Case study 2
A planned community participation
activity
This is a resource file which supports the regular public program "areol" (action research and evaluation on line) offered twice a year beginning in mid-February and mid-July. For details email Bob Dick bd@bigpond.net.au
... in which action research approaches are used for a highly participative approach to consultation with a large and varied group of people
This case contrasts with
that described as case
study 1.
It demonstrates a process intended to achieve high levels of
participation. This is despite the many and varied people
who have an interest in the project. It also illustrates
that at each step, you need only enough information to decide the
next step. The process can go forward by informed trial and
error. As you read the case
study, notice the frequent changes of mind, and the methods used
to achieve reasonably wide participation. Note, too, that
I've taken some pains to make my own allegiances clear. As
before, you can assume that my goals are to achieve both change
and understanding in such a way that each reinforces the
other. As I don't have
permission to identify the organisation I have taken some care to
disguise it. Some of the content details are changed.
The process, however, is accurately reported. The study was subdivided
into three main phases The second phase was
to use interviewing and mass media to define the issues and
inform all those who have a stake in the issues. The
purpose of this phase was to bring all the issues to the
notice of stakeholders. I assumed it was important to
allow stakeholders time to get used to the issues. This
was to set the foundation for the third phase, when the move
towards consensus was to be attempted.
1 The third phase had
two major components ... One was a series of
meetings with opinion leaders. People who are influential
within the various interest groups were to meet face to
face. The process was to be structured to encourage
listening and understanding. We (the head office team and
I) hoped that the resulting decisions would take account of the
needs and wishes of everyone affected by the
project. The other component
consisted of the use of mass media and other means to keep the
opinion leaders and the groups they are drawn from in
contact. The operation of this was not planned in detail
at the beginning. Planning was to be postponed until
other stakeholders were involved. Here is another way of
thinking about the design. The working party was to have
four major responsibilities, two in the second phase and two in
the third. The responsibilities
were, in phase 2, to ... and in phase 3, to
... It was accepted that
achieving this would also require a lot of work to identify the
various stakeholder groups, opinion leaders and key
issues. I met initially with
three people, two of whom in theory probably have the authority to
introduce some structural changes in the network of organisations
they help to manage. They are clear about the changes they
prefer. But at this first meeting they were also clear that
they would honour whatever decisions were made by the stakeholders
as a whole. (I'll refer to them as the "head office
team".) For me, then, the key
issues were threefold. First, there were many
stakeholders, and probably many with strong feelings about the
issues. Full participation by all stakeholders was probably
not feasible. Yet, because of the strong feelings, it was
going to be hard to achieve good outcomes without high
participation. Second, different
stakeholders had very different interests in the situation.
A mutually-satisfying outcome would not easily be reached.
If it were reached, it would be only after attitude change on the
part of at least some key stakeholders. Third, some stakeholders
potentially had quite a lot to lose. Feelings could be
expected to run high. Good processes were needed if real
listening and understanding were to occur. The implication of this,
I thought, was that high participation was necessary. So was
the use of face-to-face procedures -- I think that it is when
people meet face to face that substantial attitude change can most
often be achieved. It seemed to me, too, that allowing time
for people to adjust to the changes might be useful. I was encouraged that
the head office team seemed accepting of these
conditions. I offered to write a
detailed proposal. In the proposal, I suggested setting up a
small working party. I suggested that it be broadly
representative of the different groups of interested
people. With the help of a
colleague (I prefer co-facilitation, for better critical
reflection) I would then help the working party build good
relationships and set clear goals. It would then be the task
of the working party to carry out most of the work. I framed the proposal as
action research. Accordingly, the amount of detail in the
proposal was greater in the earlier stages than the later
stages. I was encouraged that my initial clients again
accepted this as realistic. I was also encouraged by
their reaction to another statement of mine. I said that I
was only interested in the work if I could treat all stakeholders
as my clients: paying my fees didn't buy my allegiance. They
accepted this as desirable. The four of us (the head
office team and I) had a second meeting to decide how to set up
the working party. I wanted a group small enough to function
easily, and large enough to represent the various interest
groups. When it seemed unlikely
that we would achieve both of these, we changed our plans.
We have now planned two groups instead of one. A small
working party would do the work. A somewhat larger
"reference group" would give us access to the various interest
groups and their views. We discussed the
composition and functions of working party and reference
group. It was important that these groups functioned well,
as the overall process depended on what they did. Below, in more detail,
is the step-by-step process we then agreed to use. You will
notice that a number of choice points are already built into the
process, so that it could be responsive to information as it
emerged. 2) This facilitator
was then to be given the task of assembling the rest of the
working party. The goal was to assemble a small group of
people who were broadly representative of all the stakeholders,
were capable of acting for the benefit of all, and could work
well together. A colleague and I were to negotiate our
roles with this group, and also help them build effective
relationships and determine clear goals and
processes. 3) The working party
was then to assemble a reference group. This was to be a
larger group of people (our guess was about 15) who were an
adequate sample of the different stakeholder groups. Our
intention was to aim for as diverse a sample as we could
assemble without the group becoming so large as to be
cumbersome. (This would not rule out larger assemblies
for specific purposes, if this seemed desirable.) My colleague and I
were then to work with working party and reference group to
define roles (ours and theirs), and again establish agreed
goals and processes. 4) The working party,
with help from the reference group, were then to move into
phase two of the overall process. The working party were
to do most of this, but were to meet regularly with the
reference group to review progress and decide future
directions. The reference group
will help the working party make sense of the data it is
collecting. Together, the working party and reference
group will also identify what other information has to be
collected. Our intention was that
the working party, both alone and when meeting with the reference
group, would use an action research approach to guide their
planning and actions. We would give them whatever help they
need to do this. We expected the three phases to
overlap. To recruit suitable
people for the working party would require the facilitator to talk
to a wide sample of stakeholders. This would already begin
to provide the information about the social networks and the
issues -- information which is valuable for a working party when
they assemble the reference group. We realised that
identifying reference group members would require the working
party to interview many people. This,we thought, would begin
to provide the information they would later need to identify the
opinion leaders for subsequent work in both phase 1 and
2. By the time phase 2
neared completion, we expected, it was likely that the working
party and reference group would be well informed about the key
players and their position on key issues. This would help
greatly in setting up the face-to-face processes of phase
3. In the event, the
exercise was abandoned. Those who thought they had most to
lose declined to cooperate. The head office team, who could
have forced matters, backed away from the confrontation that this
would entail. To me, this was
disappointing. In some of the meetings it emerged that there
was little trust in the organisation. Some of the key
players were privileged, in my view. My guess is that they
thought that there would be pressure on them to surrender some of
this privilege. Yet if it had proceeded, I believe it would
have been possible to build trust. With this as a
foundation, it would have been possible to negotiate outcomes
which met enough of everyone's needs. _____ Copyright (c) Bob Dick
1997. This document may be copied if it is not included in
documents sold at a profit, and this and the following notice are
included. This document can be
cited as follows: Dick, B. (1997)
Case study 2: a planned community participation
activity. Available at
Valeria Aleksandrova
has provided a Polish translation of this file at:
http://www.autoersatzteile.de/blog/planowane-zaangasowania-aktywnosc .
Contents
Phase 1
consisted of preparatory work. An important part of it
was negotiating my role. A working party was then to be
set up. The intention was that they would take over most
of the responsibility for the project. It was planned
that at least one member of the working party would have skills
at designing and facilitating processes. This first phase
is the phase discussed in most detail below.
Entry and
contracting
Developing the
early plans in more detail
1) Select the
first member of the working party -- this was to be the member
with facilitation skills. The head office team were to do
this by contacting people they knew to have facilitation
skills, asking who was suitable. When a name had been
independently given by a number of people, this person was to
be approached.
Postscript
Notes
http://www.aral.com.au/resources/case2.html
