Nederlands, graag!

Last year I excitedly started the Ecosystem Restoration Design Course on Earth Day. Well, now that it has finished I’m even more excited! First and foremost because it made me realize how incredibly easy it can be to ignite restoration of natural ecosystems and let nature do the rest. I don’t need to be a biologist, nor an engineer to give nature a little nudge to restore itself. I joined the course with my Participatory Action Research (PAR) glasses on as I’m curious to see how PAR can contribute to restoring ecosystems and what that would look like. In this first blog I share my thoughts on how to get locals ‘on board’ of your ecosystem restoration project.

“It’s hard to get locals on board!”

The teachers – ecosystem restorers- often speak about the difficulty of getting the local community ‘on board’. They share tips such as: be humble, immerse yourself in the local culture, gain their trust, be transparent and tell them why it is important what you are doing. Although I do agree with most of their tips, I do feel there is something important missing here. It predominantly starts from the idea that local people have to join ‘our’ restoration project – in the form of volunteering, helping to protect the area or at least accepting our work in their area. But in my experience, most people don’t want to join other people’s project, they want to join their own project! Don’t get me wrong, I’ve seen some projects where local people with time really started to gain a sense of ownership over the project, but I believe we need a different starting point to increase this sense of ownership.

Let go of YOUR plan

Here it may get a little tricky and if you have your project design ready and are super eager and motivated to start immediately, you may not want to read it (I suggest you stop reading this blog here, then). What I strongly believe is that the best and most intense sense of ownership among local people is achieved when you get at location without any specific plan. To let go of your ideas on what should be done when and where and how. To first immerse yourself in the area, join the local community activities, just BE there. Have informal conversations with people about their lives, and what gets them up every day. Once you feel you have a basic relation of trust with people, you can start having more in-depth conversations (or interviews if you may want to call it so) about what the area means to them and what challenges they face in using the area (for whatever that may be). What they would like to change for the better. You get to learn so much from locals in what works and what doesn’t, and in my experience, on top of that, people are way more open to your intentions and ideas once they first have been able to share theirs.

Let them co-create their plans

But even then, as a PAR Practitioner, you don’t explicitly share YOUR ideas (yet). You bring all the knowledge and perspectives -gained from your conversations with involved people- (anonymously) together and add yours (also anonymously) only where you feel it contributes to the total body of knowledge. You can do so by making one or more visualisations that reflect their ‘shared truth’. Next, you invite them to reflect on those visualisations together, fill in missing pieces of information, let them draw conclusions and brainstorm on what actions to take. What happens next is always so fascinating to me: when you allow them to do this together, they build upon each other’s ideas and come up with action plans that I (and them individually) would have never thought of! Although your initial plan may look different now, I am sure you can still achieve your goals to restore the ecosystem. But now with people who want to help right from the start because they feel it is also their project!

Courage + patience = ownership!

So, the title of this blog is a little misleading. To me, there’s no such thing as ‘getting locals on board of your project’. What would happen, if you want to restore an ecosystem and you can co-create action plans together with the local community, in which you can still do what you intended to do, yet it is conglomerated and merged with the ideas of the locals? Ideas over which they feel ownership and over which they feel intrinsic motivation to make it a success? It may require some courage to let go of your initial plan and some patience as you can’t start restoring the ecosystem immediately, but I would suggest to anyone who’s in the starting blocks of restoring a piece of land: if you dare, try it out!

Want to get trained in PAR first? Check out the different trainings we offer at the SevenSenses Academy. Or click here for a ‘quick and dirty’ description of the different PAR stages to go through in a typical PAR. Prefer something in between? Order the Handbook Participatory Action Research written by SevenSenses founder Madelon Eelderink (in Dutch).

There’s more blogs following up on PAR for ecosystem restoration design. Want to be the first to know once the next blog is published? Subscribe for SevenSenses stories! Add your email in the footer of this page and click ‘yup, I’m in’!

The post Ecosystem restorers: here’s how to get locals ‘on board’ appeared first on SevenSenses.

People often ask me, “How do I get people motivated to participate in my project?” “How do I create support?” I wish I could give them a magical answer, one like, “oh just do this and then you’ll have them. Delightful, it seems to me. Unfortunately, the reality is different. First of all, people often don’t want to participate in someone else’s project, they mainly want to participate in something of their own. And that’s where it starts. So we have to put energy into making the project “feel its own”. Or better: making the project our own. We can achieve this with Participatory Action Research (PAR).

By applying the basic principles of PAR, we gradually build up the sense of ownership among PAR participants during the PAR process. That ownership can be seen as the feeling that something is “yours,” something for which you feel responsibility and for which you are intrinsically motivated to become active. In practice, you often see that those involved do not get moving because they are ‘ordered’ to do a project or solution that does not feel like theirs. This in itself is not surprising: those involved generally do not want to participate in someone else’s project, they want to participate in their own project! We have to build up that sense of ownership in order to get people to actually start their desired change in a sustainable way. Below are a number of important building blocks of ownership, all of which should receive as much attention as possible in a PAR.

Being heard. The first building block for ownership is, as a participant, being able to express your own perspective to one or more persons -PAR practitioners- who listen from genuine interest and facilitate you in this. For example, it gives -at the beginning of the PAR- recognition of the problem but contributes throughout the PAR process to the feeling of ownership. So, as a PAR practitioner, make sure you continue to listen actively throughout the entire PAR process.

Recognizing your own perspective. A second building block follows once the PAR practitioner shares the initial PAR results, during the ‘Insights Sharing & Solution Identification’ stage. When you’ve displayed this well, participants recognize their perspective in it and see the broader context in which their perspective is embedded. This recognition of one’s own perspective is an important affirmation “that it is allowed to be there” and thus contributes to a sense of commitment and ownership over the situation to be changed. So, as a PAR practitioner, make sure that you get a good picture of participants’ perspectives and allow participants to reflect on them and make additions.

Feeling strenghtened by others. In addition to recognizing your own perspective in the results, the feeling that you are not alone in this is an important building block. In the joint reflection on the results with the participants in a group you get this going. Knowing that others experience the same problem -recognition of the problem- and being able to reflect on this with them is therefore also an important building block for ownership. As a PAR practitioner, therefore, make sure that participants can speak out to each other.

Shared insights. Experiencing eye-openers, ‘aha’ and ‘eureka’ moments together, or discovering something you didn’t know before gives the feeling of ownership an enormous boost. This discovery belongs to the participants and they will appropriate it. This gives new energy and motivation to tackle the situation at hand. During joint analysis with participants at the stage of Insights Sharing & Solution Identification, as a PAR practitioner you give participants the opportunity to make new discoveries themselves.

Choosing together. In a PAR, participants establish a shared ambition in which the new insights are embedded. As a PAR practitioner, you facilitate participants in clarifying the desired situation and shared ambition based on their insights gained. Then, they make their choices together for -in addition to the PAR process- the directions for solutions and the form and content of the action plan. This is one of the most important building blocks of ownership. Participants prioritize and choose (that is, not the PAR person), so it belongs to them. This building block is most prominent at the Insights Sharing & Solution Identification stage, when participants make choices together regarding solution direction(s). As a PAR practitioner, clearly show that they -not you- are making the choices.

Empowering each other. Knowing that what you are doing has a positive influence on the bigger picture that benefits others and vice versa can be enormously motivating. This makes everything you do extra valuable and therefore very useful! That is why it is important for PAR practitioners to understand where solutions and actions reinforce each other. This building block is applicable from the moment solution directions are chosen, i.e. at the stage of Action Plan Co-creation and beyond.

Building a solution together. If, as a PAR participant, you yourself experience the process of building a solution direction into a concrete action plan, nothing is “new” or “uncharted territory” anymore. You influence the co-creation process and recognize all the elements of the action plan. It gets into your blood, so to speak. Therefore, this is one of the most important building blocks of ownership and takes place mainly at the Action Plan Co-creation stage. As a PAR practitioner, you facilitate the participants in building the solution direction together into a concrete action plan and make it clear that, as a PAR practitioenr, you are not co-building yourself.

Formality. Once the result of a nice action plan is there and participants are proud of the result, the next boost for ownership is that this action plan is made formal in one way or another: “it is there and it is really ours!”. This gives the action plan a sense of existence. This takes place at the Formalization & Transfer stage and can be done in many different ways; what is important is that as a PAR practitioner you let participants decide which way of formalization suits them best.

Appreciation. An important building block that is often overlooked is appreciation. Participants are proud of the resulting action plan and like to see that confirmed by appreciation, in whatever form, from the right person or persons. Apart from the appreciation that you as PAR practitioner express throughout the process and encourage participants to express, the appreciation referred to here as a building block is somewhat more formal in nature, is often expressed by an authority actor and occurs primarily at the Formalization & Transfer stage. As a PAR practitioner, consult with your participants what form of appreciation -and by whom- is desired and include this person (or persons) in the communication of your results.

Celebration. The shaping of the action plan can be seen as a success that the group of participants achieved together. Celebrating this outcome -being able to express pride- is an important building block of ownership. The joy that a celebration brings gives extra energy and motivation to get started!

The sense of ownership that PAR triggers, ensures that participants confidently take a role in the action plan and feel responsible for the successful execution of the tasks associated with that role. Once participants have been able to build optimal ownership and motivation and they enthusiastically set about implementing their action plan, one thing is very important: maintain that sense of ownership! Sometimes this feeling is threatened by authority actors who, with their best intentions, want to help those involved – the implementers of the action plan – too much, jeopardizing their sense of autonomy. For example, in municipalities involved municipal officials sometimes want so much for a (citizen) initiative to succeed that they take the lead and pull the initiative towards themselves, as it were. The participants then feel that the initiative no longer belongs to them, but to the municipality. In this way, as a civil servant, you knock all the carefully built-up ownership of participants out from under their feet, and with it the motivation to remain active. So please, don’t!

That is why we as PAR practitioners are keen on this during the Monitor stage. By monitoring initiatives, paying attention to this in reflection sessions with those involved, and making any authority actors aware of this, we can largely prevent this from happening and repair any cracks that may have appeared in time.

Want to learn more about Participatory Action Research? Join our PAR Practitioners Programma or order the Handbook Participatory Action Research authored by SevenSenses founder Madelon Eelderink!

The post Building sense of ownership as source of motivation among stakeholders appeared first on SevenSenses.

“Madelon, what exactly is the difference between Participatory Action Research and other projects we do at the municipality?” Sometimes you get those questions that you can get hell-bent on! I was at a get-together when an employee of Gemeente Utrecht asked me that question. I took a deep breath and began my story, something along the lines of the following.

Being heard, but individually

A very big difference is often found at the start of the PAR. While many (participation) projects often start with “bringing stakeholders together,” a Participatory Action Research (PAR) starts very differently. Indeed, an important part of the start of a PAR is to talk with people individually, often in the form of a semi- or unstructured interview. In this process, the PAR practitioners do not determine what the conversation is about, but the person opposite us. Out of genuine interest and curiosity, we ask questions and let the people involved tell their own story. As a result, they often feel heard and that is an important building block for the feeling of ownership.

Brainstorming about ‘the shared reality’

Then, when we have spoken to all -if not as many- stakeholders individually, we analyze the conversations and create a visualization of the results. That visualization always represents the shared reality according to all those spoken to. We then share this in so-called focus group sessions, in which we let those involved brainstorm together about the results. There is an important difference here: whereas in many projects the people involved often come with the goal of convincing the other person that they are right, ‘armed’ with all kinds of arguments, with PAR it is much more likely that the participants come out of curiosity about the visualization and in the mode of ‘we are going to brainstorm’. By having stakeholders brainstorm and puzzle with one or more visualizations, we divert attention away from: “I have to have the best arguments.” This often yields tremendously beautiful insights! Here again lie some important building blocks of ownership, which you can read in the blog ‘Building a sense of ownership as a source of motivation among stakeholders’.

Co-creation of their own action plans

Gaining insights together and then co-creating action plans together that suit each of the people involved is one of the coolest things to be able to facilitate, because the energy that arises and the ownership and the desire to get to work is contagious and makes people happy!

We no longer have to try our best to win over the other, because we win together.

What a lot of work!

A PAR is often a huge job on the front end, because you spend so much time individually talking to all those involved, analyzing those conversations and making good visualizations. But after almost 10 years of SevenSenses (in March 2023 already!) and 15 years since my first PAR, I can say with full conviction what an enormous added value it has compared to ‘just quickly bring people together’. Below you can see a model I created based on the differences I see between top-down implementation of projects versus community-up co-creation of projects through PAR.

If you think of the horizontal arrows as time, you see that top-down project design is done pretty quickly, if you come up with something with a small club of professionals from behind your desk. Then you often see that those same professionals are struggling as they have to persuade the community to get on board with their project, or if it gets out of hand, even setting up complaint lines and arranging extra meetings where they get told off and yelled at by the audience. People are angry because they are “suddenly” faced with a project, which they feel is not appropriate. It is not for nothing that residents hate public participation evenings, because “the municipality does what they want anyway!”

PAR often takes a lot longer, but by giving all stakeholders the opportunity to help build a sense of ownership and motivation for the solution, the chances of getting lasting impact are greatly increased. Bonus: those involved often also volunteer to help implement their project. That way you often reach your goal much sooner and easier!

Of course, the above raises a huge number of questions. Because what if those involved come up with things we don’t really want because we already have a solution? How do you conduct such action research in the first place?

Now let me tell you SevenSenses offers trainings just for that! Like the PAR Practitioners Programma, where you learn all the PAO skills and if desired can apply them directly in your own work under supervision! Curious? Take a look!

Prefer reading how to do Participatory Action Research? Order the ‘handboek Participatief Actieonderzoek’ authored by SevenSenses founder Madelon Eelderink.

The post How Participatory Action Research makes a difference appeared first on SevenSenses.

So many people, so many perspectives….

When dealing with complex social problems, we are often unaware of the enormous number of different ways of looking at the problem. Often we have a vague idea, such as “Pete probably just wants to make more money,” but that is often all. And then we are surprised that we can’t solve the problem! Or worse, that we want to act quickly out of good will and then get all sorts of people on our roof who had a different perspective…

Take a tree, for example. By itself, of course, a tree is not a complex problem. But it can be part of a complex problem where people can’t figure it out and seem to be diametrically opposed: “the tree has to go” or “the tree has to stay!” – and then we often have the “voiceless” we often forget about, such as nature, animals and future generations… This picture is a (surely incomplete) representation of the perspectives that can exist on “a tree” alone! Perhaps you, dear reader, know of others?

Tackling fast ends up being very slow….

If we want to solve complex issues, it pays to explore those perspectives first. Pretty logical, right? And yet it happens so little! Because it has to be addressed quickly (also quite logical in itself). But then we fail to solve the most pressing problems for decades. In ‘the best’ case, those involved are brought together as quickly as possible to find solutions together.

But those same people involved, thinking that others probably want something different than they do, come to that meeting ‘armed’ with arguments, attack and defense tactics, so that ‘their’ idea will win. Not so good for the atmosphere it seems to me, let alone for a constructive brainstorm and innovative solutions….

The facilitator often stands there helplessly, trying to calm things down, but it is a losing battle, because there is no chance of getting them to brainstorm. Everyone is frustrated and the solution, instead of getting closer, seems further and further away….

How it can be done differently

But fortunately, it doesn’t have to be that way at all. As a Participatory Action Researcher (PAR practitioner) you work from the principle that everyone should first be able to share their perspective at ease, without having to defend, explain or justify themselves, and be heard in it. Therefore, in the first phases of the PAR, PAR practitioners often only have individual conversations and interviews with those involved, in which they ask them about their perspective on the current and desired situation, their needs, assets (things that are going well, abundance), solution directions and values. The PAR practitioner analyzes these and makes one or more clear visualization(s) of them. Only then does the PAR practitioner bring those involved together in a series of sessions, carefully weighing who would be best to meet when, in order to ultimately arrive together at a solution that works for everyone.

And then what happens…

At the moment when those involved first sit together in a session, the PAR practitioner does a number of important things that start an effective dynamic between them. He (or she, but let me stick with he) shows the visualization in which all perspectives are reflected, and thus in which the “shared reality” comes out well.

This is still only a rough representation of the results from the conversations; the PAO does not draw any conclusions from it and especially does not give any recommendations or advice. Instead, he asks those involved for their reaction to the visualization, and whether they want to add to it, so that they can then draw their own conclusions and arrive at solutions.

Perhaps somewhat irreverently put, but I always find this a fantastic ‘distraction tactic’. Where otherwise those involved are mainly focused on each other, fighting each other with the best arguments to let their idea ‘win’, now they look together at a visualization (read: their shared reality) and reflect on it. In addition, some interesting things happen. First, stakeholders recognize their own perspective in the visualization and thus feel heard and acknowledged in their perspective. Second, they gain greater understanding of others’ perspectives. Third, they see how the problem outlined is embedded in a broader system of causes and consequences, as well as assets, solution directions and values, and thus expand their knowledge. With these new insights, new possibilities and ideas emerge to address the issue.

From arguing to brainstorming and creating action plans

By comparing and matching the results in certain ways, they can connect the ideas and co-create a joint action plan from that.

Experiencing those “aha moments” together works great for starting a dynamic where all involved feel ownership – after all, their idea is also part of the action plan – and also feel like implementing that action plan together, because they discover how they can strengthen each other.

And even then it’s not easy – change is scary – but as a PAR practitioner you know better than anyone how to guide people through this, so that they can make the desired changes that make them happy.

Well, this -and much more- is the work of a PAR practitioner. Now that you’ve read this blog I’m sure you can think of situations – whether or not you watch the news – in which PAR can be used. Perhaps in your own work?

If you are interested in also learning how to apply PAR to address complex problems with many stakeholders, join the PAR Practitioners Programma!

Will we see you soon at the SevenSenses Action Research Academy?

Greetings, also on behalf of the trainers,

Madelon – Founder SevenSenses

The post Why people argue… And how it can be different appeared first on SevenSenses.

Technological developments have moved us away from contact with strangers. Since we all have our phones with us, we never have to ask people the time or where the nearest busstop is. And when waiting for the bus, we find our phones more interesting than the people waiting next to us. Corona has not helped either as it forced us to keep distance or even stay home, giving us a hard time to talk with strangers as well. And the less we do it, the more unnatural and uncomfortable it feels to do it.  

As a Participatory Action Researcher you have a lot of conversations with strangers. Seriously, a LOT. I recently realized how often I get the question of how to talk with strangers when initiating a Participatory Action Research. How to make that first move. So I decided, why not write a blog about it?

What I like about conversations with strangers, is that when you apply basic PAR principles such as listening non-judgmentally and from genuine curiosity, without getting in debate or giving solutions, you get the finest stories. Stories about real life as people perceive it from their deepest selves. The actual raw stories that teach you more about life than any book.

But how do we start such conversation?

When we initiate a Participatory Action Research, we first make a Participatory Action Research design to see what the goal of our PAR is, who to involve, what PAR-methods to apply et cetera. From there we can make a plan of things to do. Most of the time this involves having informal conversations with people about the PAR-subject. But there comes the big question: how do we approach those people? How do we start such conversation? The answer I think is simple -just do it!- but not easy.

Here are some tips.

• 1. Get comfortable yourself. First of all, we have to get rid of that confining idea of that it is ‘stupid’ to approach a stranger – and the uncomfortable feeling that comes along with it. We have to get back to that feeling of when it was normal to approach people (if at all you are old enough to have ever felt that). I think here it is a matter of just doing it -a lot- and enjoy all your inner assumptions being tackled in each and every conversation.
• 2. Ask first. Once you approach someone, ask whether you may ask a question at all and respect (and don’t feel bad) if you get a ‘no’.
• 3. Be you. Don’t start off with an entire introduction of your PAR, you may ‘lose’ them halfway. Rather ask the question as being you yourself as a fellow human, not as the action researcher. Once you feel along the conversation that they are interested, at the end of it you can tell them about your PAR and even invite them to participate.
• 4. Be creative. You can approach people ‘clean’, without any tools or ‘tricks’, but you can also make it a little more fun or interesting to talk with you. For example, go sit somewhere on a busy plaza with a can of coffee to offer to people passing by. Hire a funny bus and invite people in to talk about the PAR-subject, drive people around in a tuc tuc, whatever you may come up with that triggers people’s interest! In our latest Participatory Action Research, my colleague Wilma van der Vlegel came up with a great idea to get in contact with strangers. Our purpose was to have a first informal conversation with people about how they perceive their health, and then invite them for an in-dept interview later on. We bought tangerines and put eye-stickers on it. We asked people passing by to draw a mouth on the tangerine that represents how ‘fit’ they feel now. That helped us start the conversation and many of the people we met there joined the entire PAR! I dubbed it ‘the Tangerine-method’

• 5. Keep your questions simple, open and positive. Need I say more?
• 6. Don’t judge, get into debate or pose your opinion or solutions to them. People did not ask for your opinion or help, so respect whatever they say, whether you agree or not.
• 7. Don’t make any notes of the conversation. This helps to keep an informal, accessible atmosphere.
• 8. Be genuinely interested. People will notice whether you are genuinely interested or whether you ‘want to recruit people for your PAR’. And it makes a difference to whether they will give you their time and viewpoints or not. Being genuinely curious to the other’s viewpoint also helps a great deal in formulating new questions based on the answers you get and to get ‘the flow’.
• 9. Know where to stop. Use your senses to know when it is time to stop the conversation. Don’t try to ‘get more out of people’. Rather have a good short talk and get the person’s contact to talk more later than a longer one and an agitated person!
• 10. Enjoy! People will enjoy when they see you enjoy the conversation. Win-win!

Once you apply these tips an afternoon in the park or wherever you find strangers, I am convinced you will return home feeling energized, inspired and boosted with new confidence. Let alone the set of beautiful, ‘raw’ stories and new contacts you have for your PAR!

So go out, let your natural curiosity flow and you will be surprised how great a conversation with a stranger can be!

Want to learn more about informal conversations or other PAR-methods? Get the second edition of ‘Handboek Participatief Actieonderzoek. Samen bouwen aan een betere wereld’, written by SevenSenses founder Madelon Eelderink.

Do you want to learn PAR skills? Now you can subscribe PAR Practitioners Program!

The post How to talk with strangers – 10 tips to help you have informal conversations for your Participatory Action Research appeared first on SevenSenses.

Here we briefly explain these stages to you! Would you like to be taken through these stages in more detail and know which methods to use in which stages? Then order the Handbook Participatory Action Research, written by SevenSenses founder Madelon Eelderink.

Occasion and Orientation

A PAO often finds its origin in a deep-seated desire, problem or challenge of a certain group of people, organization or government (the occasion). As a PAR practitioner you have an initial conversation with one or a few of these actors. On the basis of such an initial conversation, in which this actor describes the current situation/problem definition, desired situation and goal, the PAR practitioner prepares a preliminary PAR design, the first part of the Orientation stage.

Sometimes, if possible, a preliminary PAR design is created together with various stakeholders around the identified topic. Such a PAR design describes the current and desired situation, the purpose of the PAR, the PAR main question and subquestions, the to be involved actors (the PAR community), the PAR methods to be applied and the concepts.

Once a PAR is given the green light, the PAR practitioner goes out into the field to informally learn more about the topic through for example informal interviews with actors, document research and other exploratory methods.

The PAR practitioner introduces him or herself to the community involved in the PAR topic and builds an initial basic relationship with the participants of the PAR. This is also known as ‘Rapport building’.

Based on these initial insights, the PAR practitioner delineates the initial PAR and tweaks the PAR design as needed into a workable PAR design.

Your first Checkpoint is thus reflecting on your PAR design with an initial group of directly involved people and adjusting it in such a way that you are sure that the right issue is being addressed, in order to then – later in the PAR – together with the PAR community, shape the most appropriate solution directions.

Although your workable PAR design is your guide for the rest of your PAR, it always remains adaptable if needed. The information you pick up from the Orientation stage is mostly useful to the PAR practitioner and is usually not suitable for analysis; that’s not a problem, because we have the next stage for that.

System Exploration

Once it is clear what the workable PAR design looks like and there is a view of the PAR activities to be performed, System Exploration can begin.

This stage aims to gain an understanding of the various perspectives of those involved on the the PAR topic or issue and how they relate to each other. The total of perspectives forms ‘the system’: the shared reality of the actors involved (the PAR community).

The metaphor of “the elephant and the blind men” captures this well.

Every stakeholder has their own perspective on the causes and manifestation of a particular problem. In the illustration of ‘the elephant and the blind men’ this is, for example, ‘a fan’, ‘a wall’, ‘a rope’, ‘a tree’, ‘a snake’ or ‘a spear’. In the eyes of each individual actor, they are right.

As a PAR practitioner, you bring all these perspectives together so that the totality of perspectives can be understood, thus creating a new, shared reality – ‘the system’- in which the various problem definitions are embedded. In the case of ‘the elephant and the blind men’, this new shared reality is ‘the elephant’.

System exploration thus consists of examining various aspects and perspectives regarding the PAR topic. For example, we examine the context of the current and desired situation according to the various stakeholders, the ‘gap’ between that current and desired situation and thus the needs of the various stakeholders, their solution directions, their motivation to change the situation (i.e. values) and the assets: everything that is going well, what people are proud of and what is in abundance.

The second Checkpoint of your PAR is shaped by your data analysis. All collected information is analyzed in such a way that the system – ‘the elephant’ – becomes visible. 

Insights Sharing & Solution Identification

This stage represents the key tipping point of PAR: the transition from primarily data collection to primarily co-creation and action.

It starts with visualizing your research findings from the System Exploration (and sometimes Orientation), such that it provides a clear picture that can be shared with all those involved in the PAR.

The next step is to share these visualization(s) with the stakeholders. This forms your third Checkpoint: you reflect with stakeholders on the results of the PAR so far and where necessary they make additions and make new connections; this can be seen as a second analysis, this time with stakeholders.

When these results are well visualized, those involved will:

• 1) recognize their own perspective,
• 2) better understand the perspective and resulting behavior of other stakeholders,
• and 3) better understand how various perspectives are are interrelated.

This broadening of one’s own perspective provides space for creativity and new insights to raise the system as a whole to a higher level; in other words, to change the context in which the problem is embedded such that all involved will benefit from it from their perspective.

Seeing this entire system, and how those involved can work together to improve the entire system, creates a cooperative mindset and willingness to work together.

It creates a dynamic that is much more in the nature of collaborative thinking with each other (the dialogue) rather than of outdoing, convincing or contradicting each other (the debate).

This collaborative group dynamic is an important basis for identifying solution directions together with those involved and possibly adding new ideas that come to them at that time.

As a final part of this stage participants prioritize solution directions based on importance, urgency, feasibility, ethical appropriateness or a combination of these. 

Actionplan Co-creation 

In this stage, PAR participants design concrete action plans on their prioritized solution directions.

As in previous stages, several methods are applicable here, depending on the context of the situation and the form of the prioritized solution directions.

As the fourth Checkpoint of your PAR, the PAR participants check, where necessary with the help of experts, ethical and legal aspects of each prioritized solution directions. Are there groups of actors who might experience negative consequences? Does the solution direction fit within current laws and policies? What should we take into account?

When it appears that the solution direction is ethically and legally justifiable (or that adjustments can be made so that it is the case), the direction of solution can be further developed by those involved into a concrete plan of action.

Based on talents, interests and goals of each stakeholder, they determine who takes on what role and responsibility in the implementation of the action plan.

Formalization & Transferal

Once an action plan is fully crystallized in terms of concrete activities and associated roles and responsibilities, it is important to formalize it in such a way that the sense of ownership gets another boost and participants are reminded of the finality of the PAR in their environment.

Important in this is also celebrating the resulting action plan and other successes – big or small – already achieved. The form of such a celebration is context-dependent.

The conscious experience of such a first success provides extra motivation to continue the action plan and create new success experiences. The PAR practitioner has a very modest role at this stage. In an informal way, often individually, the PAR practitioner reflects briefly with those involved on the roles and responsibilities that have arisen. Does everyone feel comfortable with this and are there needs that have not yet been identified during the focus group sessions (for whatever reason) but should be taken care of?

This constitutes the fifth Checkpoint of the PAR. To keep self-reliance high, also here the PAR practitioner maintains a very modest supportive role. As soon as the first activity in a PAR has started, we speak of implementation. From that moment we enter the next stage.

Monitoring

The PAR practitioner will, where possible, accompany a number of activities for observation, this is called monitoring. This should to the stakeholders not feel like you are ‘checking’ them; if the PAR practitioner suspects that this is felt as such, it is better to refrain from doing so. Again, the PAR practitioner should maintain a modest attitude.

The actual monitoring is done by the stakeholders themselves, who experience their own activities. After having carried out a number of activities for a while, they meet again to reflect on this with the PAR practitioner. This forms the sixth Checkpoint. In the same meeting, if possible, plans can be adjusted and new roles distributed where necessary. Those involved organize as many of these reflection meetings as they deem necessary at this stage.

Evaluation

Evaluation is a stage that occurs – mostly or partly – much later than previous stages. Therefore, it is felt that during evaluation, the PAR has already been long finished. Still, a PAR is not really complete until the evaluation has been performed. This constitutes the seventh (and final) Checkpoint in the PAR.

In a PAR, both the outcomes of the PAR and the process of PAR are evaluated. Involved parties have figured out for themselves at earlier stages what they want to evaluate and how.

Sometimes – where possible – this is done through concrete before and after measurements (where the pre-measurement has already taken place before implementation), but in PAR the perspectives of those involved on what the process and outcomes have done to them are at least as important.

An evaluation in PAR is in principle always a qualitative reflection with those involved on both the process and the outcomes of PAR and what it has brought to them, possibly supplemented by quantitative research. During such an evaluation, scaling up is often discussed.

However, spreading successful initiatives to other settings should always be accompanied by a new – shortened or not – PAR cycle to verify whether and how this initiative fits within the new context.

This should look into the local need for such initiative, local differences in citizen composition, culture, religion, legal differences et cetera.

These are in short the seven stages of PAR as described by SevenSenses founder Madelon Eelderink. If you would like to find out more about the scientific backing of this stage system, read the paper ‘Using participatory action research to operationalize critical systems thinking in social-ecological systems‘.

Thinking about performing one or more PAR cycles in your field of expertise? Don’t hesitate to get yourself trained in PAR. At the SevenSenses Academy we offer different types of training so we’re confident you can find one that suits you!

The post The seven stages of Participatory Action Research appeared first on SevenSenses.

The post SevenSenses Founder Madelon Eelderink nominated for Agnites Vrolik Award! appeared first on SevenSenses.

Dependence vs Independence

Top-down development cooperation often creates dependency by providing ‘help’. As soon as it is gone, the situation returns to how it was before. De Beer and Swanepoel (2000) speak of an ‘equilibrium’ of poverty. A top-down developed intervention tackling poverty may lead to some improvement but over time, always returns to that equilibrium. The reason is according to De Beer and Swanepoel that the intervention did not take other important factors into account, which backfires its effects. For example, a brand new water system may have been built, providing people with clean drinking water. This leads to fewer illnesses due to poor hygiene, fewer days lost of work or school, leading to an increased income. But when the system breaks and there are no technicians to fix it, people return to using contaminated water. The rest is history. Such a form of top-down help kills creativity as people are ‘waiting’ until the next help arrives. As Amutabi (2006) noted, it erodes any potential local people may have in efforts at self-development. No wonder people wait until new help arrives if outsiders keep giving the impression they cannot help themselves.

Creating independence with PAR

Through its extensive focus on the local social-cultural context of an issue, PAR opens up the opportunities to lay bare other factors that may form a barrier to making use of a newly created intervention. Moreover, it creates a playground for creativity, (international) connectedness and the co-creation of the best-fitted innovations by the beneficiaries and other stakeholders themselves. It puts people in a cooperative mindset of ‘let’s look at what we can do’. PAR often leads to solutions which people ‘from the top’ would never have thought of and costs often the slightest fraction of the funds. As such, PAR empowers people instead of creating dependency on foreign aid.

Focus on donor’s demand vs focus on local stakeholders’ demand

Here we are talking about the bling bling. The dirty thing about money is that whoever has it, gets to have the power. Especially in the poorer countries -where some of the richest people live- it is always this rich elite who gets the most influence in politics, leading to policies that mostly benefit them rather than their poorer country mates. In the (traditional) developing cooperation realm it is no different. A donating agency has determined goals it needs to achieve during its establishment. So, whether local people need it or not, such an agency needs to reach its goals! This is how there is so often a discrepancy between what donating agencies want and what local stakeholders need. Local NGO’s however often agree with these international ‘big ones’ as it is for them another project they can do, where money comes in. Nowadays, NGO’s are paying more and more attention to ‘the actual demand’, but still, they would only fund the project if it fits with their own policy and goals.

Focusing on local stakeholders’ demand with PAR

PAR lets the local people/stakeholders decide and take the lead. When people can decide for themselves what is improving their livelihood they will see the value of the (read: their) project and make it a success. As such, PAR is the complete opposite world of traditional top-down development cooperation. What would happen if people all over the world -with all their manpower and possibilities in their communities- would be able to create and implement their own development projects?

Clear data vs change-data

Many -mostly the bigger- NGO’s implement solutions based on scientific research. They either conduct research themselves or they use scientific literature to back up their policies. For example, randomized controlled trials compare a certain intervention in one community to the ‘placebo’ group. Researchers try to control for as many ‘external factors’ as possible, in order to get ‘clear data’. However, real-life situations have to deal with many context-specific external factors. so, it is impossible to mimic that real life situation and generalize it to other contexts. When NGOs base their decisions and policies on these outcomes, it often leads to project failure as the context of their real-life situation was totally different from the randomized controlled trial. Also when NGO practitioners conduct a needs assessment, they often bind themselves to the strict scientific rules of providing ‘clear data’: any change in that situation over time is considered as ‘blurring their data’. The more the ‘status quo’ is maintained, the less ‘bias’ and the ‘better’ their research results.

Creating change-data with PAR

Participatory Action Research does not favor ‘clear data’, yet rather assesses ‘change data’. As Cornwall and Jewkes (1995) put it, “Such approaches [PAR] often emphasize generating “knowledge for action” as opposed to just “knowledge for understanding”. First of all, all stakeholders are taken along in the research process and they are the ones co-creating the interventions needed at that time, in their social-cultural context, for the issue addressed. Although the current situation is being mapped out through a needs assessment as well, it is not the end result. Rather, it forms the base for the co-creation of the solution. Implementation of that solution is part of the PAR process and after its implementation, through an iterative process of action and reflection, changes are being assessed (and the project or solution is adapted where necessary). In that sense, PAR favors change data over clear data in order to create sustainable impact.

Funding wasted vs efficiency

Especially after the first time I came into contact with PAR in Guatemala, I started paying attention to development projects throughout my work in developing countries. In the field of top-down led projects, I saw practitioners had to deal with trying to solve upcoming issues after its implementation. For example, after implementation, locals are not motivated to join the programme, leaving practitioners desperate.

Taking the horizontal arrow in the figure above as ‘time’, you see that the project design of top-down led projects goes pretty fast. It is easy to formulate a goal, milestones and activities if you don’t have to take into account local perspectives. Also the implementation of those projects is mostly fairly easy. However, after it’s implementation, practitioners often encounter problem after problem and need extra funding to solve those problems. For example, practitioners have to organize extra activities to convince the target group -i.e. the supposed beneficiaries of the project- to join or make use of the project, broken materials needed to be fixed et cetera, taking up a huge amount of time, costs and efforts to try to ‘save’ the project.

Creating efficiency with PAR

In PAR, practitioners work directly together with people, what I call community-up, thereby including all stakeholders. The PAR process itself may take up more time -the bottom arrow, but after implementation you may find local people picking up the project based on their own intrinsic motivation as they were the co-creators of it; people solve any problems -if at all they arise-  at location, resulting in sustainable impact. As such, more investment in the PAR process -in the end- means cost-efficiency in the long run.

Another money saver is that PAR projects do not need to pass through big organizations or government institutions. It happens on the ground which reduces the chances for corruption enormously. Moreover, solutions that local stakeholders design on-the-ground are first of all often cheaper than solutions that‘the ivory tower’ designs. Last, local stakeholders execute only the activities that they consider meaningful. Working from this intrinsic motivation of all stakeholders, in a way that suits them increases efficiency enormously.

Problem thinking vs strengths-thinking

Traditional top-down development cooperation focuses on ‘what is going wrong’, creating an atmosphere of problem-thinking. According to the social constructionist theory, focusing on problems creates more problems. Western solutions should fix these problems, because ‘there development was successful’. In other words, practitioners often forget about local assets of a community, such as manpower, resources and talents.

Focus on strenghts-thinking with PAR

After unraveling the problem as perceived by local stakeholders, PAR puts emphasis on strengths, such as ‘what is going well’, ‘what are past successes where people are proud of, ‘what is in abundance’ ‘what talents are present in the community’ et cetera. With this, PAR creates a positive atmosphere in which people see more and more opportunities for improving their livelihoods.

Towards worldwide empowerment of people

What I have written here may be a bit ‘blunt’ or ‘black and white’; there are numerous NGOs who do awesome things for communities. They increasingly take local perspectives into account, do not take things for granted anymore and learn from past mistakes (their own or other’s).  There is a great shift going on worldwide where development cooperation becomes more and more effective and efficient. Yet we still have lots to improve. I strongly believe PAR can accelerate that shift towards effective, efficient and sustainable development cooperation.

References

De Beer, F., Swanepoel, H. (2000). Introduction to development studies. Oxfort University Press Southern Africa.

Amutabi, M. N. (2006). The NGO Factor in Africa: The Case of Arrested Development in Kenya (African Studies) (1st ed.). Routledge.

The post Participatory Action Research in development cooperation: 5 differences to top-down approaches appeared first on SevenSenses.

Wat is Participatief Actieonderzoek?

Participatief Actieonderzoek is in feite de brug tussen wetenschap en praktijk, waarbij het beste van beide wordt gecombineerd. PAO faciliteert mensen in een gemeenschap om samen oplossingen te ontdekken, te ontwerpen en te implementeren voor de problemen en uitdagingen van hun gemeenschap. Deze aanpak verschilt sterk van de traditionele top-down benaderingen, omdat het zich richt op de krachten binnen een gemeenschap om het probleem samen met de massa op te lossen in plaats van vanuit instellingen? Bij SevenSenses geloven we echt dat deze benadering een groot potentieel heeft om meerdere complexe, hardnekkige problemen wereldwijd versneld op te lossen. Laten we de belangrijkste principes van Participatief Actieonderzoek doornemen. Om ze allemaal wat gemakkelijker te onthouden -met een beetje creativiteit- heb ik ze omgevormd tot de SENSES:

S – Science and practice merged together

E – Engage the community: a community-up approach

N – No debate but a dialogue

S – Social learning among and between community members and researchers

E – Embrace the strengths of a community

S – Sustainable solutions & empowerment

De basisprincipes van Participatief Actieonderzoek

1. Science and practice merged together

Bij het uitvoeren van PAO verzamel je niet alleen gegevens zoals in traditioneel wetenschappelijk onderzoek, je faciliteert ook een proces waarin voorgestelde oplossingen vanuit de gemeenschap worden omgezet in actie door de communityIn de traditionele wetenschap worden concepten en theorieën vaak geformuleerd in de 'ivoren toren': achter het bureau, door een intellectueel. In de praktische ontwikkelingssamenwerking beginnen mensen vaak een project vanuit hun eigen passie om mensen te helpen, maar missen ze de (wetenschappelijke) kennis en -vaardigheden die nodig zijn om het project succesvol uit te voeren. PAO voegt ze samen. Door onderzoek op de grond zoomen we in op de verschillende perspectieven op een bepaald probleem, door verschillende belanghebbenden. Door de co-creatie van oplossingen met deze belanghebbenden, zetten ze hun bevindingen in de praktijk om.

2. Engage the community: a Community-Up Approach

PAO is een proces waarin oplossingen niet alleen door instellingen worden gebracht, maar vanaf het begin samen worden gecreëerd met alle betrokken belanghebbenden. Met de beschikbare middelen, mankracht, talenten en andere activa die aanwezig zijn in de gemeenschap. Ik gebruik liever niet het woord bottom-up, omdat dit zou suggereren dat lokale mensen de laagste zijn of 'de afvoerput' in de samenleving (in tegenstelling tot top-down, wat betekent vanuit de institutionele wereld, zoals overheden, NGO's en/of bedrijven). Ik zou het eerder een community-up aanpak noemen: de community bestaat uit zowel institutionele als niet-institutionele mensen. Via PAO duwen institutionele belanghebbenden niet langer hun ideeën op de 'doelgroep' (ik haat dat woord), zoals vaak gebeurt in de traditionele ontwikkelingssamenwerking. Ze creëren samen oplossingen met alle betrokkenen, waarbij alle stemmen worden gehoord. Zo krijg je oplossingen die perfect passen bij de lokale sociaal-culturele context!

"Wat gebeurt er wanneer mensen over de hele wereld PAO beoefenen, waarbij alle mensen van een gemeenschap een stem krijgen en de focus ligt op de krachten van de gemeenschap? Als hele gemeenschappen nieuwe oplossingen en innovaties samen creëren, in plaats van externe, institutionele mensen alleen? Wat gebeurt er als - als gevolg daarvan - instellingen geen geld meer verspillen? En uiteindelijk, wat gebeurt er als mensen niet langer afhankelijk zijn van westerse hulp?"

3. No debate but a dialogue

Vaak zijn de doelen van probleemeigenaars niet hetzelfde als de doelen van de NGO. Als gevolg daarvan zie ik vaak dat NGO's proberen hun 'doelgroep' te overtuigen van de relevantie van hun project. Bijvoorbeeld, een NGO kan zeer gericht zijn op natuurbescherming, terwijl de bewoners van een bepaald gebied praktisch comfort voor henzelf en hun directe familie prefereren. Een kwalitatief onderzoek dat ik in Bolivia heb uitgevoerd, toonde aan dat verschillende belanghebbenden deze verschillende opvattingen hadden, maar het project -een project voor ecologische sanitatie- succesvol was omdat het beide doelen vervulde. [Lees de wetenschappelijke publicatie van dit onderzoek hier]. Participatief Actieonderzoekers erkennen dat niet iedereen hetzelfde doel deelt en omarmen de diversiteit aan perspectieven. Ze openen de dialoog erover, in plaats van er een win-verliesdebat van te maken. Door belanghebbenden met elkaar in gesprek te laten gaan en open te staan op het normatieve niveau, zijn mensen in staat om oplossingen te vinden die aan alle doelen voldoen. Het is niet ongewoon dat er prachtige nieuwe innovaties ontstaan die niemand ooit had bedacht! Op die manier hoeft men geen moeite te doen om mensen van een bepaald idee te overtuigen. Hoeveel tijd, moeite, geld en campagnes zou dat besparen?!

4. Social learning among and between community members and researchers

PAO is een proces waarin perspectieven en oplossingen die worden voorgesteld door de verschillende belanghebbenden worden geanalyseerd door de onderzoeker en worden gedeeld met de gemeenschap, in een cyclische wijze van gegevensverzameling en reflectie. Op deze manier begrijpen de leden van een gemeenschap de perspectieven van mensen, hun fundamentele overtuigingen en hun normen en waarden. Dit resulteert in wederzijds begrip van elkaars gedrag, ongeacht of ze het met elkaar eens zijn of niet. Het samenbrengen van verschillende soorten kennis - van wetenschappelijke en expertkennis tot impliciete kennis - creëert een rijk begrip van de bredere context waarin het probleem is ingebed, en hoe verschillende problemen en oplossingen met elkaar zijn verbonden. Dit proces van sociaal leren tussen en onder gemeenschapsleden vergroot het vertrouwen in elkaar en creëert een meer open en coöperatieve mentaliteit om samen de uitdagingen aan te gaan.

5. Embrace the strengths of a community

Bij het werken aan complexe problemen richten we ons vaak alleen op dat probleem. Volgens de theorie van het sociaal constructivismeleidt focus op problemen tot meer problemen. PAO richt zich sterk op de troeven van een gemeenschap: dingen die goed gaan, dingen waar mensen trots op zijn, lokale talenten, mankracht, overvloed en meer. Het ontgrendelt alle potentieel dat gemeenschapsleden en onderzoekers vaak niet kennen. We combineren die troeven met de uitdagingen van de gemeenschap en laten de gemeenschapsleden het analyseren en nieuwe creatieve combinaties maken. Op die manier creëren mensen samen eenvoudige, goedkope maar duurzame oplossingen op basis van de krachten die al aanwezig zijn in de gemeenschap. De Healthy Cooking Challenge s een geweldig voorbeeld van hoe een sloppenwijk-bioscoop - een troef in de gemeenschap - heeft geholpen om longproblemen bij kinderen aan te pakken (zie je de link? Nee? Wij ook niet op dat moment), wat leidde tot onverwachte, maar verbazingwekkende resultaten!

6. Sustainable solutions & empowerment

Omdat mensen bijdragen aan het bouwen van oplossingen voor een sociaal probleem dat hen treft, voelen ze meer eigenaarschap van de samen gecreëerde initiatieven. Ze geven inzichten op basis van hun kennis en perspectieven, en oplossingen die ze haalbaar achten binnen hun sociaal-culturele context. Oplossingen zijn gemakkelijk en concreet, dus het maken van een begin is niets om nachtmerries van te hebben. In plaats daarvan raken mensen vaak erg enthousiast om hun vers samengestelde initiatieven te starten! Door deze opwinding en masse begrip van wat er gaat gebeuren, brengen geïmplementeerde oplossingen impact en duren ze lang. Bovendien, omdat mensen het PAO-proces hebben doorlopen, gebruiken ze zelf het systeem om de oplossingen verder te innoveren!

Tot slot

Deze blog beschreef zes basisprincipes van Participatief Actieonderzoek. Het proces van Participatief Actieonderzoek stelt mensen in staat om complexe gemeenschapskwesties zelf aan te pakken, met lokale middelen, talenten en alle andere lokale beschikbare middelen. Dit is empowerment pur sangHet proces van PAO zet lokale innovatie in gang, of het nu gaat om (publieke) gezondheid, natuur/milieu, mensen- of dierenrechten, armoedekwesties of wat dan ook. Hoe geweldig zou het zijn als veel mensen over de hele wereld PAO beoefenen in allerlei soorten instellingen en gemeenschappen? Wat gebeurt er als - als gevolg daarvan - instellingen geen geld meer verspillen? Wat gebeurt er als mensen niet langer afhankelijk zijn van westerse hulp?

Ik kan zelfs niet overzien welke massieve positieve impuls we aan de wereld kunnen geven door haar meest complexe problemen aan te pakken met de kracht van wat we in overvloed hebben: mensen.

Wil je (leren) Participatief Actieonderzoek uitvoeren? Bekijk onze verschillende mogelijkheden, zoals deelnemen aan de SevenSenses Challenge, PAR Practitioners Programma of een in-company training in PAO een PAO-cursus op jouw universiteit and many others! 

Blijf op de hoogte! Abonneer je op SevenSenses Stories hieronder en ontvang onze updates, tips, blogs, videocolleges en meer in je mailbox.

The post The basic principles of Participatory Action Research appeared first on SevenSenses.

Interviewing in Participatory Action Research

Conducting high quality, in-depth interviews for Participatory Action Research -and other types of research- can be of tremendous value for policy recommendations and development projects. The information that the respondents provide, helps to (co-)create the right solutions for the right problems. However, the way we formulate our questions determines to a large extent the answer that we get. The line between getting the answer which is socially acceptable and the answer that represents reality is extremely thin, especially when you’re a newcomer to the community. Yet many people tend to underestimate the complexity of interviewing and conduct their interviews without knowing how to properly formulate questions, ending up in very awkward situations with the respondent…

Types of interviewing questions you want to avoid

Recently I gave interview training to my SevenSenses Challenge trainees, who currently conduct research about sanitation (“Twekembe Water Challenge”) and arts (“Street Angels Challenge”) in the slums of Kampala, Uganda. During that training, I gave them 10 types of questions that can ruin your interviews and consequently your research results. We practiced how to do an interview of good quality. I thought it would be valuable not only for them but for all (action) researchers in the field, so here they are!

Note: The lines written in italics are thoughts, not quotes, to show you what respondents could think, but don’t say.

1. Disrespectful questions. “How do you survive as a poor farmer?” What the interviewer can merely see as a compliment (‘you must be so tough to be able to survive here!’), the respondent could see as disrespectful (‘a POOR farmer?! Me?! YOU are the one that is ‘poor’, all you probably have is money and nothing more than that!’).
2. Giving a false feeling of responsibility. In our exploration of chains of causality, we tend to ask why and why and why. For example: “Why do you never boil your water?” ‘Oh.. Sorry, are you going to take me to jail for this or what??’ Try to avoid the word ‘why’ in these cases to make sure the interviewee doesn’t feel like they are being accused of a crime. That does not mean you may never ask ‘why’ again. Just know when it is appropriate.
3. Putting words in someone’s mouth. It is very hard to let go of your own assumptions and opinions during an interview. Often, while asking questions, we already have some kind of ‘solution’ in mind. That’s how we sometimes tend to ask questions like: “Don’t you think it would be a good idea to organize a workshop?”, or “The solution should be building an orphanage, right?” Basically, you are asking for a socially acceptable answer, forcing a stuttering “yes” instead of the truth. Ask your question in a neutral way to let the participant speak freely, such as: “What do you think could be a solution to…”
4. Unnecessarily difficult questions. Since we are very into the research matter, we tend to forget that others are not so familiar with the subject. Even simple questions are sometimes made unnecessarily difficult or confusing, like for example very long questions, or double negatives: “So in the morning, you don’t make no breakfast?”. Keep it simple!
5. Taking your assumptions for granted. “How often are your children playing in the waste?” ‘Oh. Are they? Well, let me just say… five times?’ Think about each question you ask: are there any (false) assumptions behind it?
6. Too open or too closed questions. Recognise those awkward moments of silence, insecure body posture, questioning faces? Yup. High chances your question was too open or too close. Try to adapt the openness of your questions to the type of information you are looking for and to the ease with which people talk to you.
7. Giving the feeling something he/she did was wrong. Interviewers have emotions too (yes, really). When we feel compassion for someone who shares a highly emotional story, we tend to share what we would have done or how the situation could have been prevented. “Couldn’t you just scream for help when they robbed you?”. Seriously, don’t. The respondent has probably thought over and over what could have prevented the situation.
8. Coming up with unwanted advice. When people tell us about their problems and daily challenges, we tend to give them advice, often unwanted. “Why don’t you just save some money every month so that you can have surgery in a year?”
9. Leading questions. One of the most useless things to do in research is trying to make your data ‘fit’. In doing so, we tend to ask leading questions so that we get the answers we want. For example: “Do you think diarrhoea is caused by drinking dirty water?” ‘Uhhh yes…’Instead you could ask: “What do you think could be a cause of diarrhoea?”
10. Creating false hope. “What do you think we can do to…” Note the word ‘we’. ‘Oh? So you are going to solve my problems?? Nice!’ The answer you (especially as a foreigner from ‘the west’) will get to this question is probably one that costs a lot of money -and seriously, you can’t blame them.

For all (potential) interviewers out there: I hope this blog will be of use to you when you go out into the field! Remember: asking the right questions in an appropriate manner is crucial; without the true answers your research is useless. And useless research means no funding for your intervention project. Practice your interviewing skills and prepare yourself well!

At SevenSenses we offer customized interview training. Check out the possibilities!

The post How to avoid these 10 interviewing bloopers appeared first on SevenSenses.