Docstoc

Session 2 training report Mar 05

Document Sample
Session 2 training report Mar 05 Powered By Docstoc
					         FARMER SUPPORT GROUP – Making land work for rural people
Private Bag X01, Scottsville 3209, Tel +27 (0) 33 260 6275, Fax +27 (0) 33 260 6281
             Cell +27 (0) 83 3012936, E-mail salomon@ukzn.ac.za

                       PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH

                          TRAINING REPORT SESSION 2

                       11-14 March 2005, Moshi Tanzania




                                  Facilitated by

                               Monique Salomon

            with inputs from Vusumuzi Sithole & Sizakele Mthethwa
                                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                        Page
    1 Background                                        3

    2 Summary of outcomes                               3

    3 Way forward                                       4

    4 Facilitators reflections                          5

    Annexure
        i. Workshop proceedings                         6
       ii. Module outline                               25
      iii. Terms of reference for field work            28
     iv.   Field reports
      v.   Preferential shapes
     vi.   Action plan
     vii.  Evaluation
    viii.  Participant list
     ix.   Assignment
       x.  Photo impressions




Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania              2
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29
    1 Background

SSI is a research programme implemented in South Africa (uThukela Basin) and
Tanzania (Pangani Basin). The initiative aims to develop methodologies for
integrated watershed management, emphasizing water use efficiency in rain
fed agriculture. Although water is limiting in these areas, it is often the
distribution of water rather than lack of total seasonal amounts that is affecting
crop growth and final yields. An entry point to reliable food production is
through storing rain water and run-off water to supply crops during periods of
intermittent dry spells.

Partner institutions involved in SSI are UNESCO-IHE, IWMI, Stockholm University,
Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA), and University of Kwazulu-Natal (School
of Bio-resources Engineering and Environmental Hydrology (BEEH). The Farmer
Support Group provides field support to researchers working with smallholder
farmers in Potshini and offers training in Participatory Action Research. Thus,
FSG‟s engagement in SSI is aimed at ensuring that scientists engage with
farmers in scientific research that reaps short-term and long-term benefits to
farmers.

A one day training session was held on 17 December 2004 in Pietermaritzburg,
South Africa, to introduce SSI researchers and their supervisors to the principles
and process of Participatory Action Research. A follow up learning event of four
days was held from 11 to 14 March 2005 in Moshi, Tanzania. This report presents
the results of the second training in Participatory Action Research.


    2 Summary of outcomes

A narrative summary is presented of results measured against the specific
learning outcomes formulated in the module outline (Annexure II).

Process

A training programme was drafted in preparation of the workshop. Upon arrival,
a day before the workshop, it appeared that the fieldwork had to be brought
forward from day three to day two. Thus, adjustments were made to the
programme. It also emerged that no field work arrangements and that farmers
had not been notified. Fortunately, two researchers were still at the research site
and were contactable by mobile phone. Instructions were sent how many
farmers the team wanted to interview and what selection criteria should be
applied.

During the course workshop, the programme had to be adjusted several times
to accommodate the needs of the participants and recommendations from
the sessions with the feedback team at the end of each day. The facilitators
took a bit of strain from this, but managed to make the necessary adjustments
and deliver a genuine tailor-made programme.
Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania                                  3
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29
Results


The workshop aimed to facilitate a deeper understanding of the conceptual
framework and practical application of participatory action. It also aimed to
generate commitment of the researchers to adjust some aspects of their
research to engage smallholder farmers and other key-stakeholders more
effectively as partners in the SSI Programme.

Outcome 1: Researchers are able to recognize their personal strengths,
weaknesses and opportunities as researchers

A session to review current research activity and plans had to be cancelled
due to other pressing issues raised by the participants.

Researchers were enabled to reflect on their levels of emotional intelligence, a
competence considered key in participatory research. The initial resistance
displayed by some researchers showed that not everybody recognizes the
value of self-reflection. The preferential shapes exercise raised awareness of the
diversity of the research team. Additional work is required to strengthen self-
awareness and embracing diversity as a strength of SSI.


Outcome 2: Researchers are able to articulate a common vision, mission,
values and working principles as SSI research team

A vision statement was developed and a comprehensive overall work plan for
both basins. A mission statement, values nor working principles were articulated.
A session on group dynamics and developing a team contract had to be
cancelled due to other pressing issues raised by the participants. However, the
development of an overall work plan enabled researchers to develop a
common approach in their research.


Outcome 3: Researchers are able to engage in dialogue with farmers and other
stakeholders

Researchers were introduced to the typology of participation and the steps in a
participatory research process. Several tools and techniques were presented
which were put into practice during a day of field work. A discussion emerged
whether feedback should be organized to farmers following the fieldwork. This
discussion showed that not all researchers have internalized the importance of
genuine participation of farmers as partners in research.




Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania                                4
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29
Outcome 4: Researchers are able to incorporate a selection of participatory
tools and techniques that engage farmers and other stakeholders as partners in
their research

Researchers generated practical ideas to make their research more
participatory. This was reflected in the work plan. For instance, farmers‟ days,
posters and brochures were listed as targets to be monitored. Farmer field
schools were proposed as central approach to engage farmers more actively
in research.


3       Way forward

It was agreed that SWMRG would ensure that a feedback session was held for
farmers to on the results of the one day fieldtrip. This session would also be used
to (re-)introduce the project to a broader group of farmers.

Researchers were tasked to write a story on an event where they interacted
successfully with a farmer(s). This assignment would help to encourage
reflection and ensure that participatory research stays firmly on their agenda.

From each field group, one person volunteered to finalize the field report for
submission to the facilitators for inclusion in the workshop report.

The overall work plan would be circulated for comments after which it would
be finaliced and serve as monitoring instrument.

A follow up workshop will be held coinciding with the annual scientific workshop
scheduled for January 2006 in Tanzania.


4       Facilitators reflections

As was the case in the first training session in December, the facilitators were
challenged to manage diversity in understanding of and experience with
participatory research. The variety in learning methods used enabled
participants to engage at their different levels without delaying the learning
process. The field trip had an „equalizing‟ effect in that some of the Swahili
speakers who had been quiet during the contact sessions, could show their
leadership in the field as facilitators and interpreters.

Much ground was covered in the workshop exploring participatory action
research in-depth and sharing experiences within the team. The workshop
provided a platform where researchers, supervisors and facilitators could reflect
and challenge assumptions held within the team about the SSI programme. It
provided a genuine opportunity to learn and share, to find common ground
and articulate a joint vision. Several participants seemed to feel that the

Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania                                     5
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29
programme would have had a better start if this workshop would have been
held at the beginning.

The atmosphere was generally quite positive and relaxed. Participants seemed
to enjoy each others presence and many seemed to have a joking relationship
with each other. Some tense moments were experienced as well in plenary
discussions around subject matter and around issues that had emerged in the
field between researchers and outreach coordinators.

The facilitators welcomed the opportunity that was created for the SWRG and
researchers to iron out issues and clear the air between parties working in the
Pangani basin. It is hoped that agreements made are indeed put into action.

Participants showed genuine commitment and applied themselves to the
challenging task of developing a work plan for the programme. The result is
impressive, and it is hoped that the plan will indeed be used to monitor progress
and impact of the programme.




Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania                                 6
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29
ANNEXURE I WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS

A second training in Participatory Action Research was held from 11 to 14
March 2005 in the Moshi Crane Hotel in Tanzania. The workshop was another
step forward to ensure that the Outreach component is implemented by all
institutions involved in SSI.

DAY 1

SESSION 1 INTRODUCTIONS

Hilmy Sally opened the workshop and welcomed everybody. He shared his
views on the outreach component in SSI, and emphasized that all stakeholders
should work in an integrated manner, and share knowledge so that the
programme will produce a solid output. SSI should contribute to the
development of national, regional and global policies. He further mentioned
that SSI is designed to improve learning about Participatory Action Research.
This doesn‟t mean that researchers have to redesign their research but make
adjustments so that farmers derive benefit from the research. In closing, he
mentioned that everybody in the SSI programme should make optimum use of
the programme‟s resources and demonstrate to stakeholders that SSI is having
an impact on the ground.

All participants were then asked to introduce themselves and mention their role
in the programme. Researchers introduced themselves, citing their specific
projects and their research site(s) i.e. the Thukela and/or Pangani basin.
Supervisors, programme managers and facilitators also introduced themselves.

The workshop programme was presented, highlighting the expected learning
outcome, content topics and fieldwork. It was proposed to have a fifth day to
address issues emerging from the training and other programme issues.

To ensure full participation and a lively workshop, participants were asked to
volunteer for the feedback team and/or „Opmaat‟ teams. The feedback team
consisted of three or four participants who give feedback to the facilitators at
the end of each day and plan for the next day. Each participant had to be
part of an „Opmaat‟ team. These teams would take a turn to give a creative
morning performance that expressed their impressions of the previous day.


SESSION 2 PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH

Step 1 Sharing Personal Stories

Participants were invited to share a personal experience in which s/he realized
the importance of working with farmers. Eline volunteered. She talked about the
work she is currently doing in Bangalala involving farmers in setting up her
experiments. She emphasized the importance of Participatory planning.
Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania                                  7
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29
Through this interaction she learnt from farmers that lab-lab can only be grown
during the rainy seasons (Vuli/Masika). She was impressed by the responses of
farmers and realized that if you create space and engage with each other on
an equal footing farmers will share their views openly.

Participants were then tasked to share in small groups a significant moment in
working with farmers. In a plenary, groups presented highlights and issues that
emerged:

               It is important to recognize farmers‟ knowledge
               You should identify local stakeholders when entering a community
               Rather than introducing new knowledge, it is important to know
                what innovations are local people using
               Interaction with farmers allows you as researcher to learn a lot, e.g.
                rainfall patterns that farmers use
               Open communication should be strengthened between farmers
                and researchers.
               You should not assume what farmers‟ needs are. You might offer
                them seeds, whilst they need training.
               You should know the politics and conditions of the area in which
                you are working
               When entering a community you must ensure that you add value
                to what the locals are already doing, but not change.

A brief discussion followed on what SSI researchers are supposed to do as
compared to what they are currently doing in their projects. It emerged that
researchers are involved in parallel activities. Whilst they are assessing what
farmers are doing (innovations), they are also introducing new technologies.

Step 2 Some theory

An overview was presented of the topics covered in the first training session in
December 2004.

The Participation Continuum


   PASSIVE                        Inform people
   PARTICIPATION
   PARTICIPATION IN   People respond to questions
   INFORMATION GIVING

   PARTICIPATION BY               People are consulted by outsiders to identify
   CONSULTATION                   problems and solutions
   PARTICIPATION FOR   People receive incentives to provide
   MATERIAL INCENTIVES information/resources

Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania                                    8
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29
   FUNCTIONAL                        People form groups to meet objectives set by
   PARTICIPATION                     outsiders
   INTERACTIVE                       People participate actively in all stages of an
   PARTICIPATION                     intervention
                                     People take initiative independent of outsiders to
   EMPOWERMENT                       change their situation



The (Iterative) Process of Participatory Action Research



                                             STEP 1 Identifying
                                             shared problem
                                             situation and
                                             prepare for PAR
                                                                     STEP 2 Gathering
              STEP 5 Planning                                        information through
              and taking action                                      group reflection




                                  STEP 4 Analysing                STEP 3 Collecting
                                   and interpreting                additional data
                                     information                  through fieldwork




Principles of community development

       Learning
       Participation
       Empowerment
       Ownership
       Transformation
       Flexibility

Criteria for trustworthiness

    1. Prolonged and/or intense engagement between the various (groups of)
       people
    2. Persistent and parallel observation
    3. Triangulation by multiple sources, methods and investigators
    4. Expression and analysis of difference
    5. Negative case analysis
    6. Peer or colleague checking
    7. Participant checking


Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania                                          9
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29
    8. Reports with working hypotheses, contextual descriptions and
        visualizations
    9. Parallel investigations and team communications
    10. Reflexive journals
    11. Inquiry audit
    12. Impact on stakeholders‟ capacity to know and act

Action research

Action research is defined as a process which alternates continuously between
inquiry and action, between practice and innovative thinking. It includes both
reflective practice and practice based research. It is characterized by a
developmental spiral of practical decision making and evaluative reflection.




            Plan                                    Act
          / Revise



         Reflect                                    Observe

Action research can be practiced at work. It can be integrated into a
collaborative, reflective and developmental process at the work place. Action
Research can also be used in a group for reflective decision making. A group of
people with different (hierarchical) roles plan to observe and record their
practice, reflect critically on the observations they have made, meet to
compare and evaluate these reflections and draw up a further plan for future
work based on the conclusions drawn from what they have learned from one
another sofar

Quantitative and qualitative research

Statistics can reveal patterns, confirm the existence of problems, and suggest
directions for further inquiry. However, they are open to different interpretations

Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania                                 10
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29
because theories and values influence which statistics we choose to collect.
Thus, statistics are created not discovered. The causal link is as strong as the
deviation from the rule/other „intervening factors‟.

        For example, a causal link between the incidence of crime among ethnic
        minorities can confirm public opinion that this group has a „crime-prone‟
        nature, However, this single causal link ignores the fact that ethnic
        minorities often have a low economic status and thus have limited
        access to formal job opportunities.

Qualitative research is aimed at generating understanding of social situations
through intensive interviewing, open-ended observations, and exhaustively
descriptive case studies. It aims to create an interpretation which is sufficiently
complex in its recognition of differences to be agreed as acceptable.

Positivism and constructivism

Positivism is based on the hope and belief that knowledge of human affairs
must be given the same sort of positive (purely) factual and law-like structure as
Newtonian physics („social physics‟), free from political values and religious and
metaphysical beliefs.

            POSITIVIST RESEARCH                       ACTION RESEARCH
                                  Type of knowledge
Abstract, generalisable knowledge             Experiential knowledge in specific
Focus on product („findings‟)                 situation
                                              Focus on quality of process (outcomes,
                                              spin-offs)
                                  Origin of knowledge
Observation through detachment and Action through involvement and
outsider (scientific) objectivity             insider sensitivity
                                   Criteria for validity
Statistical significance                      Can a variety of others relate to it
Comprehensive data and analysis               Innovative reflection on data
Outsider authority                            Insider/collective ownership

Action research and social science research

Action research always uses qualitative methods (case study-based, linguistic
data) and can quite easily also incorporate quantitative data (survey-based,
numerical data). It is research organized around a process of action, rather
than description. And it articulates what is learned from the change process as
it occurs.

Data gathering

In Action Research all participants are researchers. Data gathering is thus a joint
enterprise undertaken by all, in order to give a voice to differing perspectives. It
Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania                                     11
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29
goes beyond simply asking questions, to include processes of sharing
experiences, knowledge and views of desirable changes that are then
compared and explored for joint action. Rather than questionnaires and
conventional interviews (interrogation), AR works with developmental
workshops, reflective diaries, scenarios, and stories (invitation). Open-ended
questions and probing, searching for challenge of what we know, surprise and
mutual learning.

Facilitator

The process of communication and negotiation of differing perspectives is part
of the inquiry and needs to be reflected upon. The facilitator must maintain a
balance between organizing and coordinating process while avoiding
dependence of participants. It also requires emotional intelligence (self-
awareness, respecting diversity of opinion, listening empathetically, suspend
judgment, take emotional risk/being vulnerable, maintain harmony)


SESSION 3 FREE WRITING

Participants were asked to reflect on the lecturing input by responding to the
following question:
                What thoughts do I have about action research?

Free writing involves letting thoughts come out on paper without correcting
text, censoring nor rephrasing. The following instruction was given:

       Just write, don‟t stop, keep your pen on the paper
       Let out all thoughts feelings ideas flow out of your pen
       Don‟t censor yourself, this is for your eyes only
       Don‟t worry about language, punctuation, we are not editing
       Keep on going until the facilitator asks you to stop

Participants were given 15 minutes to free write. The exercise enables each
participants to express their inner thoughts and feelings freely, in a non-
threatening way and without interruptions nor distractions of a discussion that
can often result in few individuals dominating.


SESSION 4 STORIES FROM THE FIELD

Step 1 Experiences of FSG and SWMRG

Vusumuzi Sithole shared his personal experiences in a project in Msinga
implemented by the Farmer Support Group. The main aim of the project was to
revive indigenous farming system and promote indigenous crops. He spoke
about the experimentation process and how farmers become part and parcel
of the project, until its completion. In his presentation he cited various
Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania                                12
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29
participatory methods and approaches FSG employed to effect farmer
participation in the project.

Kenneth Masuki shared his experience in the Integrated Soil Fertility programme
implemented in Arusha and Kilimanjaro. The programme aimed at determining
the various kinds of options farmers use to curb soil infertility in their fields. Farmer
participation was key in implementing the programme. Farmers from various
communities worked together in establishing informal experiments. Results were
shared with other farmers.

Step 2 Communities of practice

Femke Gordijn, Masters student from Wageningen University and Research
(WUR) introduced participants to the concept of Communities of Practice
(CoP).

         “Communities of Practice are groups of people who share a concern, a
         set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their
         knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing
         basis”1

Wenge, the „father‟ of the CoP concept, based his model on four assumptions:

      1. People are social beings and learning is a social activity
      2. Sharing knowledge is a competence we express in a value-bounded
         environment (like singing in tune, doing scientific research, writing of
         poetry, etc.)
      3. Sharing knowledge is participative action in relation to our value-
         bounded environment
      4. Meaning is the goal of the learning process (we want to understand and
         interpret our social environment)

CoPs are underpinned by four social learning principles:

         Community: learning by being part of a group
         Identity: learning through solidarity with a common (future) vision
         Meaning: learning through specific experiences
         Practice: learning through acting in practice




1
    E. Wenger, R. McDermott, W. M. Snijder (2002) Cultivating Communities of Practice
Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania                                       13
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29
Figure: The CoP model

                                                    Learning as belonging

                                   community
     Learning as
     doing

                                                                      identity
                                            Learning
            practice
                                                                                 Learning as
                                                                                 becoming

                                            meaning

                              Learning as
                              experience



The paradox is that CoP‟s are initiated “naturally”, with only an abstract goal.
The eventual product and knowledge cannot be defined initially. At the same
time, COP‟s may be initiated as an instrument.

CoPs are not new. Communities of practice are everywhere. We all belong to
communities of practice. At home, at work, at school, in our hobbies – we
belong to several communities of practice at any given time. It is not
communities of practice themselves that are new, but the need for
organisations to become more intentional and systematic about „managing‟
knowledge, and therefore to give these age-old structure a new, central role in
the business.

Characteristics of a CoP:

            Both formal and informal knowledge
            Short relation between learning and doing
            Short relation between inside and outside
            Practical orientation/focus
            Overcoming barriers and frontiers: institutional, physical, theoretical,
             disciplinary / Connecting domains (institutional, physical, theoretical,
             disciplinary)
            Complex questions / problems

In her research for Alterra in the Netherlands, Femke found that:

            A facilitator or leader is essential in a CoP
            When initiating a CoP you have to deal with certain conditions you
             can influence and/or create to stimulate the development of the
             CoP. It is very important to take into account the prerequisites
            It is important that the 4 domains from Wenger are represented in the
             CoP: practice, meaning, community en identity


Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania                                              14
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29
           There should be a balance in the transfer of knowledge, the sharing of
            information and a common development of means, visions,
            procedures, products, etc. This could include making use of virtual
            techniques.

In conclusion:

  Domain and urgency: there must be a „drive‟ to make people participate.
  Knowledge generation: social learning and the development of
   knowledge are concepts which form the core of CoP‟s. Knowledge is
   contributing to the goal of many CoP but also to the different elements of
   the CoP: community, practice, meaning en identity.
  Commercialization of CoP’s: appears not easy to initiate a CoP. Time,
   money and the goal play an important role in this. The buyer always has a
   goal to reach. For the seller it is a commercial good. This runs the risk that a
   commercial CoP will always be dependent on support and facilitation and
   financial contribution from outside/the principal.
  Self-stirring character of CoP: the paradox is already mentioned.
   Nowadays CoP‟s are being used as a management tool. There is a tension
   between directing a CoP or “let it go with the flow”. But the open process,
   the abstract goal and the eventual product and knowledge which cannot
   be defined initially, must be communicated clearly with the people
   involved to prevent wrong expectation.


SESSION 5 PREPARING FOR THE FIELD

Step 1 Terms of reference

Participants received the terms of reference for the field work held the following
day (Annexure III). A discussion concerning the purpose of the fieldwork and
other logistics emerged around:

                Nature of questions that had to be asked during the interviews.
                Since the project had been introduced to farmers why another
                 introduction
                How were the farmers chosen, since farmers from Makanya were
                 not amongst those to be visited, this might create tensions amongst
                 farmers and researchers

Consensus was reached on the aim of conducting the field visit and interviews:

                to officially introduce the SSI program to farmers
                to inform farmers about the work the researchers
                to entertain issues and concerns of farmers that feel excluded from
                 the project
                to develop team spirit and common vision amongst researchers
                to apply participatory tools whilst interviewing farmers
Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania                                 15
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29
Groups were formed using a set of agreed upon criteria: gender, language,
experience, existing research teams who would each focus on a specific
research question.

    1. What knowledge do farmers have, and what innovations have they
       developed in water resources management? (Juma, Prof. Maho,
       Hodson, Yogesh, Vusumuzi)

    2. What is farmers understanding of the SSI research undertaken? How do
       they see their involvement? (Istamil, Jennifer, Eline, Monique)

    3. What challenges does the research team experience that can be
       addressed through (increased) farmer participation, and how? (Femke,
       Victor, Claudious, Job)

    4. What socio-economic and cultural significance and meaning do water
       and water resources for farm households? (Kenny, Siza, Marloes, Sizakele)

Step 2 Demonstration of participatory tools

The facilitators had planned to introduce some participatory tools that
participants could use in the field. However, it was realized that some
participants were familiar with some of these tools. It was then decided to invite
some participants to present the tools they know and had used in the field. The
following participants presented: Eline, Claudius, Kenneth, and Jennifer.
Vusumuzi then added explanation to some of the tools presented.

Step 3 Prepare in groups

Each of the four groups was expected to visit two different homesteads in one
village.
Groups were tasked to develop a field plan according to specific instructions:

      - Select two participatory tools that will engage farmers/households in a
        meaningful way, and
      - Document results through writing and visualizing (rich pictures, maps etc)
      - Allocate tasks among the team (introduction, interviewing, facilitation,
        translation, recording, time keeping, report writing etc)

When the groups had completed their methodologies, questions were raised
about travel logistics and coordination on site in Bangalala, where the farmers
were located and how far apart they are. Hodson then briefed the entire group
on:
          who the farmers were
          how distant apart they were(drew a map on the flip chart)
          who were the concerned farmers and who were the happy ones
          how the vehicles should coordinated in the field
Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania                                16
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29
                                                                   f
                                                        f              f
                  f
                                                            s
                                                    o

                                           f




Schematic Diagram: Depicting allocation of farmers in Mwembe and
Pangalala Villages

Key: f = farmer‟s homestead
      o = office for Farmers Association
     s = school
        = road



SESSION 6 JOURNAL WRITING & EVALUATION

Participants were asked to reflect and take notes in their journal using the
questions below:

               What insights did you have today
               What new ideas came up for you
               What would you like to know more about
               What was not of much use to you

On the wall a mood meter consisting a smiling face, a sad face and a neutral
faces were put up. Participants were asked to stand in front of the face that
expressed best their feelings about the day. Few participants chose the smiling
face. While the majority chose the neutral and sad face. Main reason given for
the latter was that participants felt that they had learnt a lot of new things and
still had to cover so much ground while they had only four days for the training.

FEEDBACK TEAM

After the workshop, the feedback team met and shared their views on issues
from the workshop. One of the concerns raised by participants was that sessions
were too long and some participants dominated the workshop. Other felt that
some issues were given more time than others. It was also felt too much time
was spent on petty issues, whilst there were key issues that needed more
attention. The facilitating team then revised the programme for day three.

Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania                               17
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29
DAY TWO

SESSION 7 FIELDWORK

The group traveled to Bangalala and Mwembe. On the way, some farmers
were picked up. An introductory meeting was held outside the Farmers
Association office. The group was welcomed by the chairperson of the Farmers
Association who introduced the farmers present. There was also an extension
officer, who has been in the area for the past 16 years. He expressed his
appreciation about the SSI programme, and mentioned that the new
technologies introduced by researchers are also helpful to him since he is also
learning and can then disseminate this new knowledge to other farmers. The SSI
group then was introduced. Kenneth introduced (in Swahili) the SSI program to
farmers, stating its objectives and why Pangani and Thukela basins are research
areas.

The participants then split up into their respective groups and left with the
farmers to be interviewed to their homesteads. Groups had allocated tasks
during the interviews, i.e., facilitator, scribe, translator, timekeeper and team
leader.

After the interviews, the group returned to Moshi.


DAY 3

SESSION 8 OPMAAT

The third day commenced with a performance from the first „opmaat‟ team
who performed a play on the first day.


SESSION 9 CONSOLIDATION OF RESULTS

Step 1 Rapid report writing

Participants worked in their field groups to discuss and consolidate results from
the field work. They were tasked to prepare a presentation highlighting tools
used, process, teamwork, content, and issues.

Results were presented and discussed in a plenary (Annexure III).

Step 2 Plan for feedback to farmers

Participants discussed how they would feedback the results of the field work to
farmers. This session resulted in a heated debate that took up quite a lot of time.
Issues were raised about:

Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania                                   18
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29
        Whose task it was to consolidate the field results (FSG or researchers)
        Whether feedback to farmers was necessary
        Whether the information from the feedback was conclusive enough to
        be fed back to farmers
        Whether feedback should be done to the whole village or to the
        interviewed farmers only
        Who should gave the feedback (SWRG or researchers)

Various suggestions were made, and agreement was reached. Feedback to
farmers would be done by the researchers working in the Pangani basin . It was
realized that the approach employed in introducing the SSI programme and its
researchers has resulted to some misunderstandings. The SWMG through Siza
Tumbo committed itself to report back to farmers. The workshop was also
reminded that SSI goes beyond Pangalala, hence, reporting should extend to
other villages.

Each field group chose a person to refine the field report and send to the
facilitators. These reports would be incorporated in the workshop report.


SESSION 10 EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

Step 1 Defining Emotional Intelligence

Participants were asked to brainstorm on what Emotional Intelligenceis. Some of
the responses were:

   Emotional way of doing research
   It is about empathy
   Control of emotions
   Ability to understand own and other people‟s feelings
   It is a way of interpreting emotional expression, eg., non-verbal behaviour

Emotional intelligence or EQ was defined as the ability:

    •   to perceive, recognise, understand and react to the feelings of yourself
        and others
    •   to distinguish between various feelings and to name them
    •   to express and control your feelings appropriately
    •   to listen with empathy and to communicate emotions and thoughts
        effectively
    •   to direct your thoughts and actions so that you live effectively ,motivated
        and have a goal in mind.

    Benefits of EQ were summarized:

    •   You gain into me I see (intimacy )
    •   Recognising your feelings and the connection to your behaviours
Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania                                 19
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29
    •   Finding the balance between expressing and controlling your thoughts
        and feelings
    •   Realising that you are responsible for your own feelings
    •   Develop deeper understanding of your feelings and others, improved
        communication leading to better relationships, more assertive
        communication

Step 2 Assessing EQ

Participants were then tasked to fill in a questionnaire. A discussion emerged
about the exercise, its validity and who developed it. It was also questioned
what EQ has to do with SSI and Action Research. The facilitators responded to
the concerns, and eventually all participants filled in the questionnaire. An
interpretation of scores and graphs was then presented.

Step 3 Free writing

Participants were then tasked to write on their journals what learnings, views,
perceptions or thoughts emerged for them following the EQ exercise.

Step 4 Preferential shapes

The facilitator presented five signs. Participants were given instructions to
number the shapes in their order of preference, and ascribe meaning to each
of the shapes.




Results were summarized on a flipchart. Different participants showed different
preferences and assigned different meanings to the shapes. The facilitator
presented the meaning of the various shapes (Annexure IV).

A discussion emerged about what this meant for SSI programme. Diversity of
researchers was apparent, and the need for “ One vision and coming to
wholeness” in the SSI programme.

Step 5 Reflection

Participants then shared the results of both exercises in small groups.




Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania                                 20
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29
SESSION 11 VISIONING

Step 1 Story telling

Participants had to close their eyes, while the facilitator narrated a story. Once
the story was over, participants opened their eyes, and they were tasked to
write down keywords what people said to you on the award ceremony.

Step 2 Developing a vision statement

Participants formed two groups and were tasked to develop a vision statement
using the key words listed by the team members. The vision statement should
state

        How the SSI team is working with each other, its stakeholder group, and
        what it has resulted in(being successful).

Both vision statements were presented in plenary. Participants were then asked
to identify key words that were common in both visions, and develop one
statement. The facilitators, SWRG and IMWI representatives were asked to
recuse themselves from the exercise, since it was felt that the researchers had
to own the vision statement.

The final vision was presented and critiqued in plenary by all participants . Some
of the wording was fine-tuned:

        Our vision is to carry out inter-disciplinary scientific research on
        smallholder water system innovations in integrated water resources
        management and to improve rural livelihoods in a sustainable way by
        involving key-stakeholders, empowering farmers, and promoting up-
        scaling of viable technologies in semi-arid regions.


SESSION 12 EVALUATION

Participants were asked to evaluate the day on strengths, weaknesses, and
suggestions for improvement.


FEEDBACK TEAM

The feedback team met and reviewed the evaluation. The following comments
were noted:

       Developing a vision for SSI programme was a major stepping stone, it now
        needs to be developed further
       Participants had different views on workshop process

Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania                                 21
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29
       Discussion about the field work was appreciated but it took too long
        discussing how the feedback to farmers will be organized
       Today‟s session was an opportunity for people to discuss issues
       Feed back reporting to farmers, probably guidelines were not clear to
        most researchers
       Some participants views counted more than others, and one and the
        same voices have been heard
       Views are there to be challenged
       People are putting their views as the “main” views that should count
       Should promote/encourage more small group discussions to avoid
        domination by other participants


DAY 4


SESSION 13 ACTION PLANNING

Step 1 Balanced score card

The facilitator introduced the balanced scorecard, currently used by FSG, as a
tool to develop a strategy and monitor implementation

PERSPECTIVE           OBJECTIVES            INDICATORS         TARGETS        INITIATIVES
Customer              What objectives       What will show     How many, by   Through what
How do I want to      make up your          you that you are   when?          projects and
appear to our         overall purpose?      moving towards                    programmes?
customers?                                  your objective?
Internal
What processes,
policies and
structures need
to be in place to
deliver to our
customers
Learning &
Growth
What
organizational,
team and
individual
competencies
are required and
how can these
be maintained?
Financial
Do our finances
enable us to do
all the above?



Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania                                            22
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29
Step 2 Developing work plans

Participants formed groups according to their research projects and developed
a comprehensive work plan. The facilitators offered guidance and direction to
the groups in developing their work plans.

Step 3 Presentation and discussion

The groups presented their work in a plenary.

One of the points that was discussed in depth was the gap created in the
coordination of SSI programme, since the departure of Johan Rockstrom. The
researchers felt the programme needs someone who will bring in leadership
and vision. Marloes was tasked to raise the issue at a steering committee
meeting to be held in Stockholm in August 2005.

The importance of enhanced communication and sharing between the
researchers was recognized as a weakness. Following from this, Eline invited
other researchers to join her at Stockholm during the Water Week when she
would be presenting to her University colleagues the work that she is doing in
SSI. This could also be an opportunity to discuss issues that natural scientists
encounter when merging their work with a social science paradigm.

Step 4 Merging project action plans

After lunch the work, plans from the different groups were compared for
similarities and differences, and against the outcomes that underpin SSI
outreach component. It was realized that some of the activities mentioned
would not be possible to finance. For instance, participants had identified
Farmer Field Schools as a possible approach to stimulate farmer participation in
their projects. The discussion on budget was soon terminated and it was
proposed to discuss this outside the workshop since not everybody had budget
information.

Another point of discussion was about the usage of existing community
structures (e.g. Water user‟s forum) in both basins. There was a view that
researchers should not only work with existing forums, but should also establish
other structures. Most participants mentioned that they needed more
information about Farmer Field schools, Farmers Days, Field Days, Farmer to
Farmer etc.


SESSION 14 WAY FORWARD AND EVALUATION

Almost all participants felt that the SSI programme should have started with
developing a vision and work plan. If these had been in place the challenges
researchers were faced with in their projects would have been minimal. They
Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania                                  23
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29
were happy that they now have a plan that gives direction in effecting farmer
and stakeholder participation in their work.

It was noted that some of the outcomes need to be reformulated and
finetuned. Participants also mentioned that in some activities more than one
research projects are involved. There should be a project that will take the lead
in ensuring that a particular outcome is accomplished.

Since the work plans had to merge into one work plan some students
volunteered to finalise it on the following day, together with facilitators.

The following actions were agreed upon:

               Researchers to write a story on an event where they interacted
                successfully with a farmer(s), due by the 21st April 05
               Field reports due by 25th April 05
               Work plan due by 15th April 05
               Workshop report due by 15th April 05


DAY FIVE

Step 1 Finalizing action plan

Facilitators and two students, Marlous and Hodson, worked the whole day to
complete the action plan. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! (Annexure v).




Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania                                24
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29
ANNEXURE II MODULE OUTLINE

PURPOSE OF THE SESSION
The session aims to facilitate a deeper understanding of conceptual framework
and practical application of participatory action, and commitment of
researchers to adjust some aspects of their research to engage smallholder
farmers and other key-stakeholders as partners in the Smallholder System
Innovations in Watershed Management Programme.

LEARNING OUTCOMES
At the end of this session, learners should be able to:
       Recognize their personal strengths, weaknesses and opportunities as
         researchers
       Articulate a common vision, mission, values and working principles as
         SSI research team
       Engage in dialogue with farmers and other stakeholders
       Incorporate a selection of participatory tools and techniques that
         engage farmers and other stakeholders as partners in their research

LIST OF CONTENT TOPICS
     Become aware of oneself: preferential shapes, emotional intelligence
     Managing diversity in team: vision, values and working principles
     Participatory action research in the field: Farmer innovations, challenges
      in fieldwork, farmers perceptions of the SSI programme, and the socio-
      cultural significance of water resources
     Farmer and stakeholder participation: horizontal learning and vertical
      exchange
     Aligning research plan with action research principles


TYPES OF DELIVERY AND ESTIMATED NOTIONAL STUDY HOURS
CONTACT                          SELF-STUDY
Lectures / Practicals 16         Resource-based learning          0
Assignments           16         Study on assignments             8

Sub-total                     32                    Sub-total     8

TEACHING-LEARNING METHODS
    Lectures
    Small group work
    Field work
    Presentation to stakeholders
    Individual assignment

STATEMENT OF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
At the end of this module, learners should be able to:
    Are aware of themselves and how they interact with others in their
      research

Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania                               25
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29
       Work, learn and deliver as an international team
       Apply participatory tools
       Facilitate sharing and learning among peers, farmers and stakeholder
        participation
       Understand the context in which farmers operate
       Articulate and demonstrate the significance and value of the SSI
        programme to farmers and other local stakeholders
       Align their research plan with action research principles

METHOD OF ASSESSMENT
   Field report
   Team presentation to stakeholders

EDUCATIONAL PROVISION FOR LEARNERS
   Session guide including lecture notes, presentations and background
    reading will be made available
   Facilitators will be available for consultation with learners during the
    research period

             PROGRAMME                                          Facilitator

                                      Day 1
             Session 1 Participatory Action Research
08:00        Introduction to programme                          Vusumuzi
08:15        Sharing personal stories                           Sizakele
08:45        Some theory                                        Hilmy
                                                                Sally
                                                                Monique
09:15        Stories from the field: experiences of FSG and     Vusumuzi
             SWMRG                                              SWMRG
10:30        Tea break
11:00        Rewriting a research plan                           Monique
11:30        Report back
12:00        Lunch break
             Session 2 Introspection: me the researcher
14:00        Emotional intelligence                              Sizakele
14:30        Preferential shapes                                 Sizakele
             Session 3: Team work part I
15:00        Interdisciplinary teams                             Monique
15:30        Break
             Session 4: Preparing for the field part I
15:45        Situation analysis of research sites: rich pictures Vusumuzi
16:30        Terms of reference and groups for field work
16:45        Journal writing & evaluation                        Sizakele
17:00        Closure                                             Monique
             Home work: Prepare demonstration of a specific tool
                                       Day 2
Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania                              26
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29
08:00        Recap previous day                                  Monique
             Session 5: Team work part II
08:10        Scenario posing                                     Vusumuzi
08:40        Group dynamics: reflection                          Vusumuzi
09:30        Vision and values                                   Monique
10:30        Tea break
11:00        Team contract                                       Monique
12:00        Lunch break
             Session 6: Preparing for the field part II
14:00        Demonstration of tools                              Vusumuzi
15:15        Prepare in groups                                   Monique
16:45        Journal writing & evaluation                        Sizakele
17:00        Closure

                                             Day 3
             Session 7: Field work
08:00        Field work: 4 groups visit two homesteads each      SWMRG
17:00        Homework: Rapid report writing                      Monique

                                     Day 4
             Session 7: Analysis, consolidation and sharing of
             results
08:00        Reflection on field experience                      Monique
08:15        Consolidation of data                               Monique
09:45        Interactive presentation and discussion             Vusumuzi
10:30        Tea break
11:00        Plan for feedback to farmers and other              Vusumuzi
             stakeholders
11:20        Roadmap: further capacity building in Action        Monique
             Research
12:00        Lunch
             Session 8: Action planning
14:00        Review of research plans                            Monique
16:00        Way forward                                         Vusumuzi
16:45        Journal writing & evaluation                        Sizakele
17:00        Closure                                             Yogesh

NB: Participatory tools are indicated in blue in the programme




Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania                           27
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29
ANNEXURE III TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR FIELD WORK

PURPOSE OF THE FIELD WORK
The session will enable teams to facilitate meaningful interaction and dialogue
with farm households, gain new insights, and reflect on process and outcomes
of the exercise.

LEARNING OUTCOMES
At the end of this session, learners should be able to:
       Work effectively as a team
       Create space where researchers and farmers can engage in dialogue
       Apply some participatory tools
       Recognize areas for personal development
       Articulate new insights


KEY QUESTIONS
The field work will aim to arrive at a comprehensive situation analysis of an area.
Participants will form four small groups that will focus on either one of the
following questions:

    1. What knowledge do farmers have, and what innovations have they
       developed in water resources management?
    2. What is farmers understanding of the SSI research undertaken? How do
       they see their involvement?
    3. What challenges does the research team experience that can be
       addressed through (increased) farmer participation, and how?
    4. What socio-economic and cultural significance and meaning do water
       and water resources for farm households?

Participants are encouraged to choose a question that they don‟t normally
work with.

METHODOLOGY
Groups divide tasks within the team and design a process that will engage
farmers and their households in a meaningful discussion with each other and
with the researchers.

Roles in team:
   1. Process monitor: someone who monitors that the team facilitates a
       genuine dialogue, and takes notes on process
   2. Facilitator: someone who explains purpose of the session, introduces the
       team and facilitates the discussion
   3. Content monitor: someone who monitors that the main question is
       explored, and takes on experiences, knowledge and views shared by
       households and team
   4. Time keeper: someone who ensures that the session doesn‟t exceed two
       hours (while ensuring that sufficient time is spent on introductions and a
       summary is given and discussed with households before closure)
Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania                                28
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29
Some guiding questions to design your process:

       What do you need to do more of to ensure that household members
        share their experiences, knowledge and opinions?

       What do you need to do less of to enable household members to
        engage?

       What tools can help you to engage households actively in sharing their
        experiences, knowledge and views?
       How can you give up control and shift attention away from you as
        faciitators to household members interacting with each other?

       How can you maintain focus on the main question without killing the
        discussion?

Some useful prompts:

       What do you mean with….
       Can you show us…..
       Can you explain/clarify this…..
       Would it help to draw this…
       Would it help to point out where exactly….
       Would you like to take us to the site where…..

Some do‟s and don‟ts:

       Take time to introduce purpose of the session and each other
       Focus on working with questions and exploring these
       Don‟t push for quick answers
       Don‟t monopolize the discussion
       Learn to sit with silence, don‟t fill it with talking
       Allow people time and space to think
       Invite people to respond to each other
       Do encourage silent, quiet, shy members to share their views
       Don‟t let the use of participatory tools overtake the interaction nor turn
        into an interrogation
       Reflect back regularly whether you understand people correctly
       Summarize and reflect back the main issues that were discussed before
        you close the session

Tools to choose from:
   1. Rich pictures
   2. Semi-structured interviewing
   3. Focus group discussions
   4. Transect walks & direct observation
   5. Participatory mapping & modeling
Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania                                    29
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29
    6. Seasonal calendars and activity profiles
    7. Rapid report writing

REPORT

Teams are expected to prepare a report describing and critically reflecting on:
   - process and content from each homestead visit
   - their own facilitation
   - the quality of interaction with households
   - the quality of interaction with each other before, during and after the
     visits, and
   - how the respective roles were fulfilled.

The report must include both narrative text as well as visualizations (rich pictures,
maps etc).

CONSOLIDATION AND SHARING OF RESULTS

Participants will form mixed field groups, and discuss and consolidate results into
a comprehensive situation analysis that provides insight into the four questions
posed and generate deeper understanding of the dynamics of the
communities they work with. Groups prepare an interactive presentation that
includes both text and visualizations.

The group will then need to agree how the outcomes of this exercise will be
presented and shared with farmers and other stakeholders.




Session 2 Training report 11-14 Mar 2004 Tanzania                                  30
FSG - MS 10/08/2010 21:29

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:13
posted:8/11/2010
language:English
pages:30