

21

7 Sasic fllements and PecFsniciaes

Anybody who is working in the cooperative field is familiarwith some techniques of mobilizing the attention and parti-cipation in a group event, be it in a general assembly, inthe training of future cooperative directors or in extensionwork.

With respect to this participatory method, one should alwaysbe flexible to adapt the techniques to the needs of the groupand the problems involved; we must always use our imaginationto find new techniques.

Here it is nottion. However,ments on which

intended to offer a new manual of participa-it is necessary to elaborate essential ele-

the participatory approach is based:

7.1 The Vision

All the technical details of the participatory approachdescribed in this chapter are difficult to understand withouta remark about the embracing framework.

In training as well as in planning it is essential to createa participatory conscience which includes changes of ourattitudes and personal behaviour.

If the vision of a participatory development is valid, it isuseful to know that there are ways to contribute to theachievement of this superior goal.

By applying the present techniques, we assure major coopera-tion in the working relationships. To learn and to know howto work in a group is a pre-requisite of participatoryplanning. This again is a condition for participatory deve-lopment.

- mobile visualization

- asking questions

- alternation between plenarysessions and group sessions

- continuous evaluation

- climate which is favourableto participation

- documentation

22

In order to avoid the mistakes of the past - to imposeinadequate and artificial solutions from outside and top-down- we have to convert the process.

The following sequence shows how all groups concerned cancollaborate in the development process, especially in thecase of cooperatives and other self-help organizations.

THE VISION OF THE ENTIRE PROCESS participa-i—> tory

development

participatory> planning

group work,> cooperation

techniques:- visualization- asking questions- evaluation

dispositionand attitude —reinforces

As self-help is becoming more and more important for develop-ment, the professional training must reconsider its disposi-tion to satisfy the needs of mutual learning and to activateall the potentials.

7.2 Mobile Visualization

We know that we can learn better, or remember things betterif we do not only hear something, but if we also see it,either in written form or as a picture.

Speaking, hearing and seeing must moreover be completed, asmuch as possible, by acting. Normally, one remembers best ifone has done something. Use should be made of all the sensesand all the talents.

C—

23

As a central element of optical communication, the visualiza-tion of the verbal statement during a group process hasvarious advantages:

- it forces us to distinguish between the essential and thesecondary information, in order not to abuse the recep-tivity of the audience

- it minimizes the possibility of repeating things alreadytreated

- it increases the transparency of the group process forevery participant, also for those who come later

- it helps to “store” ideas by maintaining the informationeasily accessible

- it improves interaction because it increases significantlythe number of contributions

- it turns the more timid persons to express themselves

- it turns explicit what in group situations often impli-citly restricts the quality of work: controversialopinions, lack of communication, misunderstandings, con-flicts, and frictions

- it allows room to express oneself anonymously, if necessary

- it can sometimes transmit facts which are difficult to

explain orally- it raises the emotional identification with the results as

it accompanies one’s own contribution in the process.

In this way, the mobile visualization guarantees betterorientation in a complex situation. In order to reveal allthese advantages, the techniques in this approach are dif-ferent from the visual means normally used. This does notmean that these could not be applied and integrated, too.

Traditionally, the subject matter is visualized by thetrainer on the blackboard. But the participatory approachalso gives participants the opportunity to visualize. When itis undertaken by the moderator or resource person, the par-ticipants may add their questions and comments in writtenform.

what we hear -

what we see -

what we do -

we forgetwe rememberwe understand

24

The transmitted information, except for what is spoken, mustbe visualized with big letters, graphic symbols or any kindof picture which should be easily legible for the wholegroup.

As this approach is designed for the use of groups of up to30 members, the size of the letters must be legible up to adistance of approximately 8 metres.

The necessary materials are:- felt pens (black and red)- cardboard cards in different sizes and colours- boards of polystyrene or other soft material- pins or thumbtacks- brown paper to cover the boards- masking tape, scissors, adhesive dots

During the discussion, the cards fixed by pins permit amobile visualization, making necessary changes of arrange-ments easier. When the discussion is finished, the boards arecompleted and the cards then glued onto the brown paper inorder to transport and to preserve the visualized comments.

The advantage over the blackboard is that charts may be keptuntil the end of the event and that one can always return tothe preceding subject. Finally, one can copy the charts (byhand or typewriter on stencil) or take a photograph of themand provide photocopies to the participants (as shown in PartII). Thus, visualization at the same time provides a recordof the event.

Besides letters, there exist other graphic elements such aslines, geometric forms, colours, even empty spaces. From thetechnical point of view, this type of visualization offersus innumerable forms of expression.

In the methodological aspect, visualization offers thefollowing possibilities:

- visualization by the moderator/resource person prepared inadvance on a chart or on strips and cards to be pinned tothe board (use strips, cards, etc. cut from white orcoloured paper or cardboard) (see pp. 56-58, 61)

- visualization by the moderator to accompany a discussion ina plenary session:# on a chart if the structure of visualization is not of

importance* on cards or strips of paper which are pinned to the

board and remain mobile if visualization should berestructured jointly with the group (see pp. 51, 53)

- visualization by the participants themselves, writing theirown ideas on cards. The structuring of the cards on theboard is done jointly by the moderator and the participants(see pp. 41-42, 59)

25

(note: each idea counts, even if it is repeated)

- visualization by the participants in the working group tofacilitate the discussions (see pp. 44, 47, 49, 52)

- visualization in the plenum, summarizing the results of aworking group (see pp. 48, 54)

- visualization of procedures, e.g. a “barometer of thedaily mood”, the structure of the programme etc. (see pp.42, 45—46, 50, 55, 60)

Visualization thus constitutes an “external memory” in whichall the ideas, questions and answers dealt with during theevent are stored. It offers an overview of the entire discus-sion. All participants are given the chance to express theiropinions in a written form especially those who do not dareto talk extensively in front of the group.

Therefore:

But:

We must visualize concisely, synthesizing the contents. Thisreduction of complex ideas into a few key-words very oftencauses difficulties and resistance. It may also collide withthe narrative culture which is predominant in some societies.The visualization then requires much ability and adaptation.

It is the moderator who influences the level of initialacceptance by the participants by proceeding carefully.Later on, the visualization will reveal its advantages, whenthe topics are being treated intensively.

Visualization does not substitute the content.- On the contrary: it unveils its gaps.

Visualization should be legible andvisible for all participants

Visualization does not speak for itself.It only supports the oral expression.

26

7.3 Asking Questions

One of the essential elements of effective communication andinteraction among all persons participating in an event is anequal opportunity to contribute to the discussion. Thisopportunity is not given if the trainer holds long lecturesand if his information is flowing “one way”. Even if hepermits questions after his lecture or if he merely proposesthe topics to be discussed, he is always the one to take theinitiative. The participants do not have a chance to act.

In order to avoid this domination the moderator encouragescommunication between the participants and resource personsor among the participants by asking questions. Through thesequestions, experience and basic knowledge are mobilized.Thus the team can better identify knowledge requirements onthe one hand, and promote the exchange of experiences amongthe participants on the other.

To start a new step in the group process, the moderator asksa well prepared question to which the others can reply spon-taneously and quickly (see p. 51).

Practical experience shows that:

the question

-~__ I -~

should

- arouse curiosity

- be of personal concernto the participants

- activate the diversityof opinions

- arouse confidence

- bring up new questions

- be tested at least oncebeforehand(e.g. in the team)

- be well visualizedbeforehand

should not

- lead to “YES/NO” replies

- be disagreeable,ambiguous or difficultfor the participants

- urge justifications orsense of guilt

- be exclusively for afew in the group

- be changed once it hasbeen asked

- create too muchdifference between the“experts” and the otherpersons

27

It is useful if the team who formulates the question tries totest the answer itself at least once (“pretest”).

There are different possibilities of answering questions,from free discussion to written examination. Here, we mustmake sure that everybody can reveal his opinion, becausethis is the base for the future group result. In the partici-patory approach, the replies are written on cards by theparticipants or directly by the moderator on the chart (ifthere is little time available). They serve as a basis fordiscussion among the participants.

The art is to ask a precise questionat the right moment.

Rules for the collection and structuring of ideason cards (“key-word collection”)

1. The moderator reads the visualized question at leasttwice.

2. Each participant is given a number of cards (do notdistribute too many cards if the group of participantsis large).

3. Each participant (or in pairs, if convenient) writesdown his answers or ideas: “one idea = one card!”

4. The moderator collects the cards after everybody hasfinished writing; he can mix the cards in order toavoid individual sequences and preserve anonymity.

5. He reads the cards to the group by holding them up,then grouping the cards while pinning them on the boardaccording to the structure proposed by the participants(double cards when they belong to several groups!).

6. Thus the different groups of cards form “clusters”, tobe surrounded with lines. They constitute a “map” ofthe group’s opinion.

7. Titles for these clusters are to be found together withthe group, and if necessary priorities for discussion.

8. The moderator asks whether anything important for thediscussion is missing (“analysis of gaps”).

9. The group finally discusses and analyses the cluster,and adds further written cards.

28

This proceeding is often quite difficult and time—consuming,it demands patience from the moderators and from the group.But this effort is worthwhile, because this technique almostalways reveals the complexity of a problem and the bigpotential in the group to find solutions.

7.4 Alternation between Plenary and Group Sessions

In order to increase the effectiveness of two-way communica-tion, it is essential to have small groups. This constitutesa crucial element of group events (see chapter 3). If thereare few persons, everybody has more time to contribute to thediscussion. Therefore, discussion should take place for themain part in working groups. Even if there are not enoughrooms to do this, one can organize small discussion groups inthe same room.

It is important to ensure alternation between plenarysessions and group discussions in order to maintain communi-cation among all groups of participants and to share theresults.

The principal functions of plenary sessions and group discus-ET1 w428 481 m520 481 lSBTsions in a training unit are:

concludingplenary session:

plenary session:

working group:

- introduction to the theme- survey of all the important aspects- identification of problem areas- distribution of these areas to the

working groups

- detailed analysis of the problems- discussion of the alternative solutions- synthesis of the results for the presen-

tation

- sharing of the results by the workinggroups

- discussion, criticism, supplements, andquestioning of the results

- search for joint conclusions (which neednot always be done because they may beindividual)

- evaluation of the group process

29

The plenary session is moderated by a member of the team. Inthe working groups, the participants themselves take overthis function and the members of the team serve as resourcepersons (also as far as the methodology is concerned). Inorder to facilitate the organizational work of the moderator,the group is given a guide or “scenario” indicating theprocedure. For example,

The presentation of group work in the plenary session aims atinteraction between the working groups and thus among thegroup as a whole. The group work (which is always visualized)should be presented by several group members in order toavoid one person dominating. If there are several presenta-tions, several group members should play the role of rappor-teur. It is necessary to summarize the findings of the groupso as not to bore other groups which may have discussed thesame subjects. Therefore, long comments on cards or on thecharts should be avoided. The plenary discussion of the fin-dings should be visualized on each group’s chart (pp. 45-48).

The following stages are recommended for the groups:

1. Organize a favourable working place:sit in a semi-circle,organize the material for evaluation

2. Write down the subject legibly and clarify it

3. Allocate the tasks (moderator, visualisers,rapporteurs to the plenary), agree on theprocedure and on the visualization.

4. Prepare the time schedule:estimate the time implied in each step(be careful with the use of time!)

5. Reflect on question individually in silence

6. Collect the ideas on cards

7. Look at, explain, cluster and analyse the cards

8. Ask: What is missing ?

9. Prepare the group work results for presentationin the plenary session(distribute the tasks and present jointly)

NOTE: To elect a visualiser or rapporteur does notmean that the other members of the group staypassive. The slogan of mutual help remains parti-cularly valid in intensive work of small groups.

30


The evaluation as one of the basic elements must be practisedcontinuously and progressively.

It is not sufficient to have a final evaluation during whichthe participants express their opinion and appraisal of theevent (by means of a questionnaire or a discussion). Certain-ly it is important to be aware of the reaction of the parti-cipants in order to draw conclusions for the continuation ofthe common work or for a simi]ar future group event withother participants. But one should not overestimate theimportance of the final evaluation for the next group: itwill consist of different participants who will find them-selves in a different situation.

Before each seminar, the team should undertake a preliminaryevaluation by trying to assess the group and the programme.This should already include mechanisms for ongoing evaluationwhich permits feedback on the programme, the training methodor the environment of the participants during the entireseminar.

Of course, the team cannot anticipate the exact initialknowledge and experience of the participants when planningthe programme (even if a questionnaire is sent to the parti-cipants beforehand). Above all, they cannot foresee thereactions of the participants in that particular group and inthe given situation. For this reason, the planning should beflexible and capable of reacting to evaluation by the parti-cipants. Normally, one cannot change everything, but thereare many ways of adapting the programme, the methods andenvironment to the needs of the participants.

Recommendationsfor visualized presentation

- establish contact with the group

in plenary session

- present as a team

- read all the cards

- put hand on cards while reading them

- avoid long comments on the cards

- visualize the plenary discussion onthe group’s boards

31

By means of appropriate techniques of ongoing evaluation, theparticipants are allowed to influence actively the pro-gramme’s implementation. They should feel that they share acommon responsibility for the event.

In order to gain an insight into the various reactions of theparticipants, one must employ different evaluation techniquesat the beginning, the middle and the end of the event.

Some examples of evaluation elements

- The survey of the expectations and fears of the parti-cipants can be made at the beginning of the seminar via akey-word collection on cards like:

“To make this event successful:- What should we do?- What should we avoid?”The chart on which the replies are fixed may remain inthe workroom during the seminar (see pp. 41/42).

- Evaluation Committee of the participants (by rotation) foreach day which each morning provides a visualized report ofthe day before, including criticism and proposals (see pp.56/57).

- “Mood Barometer” indicating the atmosphere which prevailedat the end of every day; each participant may glue a dot onthe board indicating his mood. In this manner a graph maybe drawn showing the ups and downs of the participants’mood (see p. 60). This graph does not explain the reasonsfor any bad impression the participants may have gained,but it can still serve as an indicator for the evaluationcommittee as well as for the team.

- Boards for criticism and proposals on which the partici-pants may attach anonymously cards with their comments onthe seminar.

- Mid-term evaluation by means of a key-word collection oncards replying to questions like:

- “What did you like?”- “What did you not like up to now?”- “Which things were not treated sufficiently?”- “About what would I like to know more?”

- The final evaluation can be undertaken by means of- discussion on the “expectations and fears” as presen-

ted at the beginning by the participants- questionnaires and presentation of their results to

the participants (see p. 60)- collection of cards “What did you like? What did you

not like about the seminar?- survey of concrete proposals for the future (e.g.

follow-up, new activities).

:~2

In this comprehensive way, the continuous evaluation facili-tates the awareness of changes in the opinions, intentionsand attitudes of the participants.

7.6 Climate Favourable to PartIcipation

The working environment of a group event -~ like the contentsand the methods - should be conducive to frank discussionamong all persons.

As far as possible, the arrangement of the class should beconsidered; any hierarchy between the tean and the partici-pants should be avoided. It would be ideal to arrange thechairs in a semi-circle around the board in such a mannerthat all can see and have access to the boards. The tablesare absolutely dispensable, they can be put along the walls:a frank and open atmosphere does not need hiding-places.

It depends Ofl the attitude of the team, but also of theparticipants, if a hierarchy between the team members and theparticipants and among the participants themselves can beprevented. Rules on how to facilitate this process weredescribed above, e.g.: “Everybody helps everybody” or “avoidlong monologues” (time limit for taking the floor) etc.

We may also introduce didactic games which contribute to thepedagogic and relaxing aspect and as well considerably tothe contents of the event. Moreover, we activate other senses(“learning by doing”).

To stimulate group cohesion, especially in case of a seminar,it is advisable to find a location where the group can staytogether after the work. The extra-curricular activitiesshould also promote team-spirit, e.g. excursions, sports,cultural programmes, chats, and parties.

The application of a participatory approach usually createsquite intensive relations between the people. These experi-ences can be facilitated to a high degree by a spirit oftolerance, self—discipline and mutual help (see pp. 40-44).

7.7 Documentation

By mutual help, without needing a secretary, all the parti-cipants share the co-responsibility of working out the chartson the boards, structuring them properly and making themeasily understandable, with title, date, and number.

Thus, we can be sure of an authentic source for the documen-tation:

33

- If the record is only going to be used by the group itself,it will only be necessary to make copies of the charts (byhand-writing, type-writer, or photos).

- If it is intended to distribute the results to other peoplewho did not assist in the event, the copies of the boardswill be insufficient, because they are only comprehensibleto those who participated. In this case it will be neces-sary to include an additional document, elaborating on thepoints according to the charts.

If a large number of charts has been produced, the group maychoose which ones should be documented. It is also advisableto keep the most important ones, or those with open questionsas points of reference in the next meeting as well as formonitoring the implementation of decisions taken.

34

S ~ L~ast Warn±n~

The more “theoretical” part of this introduction to theparticipatory approach concludes with a warning that itsapplication should seriously consider its limitations andbasic requirements.

8.1 Limitations of the Participatory Approach

There exist many situations in our daily work where the“investment” of moderation is not necessary. They can bemanaged with less time-consuming and simpler methods.Decisions of directors and their delegation are well provedin traditional hierarchies. There is no time for moderationand its advantages would be little. The same is valid for alarge number of persons who have to decide rapidly (as mightbe in the case of the general assembly of large cooperatives)and to delegate to a smaller group.

The criteria for the decision whether it is worthwhile toapply the participatory approach lie in:

- the complexity of the problem- the number of persons to be involved- the quantity of expected difficulties and resistances- the number of possible alternative solutions- the necessity of creative ideas- and fundamentally on the participants’ willingness to

cooperate.

In situations of fight or negotiations where one side has tosucceed the participatory approach is just the contrary ofwhat is required. Also situations where no solution of acommon problem is needed and where “academic discussions” arepredominant the participatory approach is felt to be rathera hindrance to the theoretical statements.

8.2 Basic Requirements

Besides the natural limitations there are some prerequisiteswhich need to be respected when starting to try a participa-tory approach to a group event. We need to be:

- well prepared for the event- flexible in reacting- able to apply the participatory process throughout the

event- conscious of the time factor involved in the approach- conscious that the group process needs only instrumental

guidance.

The next parts of the booklet show how the approach wasapplied in one case and try to give practical hints forfurther use.

35

Part II

Case Study

DSE Training Course

“Participatory Working and Training Approaches

in Self-help Promotion”

Jakarta, Indonesia

June 1989

Eberhard Gohl

37

1 Introduction to the Case Study

Part I described core elements of a participatory approachfor group events. The training course which is reported onin this second part was taken as an example of how theseessential elements can be applied. The detailed descriptionof planning, execution and evaluation shows how this par-ticular training course tried to adapt the elements to theactual situation. The reader has to bear in mind that forthis reason the proceedings desribed cannnot simply berepeated for another seminar: every event has its owndynamics and conditions to which it has to respond.

2 Background of the Training Course

For some years, efforts are underway to develop methodswhich will overcome the negative experience of participantsin group events. The German Foundation for InternationalDevelopment (DSE) tries to adapt its methods to the needs ofits seminars which are designed to facilitate exchanges ofexperience in the field of development and advanced pro-fessional training.

For the Food and Agriculture Development Centre (ZEL) of DSEdidactic methods of this kind are - although used in variousfields - of special importance to the promotion of ruraldevelopment and above all of cooperative organizations. Inthis field the dialogue with the target groups is essentialin order to initiate a development jointly with and not onlyfor these target groups.

The participatory approaches for cooperative group events asused by DSE try to meet these needs. Yet an increasing numberof moderators or facilitators have to be introduced to theseworking and training methods. Thus, workshops are organizedfor the preparation of moderators.

The course obiectives were defined as

- Understanding of the importance of participatory approachesin the field of self-help and self-help organizations.

- Imparting of practical knowledge and skills in participa-tory working and training methods to improve joint planningand action.

Participants were invited from Asian countries. They com-prised

- senior staff of governmental and non-governmental organiza-tions concerned with self-help promotion (preferably in thefield of training)

- instructors from relevant training centres

- collaborators from technical cooperation projects.

:38

3 Planning of the Training Course in the Team

The description of the background of the training coursemakes clear that DSE has several years of experience withtraining courses for trainers on the participatory approach.Since then, a lot of standards have been developed.

Nevertheless, a detailed planning of the envisaged trainingcourse in Jakarta was necessary. Every training course has tobe tailor-made for the invited participants in the specificsituation. The following aspects had to be especially con-sidered:

- training course is held in Indonesia- participants come from different southeast Asian countries- duration of training course is 3 weeks- new composition of team of facilitators requires new

division of tasks- evaluations of former training courses

Two months before the start of the training course, the teamof facilitators and the responsible organizers from DSE helda joint two days’ planning workshop.

The team’s planning workshop was held in a similar way as itis practiced in the training courses: the current materialssuch as soft boards, cards and felt pens are used to documentthe discussions and results.

The meeting started with a collection of ideas on the ques-tion: “For the planning of this workshop, what do we have toclarify until tomorrow evening?” Each team member wrote hisproposal on cards. The team jointly clustered the cards onthe board and set up an agenda consisting roughly of threemain steps:

The first step was to assess the participants’ needs byanalysing their applications to the training course. One mainresult of this step was the decision to introduce the mani-fold experiences which these participants had in variousparticipatory methods to the seminar by creating a separatemodule “Exchanging experiences on further elements of parti-cipatory approaches in Asia”.

The second step was to establish a tentative programme and toshare responsibilities within the team. The contents of eachmodule and the points of emphasis were briefly discussed.With the help of mobile visualization the framework wasfitted to the time schedule.

The third step concerned the logistic details. Above all thequestion of the working rooms and the materials which wecould not see in advance was raised once more, and furthercontacts had to ensure their appropriateness.

39

The next preparatory meeting took place when the team arrivedin Jakarta two days before the start of the training course.Last arrangements were made, above all in order to create aconducive atmosphere for the arriving participants and for apleasant beginning to our work.

During the whole training course, the team of facilitatorsmet every evening - sometimes for three hours or just for tenminutes - in order to give mutual feedback, to evaluate theday’s experiences and to specify the next steps. There wereseveral changes as compared with the previous planning. Butit cannot be denied that the possibilities of fundamentalchanges are limited in a running course.

40

4 Seminar Procedure: Using the Basic Elements and Techniques

4.1 Climate Favourable to Participation

The conducive atmosphere favourable to participation shouldbe created right from the beginning. In the plenary room,there were no chairs and desks lined up like in a classroom,instead chairs were set up in a semi-circle.

After a short opening ceremony the workshop started with thepresentation of the participants. In pairs, the participantsinterviewed each other and drew up a personal presentationsheet of the respective partner. The sheets of paper werepinned on boards, and each participant was introduced in ahumorous way by his interview partner.

for the presentation .

tresgJikttoh oI IcuIrcsr’ants

f)i f~I fo~rn

2 ,nfevvac,.~yuu. ptrfnt’

L1 ~t4.

“ rn”t ~ bi,7

a cAa,t Suit

ciMJt hc6he~

fllk*d~ Y-

-

— t*.. EEt*4I}tfl**i

— 1tSWWGh OFFtCtP~ B Ed

- ~-t;:~- ~-

q ccklcrLt

~ t~t

2~4;t~U‘-~

EIN S’APA

;z yn

MnytCk ~St4

~, C

The rules

I 4fl

L~ fr

s.1t4a1’ flt\

na Ire

(ouvdry

Loin1

S ~

and some examples:

-~ k

~. f~L

S

40

~pk~yw~k~t,

Mxned

di4dre4

41

After the seminar team had presented visually the objectivesof the workshop, the next step which allowed a mutual fami-liarization was to ask for the expectations of the partici-ET1 w311 744 m510 744 lSBTpants.

The expectations of the participants are to serve as aguideline for the whole group:

- participants are able to take into account each other’swishes

- moderators are able to take them into consideration forplanning

- and they will be one of the bases for evaluation.

In a brainstorming session, each.~ participant wrote hisexpectations on cards: ONE CARD - ONE IDEA.

The cards were clustered on the board by the moderator,following the suggestions of the whole group.

I Who~~ koppo lo sake II’t Nfl 3wttkssmctes~JuI for se(to.lc.1.clhc4 0

AFFRDM ~ ~j r~cp~1~r’~ ¶47~’f- ‘~r

- 1ICi~fl!Vt’

4~Ji OPFLJ%’OtW

~ SCIr,. 0

‘wuWLE~ ~ op~ ‘M

PJOTTQO of P7~f~ ~ ~~ h nOt at) , L!~t~’-~’ -4 rMu--

4$we —Lek I r..rLI&I ~ ft - ‘I ~1 Conducive- ~- afstospben

attirE) ~°£~Er~wS~t#~Vr~~~tRE Pp -

r CoMrE,~’ t~ 1~ * PCAcr’eel. ~ It,fl.4

1* t’Aty ~1, bf~-afftaca- ~h. f”Ld

~ Prc~c~61’~~rt 1,

~CChnIILeb7rEThUJS —

Adoybbk. ‘w tet eve.s - -

~~~t~hnique

Each card was read and evaluated, and if necessary discussed.Thus it was made clear to each participant that each contri-bution would be considered whoever wrote the card.

Partic ipationconfidence.

INVIOQOMJNT

p.. tojc ‘timt4.f~

can be stimulated in an atmosphere of

42

~kI ~Jjj~J sf0 Jo Me )Itt nil 3 t~saufl4a) for St 2(icairul, nrl&td, (‘~mPah,.,M%S1 ‘ift -)

°‘~°au

9oor -

~

bonn9 - --k,1.11 b.

açproa1’r.gm.. osta:.Ub

--1 -~‘ ~

LECTURESI ~ S

Pare 1t4 i

I. ‘~ rr~ flit 7~4

to((frfl’

t(AYN1/1 ~

But not onlyexpectationswere asked for.It was alsoimportant to askfor the fears

Only after having asked for the participants’ expectationsand fears, the seminar team presented the programme of thecourse. The facilitators emphasized that it was only atentative programme which could be adapted to the dynamism ofthe training course. By utilizing cards for the tentativeprogramme it was easy to move or replace the topics in caseof changes.

TEE r!1~

43

In the following days, different working methods also ensureda conducive atmosphere.

E.g. communication problems were illustrated by role plays:

Every morning, the daily evaluation group used to prepare a“defreezer”: jokes, riddles, gymnastics or even a song.

.-;_‘. A~~—

The working day usually started with a cordial laughter!

44

Towards the end of the training course, participantssummarized their experiences in this respect by answering thefollowing questions:

“What are the components of an atmosphere favouring an effec-tive participation in group events (training courses, teammeetings, . . . )?

How can the trainer/moderator influence the atmosphere?Be as precise as possible and give examples!”

Ct-

~--~ ~Consjdpr

_Pi~ntmnHeoIft-~of’ ~~. tcn’,r 4 rnrt.cnvn -S~f*flt5

lw~v!9!_ Il -

- &i-kiponk’ Thus~~ Ink~rect~ W’Uir~nepc~

learn

45

4.2 Alternation between Plenary and Group Sessions

Working in small groups constitutes a crucial element of theparticipatory approach because it allows an intensiveexchange of ideas.

As explained in Part I, the work generally starts in anintroductory plenary session, thereafter the main part ofthe disussions are held in working groups, and finally theconcluding plenary session sums up the results (see p. 28).

The following example shows the alternation between plenaryand group sessions in a training module about communicationpatterns.

NMI, ~Conyeke ~Ii’s ~tns -~ - - -

I - - -t--ty. ~I- -

-Iuesdgy c ,‘rid.y ~ a13 ft.e 19 juice

~

r~SL5 [~Iuuhui ~cUy r r Ettivuhis

~

~L0SiIi(J1ON ,~ • toriirurd ~g~5 ur,tht- I-way 8—-Ui— ?icscuil,h.u of R- -5 accuse

seA i-we, cn~”~ ItSII Ifs (s~3 ~) (o.11eht4 a’U

- i~ toner~nIà i~~4LO5•UIliffiuos ,~ ~ (thetis fir a~ Ij~” tZtFtiSf- iO~’—!2~’ Utitiu; ~ ~ co.peebewtiM~

‘WIcbfiltd *SSjt - (foist flodn- •rcso~e~/~t~-4 --- ~VU ~iMpsOr(tics’ E~:2E~ Iv~-il~

II~~UI~ONjiitSki~t - -

- - Sk.siry is-; -~ Ii~—fl~he plenty

J&~~3a WinS cii; iuwrp psobicsi

- 13,6

(4a.’0?rncpjijip of

its. Us (w31r4~j~ ~.

-h----—

-- L--~---~-~:- -

46

After two communication exercises, the eirst session of groupwork was held. The task:

- ___woikm, j-roys - -

ostc.nuü~t -

prolltas aid - a -

c, SIhtn CD*5f3 k -~ -

__ -

I. in yon woik, iihIcL coss,uical;on I

you J~iee 2

A. Whn,3 caases tkse anwiiuttios

- p-robleas ~

-~ -. - Pcepoce a diari ~1k 1~e-ws’dls Jo 1uslioui~‘t, IaotL

- -- - - .

~3. kink ew pro~Icaatd prtseJrl it t~1kj pkoiui-y $t$Sjofl ~s U role ,Lw.

The following recommendations were given to facilitate thegroup work (for full text of recommendations see p. 29):

~1’6r~

I. ehpm~-ca fawderabks-w*i~,~~ttce~

2 14~~uesiion

3 /Wkirate i/n’ larks Ovag’e,a$e,— a’~7ljpp’n-/,ta a-)

4’i ~ the “me scAeg’tclt

c 1ef/ed ~e,’~on .5)/tnt C

& Co//ed i/ic ideas’ en ga,~’p

Z Ln,k a!, nrpAtln, ckntdrada1~j~~

g What is ,n;ssin/?

g Thepzret6e y’v~ownk jGvt:.presenlalion /h The r -

Th~ —~

-~1-

iWC ai~ikbIeI lit

lw-il; -

,. 2.:

47

The working groups worked one and a half hours each on theirtasks and prepared a presentation chart.

The results of the 5discussed in the plenum.

working groups were presented andHere one example:

CI)MMUIJI(;AI IO~j PRoc~L~’~’F’Rc,p,& ~

IVATIO~~JAL F

1)-i-, ~ ~O~Ji\L~ / ~~I~4I1 p-i ‘1

r)~i - ( -~ _‘~‘~iJc C

i~IS1RicJ

-NO PR/OP (ON~OLTA7jon~ ‘-it

‘~VIRAcT’L ~~fruo-k4ce~

LLACI~of ~RrwiF~r~,i

Lommttmeqtc4 I~

4 k

48

a

and a viewfrom the finalplenarydiscussion

n Presentation ofthe results of aworking group

lit ~ey dwru ç,ç ,~ ~~w’t Mel neal, t-GNdt,,,UI LU

9, ~

O.psnisobo ~~ itt iu.t’

Ii

ice (te/ ‘icc-tiI ~,,

‘(ti or jj~,, -

of wost~, LI~h!, stI 4,Sr t~’e cr~/

jc~~ ‘MI I!Io~olvthien

kt,iI ~eu.*4q~.

twllsrt

‘-~ ThIikS$ - LrsIielled

PffIuIor I. tai.ui’tol~s‘~‘~ ml

____ - -

Simultaneously, thediscussion in theplenary session wasvisualized andsummarized by oneof the moderators:

(taus*kltiiou

- ~ it9

- tests lcu,ael,

‘CR1

j’s if ‘11Pt,4, ii1t~f ~‘1 ~J1059 sq~,

IC!, rjJ/

3

49

In a later module, one working group pointed out the advan-tages of shifting between plenary and group work. They wereanswering the following question:

“What are the respective functions of plenary sessions andworking groups in view of reaching an effective participationin group events (training courses, team meetings, ...)?

What must be considered when setting up the task for workinggroups? Explain how the question should or should not be set,referring to the situation, and give examples.”

-c $ —-. - a~-~i4 y~ -‘ cs-* -

[toNs 01 tiicj~gy $ScIONS AND bb~FcN4FOR IIF~ CTIVL PARTICIPATION -

SFSSrnN~4 k/Ok/C/Nc 6RO(iP1 -..4

¶Mareox perStimulatediscuss ions

¶3tt

- ConStfl’,ut. -

rtsultc

- r’ pareqroup

-, - prtrerilafirn - opt” - rpec~fic -

- S ‘-~ Qu�s_ ,~,lcc~l3 quttfcons

~ gr.~ Tlorsas -

intcrc,t J of wo’~’~9 4 - - e-______ ~ .-:... Which rthieMs do you foot with tht ptiwTh 9

ConSider T,’ne ~ ‘~ /Q ~ to s,ho.i yoo, work is addrnst,I?

I npcrcenfl 226 Uhotflc015It5

40 ye” face r’ ,leahng

— - -- - 1 ~- - I’ ~ ~nvoWc~~n your aMy wa*i~— ____L_____ —-- - —$~-$~_$

0~~——-a~ -i

I PLENARYArc,u~,

0p[NINQ irittr’-LI SESSIOt’J

t:~~~_ J-*

Introduce cltiriiy askfbc tasks flit fas~.s’ ~~Y~3tb0nt

divide into (4t093 cnenib,rs)

rotIrs

pdtnt.Fy 0nd(tori1 tacks

PLENARYSESSiON

-1 suctabic placefm-working~rc

clarifyandaisc aSS

coNil UDIN(j1,4 ‘,HflN

‘5”‘s-f

SIin,’lt - eflhii~IVGtCCtLhQdcan diccusIi°”

150

The “Information Market” is a special form of alternationbetween individual work, group discussion and plenarysession:

There were 28 participants in this training course, and eachparticipant was given the opportunity to present his/herprofessional background and experience:

“What are the possibilities and limitations for self-helppromotion in your daily work?”

These descriptions of their own work were prepared in workinggroups, visualized on charts and finally presented to theplenum. The Information Market made it possible that every-body could listen to everybody’s presentation but informallyselect who to discuss with.

Preparing

-~

£nry ~zu—tIcpaMt/or9ak-ll-2o~+ion

a. prtc�nkakton t cktrt (dmft)

Every ~tt1t.~nt/0r~ - ~ his/her wa,-kto his/her worktnj cjwnup

r

~Jork’n3 ejmuf gives {-eed-~ck-

~ncAi v,iwtt ,tv, s ~‘nj of r~’°°~°~/

chazt

Jy4j~i4wtlp-eSthMhDh Jo#ht ~

iii as

and carrying out:

finA,I~~’

:ltim )larkeJ . ItM~i~$ --

- 411 IlL r’-’ ic.pznt of o’w workA-i~j Jrouf

tnak’ the-it ptaSRMlttIIOflS- (1OmIh~ad1)

£vtr y ci pin1 /or~an.~a/i,’.. -hit b.c/he.-’

boarA 1’ ant Los-ncr of tAt roo.

~i Stays I1~a-e s-fady fn- ft~Met-etp&anFw.n rissi_L th-scocssoo~os-

$ ~

—f ~c ~ ‘ ~~_—# — -

- - Dunn, JAt Ptl4th(fl

7 Urne (-kc.w...), t& oUter- - 1uAcc.panhan fnt to uiLka,00M4, ~~1kantI

- ~Scuss.- j- wc-x ~ ~±xt -

- -

51

4.3 Asking Questions

In the participatory approach, each participant is consideredas a resource person. In training or working sessions, thetrainer or expert should therefore avoid holding longlectures.

In order to avoid “one-way communication”, the moderatorencourages discussions by asking questions which are ofpersonal concern to the participants. Above all, if tasksfor the group work are set, good preparation of questions isindispensable.

The rules how questions should and should not be are found onp. 26. A few examples of questions asked in this trainingcourse are to be seen on pp. 41, 42, 53, 59. Here are twomore:

s~tit I~1~~,;-L~:--.t~

~*t*n#c~ ~ --,

WktI LIIC fir ckatutit,h fits wIit~& sakea wtna3t ta*pttktustble ?

(0’1 ~i’~ce4

r I

~s41--’~-r-~~cca1y

~gJtr#’C ~

52

The task for group work generally consists of a question. Butmoreover, it consists of a recommendation for the procedureof the group work.

Here are two examples. (More examples are to be seen on pp.44, 46, 49.)

-‘“S ~ -SM~trJe I - -- -

ra.5~;~wurk~fl!tS - -W’k;ch art it a pctrl-iLipa-ktyappnox,h 4k ni~ and 4k hsks

ol tk Ictittt Jpio~kc&JOt Jfaci ii-)a+erjg% a: — 4ia;ni*~count,— ~~a&-~�thoø ~tttI~

— wocblor— 3g~(~Iufl) t~ceLai -

If ii— nutWs sC~,(,O*pSft wA n~4mAii~ø’I a~ep’mac$a

-- -n~s~: Wssnd*y -

Gftf

00~K. IS ~a

~a

“How does the visualization favour an effective participa-tion in group events (training courses, team meetings, etc.)?

“Elaborate the visual elements, principles of composition andtypes of structure (above all concerning prepared presenta-tions). For each idea mentioned, refer to a positive exampleof the information market.”

Jttcwtlon

~ne t V~swLele.nnts. -- i~me.ro,n. “°‘~#hacqdes Ø~Ca’.pn. ~‘on “J 7j~*t of ~ ~

- .strvctu,r S auth ‘say to mate: -

-- -$ ~

53

4.4 Mobile Visualization

The visualization by cards is the most eye-catching charac-teristic of the participatory approach, and indeed it isimportant throughout all the work if everybody is taking partin it and the mobility of the cards is used to reflect thediscussion. But the utilization of cards alone does not makea participatory approach!

We have already given some examples of its use on the pre-ceding pages. The mobile visualization is certainly extremelyhelpful for key-word collection, e.g. in the following case:(rules are documented on p. 27)

The question was: “What did we learn from modules 5 and 6?”

First, it was useful to be Then the new insights fromreminded of the rules for these modules were docu-presenting cards from a mented and discussed:key-word collection:

1 w-ttlt }Odisgs - -

hit ~ii~k~ -

~41-”~

54

The mobile v:Lsualization can also be used for summing up theresults of a discussion. If the participants write key-wordsof their statements on cards, or if a facilitator does it,all the imporl:ant ideas of a debate will be documented andfixed on the board. At the end of the debate, the cards=ideascan be sorted, completed and arranged for a clear documenta-tion of the conclusions.

But mobile visualizationtations. If the outlinetreated are written onby moving and replacingProgramme” on p. 42).

is also helpful for prepared presen-ET1 w420 265 m533 265 lSBTof a programme or the items to becards, changes are easy to visualizesingle cards (see also “Tentative

55

Cards are a very helpful instrument in forming workinggroups. The following example shows how the participantscould select on which topic and with whom they wanted to workin a group:

With some inventiveness, attractive charts can be designed,and cards can be added, removed or shifted optionally.Often, cards will be moved from one chart to another to showlinkages.

56


The survey of expectations and fears (as described on p. 41)is a basic step for continuous evaluation. It will be con-sidered as the “terms of reference” for all later evalua-tions.

Some rules of the ongoing evaluation were introduced straightaway at the beginning of the workshop:

- -~ -: ‘~j~4 -

1saco.tstrj~°”~tVtIu,aftn Fi~nIt.ttlnhi’~~

-- i$ -

‘~ktk’.9 icli oe,c-,,t ,kow do I feel )4 dc-es ~ol uØiis.jolt aspic-h of ol the cud of - b~t ps~t’fr trial

~ well- bring - ikic stsiutr diay cils ci4’owt $

I100 °~ ~Q ihis 0~1 Q Fd &ellec -nfni1ella6k fltlIEI~ 4ruc-i ~oiose - -day I —1

evuIuoiIoM

pivet-dow midob~t lees

-:

~i

Daily moodwelt,-

WItaj does

ii isdcale Z

Scale

tkuujiuq ntlIs3 Ir o,A’, lvC seuuuc bow diffrinut

- pos~.l;l;,~lbtM11 tr111i;0,by ci ~ fri~

lie eveIuajstju - Ike Iran, is

lea,, tospostd ii[person

y id.Ike .ld lear,sdecls II, new ee~

Sc-tics 4 as-�~~~c-~w,l~ - plumed pfo,Ian;enjur.a1-o, potlicipouts (or lit day

tAlly 05/0

~sond ~~,tn,eier ispessisns

It

;(tecl day’s — iomdnusla.doq —

tipp tcptafr~esscetuls cennIPi*9 o( t~oI’leI~~ of poetic-dc

- -— teed for for flee — oiler ocpec Is — echo—cu rtL.tupcbs,ifta From °rIbie coir~e acl,vt;es

57

The participants of this training course in Jakarta formed“daily evaluation teams” which presented their findings everymorning. Everybody decided right away when he/she wanted tobe on the evaluation team.

And herethe chartsevaluation

is an example of Almost every morning, theprepared by daily evaluation was accompaniedteams. by a “defreezer”

(mostly not visualized).That day, a song was learnt.

lOocI - 11125Z-’~’o-m--~~oe:~

5 ~ --

F- - $ - - - $

eJ&2c4~/~u,vcfUAf1J’/ flTh-’~/ he

~ Oh~’virved

~ ~ C3jf—i ~ -o ~

~ ~JQT‘[9 rc-$.14J/

1 r-’ \r~rJ ~

h:-~’~11mi~YctJ4~-arr~4JncIf;4Jrai9fr,p

58

The evaluation team of June j9th distributed a questionnaireto all participants and presented a retrospective view of thefirst 8 days of the training course, with suggestions forall:

J- necflcctry~, i(4o~-MFVAtTo~%e aiSrs4aH.erc

- W-arW- Thof! tnfr,m of tis caa~ERA1-E,• / - ~ as AThtSct4fl

t4eoee sor~e1ij.rflOwsrflltIS. r~bSrY~ge Li -- --•~r~1ttT1c—1~tWwcu~1ve1~4JrwSq.tapwtaflttd,tnpdt! - $; -

Pea~eft~øn~insit&kI~iej~ pteparS~ -

!RYaDOD ~grrrup

~1 2 3 4 ~ ‘ -ye-- .sa~C ~ s-I~—t n_J.,_ #4 ?‘d ‘7-n—’ aae .oase

SUCcLsrrn,js~kiuAq,rh47,o~

bnaA~-r

F~ — p#~’M~ct~Máconócf ôjnrhèqxmt

*5s~poor~it ‘~ 9ct’- ~~gpit 9

59

On three consecutive days, different types of daily evalua-tion were introduced which do not require an evaluation team.They are especially suitable for short seminars or trainingsof few days.

khalateyosruas;tsuLal Ic-day (t1c~~,~

r,pP~

f~r CYQLIbk \ ~ fscilrfics 55tuaut~ •

-$ -~ (I - -~--~ ~ - ~

Tv�ocw,~JCOursb’~ - ([~-k wrf’s~° unfl no - , - se’. -

n--aU7 r—’1 cn.~fr-Fat •ct~, • - - l’r4- - - - • :

trr-~cf fl ~ti~ ~ r(,.4 - - - ~$$$~~0PSZ0, ~Z$~6i;~

— 94/$ (fO,f

‘1 / I, L~EA1b-‘~ - gu-(I,c~e~f4 ~~y::~-~k—- ~c:; ~:: AIJ~S-~ ~ ~ -

sti us~ .4 [~ik-...i~ihTW4y J~[ -- -

Iorin~ cc b-i ‘10/ 9~’/ brfi~

1Iiia’epor4c~priic I ‘M’’-~”~ - lit/p W$lW~j) $- $

-( - -- - ~- -i’J ~ - ~

1~ — ~ CO,u,M~/ $

-Cola ci ~ws ott$tr ~~ LOua-~ (jsLr- ~ - la~&t4It9tnlziiliue - - -~iib~tj~~

— cur, rC,f ~ [Kr ise-sr,rflfUrc5

! ec#e~cr-,e

p_4~L;:~‘‘-“ate •O’fl ScP ivc’u

~ be spruced

~?‘~t0,f‘fr,&~qon~’.~I CJw-i /.r4sen-n,

I

60

The daily “mood barometer”daily evaluation.

usually formed the base for the

On the last day, evaluation questionnaires were distributedand filled out individually and anonymously. The facilitatorsvisualized the results on charts. This procedure may appearcomplicated but it reduces the tendency of mutual influenceof participants. Here is an extract:

CcnhibaL’n 3. ~

—I~ k~c.’kJy o”4

e,eaUs

Tkd—k4(onoswsc4a poUt

4rs

fl0s~I2 1~.cpks4— SW-~H

Flod.k3:%&~ttwpQ~evca

cI~i~s5of a

w.i%na% appa.t4.___________-qhihks.~- 1a*4o~~&

~.~.p~pQ1nã.(04

~ 4p~.~aI

Mo T~teiijad ‘t~

—IcN:~at— EvciLai~ori

61.

4.6 Documentation

Since all the important ideas are visualized, the charts willgive good summaries of all the debates in plenary and groupmeetings. The charts or simple copies of them are usefuldocuments for everybody who participated in the debates.

In this training course, each chart was numbered and photo-graphed. The photos were complemented with short explana-tions, then photocopied and distributed to each participantas soon as a module was completed. The snaps in this casestudy are taken from the photo-documentation.

As it was not necessary to distribute the results to otherpeople, there was no need to work out more detailed records.

At the end of the training course, the materials used forvisualization were listed.

— U&k ““~ ~~“V~ f’~~ —

~ ~ - irmtzk’ - $

~4,9twylr(.-3 U-

-# -

- 3017 shieLd 46OXOL .-~:- i;:~

IO/~) lw-Ic -~f/apr/curt ,pup’, - - - - . -

- lDOOpnrs

bnod tip’)

-L~j2Orrw&/c’1

- _____________

-~

2c1~fiwMs

-- —wr4Xerox er

Two thirds of the budget for materials had been spent for thephoto-documentation - an expenditure which can be reduced,however, it does not give the same visual impression: thedocumentation of the charts can also be written by hand ortype-writer. Of course, you may also save money and time byselecting charts to be documented.

e//rrna/,rr V

63

Part III

Practical Tips for the Application

of Participatory Approaches

Gabriele J. Ullrich, liwe Krappitz, Eberhard Gohl

65

1 Would you like to try the participatory approach

?

Come on and try it!

We hope that you are encouraged now to try the participatoryapproach after having experienced an event yourself and readthe first two parts of this booklet!

Please consider that our case study (Part II) describes atraining course for moderators. In your first attempt, startwith a simpler task! There are many occasions to use thisapproach, as for example:

- the regular working sessions of your organization- round table discussions- small training events- planning or coordination meetings

If you have doubts •

You should only start if you are convinced of the necessityof a participatory approach. Everyone who wants to apply theparticipatory approach should consider frankly the followingquestions:

- Am I flexible in reacting?- Am I disposed to be consistent in the participatory

process during the whole event?- Am I personally convinced of the methods I want to

apply?- Am I technically well prepared?- Am I disposed to invest the necessary time?

> If I am afraid of confronting unforeseen situations,> If my objective is to defend and to approve a given

result,> If I consider the approach to be too simple or too

complicated,> If I do not feel sure,

--> then it is better to choose another approach.

66

No doubt moderation requires much flexibility and improvisa-tion: but it should be based on solid preparation!

Nobody is born a moderator. But we can start by applying someelements and techniques in situations which allow us tocommit errors (counting on the goodwill of the group) and inwhich we can admit that we are experimenting and learningsomething new together. -

The reward in terms of the results and human relationshipswill show us that it is worth a try!

67

2 What are the limits of the participatory approach?

As said in Part I, there are many situations in our dailywork which can be managed with less time-consuming methods,thus dispensing with the need for a moderator:

--> When rapid decisions have to be made (e.g. in dailymanagement), the responsibilities are delegated tocertain people.

--> In the case of a traditional hierarchy, or in a givenranking of persons, the rules of the participatoryapproach are not accepted. The superior has always thelast word and the subordinates are not encouraged orgiven the opportunity to voice their opinions.

--> Or, in a situation of dispute or negotiation when oneparty has to succeed, the attempt to create a commonidentity through a democratic method of problem-solvingseems to be futile.

--> For the so-called “academic debates”, solving a commonproblem does not arise, as these discussions are notcarried out to bring about consequences or commitments.Thus moderation is considered a hindrance to the theore-tical statements.

Therefore, the importance of moderation in this approachdepends on:

- the complexity of the problem- the number of persons to be involved- the quantity of expected difficulties and resistances- the number of possible alternative solutions- the necessity of creative ideas- and fundamentally on the participants’ willingness to

cooperate.

The application may also have cultural limits. This approachhas been designed in a specific cultural environment, and theunderlying cultural pattern may not always be present or evendesirable in your culture.

--> In some cultures, it is impolite to speak in a loudvoice. (In this case it is better to write!)

--> In many cultures, it is rude to bring up conflicts in agroup meeting.

--> If people feel inferior, they may be too shy to acceptthat in a participatory approach “all the participantsare equal”.

Before starting, you should decide on how to deal with suchpossible differences in the cultural patterns. As an orga-nizer or a trainer you should be well aware of the abilityand the readiness of the group to participate.

68

3 Many appropriate participatory approaches may alreadyexist in your country

The techniques described in this booklet give only someexamples. There may be traditional or new forms of partici-patory work in your region that you can base on. Try to findout!

iaa —S --

S

In

Caaaoay

‘Aliwa. or4S~Styvat -

3.cbtdc wa_IpctynT ii 3,tMS~~“!L

If you think that the various approaches have differentadvantages and disadvantages, feel free to combine someelements and to try new ideas! What is important is yourparticipatory attitude and the vision described in Part I.

Both the trainers and the group must get acquainted withthese approaches, and in this process of mutual learning,participation will be increasingly realized. If you are notsatisfied with your first trial, please do not break off theinitiative: one single experience is not sufficient to decidethe success or failure of using a participatory approach inyour context. You should try to apply it continuously andconsistently taking into consideration the limitationspointed out.

The participatory approaches nust be further developed, alsospecifically for your own working context. Therefore:- Try to take notes of your experiences!- Try to exchange experiences with others!

69

4 How to identify the contents and objectives?

When you are planning a group event, you should consider thefollowing questions:

- Where is there a priority need?

- Which subject should be chosen?

- What are the target groups? Who are the persons involved?

- How can these groups be defined?

- What other groups are linked to these target groups?

- What should be the result of the event?

- Who can act as moderator and who as resource person forthese groups? For which subjects?

All these questions are interlinked. You have to inquire,above all, which elements of the approach can be best appliedto which groups/subjects and by whom.

In the cooperative sector it is often necessary to have amixture of different groups in an event, in order to jointlyseek solution to common problems. The participatory approachis very appropriate in allowing heterogeneity of this kind.

70

5 How to PLAN a participatory event?

The most appropriate way to keep familiar with the participa-tory approach is by using it frequently. Especially theplanning of the event should be done in a team consisting ofthose who, in the course of the event, will act as moderatorsand resource persons.

This joint planning of the event has two advantages:- the most effective way of improving moderation skills is to

apply this approach,- the team will identify itsele with the programme and the

method.

However, you have to be aware of the fact that moderatorscannot master this approach merely by conducting planningwork. This experience is onLy gained gradually throughdifferent events.

What are the important elements of the participatoryplanning of a group event?

In contrast to a planning where one person (e.g. the orga-nizer) makes a proposal and the other people in the team makemodifications, planning in a team is from the outset open andflexible.

The team meets and acts as a working group following thestages of work suggested to the groups of participants (seep. 29). The collection of ideas (see p. 2fl should answer thequestion:

“What do we have to do / to elaborate / to prepare inthis team meeting?”

The ideas on cards usually can be clustered on the followingitems:

- context- objectives of the (envisaged) event- group of participants/their expectations- detailed programme contents- methods- trainers/distribution of tasks- materials- organization.

This collection of ideas will then be used as an agenda forthe team to elaborate details of the contents, the methodsand the distribution of tasks.

The techniques shown on pp. 42 and 45 are recommended forvisualizing the programme structure.

71

Details of the content, the methods and the distribution oftasks can be better visualized using a “script”:

SCRIPT: Example from module 2:Principles of appropriate self-help promotion

tue dura- working in obser-day+hour tion subject •ethods setbods saterials charge vations

Thursday15 June

2.00 p.’

2.10 p.,

3.00 p..

3.30 p.’

4.00 p.’

Friday16 June

8.00 a.i

8.10 au

8.15 a.i

8.30 a.u

9.30 a.i

10.00 ai

11.00 ai

10’

50’

30’

30’

60’

10’

15’

60’

30’

60’

30

Presentation ofuodule 2 prograiie

Presentation ofIIYV-.aize story

Coffee-break

Discussion of •aizestory

Understandings of‘Participation’

Daily evaluation

‘De-freezer’

Tasks for WorkingGroups liprovedSelf-help Fro,otion

‘luproved Self-helpFrouotion’

Coffee-break

Presentation of theresults of WG

Elaboration ofprinciples of Self-help Froiotlonrconclusions of iGs

FL

FL

FL

FL

FL

FL

FL

WG

FL

FL

visualizedpresentation

visualizing thepresentation

questions-answer

discussion

visualized pre-sentation, dis-cussion



group discussion+ preparation

of a chart


discussion withvisualization

1 prepared E.G.hoard

2 hoardsprepared E.G.cards

2 hoards, E.G.cards

1 prepared E.G.board

1 prepared D.E.hoard

D.E.C

1 prepared E.G.hoard

4 charts withtasks forKG

hoards + E.G.cards inKG-roois

hoards pre- E.G.

pared hy KG

1 hoard,cards E.G.

N. L. vis-ualizes

dis-cussion

DailyEvaluat.Coiiitte’

assignroous toKG; KGfreelyforied

if noconsensus~prelli.result

72

6 How to PREPARE a participatory event?

On the basis of this team planning work, the general pro-gramme outline, objectives and methodology should be includedin the invitations in order to arouse the curiosity of theparticipants and to ensure that they do not expect a conven-tional procedure.

The facilities (rooms, working environment, etc.) shouldalways be chcsen according to the needs of the participatoryapproach. There should be enough space for the boards, forthe arrangement of chairs as described and for a workingenvironment conducive to participation and group work. Aluxurious environment should not be chosen because this wouldlimit the readiness of many participants to cooperate.

The mobile visualization surely brings along additional mate-rial costs. Some materials may not be available. But thereare many ways of adapting and developing local materials withsome imagination in order to find the most economical solu-tion. The chart on p. 61 unveils to a certain extent theadditional material costs. But it also shows alternatives.

In this training course, two thirds of the budget for mate-rials had been spent for the photo-documentation. But thedocumentation of the charts can also be written by hand ortype-writer. Of course, you may also save money and time byselecting charts to be documented.

If mobile soft-boards are not available, you may also useother types of boards, or the walls, covering them withpaper. Masking tape is proved to be an ideal adhesive whichallows a mobile use of the cards. (Form small rolls and stickthem behind the cards.) If the working groups glue theircharts before coming to the plenary session, you will needless boards: 10 boards suffice for 30 participants.

The necessary materials should be placed at the disposal ofthe participants. Once the basic technical elements of themobile visualization (cards, strips, etc pinned on a standingboard) are known to the participants, they themselves developthe techniques by using different media: coloured paper,scissors, glue, pins, felt pens, coloured crayons and boards.

Note:

prepare everything possible for visualization in advance:charts, strips and cards with introductions and questions

as well as the materials required.

73

This method is said to be costly. This argument requires adifferentiated reply. Above all, one must be aware of thefact that the increased effectiveness resulting from theparticipatory approach must be paid for, but even thesecosts can be reduced with a bit of thought. The major costis certainly not the necessary material but the time investedby the participants and the team!

THIS IS THE PRICE OF PARTICIPATION

74

7 How to CONDUCT a participatory event?

In Part 1.6, we have given a lot of tips for facilitators, beit as moderator or resource person. The role of the moderatoris really difficult; he has to cede power and can thereforelose status and credibility. He may be in a role conflict:

- The moderator does not act as resource person, once he ischarged with the function of moderator. If questions arisehe passes them on to the group (resource persons and par-ticipants). Thus the moderator has onLy limited possibili-ties of contributing to the group discussions with his ownexperiences and opinions.

- In many cases, a promoter has to take over the task of themoderator. But there is also a basic conflict between therole of a moderator and a promoter: the moderator should beas independent as possible, while the promoter has todisseminate certain knowledges or ideas.

Note:

moderating without manipulating

If you need some more ideas on how to prepare and arrangeplenary or group sessions, ongoing evaluation or documenta-tion, how to design a visualized presentation, or how tocreate a conducive atmosphere; please refer to our casestudy in Part II.

Now, have you prepared everything for the participatoryevent?Then you can start.

We wish you good luck!

75

Stand: 10/91ls—071/91

The following publications of the DSE/ZEL—Section “Basis Development andSelf—Help Organizations (SHO)” are available:

00K 1070 A/aS 79—86—80

00K 1263 A/cSE 79—56—83

DOK 1239 C/b1985

00K 1429 AIT 79-062-85

Cooperative Law in East, Central and SouthernAfrican Countries — a Comparative Approach,372 p., Berlin, Report, 2nd Edition,Feldafing 1982, OM 21,——

PromociOn de las organizaciones de autoayuda delcampesino pobre de America Latina — Problemasrelativos a la ejecución, vigilancia y evalu—aciOn, Informe, 66 p., Feldafing, 1984

Guide pour la gestion appropriée des cooperativesde petits exploitants agricoles (GACOPEA) enAfrique francophone, 201 p., 2ème Edition,Feldafing 1985

Armutsbekämpfung durch Selbsthilfe II, 91 p.,DSE/BMZ, Bericht, Feldafing, Juli 1987

00K 1456 C/bSE 79—061-86

00K 1458 C/BSE 79—061—86

DISTRIBUTED BYL’ACI—BRAOICA—ROWAAbidj an

Recherche de nouvelles lignes d’action et destrategies pour un développement coopératifpropre a l’Afrique de l’Ouest, 111. p., Mali

title see above, 157 p., Senegal

00K 1452 C/bSE 79—061—86

102 p., Burkina Faso

00K 1453 C/bSE 79-061-86

95 p., Cap Vert

00K 1451 C/bSE 79—061—86

68 p., Benin

00K 1457 c/bSE 79—061—86

00K 1459 C/bSE 79—061—86

00K 1454 C/bSE 79—061—86

DOK 1455 C/bSE 79—061—86

00K 1460 C/bSE 79—061—86

161 p., Mauritanie

104 p., Togo

99 p., Cöte d’Ivoire

93 p., Guinee/Conakry

I’ ‘I 209 p., SYNTHESES DES ETUDES

76

ISBN 85—85231—01—9 Enfoque participativo para a trabaiho emDISTRIBUTED BY grupos conseitos bâsicos e urn estudo de casoASSOCENE, RECIFE/BRASIL

00K 1534 A/bIT 74—031—88

00K 1534 A/aIT 74—031—88

00K 1543 A/bIT 74—022—88

00K 1543 A/aIT 74—022-88

L’épargne et le credit comme instruments d’undévelopprnent autonorne des population défavorisées— Innovations et synergiesCompte rendu d’un atelier international,Feldafing 25.—28.1.1988

Saving and Credit as Instruments of Self—reliantDevelopment of the Poor — International WorkshopFeldafing 25.—28.1.1.988

La Lutte contre la Pauvreté par l’Autopromotion

Ilème Séminaire international

Fighting Poverty through Self—Help III

00K 1543 A

IT 74—022—89 (88)

00K 1.627 C/b

Armutsbekämpfung durch Selbsthilfe III

Guide paul la preparation de programmes et pro—jets de promotion de cooperatives et groupementsrui~eauxsur la base de concept GACOPEA(gestionappropriée de cooperatives de petits exploitantsagricoles) Feldafing 1991

All the publications without special indication can be ordered at:Toutes Publications sans Indication particulière peuvent être commandé a la:Todas las publicaciones sin indicaciOn especial se pueden pedir con:

OSE/CENTRE DOCUMENTATIONHans~-Böck1er•-Str. 5D — 5300 Bonn 3Federal Republic of Germany

77

DSE in brief

The German Foundation for International Development (DSE) was createdby the Federal and Land governments in 1959 on the initiative of allthe political parties represented in the Federal Parliament. It wasassigned the task of fostering the relations between the FederalRepublic of Germany and developing countries on the basis of a mutualexchange of experiences. The DSE fulfills this mandate by organizingtraining programmes, seminars and conferences to support projects incountries of Africa, Asia and Latin America which serve economic andsocial development.

Since its creation, the DSE, in cooperation with national and inter-national partner organizations, has provided more than 85.000 expertsand leading personalities from more than 140 countries with an oppor-tunity to discuss issues of international development or undergo pro-fessional training.

In its work, the DSE attaches priority to rural development, foodsecurity and the promotion of industrial vocational training. It alsosupports efforts to improve organization and planning in the developingcountries in the fields of public administration, health, education anddevelopment planning. Furthermore, the DSE prepares German experts fortheir assignments in developing countries, and provides a comprehensiveinformation and documentation service.

The DSE is based in Berlin, but it also has specialized centres withbranches at various locations in the Federal Republic of Germany:

Berlin: Executive Office, Development Policy Forum (EF)Central Administration, Economic and Social DevelopmentCentre (ZWS)Public Administration Promotion Centre (ZOV)Public Health Promotion Centre (ZG) in the processof organization, Branch Lichtenberg (ZG)

Bonn: Education, Science and Documentation Centre (ZED)

Bad Honnef: Area Orientation Centre (ZA)

Kannheim: Industrial Occupations Promotion Centre (ZGB)

Magdeburg: Branch of the Industrial Occupations Promotion Centre

(ZGB)

Feldafing: Food and Agriculture Development Centre (ZEL)

Zschortau: Branch of the Food and Agriculture DevelopmentCentre (ZEL)

DOK 1637 C/a1K 74-222-89ex

participatory approaches for cooperative group events · “participatory working and training...

Documents