The one extreme: academic research

Academic research is very much dependent on institutional supply. Scientific researchers focus on gaps in the literature and/or where financial support can be mobilized. The end result is a report with recommendations on e.g. policies that have to be developed top-down. This process often lacks the link with societal needs on different layers.

First, on a demand level, the development of the research is often not focused on the actual local demand or need, missing an important opportunity to solve a pressing real-life societal issue.

Second, on the data collection level, research methodology is often determined by the researchers, without consulting ‘the people to be researched’ on what is ethically or culturally appropriate. With this, they risk inappropriate or low-quality research including desirability bias, lack of attendance or a limited response rate from the side of the research population, and other discrepancies.

Third, on an outcome level, data are often analysed by the researchers and turned into recommendations for institutional professionals. The research population (the ones ‘researched’) are often left behind without any insight in the final results and recommendations, which limits their ability to solve the issue. On the institutional level, these recommendations often end up on a shelf doomed to get dusty, as the management level is too busy to realize recommendations if at all funding or other resources are available to do so.

So who is the one and only winner, then? The literature! The gap in the literature was neatly filled up by the researcher. Literature, which in turn is only read by academic people who happen to understand the technical language. Who in turn come up with new research to fill a new gap that emerged and the cycle starts all over again.

“Imagine if alle these research projects done in the past were focused on actual, localized societal needs, and action emerging for this research would be directly realized by the local people. Wouldn’t the world look totally different?”

Participatory Action Research in particular, and especially in the form of the SevenSenses Challenge, addresses this issue on all levels mentioned above.

First, on the demand level, a Challenge always arises from a local demand to solve a common shared societal issue in a community, as opposed to a demand derived from a gap in literature or from a funding agency. This is how SevenSenses can release itself from the funding agency chain and operate independently, focusing on real-life social issues and change that matters.

Second, on the data collection level, Participatory Action Research is such an adaptive process, that even the research process itself is being co-determined with the local stakeholders. In a SevenSenses Challenge, the team works together with two researchers from the local community. They are not necessarily researchers with a diploma. They are people who know the community well, who know local cultural customs and traditions and who know what research methodology would be ethically appropriate. Together with these local researchers, based on your first informal findings in the field, you determine the final research methodology. As such, you get the best suited methodology for your PAR with the highest probability of active participation from the local people, and the most optimal, real-life, unbiased data.

Third, on the outcome level, there is a big difference between regular scientific research and Participatory Action Research. Regular scientific research generally ends with a research report for institutions. In Participatory Action Research the research results are presented to the community during the PAR process. The next step in PAR is to reflect on these results with the different stakeholders[1] involved and proceed towards co-creating solutions to the issue(s) addressed. Together with the local stakeholders you determine the conditions under which the locals can confidently realize the solutions and these solutions are implemented within the same PAR process. The research report then becomes more of a by-product, sharing experiences of the process.

The other extreme: practical outcome

Let’s place development aid on the other extreme end of the research – practical outcome scale. As stated before, since it’s very existence, development aid has mostly been practiced top-down, by people who decided ‘what was good for others’, as in: without consulting them first. Although nowadays much more participatory approaches are used in which locals decide what is best for themselves, the traditional mere top-down way is still practiced today worldwide, unfortunately.

Local Non-Governmental Organisations often have very limited staff capacity and are dependent on volunteers who may not always be as committed and knowledgeable as paid staff. With a high volunteer turnover, it is often hard to make proper progress on a project. The local community keeps seeing new people coming in; they may be tired of having to tell the entire story again and may face difficulties trusting the new volunteers on their skills, agenda and time. All this seriously impairs the quality of the development project.

Local NGOs also often lack funds for proper (action) research. Pushed by the –mostly short term oriented- goals of their funders, they often implement top-down designed projects without consulting the local community first. If the donor wants a primary school, they will build a primary school. If the donor wants an orphanage, there will be an orphanage. The before- and after pictures of such buildings are very popular, to show the public they have done ‘good’ for society. As such, the ‘rich’ decide what is good for the ‘poor’.[2] The effects can be disastrous, known as volunteerism or what I call ‘the orphanage syndrome’. These phenomena both are caused by the discrepancy between the interests of the ‘rich’ and the needs of the ‘poor’.

“The ‘orphanage syndrome’ is a phenomenon where development aid is driven by finances rather than societal needs. Unfortunately, there are many of these types of development projects, with hazardous effects on society.”

Through Participatory Action Research, a societal issue is properly researched with the local community before any solution gets implemented. As such, PAR is a holistic approach that takes into account cause-effect relations of the issue addressed, history, culture, social relations, the current versus the desired situation, the strengths and opportunities of the community, solutions to the issue as proposed by stakeholders, conditions under which these solutions can be put into practice and more. All these things take into account the different perspectives of all stakeholders. Only as such can we get a complete picture of the issue. When stakeholders understand this complete picture, four interesting things start to happen. First, stakeholders gain mutual understanding of other stakeholders’ perspectives and their corresponding behaviors. Second, as all stakeholders have provided information based on their knowledge, a process called social learning emerges in which they learn from each other, which enriches their knowledge of the issue. Third, new solutions arise as multiple solutions come to the surface and new connections are made between problems, assets and solutions. Fourth, as there is more transparency about problems, assets and solutions and new opportunities come to the surface, the willingness to cooperate to tackle the societal issue increases.

Through these four phenomena and presenting your results during your PAR process, a solid base is established upon which a project (the co-created solution to the societal issue) can be realized. This greatly reduces any chance of failure, on the level of 1) fulfilling societal needs, 2) cultural and ethical appropriateness of the solution, 3) equality (reducing the disadvantage of certain stakeholder groups and subsequent acts of envy) and 4) feasibility of the project.

Let’s get back to the mere top-down issue of practical outcome described earlier. A top-down approach is practically impossible in PAR. The opposite of the top-down approach is the bottom-up approach, which basically means that the ‘bottom’ of society -citizens- create solutions. PAR involves all stakeholders, including people from the ‘top’ and the ‘bottom’. I hope one day we will get rid of these terms, as they imply innate hierarchy, something by far not of our times anymore.

Bottom-up is a negative term, as it suggests that citizens are the riff-raff of society. For the above reasons, I would like to introduce the PAR approach as a ‘Community-Up approach’.

Community-up means the entire community, including citizens and governments and other ‘Top’ institutions, and all in between. The advantage of this community-up approach is that all stakeholders are involved in the co-creation of solutions, which creates that solid base I mentioned earlier, limiting the chance of failure to an absolute minimum.

Let’s also zoom in on the issue of NGO’s lacking manpower for proper research. This is where the Challenge concept comes in. The SevenSenses Challenge connects research capacity in the North with societal issues anywhere in the world. There are numerous students with great ambitions to finalise their study on an interesting societal issue overseas, or professionals who want to have more impact in society with their knowledge and skills. The Challenge concept connects the two. Through the SevenSenses Challenge, local NGOs do not have to hire expensive researchers for this PAR process. Challenge participants pay to join the SevenSenses Challenge and in return receive professional training and workshops in PAR, development aid, intercultural communication, and intensive one-on-one support in personal and professional development.

Then there is this endless struggle for NGOs regarding funding. They often lack funding and when there is money, the NGO is often squeezed between societal needs and the goals of the funding agency. Unfortunately the funding agency usually wins. SevenSenses only works with funding agencies that explicitly dare to let go of their specific goals and accept that the SevenSenses Challenge only focuses on societal needs as formulated by the local community as a whole. They also accept that solutions are co-created by that same community and only them, as local stakeholders of the societal issue. In other words, the funding agency accepts that at the start of the Challenge, the solution is yet unknown. They invest in the PAR process; the fact that the co-created solution is often a fraction of the budget that would be required in case of a top-down project, is an added bonus and a happy surprise for the local NGO as well as the funding agency.

Through the Challenge concept, SevenSenses aims to create a worldwide reduction of dependency on traditional paternalistic western aid. The term ‘western aid’ is terribly old-fashioned and people in the developing countries (also a terribly outdated word) are sick and tired of all the paternalistic ‘help’ –read: interference- of ‘the rich’. Applying PAR in as many places as possible should generate enough empowerment of local people to tackle societal issues with local means, manpower, talent and all other things that are abundantly available at location. From there, this will likely work as a metaphoric ‘vaccine’ (vaccinated people protect the unvaccinated): the empowered people empower the ones not (yet) empowered.

So, the entire SevenSenses Challenge Programme is designed especially with the aim of tackling the issues mentioned above, up to the tiniest details. Read here what it consists of.

The post Why Participatory Action Research education programmes in the form of a SevenSenses Challenge appeared first on SevenSenses.

Mijn zoon kan al een tijdje op het potje. Hij is net twee jaar geworden. Hij vindt het fantastisch en we gieren wat af tijdens zijn ‘pipi & popo’! Toch krijg ik regelmatig reacties dat dit raar is (“veel te vroeg!”), en dat ik hem gewoon in zijn luier zijn ding moet laten doen. Vooral toen ik ermee begon toen hij 1 jaar en 3 maanden was — toen hij nog weleens een ongelukje had. Alsof ik te veel van hem vraag. Alsof hij dat nog niet kán.

Ik gun mijn zoon de waardigheid van de pipi en popo op het potje, dus ja: dat was een van de redenen dat ik er bewust voor gekozen heb hem dat al vroeg aan te bieden. Hij maakt er dankbaar en trots gebruik van. Gevolg: een blij kind, een droge broek en een moeder die niet kokhalst bij het wegschrobben van aangekoekte poep op de billen. En dan heb ik het nog niet eens over de kosten- en afvalbesparing.

Het doet me steeds weer denken aan de manier waarop we — vanuit organisaties zoals gemeentes, welzijnsorganisaties en NGO’s — vaak met mensen omgaan. De volwassen versie, zeg maar.

Er wordt nog zo vaak gedacht dat mensen niet zelf op het potje kunnen. Nee, wíj moeten hun luiers verschonen. “We moeten het vóór hen doen, niet met hen.” “We moeten hen niet eens laten weten dat het potje bestaat, want dan scheppen we valse verwachtingen.” “Wat als ze falen? Wat als ze in hun broek plassen?”

En ergens snap ik die reflex. Het is veiliger om de luier te laten zitten. Minder gedoe. Minder risico op ‘ongelukjes’. Minder kans dat iemand zegt: “Hé, maar ik kan dit zelf — mag ik meedoen?”

Maar precies daar, in dat spanningsveld tussen controle en vertrouwen, gebeurt iets interessants.

Want wat ik zie bij mijn zoon, is dit: hij leert niet omdat ik het perfect aanbied. Hij leert omdat hij mag proberen. Omdat hij mag ontdekken. Omdat een ‘ongelukje’ geen falen is. Omdat hij voelt: dit is van mij.

En is dat niet precies waar participatief actieonderzoek — PAO — over gaat?

Niet over het perfecte plan vooraf. Niet over het voorkomen van elk risico. Maar over samen onderzoeken. Samen proberen. Samen leren. Over het durven aanbieden van het potje, zonder de garantie dat het meteen goed gaat.

In veel organisaties zijn we nog geneigd om de kennis, de oplossing en zelfs de verandering zelf te ‘bezitten’. Alsof die organisaties de enigen zijn die weten waar het toilet is, hoe het werkt en wanneer het tijd is om te gaan. Terwijl de essentie van PAO juist is dat kennis ontstaat in de interactie. In het doen. In het soms nét mis mikken.

En ja, dat is rommeliger. Er zijn ongelukjes. Er is twijfel. En hier en daar wat geknoei.

Maar er is ook iets anders: eigenaarschap. Trots. Waardigheid.

Mijn zoon klimt na zijn pipi of popo op de wc om op ‘de grote knop’ te drukken, draait zich dan om, kijkt me aan met een blik die zegt: “Kijk eens wat ik kan”, en springt met een ‘hoeraaaaa!’ in mijn armen. En elke keer denk ik: ja, dit dus! Hij mocht het zelf ontdekken.

Laat dat nou de uitnodiging zijn die onder dit verhaal ligt.

Waar in jouw werk, jouw organisatie, jouw systeem… houden we nog krampachtig de luier vast? En wat zou er gebeuren als we — voorzichtig, speels, misschien een beetje onwennig — het potje gewoon eens neerzetten?

Zonder belofte van perfectie. Maar met vertrouwen in wat er kan ontstaan.

Ik ben benieuwd: waar zie jij het eerste kleine ‘potje-moment’ verschijnen?

The post Het potje, de luier en de illusie van controle appeared first on SevenSenses.

Action research in the L-Flat, one of the largest gallery flats in Western Europe

Many initiatives have emerged from the action research in the L-Flat in Zeist, but none have tackled as many (mis)assumptions as the community center initiative. From the interviews we – two action researchers from 7Senses and seven employees from the municipality of Zeist – conducted with residents of the L-Flat, it often emerged that these teenage boys, while ‘hanging out’ near the entrances, cause a lot of nuisance. The boys themselves find it particularly annoying that their gatherings are seen as a nuisance, and like many residents, they suggest that a community center could solve this problem in one fell swoop. The boys would have a place to gather, and the residents would no longer be bothered by them near the entrances.

The community center initiative: the initial sketch

During the first focus group with the boys and Souad from the welfare organization Meander Omnium, Wil and I shared the results of the action research so far: the problems mentioned in the interviews, but also the good things, the opportunities, and the directions for solutions. We asked the boys what the most important solution was for them. They all agreed unanimously, in chorus: “THE COMMUNITY CENTER!”
Together, we looked at the talents of the youth group and how such a community center would ideally look according to them. Firstly, I noticed how many talents and other good things the boys were able to mention about themselves and their friend group. Secondly – after the boys had drawn their ideal community center – I noticed how little the boys actually need for a cool community center. As an outsider, you quickly think of a large building with multiple rooms and all sorts of amenities. The boys drew two rooms, one for the boys and one for the girls. A couch, a PlayStation, and a small kitchenette for both rooms were sufficient for the boys. Oh, and a camera, “because if something happens, we want the camera to be able to tell what happened.”

Brainstorm: what is needed for the community center?

Then, we discussed with the boys what steps were needed to realize a community center. I was surprised by the enormous collective knowledge of these boys – aged 13 to 17. They were able to determine flawlessly what needed to happen and which buildings could possibly be transformed into a community center. They also knew who they needed for the next steps. “We need to ask the district manager which of these buildings are available.” With a question to me:

“Ma’am, can we do another focus group, this time with the district manager?”

“Of course!” I said, happily surprised by this assertive move. The boys left the focus group, and a few minutes later, Wil and I came out, ready to go home contentedly. There, we met one of the aldermen, who was doing his rounds in the neighborhood to campaign for his party (it was two days before the elections). I didn’t know him, but Wil did, of course, as a colleague. I shook the alderman’s hand, to which he said:
“I just met that group of boys. What have you done with them?! I’ve never seen such a positive atmosphere around them!”

New focus group with the district manager and municipality

And so, the following week, we gathered again. This time with the district manager and some people from the municipality who were also in the know. Apart from some awkward giggling here and there, I noticed how professionally and respectfully the boys sat in the focus group. There was discussion back and forth, and at the end of the focus group, a location was determined, and new action points were established! While tidying up, one of the boys came up to me:

“Ma’am, can we talk to the neighborhood police officer next week? We would like to work with the police to establish the right rules and see how we can keep crime out.”

My mouth fell open in amazement. The boys who are said to regularly have not-so-good encounters with the police – and yes, I am aware that they are being painted with a broad brush here – are now taking the initiative to consult with the police to prevent things from going wrong.

…And then the police came

A week later, we sat down with the neighborhood police officer, the district manager, Meander Omnium, and of course, the boys themselves to follow up on the outcomes of the previous week. Because the neighborhood police officer had not previously participated in the action research, I briefly explained what action research entails. Arms crossed, a critical gaze. Throughout that focus group, I noticed he thawed, but it wasn’t because of my clumsy explanation of the project. It was the boys who were very professional here, and thus, a remarkably respectful conversation ensued! The neighborhood police officer even asked, a bit out of the blue:

“How old are you guys?! It seems like I’m talking to a bunch of adults!”

Ideas were exchanged about the location, plans were made to keep crime out, and concrete actions were taken to get closer to the community center step by step. At the end of the focus group, there were the commendable words from the neighborhood police officer and the district manager, expressing their pride in the boys for the way they handled things.

At the end of the focus group, Ismael came up to me.

“Ma’am, can we give a PowerPoint presentation about our plans for the community center at the final meeting?”

For a moment, I thought I hadn’t heard correctly, but soon I realized I was once again plagued by an assumption. This assumption was expertly smothered by Ismael’s question. Delighted and a bit too enthusiastic, I replied: “But of course, that would be great that you want to do that!” I have attended many great focus groups, but rarely have I walked out as exhilarated as I did from this one. This is why I love my job so much!

The end of the action research – the beginning of many great things

On April 10, 2018, it happened. The ‘restart meeting’ of our action research. The whole action research team had been working hard towards this for the past two months. We would present the results of the action research to the residents and other stakeholders, discuss with them the plans made so far, and hand over the initiatives that were ready to the initiators. This was to conclude our action research and as a ‘kick-off’ for the many wonderful initiatives that arose during this action research.

The principal of ‘Op Dreef’ primary school made her auditorium and classrooms available for the various breakout sessions on each theme. Soon, the school was filled up, an attendance that far exceeded our expectations. The boys were also there early, sitting coolly on the steps in the auditorium. Colleague Barry from the municipality received a comment from someone:

“Those troublemaking youths are here, they don’t belong here!” Barry responded – calm as can be – “Oh yes, they do, they are the initiators of the community center and are going to give a presentation here about their plans.” BAM! Another assumption brutally tackled.

Unfortunately, I wasn’t at the boys’ breakout session because I was leading another one, but I understood from Wil, the boys, and other involved parties that it was a very cool session. The boys gave a TOP presentation, the first two directors of the community center board – Anne Jan Odinga from Meander Omnium and Wil Verbiezen from the municipality of Zeist – were appointed, and new connections were made for collaboration. Goal: on October 10, 2018, six months after this meeting, the opening of the community center! All of this was communicated back to the public after the breakout sessions, and as if it was nothing at such a young age, the boys took the microphone to thank us, the municipality, and other stakeholders for their support.

Onwards to a cool community center in October!

A week after the meeting, the boys checked a potential building for the community center for fire safety with the fire department. And as we speak, the boys are busy with the municipality, Meander Omnium, and other stakeholders to realize this community center. The road to a community center is not easy, but seeing how the boys are stepping up now, with the support of the people around them, I have every confidence that there will be a community center on October 10! That date is already marked in my calendar. I’ll be at the grand opening!

Interested in action research in your municipality, where such cool initiatives can arise? Take a look at this page for the options.

The post The neighborhood initiative of the L-Flat: how action research tackles assumptions appeared first on SevenSenses.

As an action researcher, you’re actually not concerned with this issue because in such a process, the same population determines the form and execution of a project. So, you don’t need to get them on board because they are already participating, driven by their own intrinsic motivation. After all, it’s their own project!

Is your problem also their problem?

As the starting point of any action research, we first determine with the various stakeholders how they define the problem or situation. Sometimes that means that as a municipality, you have to choose a different starting point. Exciting, but worth it!

An example.

I remember well that a client wanted to protect sharks from extinction around the Dutch municipality of Saba (in the Caribbean). However, especially the local fishermen turned out to dislike sharks! Attempts such as distributing leaflets explaining the importance of sharks were unsuccessful. Sharks are troublesome creatures for them: they eat their fish and ruin their fish traps. Therefore, the starting point became the marine ecosystem instead of the sharks. A broader topic, where various stakeholders – including the fishermen – had much more space to indicate what they considered important. Eventually, this led to beautiful initiatives that indirectly protect the sharks (and the marine ecosystem as a whole)! If I had kept hammering on those sharks, I am sure nothing would have come of it. Also, in an action research in the L-Flat in Zeist, we chose a different starting point: from the waste problem defined by the municipality to the “living happiness” chosen by the residents (where the waste problem is part of). You can read about how that action research went here.

Exploring perspectives: there’s so much more!

The next step in action research is to explore the perspectives of the stakeholders on the subject. What causes and consequences do they see? What is the ideal situation according to them? What initiatives have been carried out in the past on this problem, and what was the effect? What is the role of the various parties, and how is their relationship? What is already going well in the community, what is abundant, what are the successes from the past, in any area? What talents and resources are already available? And most importantly… What solution directions do the different stakeholders propose? Taking the time to explore this thoroughly is a huge advantage over drawing conclusions from your desk or a quick residents’ meeting. You not only build a relationship with the residents but also learn much more important information that is crucial for project success! This (and the next) is where citizen participation gets a whole different dynamic. Or, can we still call it citizen participation?!

Reflecting on the outcomes with the stakeholders: a feast of recognition and
understanding!

As an action researcher, you analyze all the information you have received from the stakeholders. Then you create a visually clear overview of the total. The next step is the action where you as a municipality can make a difference, which is actually surprisingly simple – or almost too logical: you share those results with the stakeholders. You can do this, for example, in focus group-like meetings. This gives them the opportunity to first recognize their own perspective in those results. Secondly, it gives them the opportunity to understand the perspectives (and thus the behavior and choices) of other stakeholders.
Then you determine together with them which set of solution directions is the best combination to improve the system as a whole. This way, everyone gets the chance to contribute in their own way to the greater whole (the system), which ultimately yields beautiful results for everyone! For example, the fishermen on Saba came up with a way to fish more sustainably for red snapper, which further balances the marine ecosystem – benefiting the sharks, among others: more fish = more to eat!

The next step is the action where you as a municipality can make the difference, which is actually surprisingly simple – or almost too logical: you share those results with the stakeholders. This gives them the opportunity to first recognize their own perspective in those results. Secondly, it gives them the opportunity to understand the perspectives (and thus the behavior and choices) of other stakeholders.

And what else contributes to the motivation of stakeholders?

During the later stages of action research – as solution directions become more concrete – you as an action researcher can move on to exploring the stakeholders’ prerequisites for making it a success. What do they need? This is, of course, very specific to each project. However, there are some more general factors that ensure that each stakeholder can contribute to the success of a project from intrinsic motivation. Here are a few:

• Pride: the activity increases his or her sense of self-worth;
• Dignity: the activity increases his or her sense of autonomy, independence, and competence;
• Identity: the activity is carried out by the right person (the one experiencing the problem);
• Control: he or she has a sense of control over: 1) the necessities (he/she can easily access them), 2) decisions (he/she can participate in decision-making), and 3) activities (he/she has the capacity to do it);
• Responsibility: he or she feels responsible for his/her tasks;
• Unity: he or she feels empowered and supported by the group he/she works with. Celebrating the first successes – however small – can strengthen this sense of unity.
• Place: he or she carries out his/her tasks in a safe, non-threatening environment;
• Location: the activity takes place in a location where he or she feels connected.

All these factors contribute to people genuinely enjoying contributing. And that’s where the motivation comes from!

Motivating without motivating

Together with stakeholders, you can explore which (the above and/or other) factors are at play and how they can optimize those factors together. If you notice that a stakeholder is losing motivation, you can look back at these factors. What is he or she missing? Has something been overlooked? Then it is very important, for example, as a municipality, to have a dialogue with the stakeholders about this. In action research, and your role as a municipality remains that of a facilitator, and the residents stay in the driver’s seat. This way, as a municipality, you make the transition from focusing on citizen participation to focusing on government participation. Citizens motivate each other, and the municipality jumps in where necessary. Or, in other words, motivation without motivating!

The post Citizen participation: how to motivate people without motivating them appeared first on SevenSenses.

1. Design your focus group beforehand by creating a program with components that gradually lead to the goal of your focus group. Allow invited guests to contribute ideas. Prepare well, but also be open to improvisation! Often, we think we’ve created a wonderful program in advance, only to find that the actual needs of the group lie elsewhere. Therefore, try not to stick too rigidly to your program (and the times), but instead be flexible and improvise if the group’s needs change.
2. Share your results! Ensure that you visualize the results of the PAR in such a way that participants gain a clear understanding and overview. This forms the basis for the co-creation process! Allow room for participants to make additions or changes. Don’t worry if you feel that some information is missing in your visualization! Put a question mark there, inviting participants to provide additional input.
3. Maintain an open, non-judgmental attitude. As a facilitator of the focus group, maintain an open, non-judgmental attitude throughout the entire session so that participants feel comfortable sharing their ideas. Stay curious about their ideas, ask questions, and communicate from genuine interest. Rejecting ideas (even if done kindly) is unacceptable! Trust that the group will filter out the best ideas, you don’t need to do that for them.
4. Facilitate “aha” moments for your participants. Give participants the opportunity to make discoveries about the problem themselves. This is also known as ‘analyzing with participants’. By allowing them, for example, to make associations between different components of your results, they will experience ‘aha’ moments, leading to more enthusiasm and ownership over the new ideas that emerge. These are important building blocks for motivating groups of people to work together!
5. No debate or discussion – with losers – but dialogue – with winners. In a debate, the one who ‘shouts’ the loudest or has the most convincing arguments often ‘wins’. This means there are always many losers who go home disappointed. This is deadly for motivation! As action researchers, we don’t facilitate debate or discussion, but dialogue. In dialogue, we all open ourselves to each other’s ideas and build on them. Everyone has a share in the end result, so participants are all ‘winners’. Be vigilant as a facilitator for signs of potential discussion and guide participants back to dialogue.
6. Make agreements. At the end of the focus group session, make concrete agreements with the participants. Usually, after a single focus group, there is not yet a concrete action plan, so another focus group session is necessary. Agree on a date, place, and time with those interested and write down the names and contact information of the participants who want to participate. Invite new participants if necessary or ask participants to bring along any interested parties.
7. Close positively. A focus group can sometimes be quite burdensome, especially when dealing with long-standing issues or problems that people are greatly affected by. Depending on the purpose of your focus group (which in turn depends on the stage of the PAR you are in), this could involve collectively visualizing the ideal situation, prioritizing the best solution directions, or using a positive energizer. If people leave with a positive feeling, they are likely to feel the energy and motivation to come again – and when the action plan is ready, to get started with it!
8. Enjoy the focus group! Last but not least: don’t forget to enjoy yourself! I often see facilitators very nervous before a focus group, and I also sometimes get quite nervous. In those moments, don’t forget the following two things. Firstly, bringing people together constructively around an issue (who might never have come together otherwise) is already a step in the right direction. You’ve already won that! Secondly, I notice in practice that if you can radiate confidence in the process, in yourself, and especially in your participants, it has an enormously positive effect on the atmosphere in the group and the outcomes. Your own enthusiasm – for example, when you hear a new idea from participants – is contagious. So, even if it’s your first time leading a focus group: have confidence, radiate, smile, and enjoy it!

Want to know more? In our methodology section, you will find the ‘focus groups’ method, where you can learn all about facilitating focus groups. The Participatory Action Research handbook, written by 7Senses founder Madelon Eelderink, which was published in January 2020, describes in detail how to conduct focus groups at different stages of your Participatory Action Research. You can order the book here.

The post Co-create TOP action plans! 8 Tips for facilitating focus groups in Participatory Action Research (PAR) appeared first on SevenSenses.

Top-down

Organizations in the municipal domain are accustomed to operating top-down. Solutions are developed based on expertise within these organizations, which are then offered or imposed on society. The problem with this approach is that the expertise present in society – for example, regarding the living environment – is not utilized. Nowadays, issues have become so complex that this expertise is indispensable.

Bottom-up

In an attempt to actively involve society, there is an increasing focus on bottom-up approaches. Society itself takes action and can effectively utilize its expertise. However, the disadvantage is that the expertise brought by organizations is no longer utilized. The role of organizations generally remains limited to facilitating the process. As a result, alongside bottom-up processes, organizations continue with their top-down approach, often leading to friction in practice.

Community-up

The solution lies in moving from either-or to both-and. Expertise is utilized from both sides. Professionals from involved organizations and people from society jointly develop and implement plans. This is what’s called community-up. Based on equality, all parties discover in a co-creation process how their perspectives reinforce each other and how each party can contribute a piece to the overall puzzle.

Common Misconceptions

Working community-up is really different from what we’re used to. However, many people look at community-up from their existing way of working, which often leads to misconceptions. Here are some common misconceptions:

“Community-up is another word for bottom-up.”
No. With community-up, “top” and “bottom” are both involved and jointly develop solutions. There is shared ownership of projects in which each party contributes a clearly defined contribution.

“Community-up means residents come up with a plan, and then the municipality foots the bill.”
No. With community-up, all involved parties jointly devise a solution and are collectively responsible from start to finish. This includes arranging any necessary budget.
Often, the municipality has the most financial resources. If these are used through a community-up process, it’s because the municipality participates in the co-creation process and discovers how their resources can be deployed in a way that optimally aligns with municipal objectives.

“With community-up, you gather needs from residents so you can better help them.”
No. With community-up, you’re not helping people. Instead, you enable residents and municipal employees, along with network partners, to discover how they can jointly develop solutions for (challenging) issues in society. Residents and organizations align their respective objectives and discover how they can reinforce each other.

“Community-up in disadvantaged neighborhoods is not realistic. Residents in difficult circumstances cannot be expected to collectively address a problem.”
No. The best way to overcome difficult circumstances is to contribute to them yourself. We have repeatedly experienced worldwide that communities have enormous power, even in challenging circumstances. It is our belief that by excluding residents from the process, the problems persist.

Fundamentally Different Way of Working

Many processes within municipalities are based on debate, while dialogue is needed for co-creation. Being open to each other’s ideas and connecting them requires an equal stance.
Additionally, many existing processes focus on maintaining control. A course is set, after which everything is geared towards maintaining that course. Co-creation requires letting go and allowing space for achieving common goals in different ways. Steering becomes more indirect: less focus on concrete output and more focus on “wholeness”, the effective functioning of the interplay between all parties.

New Opportunities in a Complex World

Issues in the municipal domain are becoming increasingly complex. To address them effectively, input from both municipalities and society is necessary. In practice, the system world of municipalities and their network partners and the lifeworld of people in society do not align well.

Community-up offers new opportunities precisely at this point. Community-up reconnects the system world and the lifeworld. By jointly exploring how a particular issue can be approached, the expertise from both worlds is used and brought together into an integrated approach in which both system parties and people from society play a role.

Because everyone is involved in the thinking process, solutions arise that individual parties would never have thought of. And because everyone contributes to the solution, all stakeholders feel ownership. That sense of ownership is the best predictor of sustainable impact!

The post Community-up: the third way for solutions in the social domain appeared first on SevenSenses.

Naast de informatie op de pagina hoor je in deze video antwoorden op de meest gestelde vragen.

The post FAQ: PAR Practitioners Programma appeared first on SevenSenses.

Misschien herken je het wel: je hebt met een groep een gave brainstorm gehad en mooie acties bedacht om een probleem te tackelen. Dan gaat iedereen naar huis en blijft de actie uit… Dit stadium van Formalisatie & Overdracht in PAO is dé brug tussen actieplan co-creatie en de uitvoering ervan, en zorgt voor maximaal gevoel van eigenaarschap en bestaansrecht van het actieplan, waardoor acties ook écht uitgevoerd gaan worden. Hoe vul jij dit stadium in? Succes en veel plezier bij de viering

Meer weten? Bestel het Handboek Participatief Actieonderzoek.

Wil je het ontwerpen van PAO en de uitvoering ervan écht in de vingers krijgen? Doe dan mee met het PAR Practitioners Programma!

SevenSenses Tutorials

In de SevenSenses Tutorials nemen we je in korte, krachtige video’s mee in de wereld van Participatief Actieonderzoek (PAO) en gerelateerde methoden, die inspiratie bieden voor het op gang brengen van de aanpak van complexe problemen mét de mensen om wie het gaat.

Elke tutorial zoomt in op een concreet thema, proces-stadium, praktijkvoorbeeld of veelgestelde vraag — zodat jij direct inspiratie opdoet die je in jouw eigen werk kunt toepassen. De voorbeelden komen uit uiteenlopende projecten, maar de inzichten zijn breed inzetbaar, of je nu werkt in zorg, onderwijs, natuurbeheer, wijkontwikkeling of beleid.

Geen A tot Z cursus, maar wél een serie bomvol praktische tips, frisse ideeën en herkenbare situaties. Zo kun je stap voor stap ontdekken of en hoe PAO jou kan helpen om samenwerking op gang te brengen tussen alle partijen die ertoe doen.

Wil je verder dan alleen inspiratie, en ook echt de fijne kneepjes van PAO leren beheersen? Kijk dan eens naar ons PAR Practitioners Programma — dé intensieve training waarin je leert om participatief actieonderzoek succesvol toe te passen in je eigen praktijk.

The post SevenSenses Tutorials: Formalisatie & Overdracht appeared first on SevenSenses.

Al het harde voorwerk komt nu prachtig samen en betrokkenen leggen samen de puzzel met als resultaat: een set actieplannen met goede samenhang, die elkaar versterken en het complexe vraagstuk bij álle wortels aanpakt. Een feest om dit te faciliteren, al zeggen we het zelf.

Meer weten? Bestel het Handboek Participatief Actieonderzoek.

Wil je het ontwerpen van PAO en de uitvoering ervan écht in de vingers krijgen? Doe dan mee met het PAR Practitioners Programma!

SevenSenses Tutorials

In de SevenSenses Tutorials nemen we je in korte, krachtige video’s mee in de wereld van Participatief Actieonderzoek (PAO) en gerelateerde methoden, die inspiratie bieden voor het op gang brengen van de aanpak van complexe problemen mét de mensen om wie het gaat.

Elke tutorial zoomt in op een concreet thema, proces-stadium, praktijkvoorbeeld of veelgestelde vraag — zodat jij direct inspiratie opdoet die je in jouw eigen werk kunt toepassen. De voorbeelden komen uit uiteenlopende projecten, maar de inzichten zijn breed inzetbaar, of je nu werkt in zorg, onderwijs, natuurbeheer, wijkontwikkeling of beleid.

Geen A tot Z cursus, maar wél een serie bomvol praktische tips, frisse ideeën en herkenbare situaties. Zo kun je stap voor stap ontdekken of en hoe PAO jou kan helpen om samenwerking op gang te brengen tussen alle partijen die ertoe doen.

Wil je verder dan alleen inspiratie, en ook echt de fijne kneepjes van PAO leren beheersen? Kijk dan eens naar ons PAR Practitioners Programma — dé intensieve training waarin je leert om participatief actieonderzoek succesvol toe te passen in je eigen praktijk.

The post SevenSenses Tutorials: Actieplan Co-creatie: faciliteer groepen in het maken van actieplannen die écht het verschil maken appeared first on SevenSenses.

Spoiler: ja. Het maakt alle verschil! In deze tutorial ontdek je waarom het zó belangrijk is om eerst de behoefte scherp te krijgen, vóór je naar oplossingen springt. En hoe dat leidt tot oplossingen die niet alleen slimmer en innovatiever zijn, maar vooral: meer gedragen en coöperatief!

Meer weten? Bestel het Handboek Participatief Actieonderzoek.

Wil je het ontwerpen van PAO en de uitvoering ervan écht in de vingers krijgen? Doe dan mee met het PAR Practitioners Programma!

SevenSenses Tutorials

In de SevenSenses Tutorials nemen we je in korte, krachtige video’s mee in de wereld van Participatief Actieonderzoek (PAO) en gerelateerde methoden, die inspiratie bieden voor het op gang brengen van de aanpak van complexe problemen mét de mensen om wie het gaat.

Elke tutorial zoomt in op een concreet thema, proces-stadium, praktijkvoorbeeld of veelgestelde vraag — zodat jij direct inspiratie opdoet die je in jouw eigen werk kunt toepassen. De voorbeelden komen uit uiteenlopende projecten, maar de inzichten zijn breed inzetbaar, of je nu werkt in zorg, onderwijs, natuurbeheer, wijkontwikkeling of beleid.

Geen A tot Z cursus, maar wél een serie bomvol praktische tips, frisse ideeën en herkenbare situaties. Zo kun je stap voor stap ontdekken of en hoe PAO jou kan helpen om samenwerking op gang te brengen tussen alle partijen die ertoe doen.

Wil je verder dan alleen inspiratie, en ook echt de fijne kneepjes van PAO leren beheersen? Kijk dan eens naar ons PAR Practitioners Programma — dé intensieve training waarin je leert om participatief actieonderzoek succesvol toe te passen in je eigen praktijk.

The post SevenSenses Tutorials: Behoefte of oplossing? Het verschil dat het verschil maakt appeared first on SevenSenses.