Participatory Approaches: A facilitator’s · PDF fileOrganisational Appraisal and ... Methods, tools and techniques do not ... Participatory Approaches: A facilitator’s guide 7

Participatory Approaches:A facilitator’s guide

CONTENTS

2 Participatory Approaches: A facilitator’s guide

Introduction 5

I-1 Principles of participation 7

I-1.1 Participatory approaches todevelopment 7

I-1.2 A scale of participatoryapproaches 8

I-1.3 VSO’s approach to participation 10

I-2 The participatory developmentprocess 13

I-2.1 An analytical framework 13

I-2.2 The framework in practice 17

I-3 The art of facilitation 24

I-3.1 Principles of facilitation 24

I-3.2 Summary of key facilitation skills 30

I-3.3 Questions – how to ask andanswer them 30

I-3.4 Use of visual aids 33

II-1 Methods for each phase ofthe process 35

II-1.1 Methods for analysis andplanning 35

II-1.2 Methods for reviewing 41

II-1.3 Sharing results 45

II-2 Methods for specific purposes 46

III-1 Using participatory tools 61

III-1.1 Watch and listen: Guidelinesfor choosing the mostappropriate tool 61

III-1.2 Organising participatory exercises 62

III-1.3 Small group activity 62

III-1.4 How was it for you? 63

Answers on cards 66

Bomb Shelter 68

Bridge Model 70

Car Park 72

Chrice Matrix 74

Community Case Studies 76

Community Financial Accounts 78

Drawing and Discussion 80

Echo/Cascade Workshops 82

Equality Tree 84

Expertise Market 86

Fishbone Diagram 88

Five Questions 90

Flow Diagrams and Webbing 92

Focus Group Discussions 94

Forcefield Analysis 96

Forum Theatre 98

Gender/Diversity Analysis Matrix 102

Group-Directed Tape Recordings 104

Group-Directed Videos 106

Group-Directed Visual Images 108

Guided Visualisation 110

Image Theatre 112

Impact Assessment 114

Local solutions 118

Maps and mapping 120

Matrices 124

Open-Ended Stories 126

Participatory Presentations 128

People’s Own Records 130

Picture Stories 132

Problem Tree 134

Puppet Theatre 136

Ranking, Rating and Sorting 138

CONTENTS

CONTENTS

Participatory Approaches: A facilitator’s guide 3

Relationship Strings 142

Seasonal Calendar 144

Semi-Structured Interviews 148

Social Norms 150

Stakeholder Analysis 152

Stakeholder Mapping/Venn Diagram 154

SWOT Analysis 156

Ten Seed Technique 158

Thought Shower 160

Timelines 162

Transects 164

24-Hour Analysis 166

Yes, But… 168

Appendix I: Participatory approaches – common acronyms 170

Appendix II: Types of picturesfor communication 171

Appendix III: Tool template 173

References 174

Participation resources online 175

INTRODUCTION


Q: Who sets the development agenda?

Participatory approaches demand that weredefine the relationship between donors,development workers, partners andbeneficiaries. VSO is pressing the case forparticipation and partnership in development.This publication has therefore been developedto provide a guide to understanding anddeveloping that relationship. The guide isprimarily designed for VSO volunteers,partner organisations and staff, based as it ison our existing experience in promotingparticipation in our partnerships. However, itis hoped that it will also prove useful to thewider development community, whereverpeople are committed to facilitating moreparticipation, inclusion and empowerment inthe development process.

Participation means many things to manypeople. It carries potential benefits, but onlyif all those involved have a commonunderstanding and set of expectations. VSOvolunteers and staff generally agree thatparticipation is essential for sustainable andsuccessful development, but often don’t knowwhere to begin. Many are convinced thatparticipation is necessary, but there is littleinformation available to them on how tofacilitate it. The sort of questions they arefaced with include:

Q: What level of participation is appropriate?

Q: What are the pitfalls?

Q: What is the best way of facilitatingparticipation?

Q: What tools can we use to encourageparticipation?

This book provides a set of guidelines forpeople who will be involved in participatoryprocesses to seek their own answers to theabove questions. It provides a framework for

common understanding, some advice on goodfacilitation, and a set of tools and activitiesthat may help to facilitate dialogue, identifyblocks and reveal appropriate developmentinitiatives.

How to use this guideThe guide is organised into three parts:Principles, Methods and Tools.

Part I: Principles

In this context, principles are basic elementsand assumptions for good practice.

Section 1 compares participatory approacheswith top-down approaches, and examineshow participation fits into VSO’s approachto development. The range of differentparticipatory approaches is discussed.The role of participation in VSO’s approachto development is presented, togetherwith feedback from over 20 countryprogramme offices on the benefits andchallenges of taking a participatoryapproach.

Section 2 discusses how to facilitateparticipatory processes with multiplestakeholders. A framework is presented tohelp plan and organise work at differentlevels of participation throughoutsuccessive phases of a developmentprocess or project. Some signposts touseful tools are included for each level.

Section 3 examines the key facilitation skillsneeded to support participatory activities.

Part II: Methods

In this context, methods are combinations oftools and strategies, designed to achieve acertain purpose or goal. Here, the guidecollates a range of participatory methods that

INTRODUCTION

have been used successfully in thefield by VSO and others. Methodsare categorised according to theirsuitability for use at different stagesof the development process, ie:1. initial stages of appraisal,

analysis and planning 2. reviewing and evaluating

progress as plans areimplemented.

Examples are also given of methodsthat can be used for specificpurposes, such as ParticipatoryOrganisational Appraisal andGender/Diversity Analysis.

Part III: Toolkit

In this context, tools areparticipatory exercises. Thissection gives some tips on how tochoose the most appropriate tooland on how to organiseparticipatory workshops and smallgroup activity. It also systematicallyrecords a range of tools used bydevelopment workers all over theworld, including VSO. A matrix of allthe tools provides an at-a-glancereference of which tools areappropriate for which stage of thedevelopment process, the level ofparticipation for which they aremost suitable and the dominantcommunication type used (visual,oral or written).

A profile of each tool includesguidelines on its purpose, potentialapplications and variations, as wellas possible pitfalls. Illustrative casestudies taken from real experiencesof development workers in the fieldare also included.

The variations and applications ofeach tool are limited only by yourown creativity – the guide offerssuggestions rather than

prescriptions. Not every tool willwork in every situation or culture,certainly not without adaptation.The only way to improve yourfacilitation of participatoryapproaches is to have the courageto try things, and to learn from yourmistakes.

A blank worksheet is also includedin Appendix III This template can becopied and used to add your owntools and adaptations to create apersonalised guide from your ownexperience in the field.


Tools do notguarantee success

!Methods, tools andtechniques do notguarantee participation.Our attitude and behaviour

as facilitators of tools, ofempowerment and ofdevelopment, is of primeimportance. Our role is not tocreate solutions, but to learn toask questions, be open, and‘unlearn’ our own assumptions.At the same time, local peopleand VSO partners must come toappreciate and value their ownknowledge and skills.

To facilitate participationsuccessfully, all involved mustrecognise its usefulness andpotential. One of the commonarguments against participationis that it is costly and time-consuming. However, feedbackfrom VSO’s country programmesand the wider developmentcommunity shows that it is cost-effective. The returns justifythe investment in terms ofsustainability and effectiveness.No-one has yet attempted tocalculate the cost of ineffectiveand unsustainable developmentcaused by lack of participation.

We recognise the limitations ofparticipatory approaches and thevalue of more extractive methodssuch as sample surveys and in-depth interviews. Nevertheless, iflocal people take ownership ofall stages and levels of decision-making, development activitiesare more likely to build on localstrengths, meet local needs andpriorities, and foster self-determination and sustainability.This is the potential ofparticipation in development.

WARNING

INTRODUCTION

PART I: PRINCIPLES


I-1 PRINCIPLES OF PARTICIPATION

Introduction

This section looks at the principles thatunderlie participatory approaches andattempts to answer the following questions:

Q. What are the origins of participatoryapproaches to development?

Q. What are the key principles of facilitatingparticipation for empowerment?

Q. What is VSO’s experience with promotingparticipation?

I-1.1 Participatory approaches todevelopment

Participatory approaches are based onshared ownership of decision-making. This

approach is a response to ‘top-down’approaches to development, in which powerand decision-making is largely in the handsof external development professionals.

The top-down approach used to be theconventional style of development. However,this had many flaws and was not effective.It also raised questions about whether‘outsiders’ had the right or the knowledge toset the development agenda of local people.In the 1980s, development workers began toseek more participatory alternatives thatavoided some of these problems. They drewon alternative methods of learning andaction that, at the time, represented a radicalchange. In general, this change has beenembraced as a positive shift in developmentpractice. Table 1 compares some of thedifferences between the two approaches.

VSO/Sue O’Farrell

I-1.2 A scale of participatory approaches

A gradual accumulation of good practice inparticipation has been documented in various‘systems’ with different, names, aims andcharacteristics. Some of these are exploredin more depth in Part II: Methods. A list ofcommon acronyms is included in Appendix I.For the sake of clarity, we will use RobertChambers’ (1997) suggested term ‘Participatory

Approaches’ and the abbreviation ‘PA’ inthis guide as an umbrella term for anyparticipatory system or method.

Systems using PA have been successfullyused to investigate livelihoods andnatural resource management; healthand disability issues; education andlearning; gender and development;building organisational capacity; communitymobilisation; involvement in governance

PART I: PRINCIPLES


Table 1: A comparison of top-down and participatory approaches to development

TOP-DOWN APPROACHES PARTICIPATORY APPROACHESPLAYERSPROCESS

CONTROLMETHODS

LEARNINGROLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT WORKER

ASSUMPTIONS

BENEFITS

PITFALLS

MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS

External development agents work for local beneficiariesDevelopment agents develop their own solutionsto local problemsIn the hands of external development agents• Questionnaire surveys • Questions planned in advance• Rapid visits• Key informant interviewsExtractive• Subject expert• Teacher• Leader• Controller• Development workers are experts who can solve

the problems of local people, even if they areunfamiliar with local issues, culture and ecology

• The beneficiaries of development are, at best,helpless victims; or at worst, the architects oftheir own poverty

• Interviewers do not influence the process• Interviewees give accurate data • Rapid• Lends itself to statistical analysis• Interviewees prompted with answers• Surveys designed without understanding

local context• Focus is on the task not the process• Projects fail to reach the most needy due to:

• Roadside bias (focus on accessible people)• Time bias (focus on ‘easy’ times of year and day)• People bias (focus on leaders and the articulate)• Project bias (development impacts are falsely

exaggerated). Projects do not target the mostdisadvantaged people and may reinforce existingsystems that keep poor people poor

Development worker meets their objectives andmeasures an improvement in local conditionsaccording to their own criteria

Partners/participants/stakeholdersDevelopment agents facilitate a process ofempowerment, learning and actionControl shared between stakeholders• Visual diagramming tools• Semi-structured interviews • Long-term action research• Group discussionMutual learning• Process expert• Learner• Facilitator• Catalyst• Sustainable development will be most effective

when the skills, experience and objectivity ofdevelopment workers are combined with the skills,experience and greater contextual understanding oflocal people

• People will be able to participate• Visual and interactive methods will provide better

quality data• Represents the views of local people• Richness and quality of data• Participation interpreted in different ways by

different people• Projects presented as ‘participatory’ are still

dominated by top-down methods – no real sharingof power or decisions

• Participatory tools used in an extractive rather thanan empowering way

• Time constraints rush the process• Local elites sabotage participation

Partners and participants monitor and evaluateparticipation, empowerment, and progress towardsjoint goals


and advocacy; and to tackle HIV and AIDSawareness-raising and behaviour change.PA has proved effective and it is here to stay.

However, there is not just a black or white choicebetween top-down or participatory approachesto development. PA is (a) extremely diverse; and(b) a work in progress, changing all the time.The simple term ‘participatory approaches’disguises a range of approaches, created by anincreasingly innovative development community.These systems and methods are all designed toachieve different aims. So, when considering anysystem, it is vital to consider its basic principles,its potential uses, and most importantly, how‘participatory’ it really is.

In reality, a range of approaches exist that liealong a scale from the more ‘extractive’ tothe more ‘empowering’ (Figure 1). Extractivetools, or tools used in an extractive way,retain power in the hands of the developmentworker. Empowering tools, or tools facilitatedin an empowering way, hand power over tothe participants. It is not that one end of thescale is better than the other, simply thatthey achieve different things. We must beclear about our purpose, select the rightapproach for the job, and not encourageparticipants to have expectations ofempowerment if our methods and attitudedo not permit any meaningful transfer ofdecision-making control.

PA for empowerment: key principles

At the core of good practice in PA is self-critical awareness, personal behaviour and

attitudes, and commitment to positiveaction. The essence of this philosophy hasbeen called ‘handing over the stick’ – asymbolic transfer of power from thedevelopment worker to local partners. If weare serious about PA and serious abouthelping local people to pursue their owndevelopment agenda, we must decidewhether we are prepared to hand overpower in this way.

Some practitioners believe that all systemsand methods using PA have certain keyprinciples in common. However, if we acceptthe scale shown in Figure 1 below, it wouldbe more accurate to say that the following(adapted from Pretty, 1994) is a set ofaspirational aims for good practice:

• defined methodology and system oflearning and interaction

• emphasis on the validity of participants’different opinions and perspectives

• group learning processes, involvinginteraction of development workers withlocal people, andinteraction of differentdisciplines and sectors

• flexible approachesadapted to each setof conditions andparticipants

• development workersfacilitate the agendaand priorities of localstakeholders

!Tools are only as effectiveas the skill (and in thiscase, the attitude) of thecraftsman. Similarly, the

use of PA does not guaranteeparticipation or empowerment.There are many pitfalls and nohonest short cuts. PA done badlycan be damaging if the opinion ofparticipants is influenced orpresented inaccurately. Badpractice is commonly due to timepressures or poor facilitation.However, PA has also beenhijacked for political reasons,to ‘tick the participation box’ infunding proposals. If the tools aremisused to support the agenda ofoutsiders rather than the opinionsand experience of local people,projects will almost inevitablyfail as a result.

WARNING

PART I: PRINCIPLES

• In-depth, joint analysis, learning

and action • Visual diagrams

• Group discussion

Figure 1: A scale of participatory approaches, from extractive to empowering

EXTRACTIVE EMPOWERING

• Rapid, expert analysis

• Questionnaires• Key informants

• Opinions are shared but power is not• Empowering methods

used for extractive purposes

• debate and analysis of change leads toagreed, sustainable action

• building the capacity of local stakeholdersto initiate self-mobilised action.

I-1.3 VSO’s approach to participation

VSO’s vision is for our everyday practice to beparticipatory at all levels of the organisation.In our context, participation is a process ofcollective analysis, learning and action. VSO’srole in the process is to facilitate and/or beinvolved alongside other stakeholders.

This process aims to:

• change the balance of power so thateveryone’s rights and aspirations arerespected, acknowledged and used asa basis for dialogue

• generate shared understanding ofproblems, priorities and possibilities

• agree achievable and sustainable changeand action

• build the capacity of local stakeholders toinitiate self-mobilised action

• celebrate achievements develop strengthsand generate shared learning.

By facilitating and participating in this process,VSO and its partners aim to build theirorganisational capacity and effectiveness.Good participatory practice will result in moresustainable relationships built on trust andrespect. Activities and achievements will bejointly owned and better evaluated, leading togreater development impact and bettersatisfied partners and volunteers.

To set out a serious, strategic commitmentto this vision, participation has been includedas a key element of VSO’s threeorganisational approaches (VSO, 2002).These are: commitment to learning;partnership; and empowerment (Figure 2).

A commitment to learning requires us toinvolve local people, who have a greaterunderstanding of local conditions in theidentification of development priorities,analysis of skills and resources, andimplementation of sustainable change.

Partnership moves beyond a donor –beneficiary relationship to a more equalsharing of skills, power and ideas.

By mobilising institutions and disadvantagedpeople in a process of empowerment, localpeople can gain greater control over their ownfutures and their own development agenda.

PART I: PRINCIPLES


Figure 2: Aspects of participation in VSO’s three strategic approaches

analysingproblems

together,finding solutionsand shapingcommon

plans

involving stakeholders atall levels in shaping

programmes andplacements

developinga professional

team of volunteers,

partners and VSO

staff

LEAR

NING PARTNERSHIP

EMPOWERMENT

PART I: PRINCIPLES


In practice, the approach described abovemeans encouraging both volunteers and VSOstaff to experiment with methods that increaselocal involvement at all stages of projects.Their experience has been used to illustratethe methods and tools outlined in this guide.

On the ground, effective analysis, learningand action can only take place when theskills, experience and objectivity ofvolunteers are combined with the skills,experience and greater contextualunderstanding of the stakeholders they workwith. Volunteers are also encouraged to shareskills and experiences with each other toincrease their individual impact. Theirplacements are often clustered together bytheme or location to help this process

As a minimum requirement, VSO’s countryprogramme offices have committed to aparticipatory process of assessing newpartners and preparing, monitoring andevaluating volunteers’ placements. In somecases, stakeholders are involved in shapingoverall country programmes through theforum of country advisory boards, forexample. Increasing local involvementthrough stronger relationships has potentialbenefits for all concerned. Nevertheless, ittakes significant commitment and investment

to generate these benefits. Some lessonslearned are presented below.

Feedback from VSO country programmesworldwide

VSO’s programme offices have beenmotivated to incorporate PA into their workdue to frustrations at the shortcomings ofexisting methods. This included thechallenges of grappling with hierarchicalorganisations that dictated a top-downapproach. This approach was at odds with thestaff of these organisations and severelyconstrained skill-sharing. A more opendialogue was needed to gain honestinformation about placements – theirpurpose and challenges. Employers felt littleownership over the placement and frequentlydid not understand VSO’s developmentstrategy. Furthermore, many programmeswere reactive rather than proactive inidentifying needs and working with potentialpartners to meet these needs.

The following feedback comes from 21 VSOprogramme offices across Asia, Africa andEastern Europe that have experimented withPA for assessing new volunteer placements.These programme offices recognised severalkey benefits and challenges of using PA:

“An opportunity to build rapport and ‘get behind the

public façade’ of an organisation.”

“Transferable principles for other methods.”

“Gives a voice to a wider range of stakeholders.”

“The process of PA is even more useful than the outcome.”

“Facilitates communication and mutual understanding.”

“Opportunities to gain insights into gender, hierarchy,collaboration, consensus issues.”

“Emphasis more on active, experiential learning.”

BENEFITS“PA challenges accepted cultural norms, eg giving peoplelower in an organisation the same voice as seniormanagement. Senior staff may continue to represent theirown views as those of the whole organisation.”

“PA consumes time and resources and creates paperwork.”

“Coordinators need culturally specific facilitation skills.Common language skills are also essential.”

“Location/meals/travel costs may limit the participationof some stakeholders.”

“Some participants know how to behave, what to say andwhat we want to hear!”

“After the effort of the process, stakeholders may expectsome guaranteed results and benefits! Expectations needto be prioritised and managed by explicitly stating whatVSO can and cannot do to meet the partner’s needs.”

CHALLENGES

They suggested the following ways to limitthe challenges and achieve the benefits:

� “Keep it simple – do what you can with whom you can.”

� “Use neutral people with native language skillsas facilitators.”

� “Provide the organisation with a skeleton timetable inadvance – this will allow them to prepare but not topredict your every move. This is helpful if someparticipants have been through a similar process before.”

� “Put the partner’s feedback first – their opinion andprogress is more important than yours. Try and alternate theorder in which individuals feed back. If the director alwaysfeeds back first this will influence less senior participants.”

� “If participants have an idea or a way forward – especiallyto deal with a block – let them. Hand over the stick.Manage time by delegating more to the participants. Planenough time into your schedule to ensure that you do notfeel under pressure or compromise the process.”

� “Translate information into plans for change. Turnobjectives into time-bound actions, assigned to differentparticipants. This puts the theory of PA into practice bydirectly involving people in decisions and actions.”

� “Build confidence in PA by starting with a simple task or areceptive group. Learning any new approach takes time but itgets easier with practice. You should prioritise good PA overother uses of time. The investment of time pays off byreducing later problems, generating good quality data,agreement, common understanding, commitment and rapport.”

� “Innovate. Make the process and its exercises lookattractive. Methods and paperwork should be adapted tothe local context and made as simple as possible.”

� “Lead by example – use public transport and stay inappropriate accommodation. Write reports in locallanguage first, and then translate it into English for VSO.”

SECTION SUMMARY – KEY LEARNING POINTS

• Participatory or bottom-up approaches area response to top-down approaches todevelopment which failed to generateappropriate or sustainable benefits.

• Participatory approaches (PA) encompassa range of different methods, tools andattitudes, which range from the moreextractive to the more empowering.

• VSO understands participation to be aprocess of collective analysis, learningand action.

• Participation means progressivelyhanding over power and control to localstakeholders so that they can set theirown development agenda.

• Participation is not quick, easy or simple.However, people in the field generallyagree that the benefits make the initialinvestment well worth the effort.

REAL EXPERIENCEVSO programmes

“Serving volunteers are a valuable part of theassessment team, to gauge whether the expectationsand objectives of new organisations are realistic.”

“By taking on board the principles of participation, wedecided that ‘placement assessment’ wasn’t appropriate.We renamed the process ‘partnership development’ anduse it to examine long-term development needs ratherthan individual volunteer placements.”

REAL EXPERIENCEVSO programmes

“PA is more powerful than interviewing if you areaiming for responsibility and commitment. Despite ourfears, the process does not actually take more time inthe field.”

“Participants learn more about themselves and VSOlearns more ways in which volunteers can contributeto their efforts.”

PART I: PRINCIPLES


NEXT STEPSVSO’s experience with PA in the countrieswhere we work reveals the importance ofhaving guidelines for how to facilitateparticipation. Using lessons learnedwithin and outside VSO, the followingsection outlines a framework thatwill help you to manage participationin a systematic way. It is not a blueprintfor success, but may act as a usefulchecklist and set of guidelines.

PART I: PRINCIPLES


Introduction

The shift from top-down to ‘bottom-up’ orparticipatory development shown in Section 1(Table 1) is not simple or easy to achieve inpractice. Some fundamental questions include:

Q. How is it done?

Q. Does everyone participate all of the time?

Q. At what point can we say a meaningful levelof participation has been achieved?

This section aims to answer some of thesequestions by taking an overview of theparticipatory process using a simple framework.This provides a reference for planning newprojects, or for reviewing existing ones. Theframework helps us to approach participationin a structured and consistent way; to establishcommon understanding and realistic

expectations in all participants. This shouldmake the path of participation smoother.

I-2.1 An analytical framework

The framework (Figure 3) is based on threekey principles:1. Different stakeholders are involved, each

with different aims and capabilities.

2. Stakeholders participate at different levels,from passive involvement to activeempowerment.

3. The level of participation of eachstakeholder may change at differentphases of a development process(analysis, planning, doing and reviewing).

Development tends to work best when allstakeholders can participate to their desiredlevel throughout the development process.To facilitate such participation is VSO’s aimand challenge.

I-2 THE PARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Figure 3: The participatory development process: an analytical framework(Adapted from Wilcox, 1994)

leve

ls o

f co

ntro

l an

d pa

rtic

ipat

ion

5. supporting

4. acting together

3. deciding together

2. consultation

1. informing

analysis planning doing reviewing

phases of development process

stakehold

ers

Clarifying the level of participation

In Figure 3, the gap between each levelbecomes wider as participation of stakeholdersincreases. This shows that the lower levels aremuch easier to achieve than the higher ones.Without a full view of all five levels, it iscommon for well-meaning organisations orvolunteers to rush into the lower levels,thinking that they have ‘achieved’ participation.However, a shift to full self-mobilisationinvolves a long-term process of change.

From the perspective of the developmentworker, the different levels of participationand control shown in the framework can bedescribed as follows:

Level 1. Informing: Telling people about thedevelopment projects that are planned andwhat the benefits will be. Most commonlydone through community meetings orinformation pamphlets. Clear communicationis a minimum requirement for developmentworkers, but participation is passive ratherthan active, with no empowerment of localpeople or ownership of the planned activities.

Level 2. Consultation: Offering a number ofoptions and listening to the feedback youget. Most commonly done through focusgroups or interviews. This is an initial stepto involving people and benefiting fromtheir greater knowledge of local conditionsand opinions. However, you are stillretaining power and control.

Level 3. Deciding together: Encouragingothers to provide their own ideas and join indeciding the best way forward. This is donethrough project committees or throughcommunity initiatives using participatoryactivities to encourage joint analysis,planning and decision-making. A rangeof stakeholders have the opportunity toempower themselves and take ownershipof the process.

Level 4. Acting together: Not only do differentinterests decide together what is best,but they form a partnership to carry it out.Local people are involved at all stages ofthe process and there is an equal sharing

of power. Development workers are actingmuch more as partners and facilitators.

Level 5. Supporting independent initiatives:Helping others do what they want – perhapswithin a framework of grants, advice andsupport. Power and control rests with localpeople: they are self-mobilised. Developmentworkers play a consultation or facilitationrole as requested.

The five levels show how ‘participation’means many different things, but only a fewrepresent meaningful sharing of power andideas. It is important to clarify the level ofparticipation that is intended or achievable.Otherwise there can be a clash of expectationsif stakeholders believe they have anopportunity to influence decisions whenin reality they are only being consulted.

VSO aims to develop partnerships that operateat levels 3–5, since this is where participationbecomes meaningful and developmentbecomes sustainable. However, any facilitator(despite the best intentions) remains in astrong position to influence the actual level ofparticipation. Section 3 underlines the need forfacilitators to be self-aware and constantlythink about the part they are playing.

Research shows that projects do becomemore sustainable, appropriate and effectiveas the level of local participation increases(Narayan, 1993). People are unlikely tocommit to projects that are not relevant tothem or that they cannot control. Nevertheless,it is worth considering the view that differentlevels may be appropriate at different timesto meet the expectations of different interests(Wilcox, 1994).

REALITY CHECKOrganisations or communities will oftenneed the will and support to radicallyrestructure themselves if they are to betruly self-mobilised. This requires widercultural and institutional change – a rarephenomenon in developed or developingcountries!

PART I: PRINCIPLES

14 Participatory Approaches: A facilitator’s guideIn

crea

sing

ly m

eani

ngfu

l par

tici

pati

on

PART I: PRINCIPLES


Clarifying the timescale and who is involved

‘Local people’, ‘stakeholders’ and‘partners’ include people with differentstrengths, needs and capabilities, who maywish to participate at different levels andat different points in the developmentprocess. As a VSO volunteer, or otherdevelopment worker, you are also astakeholder in the development process.What is your agenda?

In Figure 3, on page 13, analysis, planning,doing and reviewing are illustrated as stages ina linear development process. In practice, theyare actually phases of an iterative cycle, whichmirrors the adult learning cycle and which maybe repeated numerous times during a particularproject or programme of activities (Figure 4).

The first phases consist of orientingyourself, establishing your credentials

Figure 4: Development as a cyclical learning process

Orientation andunderstanding

DoImplement planned

activities. Monitorprogress against plan

Plan Prioritise, considersolutions, agree aims andobjectives and develop plans

Analyse Identify and analyseproblems andopportunities

ReviewEvaluate if activities met

aims. If not why not? If so,what factors helped? Participation

PartnershipLearning

Empowerment

and building rapport, so that you canfacilitate analysis of problems andopportunities. Some questions you mayneed to ask yourself and others include:

Q. What is happening at the moment?

Q. Who are the main players?

Q. What are the problems?

Q. How have these changed over time?

Q. What lessons can be learned from pastexperience?

VSO recommends that volunteers spend thefirst 25% of their placement engaging inthis phase rather than plunging intoill-advised action.DELIVERI/DGLS

SH3SH2

Initial analysis leads to identification of actionsthat will make a positive change. This planningphase is not just a case of asking ‘what can wedo?’ and ‘how can we do it?’ It must also includeplanning for participation. Some questions thatare likely to arise include:

Q. Who has a stake in this issue?

Q. How would they like to be involved?

Q. Who will carry out the planned activities?

Q. How will we measure change?

Debate and analysis must lead to action. In the‘doing’ phase, action needs to be agreed andwell-informed. This overlaps with the ‘review’phase, since actions should be monitored byparticipants. Reviews are also used to agreefuture actions, maintain benefits, evaluateparticipation and sustainability, or respondto problems and blocks.

VSO’s SPARK (Sharing and Promotion ofAwareness and Regional Knowledge) projectin south-east Asia adds an important fifthstage to this cycle: Celebrate! ie take time to

appreciate what has been achieved beforecontinuing with analysing the new situationand planning future action.

Putting it all together

An example of putting the framework intoaction is shown Figure 5. Those with less of astake in what happens may be happy to beinformed or consulted. Others will want andneed to be involved in decisions and actions.The facilitator of the process will have thedifficult task of identifying thesestakeholders, helping them to work out whatthey want from the process and how thismight be achieved.

REALITY CHECKLife is never as tidy as a project plan. Weoften try to do things without enoughplanning. However, it is often difficult tosee what to do before trying somethingout, and then reflecting on what happens.This is sometimes the only way to identifythe real problem.

PART I: PRINCIPLES


Figure 5: An example framework showing different levels of participation by multiplestakeholders (SH1, SH2, SH3) throughout the phases of a development process(Adapted from Wilcox, 1994)

5. supporting

4. acting together

3. deciding together

2. consultation

1. informing

analysis planning doing reviewing

phases of development process

SH1

leve

ls o

f con

trol

and

par

ticip

atio

n

PART I: PRINCIPLES


I-2.2 The framework in practice

Now we are aware of different stakeholdersseeking different levels of participation atdifferent times, the idea of participation mayseem much more complicated! Somequestions which may arise include:

Q. When is each level ‘appropriate’?

Q. What tools can I use to help me at each level?

Q. What problems am I likely to come across,and how do I deal with them?

This section will provide some guidelinesto help you put the framework intopractice. This includes signposts to usefultools that may assist at each level ofparticipation.

Some initial questions

If you are planning to start facilitating aparticipatory process, it is important toreflect first on your own role. Some ofthe biggest pitfalls with participationoften arise because the people initiatingparticipation aren’t clear about whatthey want to achieve. Consider thefollowing questions:

Q. What is the aim of taking a participatoryapproach?

• To develop plans that meet people’sneeds?

• To give disadvantaged people a say in theplans?

• To give a cross-section of stakeholdersjoint control over the solutions?

Q. What is your role?

• How much control and influence do youhave over decisions and resources?

• What is your professional expertise orknowledge?

• How do local people see you?

Q. Who will have the final say overdecisions?

• You? Your organisation?

• Those who will be affected by theproposed work?

• Existing local elites or politicalinstitutions?

Q. Are local people and organisations ready towork in a participatory way?

• Do they have the desire?

• Do they have the skills?

• Do they have the authority?

Your role will affect the level ofparticipation of other stakeholders.For example, if you are controllingresources you may be very clear andfirm about how much say you are preparedto offer others. However, if you are actingas a neutral facilitator you may be helpingdifferent interests negotiate appropriatelevels. You will also have significantcontrol over who benefits. Have youtargeted disadvantaged people? Ormaintained the status quo?

The following guidelines will help you andyour stakeholders clarify your roles. Theymay also help you to troubleshoot or appraiseexisting projects. Particular attention is paidto level 4: acting together in partnership,since this is the level that VSO tends toaim for.

When to work at level 1: INFORMING

Informing is essentially a top-down, ‘takeit or leave it’ development approach.The methods and tools that you use willtherefore focus on one-way communicationrather than two-way dialogue, and as suchthey lie outside the purpose of this guide. Itis important to remember that even one-wayinforming can be done using visual andcreative methods, which are more inclusiveand powerful than the written word1.

?

1 If you have limited resources and even less artistic confidence, refer to Nicola Harford and Nicola Baird’s How to Make and Use Visual Aids (1997).But remember to be aware of people with visual disabilities who might be excluded by the use of wholly visual methods.

Volunteers may experience this ‘informing’approach to development even if they do notagree with it. In this case, one of the objectivesof their placement might be to challenge thisnorm constructively to enable disadvantagedpeople to become more involved.

Informing on its own may be appropriate when:

• there is no scope for alternative forms ofaction, eg legal boundaries

• you are reporting a course of action thatdoesn’t affect others

• at the start of a process, with the promiseof more opportunity to participate later.

Informing on its own is not appropriate when:

• you are seeking to empower communityinterests. Information is necessary forempowerment, but seldom enough on itsown (aim instead for levels 3, 4 or 5)

• there are alternatives in which people havea legitimate interest (aim for levels 3 or 4)

• you have not oriented yourself, builtrapport or established your credentials.

If people want more active involvement,consider their case. Who is setting the rules?Take comments seriously. It is easier tochange the level of participation and yourstance early on. Later it may become anuncomfortable U-turn.

When to work at level 2: CONSULTATION

Consultation is appropriate when you canoffer people some choices on what you aregoing to do, but when there is little or noopportunity for them to develop their ownideas or help put plans into action.

Consultation may be appropriate when:

• you want to improve an existing service

• you have clear plans for a project, andthere appear to be a limited range ofoptions

• local interests can understand and relateto these options

• you are able to use feedback to choosebetween or modify options.

Consultation is not appropriate when:

• you aren’t going to take any notice of whatpeople say

• you are seeking to empower communityinterests (aim for levels 3, 4 or 5)

• you are not clear what you wish to do andare seeking ideas (aim for levels 3 or 4)

• you don’t have the resources or skills tocarry out the proposal (choose level 4or 5).

The following tools can be used forconsultation:

• Ranking, Rating, Sorting, Matrices

• 24-Hour Analysis and Social Norms toappraise affected groups

• Maps and Timelines to see when andwhere things happen

• Discussion Starter, Picture Sequences,Drawing and Discussion

• SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunitiesand Threats) Analysis, Flow Diagrams

• Focus Group Discussions

REALITY CHECKBefore taking up an information-givingapproach, consider:Q. Have you identified your stakeholders?

Will they be satisfied with information only?

Q. Can you present your proposals in a waypeople will understand and relate to?

Q. Have you tailored your communication methodsto the participants and available time?

Q. Are you prepared to change your approachif people want more than information?

PART I: PRINCIPLES


PART I: PRINCIPLES


Other methods that can be used include:surveys and market research; consultativecommittees; simulations where the optionsand constraints are clear.

Common problems:

You have a restricted budget. You can tryusing basic information-giving methodsplus meetings hosted by localorganisations and then facilitate an openmeeting at the end of the process.

Other colleagues want to take over. This isan excellent opportunity for you to practiseyour facilitation and negotiation skills. Tryto ensure your colleagues consider somekey elements:

• that people understand the options

• that options should be realistic

• that they know how they will respond tofeedback from stakeholders.

You don’t have enough time. Be honest aboutthe deadlines, and use the time-pressureto your advantage.

You get more – or less – response thanexpected. You may need to considerwhether consultation was the appropriateapproach. Did you think it through fromthe participants’ point of view? Why mightthey have responded in the way they did?

When to work at level 3: DECIDING TOGETHER

Deciding together means generatingoptions together, choosing between themand agreeing ways forward. It is a difficultapproach because it can mean giving people thepower to choose without the responsibility ofcarrying out the resulting actions. It is a longer,more complex process, and people need moreconfidence to get involved.

Deciding together may be appropriate when:

• it is important that other people ‘own’ thedevelopment process

• you need to tap into local people’s greaterunderstanding of their situation

• there is enough time.

Deciding together is not appropriate when:

• you have little room for manoeuvre(choose levels 1 or 2)

• you can’t implement decisions yourself(aim for levels 4 or 5).

This approach is moving into moremeaningful participation, which opens upscope to apply many more participatory tools:

• information-giving methods to start theprocess: most tools can be used in thisless participatory mode, but this attitudeof controlling the process may set aprecedent.

• Stakeholder Analysis/Venn Diagrams toidentify who should be involved

• 24-Hour Analysis to identify activities andtime constraints of stakeholders

• SWOT Analysis, Forcefield Analysis,Problem Trees, Flow Diagrams,Community Records or Accounts tounderstand more about the situation/context and make informed choices

• Guided Visualisation, Bridge Model, anddifferent Drawing or development theatre

REALITY CHECKBefore taking up a consultation approach,consider:Q. Who are the stakeholders/consultants,

how do you reach them, and will they besatisfied with consultation? Are you justseeking support for your own agenda?

Q. Can you present options for consultation ina way people will understand?

Q. Have you tailored your consultation methodsto the participants and the time available?

Q. Can you handle the feedback, and (how) doyou plan to report back to those consulted?

Q. Are you prepared to change your approachif people want more than consultation?

techniques for establishing aspirations,future goals and how to work towardsthem

• Mapping and Transects to bring outterritorial/resource/social/spatial issues

• Thought Shower to develop some options

• development theatre for evaluatingopinions and testing possible solutions.

In addition, simulations can be used aspowerful overall techniques, and actionplanning tools to decide what to do next.

Common problems:

You don’t have enough time. There are noshort cuts to meaningful participation.Consider the limitations of levels1 and 2.

You are not sure if your colleagues willback up any decisions. Involve them inthe process. You may want to organiseinternal participatory workshops ormeetings before involving others.

Apathy. Why do people not want to join in?Maybe your project isn’t relevantto local needs, priorities andcapabilities. In which case, whyare you doing it? Invest time inorientation and analysis phases.

The tools look too complicated. Try someof the easier ones with a small groupthat you know. Bring in an externaltrainer or facilitator. Practice, beprepared to make mistakes andlearn from experience.

The process is resisted by local norms.Keep local decision-makers informedof your intentions. Consider runningseparate workshops for different groups(eg by status or gender) if this willovercome hierarchical or culturalconstraints to participation.

When to work at level 4: ACTING TOGETHER

Deciding and acting together in partnershipinvolves trust as well as a common vision.VSO increasingly tries to set up longer-termpartnerships rather than one-off volunteerplacements in order to generate greater andmore sustainable development impacts.

In preparing a partnership agreement, it isimportant to consider the mix of your desiredgoals, and whether they are realistic. Themost common goals are:

• increasing the development impact ofactivities or projects

• building the capacity of the participants

• building working relationships of benefitfor the future

• increasing local ownership of the process.

Acting together may be appropriate when:

• one party cannot achieve what they wanton their own

• the various interests involved all get someextra benefit from acting together

REALITY CHECKBefore taking up a deciding togetherapproach, consider: Q. Are you prepared to accept other people’s

ideas?

Q. Have you targeted appropriatestakeholders, including disadvantagedpeople, who need to be part of the process?

Q. Are your aims clear, and have you identifiedconstraints and acceptable boundaries?

Q. Do you have the skills to use the methods,and the authority to implement agreedactions?

Q. Have you managed to access people oftraditionally lower status, while maintaininggood relations with existing elites?

PART I: PRINCIPLES


PART I: PRINCIPLES


• there is commitment to the time and effortneeded to develop a partnership.

Acting together is not appropriate when:

• one party holds all the power andresources and uses this to impose its ownsolutions. At best, other parties can onlybe involved at levels 1 or 2

• the commitment to partnership is onlysuperficial

• people want to have a say in makingdecisions, but not a long-term stake incarrying out solutions (move to level 3).

All of the methods and tools in this guidecan potentially help you if you have the rightattitude to facilitate rather than lead or direct,and have worked through the process ofselecting the right tool for the job. You maylike to consider:

• tools for deciding together to create ashared vision

• team-building exercises

• programme planning and design activities.

In addition, you could use interim structureslike working parties and steering groups as afocus for decision-making and accountability,and longer-term structures through whichyou can work together.

Common problems:

Wish lists of unachievable goals.‘Handing over the stick’ does not meangiving stakeholders a free voucherredeemable in a VSO store of developmentsolutions. Instead it means helpingstakeholders to identify and prioritisespecific challenges they face, plans forlong-term action, and assignment ofresponsibility to each action. This needs tobe accompanied by a clear discussion ofwhat you can and cannot do to support theidentified activities.

Formal partnerships are created too early.The final structure should come last –after it has been agreed what you aregoing to do, how to get the resources,what skills will be needed, and how powerand responsibility will be shared. At thisstage, it may be a good idea to run openworkshops, or set up interim structureslike a steering group with clear terms ofreference.

Conflicts arise in meetings. You may need tospend more time in workshop sessionsand informal meetings to develop a sharedvision and mutual understanding.

Some interests feel excluded. Furtherclarification of who the stakeholders are,and what their legitimate interests are,may be needed. You might want toconsider organising workshops using anindependent facilitator.

When to work at level 5: SUPPORTINGINDEPENDENT INITIATIVES

Supporting independent organisational orcommunity-based initiatives means helpingothers develop and carry out their ownplans. Even at this high level ofparticipation, you are still exercisingpower by placing limits and conditionson what you will support.

REALITY CHECKBefore taking up an acting togetherapproach, consider:Q. Do you have clear goals, and how flexible

are you in pursuing them?

Q. Have you identified potential partners, andis there any evidence that they sharesimilar goals and are interested in apartnership with you to achieve it?

Q. Do you trust each other and are youprepared to share power?

Q. Do you have the time and commitmentnecessary to form a partnership?

This is the most empowering approach –provided people do want to do things forthemselves. They may, quite properly,choose a lower level of participation. Theprocess has to be owned by, and move atthe pace of, those who are going to run theinitiative – although donors and others mayset deadlines.

Supporting independent action may beappropriate when:

• there is a commitment to empowerindividuals or groups within thecommunity or organisation

• people are interested in starting andrunning an initiative

• supporting conditions (culture, hierarchy,time) will permit this approach to work.

It is not appropriate when:

• independent action is seen as ‘a goodthing’ or the current trend in development,and is pushed on people from the topdown (consider levels 1–3 instead)

• there is no commitment to breaking downhierarchies or passing decision-makingpower over to disadvantaged people

• there are insufficient resources orcapabilities to sustain developmentprogrammes.

Any method or tool in this guide could beof potential use. The challenge is to thinkthrough what the purpose of the group is,and what role they would like you to play.You might like to consider:

• development trusts, grants, advice andsupport – perhaps conditional on somecommitment being made by the otherinterests involved

• workshops for helping groups create ashared vision, plan actions and mobiliseresources. Several tools can be linkedtogether to create a coherent workshop

• team-building exercises

• cross-visits to similar projects; seminarsfor community or project leaders

• interim structures like working partiesand steering groups

• longer-term structures controlled bycommunity interests.

Common problems:

Community interests find it difficult to getorganised. Provide support and, ifnecessary, training. Arranging visits tosimilar projects or organising workshopswith local facilitators may help.

The steering group or other body cannotmake decisions. You may like to tryorganising workshop sessions outsideformal committees.

Little happens between meetings. Try toensure each meeting concludes with anaction planning session, with clearallocation of responsibility forimplementing and monitoring actions.Keeping in contact through a regularnewsletter is one way of maintaininginterest and motivation.

People become committed to action, butresource-holders can’t deliver. Internalsessions could gain commitment withinthe supporting organisations or you couldtry using the media as leverage.

REALITY CHECKBefore taking up a supporting independentinitiatives approach, consider:Q. Do you understand the different interests in

the community and their needs?

Q. Have you contacted existing community-based organisations?

Q. Will your colleagues support the approach?

Q. Are you clear about your role, and do youhave the necessary skills and resources?

PART I: PRINCIPLES


PART I: PRINCIPLES



• There are different levels of participationappropriate for different situations.

• There are many stakeholders to consider,and their participation may vary over time.

• It is important to agree what level ofparticipation is desired and achievablewith all stakeholders.

NEXT STEPSSections 1 and 2 highlight goodfacilitation as the key to empoweringprocesses. If you are more familiar withthe role of teacher, leader or problem-solver, facilitation requires a significantshift in attitude. The following sectionexamines the art of facilitation in adifferent culture.

PART I: PRINCIPLES


Introduction

Sections 1 and 2 point to facilitation as thekey role of development workers supportingmeaningful levels of participation. Beforeconsidering the methods and tools used byfacilitators, it is important to establish somebasic principles of facilitation:

Q. What attitudes and behaviour do we need toadopt to facilitate participation?

Q. What effects do different cultural normshave on participation?

Q. What kinds of questions should I ask whenfacilitating?

Q. How can the use of visual aids help?

This section discusses the relationshipbetween participation, facilitation and thefacilitator to help you examine your ownrole in the participatory process. Basicprinciples of facilitation are identifiedtogether with a summary of key facilitationskills. These skills can also act as a basisfor facilitating processes of organisationalcapacity-building.

I-3.1 Principles of facilitation

Most practitioners of PA agree that the beststarting point is with your own attitude. Youcannot magically create participation andempowerment from a recipe book of tools.Attitude and behaviour that support PA canbe shown through the relationship betweenparticipation, facilitation and the facilitator,as explored below (Figure 6).

I-3 THE ART OF FACILITATION

Figure 6: Participation, facilitation and the facilitator

Participation

Facilitation

The act of making thisprocess easier

The Facilitator

The role of creating suchan environment

A process of collectiveanalysis, learning, and

action focused onagreeing and achieving

shared objectives

Participation relies on anenvironment of trust inwhich people share theirskills, knowledge, ideasand resources to reachand act on shareddecisions

PART I: PRINCIPLES


The role of VSO, acting through its staff andvolunteers as facilitators, is to mobilise,encourage, support and involve local people inparticipatory processes. This strengthens theircapacity to take control over their own futures.

We have already discussed how, despite bestintentions, facilitators are in a position tocontrol the outcome of participatory activitiesand development processes. For this reason,you will need to decide when you shouldfacilitate, and when a local person is moreappropriate in this role. A cross-section of VSOprogramme offices1 had the following to sayabout the role of volunteers in facilitatingparticipatory processes:

� “It is not appropriate for the volunteer tofacilitate if there are other optionsbecause the facilitator holds the power.”

� “Participation works best with locallanguage-speakers as facilitators (tomanage the process) and volunteers asobservers (to act as sources ofinformation).”

� “Facilitators need culturally specificfacilitation skills – local people have ahead start on volunteers in this respect. Itis also more sustainable and empoweringto have a local person in the spotlight,rather than a volunteer.”

This is not to say that volunteers (or other‘outsider’ development workers) should neverfacilitate. They should merely ensure thatthey have thought through the options ratherthan automatically taking a facilitation role.The following good practice points can beused as a checklist for yourself or for localfacilitators:

Focusing on the process and theenvironment

A good facilitator and PA practitioner focuseson the process of group dynamics, rather thanthe task or outcome. This is to ensure thatparticipation is ‘active’ rather than ‘passive’. Itis not sufficient for participants just to show up.They must be actively involved. Otherwise, what

may be intended as participation at level 3 or 4of our framework (deciding/acting together)may result in a lower level activity likeconsulting, or even informing.

People cannot ‘be empowered’ by others.People can only empower themselves. Thefacilitator’s role is to create an environmentin which this can take place. This processmay be slow and facilitators should bepositive, flexible, committed and patient. Inthe early phases of the process, a goodfacilitator will focus on creating anenvironment of trust in which people buildrapport and begin to develop sharedunderstanding of the reality of their situation.

Investment of time and attention in this phaseis essential, for it establishes the foundationson which the rest of the process will be built.Trust and rapport enable collective analysisof local conditions and the first critical stepsto positive and sustainable change.

Remembering every idea counts

Any individual, organisation or communityhas a unique and valid perception of anysituation. As a result, everyone will assesssituations differently, see different solutionsand pursue different actions. This includesfacilitators and promoters of participatoryprocesses! Every view carries its own values,bias and prejudice. There are many differentinterpretations, many different ‘realities’.

One of the key contributions of RobertChambers to PA was to ask ‘Whose realitycounts?’ (Chambers, 1997). Essentially, allviews count. This is a basic principle of allparticipatory processes: everyone is differentand can offer important contributions to theprocess. Views can complement each othereven when they look worthless or provocativeat first sight.

Although ‘all realities count’, the realitiesexperienced by disadvantaged people areleast likely to be heard or acted on. VSOaims to redress this imbalance by

1 Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Malawi, Mongolia, Mozambique, Zambia

encouraging the involvement ofdisadvantaged people at all stages ofdevelopment projects. This is consistentwith Chambers’ principle of ‘putting thelast first’: enabling the voiceof disadvantaged people to be heard,their skills to be used and their needsto be met.

Using triangulation

Since all views count, aim to gather at leastthree perspectives on any issue or piece ofinformation. This practice is called‘triangulation’. Triangulation helps to verifydata, minimise bias, probe deeper into anissue, and to differentiate between fact,opinion and rumour.

Triangulation can be done on different scalesand through different methods, eg:

1. using teams composed of a mixture oflocal and external people. Team membersshould possess a mixture of skills/disciplines, gender and background

2. during any participatory exercise or groupdiscussion, asking for alternative viewsand checking consensus

3. using different methods, tools andactivities to investigate similar subjects,eg interviewing, mapping, drawing,ranking, observing, discussing, usingsecondary data

4. using focused interviews or groupdiscussions to verify key ‘facts’ andopinions

5. repeating participatory exercises indifferent communities, organisations orlocations to check whether theinformation has specific or genericrelevance

6. accounting for differences in opinionbetween women and men, elders andyouth, different social/economic groups,different professions etc.

Adopting a learning attitude

Effective participation relies on a learningattitude. This begins with the attitude of thefacilitator, which should prioritise learningthrough the eyes of local people.

Brazilian educationalist Paulo Freire (1986)commented that people are only motivated toparticipate in activities that are relevant tothem now. VSO volunteers and otherdevelopment workers, together with theircolleagues, can use PA to help involve localpeople in designing projects according totheir own ideas and priorities. It takes asignificant shift in attitude for ‘expertoutsiders’ to appreciate that local people areexperts in dealing with their own situationand problems. Development workers need tofacilitate a process of mutual discovery, inwhich all participants develop a commonunderstanding of problems and their causes,in order to take joint action.

As shown in Section 2, active learning takesplace when we analyse, plan, do and reviewactivities in ongoing cycles. The activitiesdescribed in this guide may help at eachstage of this learning cycle. Althoughvolunteers may repeat this cycle every day,the learning cycle also applies to the overallstructure of a VSO placement.

VSO advises volunteers to approach the firstquarter of their placement as a period oforientation. This means that volunteers andpartners alike have to manage their expectationsand not expect overnight results. Learning canbe a frustrating experience, and volunteers needto foster an unassuming attitude, with patienceand commitment to learn local people’spriorities. It is also important to monitor on acontinuous basis in order to assess progress andchange. Reviewing and evaluation will take onincreasing importance towards the end of anactivity or placement, but reviews can be used atvarious points to respond to change, check thelevel of participation, learn from good practice,maximise our impact and make effective use oflimited resources.

PART I: PRINCIPLES


PART I: PRINCIPLES


Being transparent

Effective partnerships require an atmosphereof mutual trust. Trust generally has to bebuilt and earned. Mistrust by differentstakeholders may be the product of badexperiences with development programmesin the past. A transparent approach – beingopen about our agenda and communicatinginformation clearly – will help to build trustand cooperation.

Participatory decision-making requiresreadiness to reach a compromise from allsides. Transparency will help to avoidsuspicion and to prevent different parties fromprotecting their own interests, rather thanseeking compromise and mutual benefits.

Being flexible

Being open to the ideas and opinions ofothers is often the most difficult aspect ofparticipatory processes. Facilitators andparticipants may find each other’s viewsdifficult to understand, contradictory, orincompatible with their own ideas andbeliefs. Accepting this reality requires a highdegree of flexibility and empathy. As with thelearning attitude, seek first to understandbefore being understood. Be neutral.

There is no single best way to facilitateparticipatory processes. The same methodsand tools will not work in every organisation,community or project. Do not choose or usemethods mechanically. Follow the process,being ready to rethink and replan at any stage.Good practice is ‘adapt, not adopt’. Methods,tools, setting and facilitation style need to beappropriate to the issue under discussion, andto the characteristics of the group thefacilitator is working with. Fit the group tothe process, and the methods to the group.

PA does not aim or claim to achieve absoluteaccuracy. Be satisfied with an appropriate levelof precision. To decide what is ‘appropriate’,ask yourself and your participants:

Q. What is the purpose of the process?

Q. What kind of information is required?

Q. How much information will people need fortheir analysis?

Managing conflict

Differences of opinion will inevitably arise inany participatory forum where everyone canshare their views. If these differences areperceived as being incompatible, there isconflict.

PA may unsettle the balance of power, and beseen as a threat by elite members ofhierarchical communities and organisations.Facilitators need to anticipate resistance fromelite groups who wish to maintain theircontrol over resources and decisions.

Facilitators will struggle if they areuncomfortable with conflict, and see it as anegative process. They may allow dominantparticipants to control the decisions of thegroup, or alternatively, may try to ‘bury’ theproblem by forcing a quick resolution.Neither response is participatory orsustainable. Short-term conflict resolutionprevents open discussion of problems, fails toidentify their causes, and may reinforceexisting inequity by giving way to the mostpowerful. This will generally breed a latentconflict that may explode at any time.

Alternatively, conflict can be embraced andtransformed into a positive force for change.This approach to conflict management waspromoted over artificial and short-termconflict resolution at a VSO conference on‘Managing tensions and conflicts over naturalresources’ in the Philippines. Community-based partners of VSO in Indonesia alsobelieve that conflict enriches the diversity ofideas that can be used to solve a problem.

Good facilitators view the process of sharingand debating ideas (some of which will beperceived as incompatible, ie conflicting) as a

natural step to achieving agreements andaction. They develop the necessary attitudesand strategies for managing conflict.Anticipate conflict, keep a cool head, exploretensions and their causes, provide a neutralspace. PA exercises like drawing also help tofocus people on the issues rather than eachother’s personalities.

Understanding cultural influences

Participation or lack of participation may beinfluenced by cultural factors. Commonexamples of this are the challenges ofencouraging participation by women, or byworkers lower down the organisational orsocial hierarchy. While it is important torespect local culture, it is also important tobe aware of ‘cultural smokescreens’ used toprotect the power of dominant groups.

This is clearly a fine balance. Facilitatorsmust balance their ‘sensitivity’ to localculture against the need to ‘proactively’challenge systems that cause disadvantageand violate people’s rights and dignity. It maybe useful to consider that culture is:

• diverse and dynamic

• formed by internal and externalinfluences

• structured by representations and power(Jolly, 2002).

According to this understanding, cultures areproducts of history, place, politics and people,and change over time. Within any country orcommunity there are many cultures. This istrue for volunteers as well as their localcolleagues – neither group comes from ahomogenous or fixed culture. Culture andtradition can enable or obstruct, and beoppressive or liberating for different people atdifferent times. There is nothing sacred aboutculture, and value judgements need to bemade about which aspects of culture to holdon to, and which to let go of.

With or without the development industry,North and South are already interacting andinfluencing each other. Development willalways have an impact on cultures. Theyeither change things (for better or worse), orreinforce the status quo. We need toaccommodate cultural difference, but alsochallenge unfair norms.

Facilitators may wish to work with differentgroups, genders, sectors of society or partsof an organisation at separate times in orderto maximise participation and free-speaking.However, there are also times when it isvaluable and constructive to work with mixedgroups from a cross-section of a communityor organisation so they can share ideas, skillsand perceptions.

Balancing your dynamic and receptivequalities

The above principles bring to light the needfor good facilitators to be both listeners andmobilisers; sensitive and proactive. Thishighlights the central function of facilitation,which is the act of making participationeasier. At times, the facilitator needs to bemore dynamic, to enable the voices of theless powerful to be heard. At other times, thefacilitator needs to step back, let go ofleadership and be more receptive, ‘handingover the stick’ to other participants. In thissense, the art of the facilitator, and theessence of the above principles, is to balanceour dynamic and receptive qualities (Figure 7)in response to group dynamics.

PART I: PRINCIPLES


PART I: PRINCIPLES


RECEPTIVE

Aware of self and others

Alert

Checks

Listens

Empathises

Lets go of leadership

Available

Underview (humility)

Senses

Trusting

Approachable

Receives

DYNAMIC

Aware of task

Thinks

Playful

Interprets

Decisive and timely

Holds boundaries

Overview

Takes risks

Offers ideas

Affirms

Challenges

Hands over leadership

Enables voices to be heard

Figure 7: The yin and yang qualities of a good facilitator3

3 From David Mowat – returned volunteer from Nepal and VSO trainer

I-3.2 Summary of key facilitation skills4

1. PlanningThe facilitator learns about the groupbefore the session to help develop cleargoals, design an appropriate programmeand select appropriate methodology.

2. ListeningThe facilitator listens to the group andtries to make sense out of what is goingon. They also clarify and help to organiseinformation.

3. FlexibilityThe facilitator can adapt to the needsof the group, handle multiple tasks,and has the confidence to trynew things.

4. FocusThe facilitator has direction and knowswhere to go next.

5. Encouraging participationThe facilitator can draw out individuals,involve everyone and use humour, gamesor music to encourage an open, positiveenvironment.

6. ManagingThe facilitator guides the group throughthe programmes, sets limits, encouragesground rules, provides models andchecks on progress and reactions.

7. QuestioningThe facilitator knows how to askquestions that encourage thought andparticipation.

8. Promoting ownershipThe facilitator helps the group takeresponsibility for their own work andhelps them to reflect on necessaryfollow-up work.

9. Building rapportThe facilitator demonstratesresponsiveness and respect for people, issensitive to emotions, watches bodylanguage and helps to constructrelationships within the group.

10. Self-awarenessThe facilitator examines their ownbehaviour, learns from mistakes, ishonest and open about the limits to theirknowledge, and shows enthusiasm.

11. Managing conflictThe facilitator encourages the group tohandle conflict constructively and helpsthe group come to agreement andconsensus.

12. Broadening discussionThe facilitator encourages differentpoints of views and uses techniques andexamples to get the group to considerdifferent frames of reference.

13. Presenting informationThe facilitator uses clear and conciselanguage, gives explicit instructions, andis confident with visual, written, graphicaland oral methods.

I-3.3 Questions – how to askand answer them5

Questions are the principal tools forfacilitating participatory learning. Most of themethods and tools described later in thisguide are simply structures that allowmeaningful questions to be explored. For newfacilitators, a good tip is to make everystatement a question, and acknowledge everyresponse as a valid answer.

The best questions are usually short, simpleand have a single focus. However, there aredifferent types of questions (Table 2), whichlend themselves to different purposes. Askingthe right questions in the right way is an art,and it is worth considering some of ourassumptions and habits. Cultural practicevaries a great deal and the examples quotedbelow may not all apply to your area.However, they may help you to be sensitiveand aware of possibilities.

PART I: PRINCIPLES


4 From VSO Bangladesh5 This section is based on material provided by Denys Saunders, VSO trainer

PART I: PRINCIPLES


Table 2: Types of questions for facilitators

TYPE OF QUESTION USE EXAMPLE

OPEN

CLOSEDREFLECTIVE

PROBING

As an invitation to talk

To acquire specific information To check your understanding of what hasbeen saidTo seek an opinion or feeling

“Tell me about...” “How is life these days?”“What work are you doing?”

“So you went to market last Monday?”

“What is your view about...?” “What was it like working in town?”“Tell me more about…”“Why…?”

6 For more information on Freire’s approach see www.reflect-action.org

Figure 8: A sequence of questions for facilitator and participants to explore a subject together

Analysis

Opinion

Careful wording will help you to communicate.However, the dominant aspects ofcommunication are tone of voice, facialexpression and body language. Peopletend to mirror your own behaviour andattitude, so be open and positive.

Explain your motives. Tell people why you areasking a particular question. There is a bigdifference between ‘enquiring’ and‘interrogating’. Enquiry is a style that says“I’m with you; I’m interested in what you say.”When a person ventures to answer aquestion, they are risking something ofthemselves. Be gracious in accepting the gift!

Open questions

Open, general questions are very useful inthe early stages of building rapport, becausethey allow people to make choices aboutwhat they want to talk about. More directquestions restrict their choices to yourareas of interest. It is worth remembering

that in some cultures, people are ready totalk about what they do, more slow to talkabout what they think or know, and evenmore reluctant to talk about how they feel.Many people will find too many directquestions inquisitive and intimidating.On the other hand, some cultures adopt avery formal style of questioning as part oflengthy greetings.

Open questions are also vital in skill-sharingsituations for encouraging thought, problem-solving and analysis of experience. If yourquestions are sequential you will encouragelogical thought, and hence generate richerand better quality information. Manyfacilitators find the following sequence useful(Figure 8). This was designed by the Brazilianeducator Paulo Freire6, and can be usedtogether with a visual image like a picture ordrama to help people think about the subjectin new ways. More personal question thatdeal with attitudes, feelings and values areonly introduced at the end of the sequence.

What do you see here?What is happening??

Why do you think it is like that?What are the causes??

How does it compare with your experience?What can we do about it? How do you feel about that?

?

Description

Closed questions

Closed questions are useful for gatheringinformation. Avoid completely closedquestions that only require a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’answer, because it is impossible to tellwhether people have understood thequestion. If you use an interrogative wordinstead (What, When, Who, Why, How), theperson has to think more carefully about theanswer and you will gain better information.

These questions fall into the sequencedescribed above. Allow people to make simpledescriptions first (What, When, Who). This canbe followed by analysis using ‘Why’ questions.Finally, ‘How?’ questions offer the chance forpeople to suggest examples and solutions toproblems identified through earlier questions.

‘Why’ questions require people to justify theirreasons, which can be threatening. If theydon’t have a reason, they may invent one!Consider other ways of asking this question:eg instead of “Why did you that...?” we cansay, “That’s interesting. What made you dothat...?”

In some cultures, people will not find it easyto answer the closed questions of someone inauthority. Sometimes, when you askquestions purely for information, the otherperson may wish to maintain a goodrelationship with you and give the answerthat they think you want instead of anaccurate one.

With closed questions there is always thedanger that the person questioned may thinkthere is only one correct answer. This mayseem quite demanding, especially if therespondent is trying to find an answer thatthey think you want to hear. Facts, of course,can be perceived differently so it can help ifyour attitude and body language suggest thatyou are open to different interpretations.

Some respondents give evasive replies if theyfeel threatened by closed questions. It oftenhelps if you explain why you value their

answer. In hierarchical organisations,employees may not be used to articulating orsharing their own thoughts. In these cases, itis fruitless to expect carefully consideredanswers to be constructed immediately, if atall. In communities where Western-styleeducation or training is rare, people may bemuch less precise in their measurements oftime, distance and quantity. This style ofnumerical accuracy may not be a priority intheir lives.

Closed questions do not necessarily lead veryfar and usually need to be followed byopportunities to discuss the wider context.Instead of asking a closed ‘fact’ question, wecan often make a statement and then askmore open, probing, thought-provokingquestions.

Reflective questions and clarification

Reflective questions are used to checkmeaning, which is important in unfamiliarcultures, communities and organisationswhere people may attach different meaningsto the words they use. “So, you used two bagsof fertiliser?”

You could also ask:

Q. “Do you mean...?”

Q. “I am not sure that I understand.”

Q. “Could you please explain that a littlemore?”

You are not suggesting that your failure tounderstand is the speaker’s fault: that caneasily spoil your relationship! You areadmitting that you may have failed to graspthe speaker’s full meaning. It is also goodpractice to check regularly people’sunderstanding of things that you have said.By asking people to express your statementin their own words or to provide an example,you will be able to check whether you havecommunicated effectively.

PART I: PRINCIPLES


PART I: PRINCIPLES


Probing questions

You may need to encourage the other personto explain more about something. Either askthem to tell you more, or repeat one of thekey words that you heard. “Important?”“Frustrating?” “Happy?” People will usuallyrespond to this by saying more on the issueconcerned.

Facts and information need to be supportedfurther by opinions and feelings. When youhave a trusting relationship you can often usea probing question:

Q. “What is your view about ...?”

Q. “How did you feel when your fields wereflooded?”

Breaking questions down

Sometimes the question you ask is too big forpeople to give a fair and considered response.A common strategy here is to break thequestion down into a series of smallerquestions. VSO Kazakhstan found it difficultto ask some potential partners, “What areyour development needs?” The question wastoo big. Some organisations responded to thisquestion by highlighting the need for money,new buildings etc, instead of achievable waysin which VSO might be able to support them.In this scenario, they found it more helpful toask each individual to specify their individualrole, what difficulties they had and what theywould need to do their job better.

Responding to questions that people ask you

The facilitator is not the ‘source of allknowledge’, and should use questions formutual learning. When a question is put toyou (as a person who is thought to be anauthority) the temptation is automatically togive people the results and conclusions ofyour thinking. Sometimes this may beappropriate. However, this is consultancy, notfacilitation. Giving an immediate answer mayweaken the questioner rather than

strengthen them; and encourage dependencyrather than resourcefulness.

The skill of the facilitator is to help theinquirer move in the direction of findinganswers to their own question. Giveparticipants the raw material and the toolsso that they can work things out forthemselves. Offer relevant information andraise further questions to enable people tosort out their experience and order theirthoughts. In many cases, introducingstructure into a person’s thinking is allthat is needed to enable them to solvetheir own problems.

Understanding the speaker’s question andwhat may lie behind it is not always easy, butfundamental to successful dialogue. In thehonest search for information there are noirrelevant or stupid questions. You may notimmediately see the point, but it is importantfor you to try to understand the questioner’smeaning.

Do not be nervous about handling questions –it is not your role to know everything.Participation is much more difficult ifpeople do not ask questions! Local cultureor organisational structure may discouragepeople from questioning elders, teachersor those perceived to have a higher status.The methods and tools presented in thisguide may help people who have neverbeen encouraged to ask questions toovercome these barriers.

I-3.4 Use of visual aids7

Some development workers have a falseimpression that creative and visual tools areonly used to overcome differences of literacyand language, and have no place in more‘educated’ environments. This is amisconception. Creative and visual stimulilike pictures, diagrams, colours and physicalactivities increase the effectiveness ofdialogue in any group – be they managingdirectors or illiterate farmers.

7 For more information on using visual aids see Appendix II: Types of pictures for communications, VSO’s How to Make and Use Visuals Aidsby Nicola Harford and Nicola Baird (1997); and Bob Linney’s People, pictures and power (1995)

This is firstly because they engage the morepowerful right side of the brain, allowing thefull potential of the brain to be used forperceptive analysis. However, some peoplemay have visual impairments that preventthem participating in purely visual exercises:again, flexibility is key to ensure fullparticipation – use of materials with differenttextures and sizes such as stones, seeds orsticks can help.

Secondly, visual methods tend to be moreinclusive and democratic, since everybody isable to express their opinion directly. Theyhelp to express ideas that may not be easilydescribed in words. Not only that, visualgroup activities help to establish commonunderstanding, based on the principle that‘when we see or do something together weshare meaning’. Finally, with creative methods,anything is possible. This allows a more openand innovative approach to analysis.

Visual methods can also be used to manageconflict. Participants can be encouraged toaddress their arguments to the diagram,rather than directly confronting each other.Most differences of opinion only turn intonegative arguments when they becomepersonal. By directing the attention of thedebaters onto a neutral object, the facilitatorcan help to keep the discussion constructive.


• Facilitation is the act of makingparticipation easier by creating anenvironment in which mutual analysis andlearning can take place.

• Facilitators support participatoryprocesses by balancing their dynamic andreceptive qualities.

• Some key skills of facilitation are personalawareness and organisation, openness,flexibility, familiarity with local culture, andthe ability to help groups transformthemselves.

• Good facilitators do not provide solutionsbut are highly skilled in asking the right

kind of question to stimulate reflection,learning and empowerment of all groupmembers.

NEXT STEPSIn Part I we have explored the basicprinciples of PA. These provide essentialfoundations before we can move on tomethods and tools. In Part II, we willexamine some methods that use PA toshow potential ways of involving people inanalysis, learning and action throughoutdevelopment processes.

PART I: PRINCIPLES


Documents

Participatory Approaches: A facilitator’s · PDF fileOrganisational Appraisal and ... Methods, tools and techniques do not ... Participatory Approaches: A facilitator’s guide 7