B.9 Priority-setting exercises

Priority-setting exercises are used to reach a group decision on courses of action to be adopted. After a brainstorming about the pros and cons of several possible alternative courses of action, each participant is asked to evaluate them according to two or more criteria (e.g., effectiveness, feasibility, efficiency, visibility, closeness to community concerns, etc.), and using a scoring system.

Purposes

Like other scoring and ranking techniques, these exercises may be used when individual opinions must be consolidated into a group decision. They have proved useful for planning and, especially, for decision-making by a group.

Steps in using the tool

• Draw a priority-setting matrix on a flipchart or blackboard, leaving spaces for possible actions on rows and drawing columns for all chosen criteria; clearly explain the criteria to be used for ranking the courses of action.
• Ask the group for possible actions to be evaluated and list them in the left column of the matrix; call for a brief explanation of each action.
• Distribute scoring cards; each member gets one set of cards for each of the scoring criteria (e.g., 'effectiveness', 'feasibility', etc.); the number of cards in each criteria set must be equal to the number of actions being ranked, for example, if there are four actions, then each criteria set should contain a number from 1 to 4; when asked to assess the 'effectiveness' of a specific action, the member must hand in (or display) the appropriate card to the facilitator (i.e., if the participant feels that the action is the most effective of the four, then he or she will hand over the card marked '4' from the 'effectiveness' set); the same procedure has to be repeated for each action and each criteria; scoring cards with labels and different colors may help to avoid confusion.
• Once a course of action has been evaluated, for all criteria, by all participants, jot down the scores in the matrix and then return the cards to the participants; after all repetitions, total the individual scores by criteria and report the totals in the right column of the matrix.
• Ask participants to comment on the final results; clearly explain that the scores are meant to assist in decision-making, but that they do not provide the final solution; support participants in making a final decision by encouraging them to consider both the trends revealed by the total scores and the comments and suggestions resulting from the discussion.

Strengths

• Priority-setting exercises help groups to identify the main thrust of their collective opinions, instead of just individual views.
• They contribute to reaching a consensus on controversial issues.

Weaknesses

• The final decision may be too heavily influenced by the scoring mechanism (e.g., a criterion not listed is forgotten, a criterion listed is taken as paramount).
• Because of the complexity, a few trials may be needed at the beginning for the participants to learn the system.

B.10 Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and limitations (SWOL) analysis

SWOL analysis is a powerful tool for group assessment of an issue of concern, in particular interventions or services. It is based on a structured brainstorming aimed at eliciting group perceptions of the positive factors (strengths), the negative factors (weaknesses), the possible improvements (opportunities) and the constraints (limitations) related to the issue.

Purpose

SWOL analysis is especially useful for evaluating activities carried out in the community. It can be focused on services provided by external agencies, as well as used for self-evaluation of the interest group's own performance.

Steps in using the tool

• A four-column matrix is drafted on the blackboard or on a flipchart and the four judgment categories are explained to participants; it helps to phrase the four categories as key questions, to which participants can respond; the issue of concern is written on top of the matrix (if it is the only one to be considered), or on the side, if several items will be SWOL-analyzed.
• The facilitator starts the brainstorming by asking the group a key question about strengths; responses from the group are jotted down on the relevant column of the matrix.
• When all points of strength are represented, weaknesses, opportunities and limitations are also identified by the group.
• Participants may have different opinions about an issue, and contradictory statements may be expressed; in such cases, the facilitator can work towards a consensus, which may require a point to be discussed at some length; each entry is left on the final matrix only after achieving a group agreement.

Strengths

• The technique stresses consideration of different sides (positive and negative) of the issues. It therefore helps to set the basis for negotiations and trade-offs and promotes understanding of the views of others.
• SWOL is a good means to discuss an issue in detail within a group and to prepare the group to discuss with outsiders.
• SWOL can promote group creativeness. It helps to link perceptions of things as they are with realistic expectations about how things could be.
• 'Strengths' and 'weaknesses' tend to be more discriptive and easier for respondents to identify.

Weaknesses

• 'Opportunities' and 'limitations' (i.e., threats, constraints or barriers) are more analytical concepts and may be hard to elicit.
• Sensitive topics and differences of opinion may arise during the discussion.
• Some group members may attempt to dominate the discussion.
• Facilitator needs good synthesizing skills.

B.11 Role-playing

Role-playing consists of simulating events or interactions in a safe, make-believe setting with the aim of identifying (and sometimes altering) attitudes and behaviors which enhance or hamper the flow of communication in real life.

Purpose

Role-playing is helpful in training members of action-research teams and/or interest groups in communication skills. It may be used to develop simple theater sketches as entry points for involving a bigger audience in a discussion of social roles and communication behaviors.

Steps in using the technique

• Prepare a set of notes for the simulation exercise; the setting and roles to be played should be clearly defined (i.e., village nurse and mothers of children to be immunized).
• Prepare an observation checklist of features to be observed and assessed (i.e., Are the mothers made comfortable? Is the nurse capable of passing on a clear message?).
• Ask participants to form two sub-groups; make it clear that the exercise will be repeated and that each participant will have the chance to act as a performer and as an observer.
• Allow each sub-group to prepare a performance.
• The first group makes its performance and is assessed by the second group; comments are jotted down on the blackboard.
• The same process is repeated with the second group acting as performers and the first as observer/evaluators.
• The groups together discuss what can be done to improve communication in the setting that has been acted.

Strengths

• Role-playing is a powerful tool for identifying and acquiring communication skills.
• Exchanging roles in the exercise allows participants to experiment and realize the interactive nature of communication processes.

Weaknesses

• An experienced facilitator is needed to manage the group dynamics which may arise from the exercise.
• A good performance in the simulated setting does not necessarily mean that the same level of communication will be achieved in real life.

B.12 Slide language

Slide language (i.e., participatory picture-taking and slide shows) can be an effective tool for raising awareness about the local situation and promoting reflection. Insiders are trained to use a simple camera to take pictures of relevant features and events in their own environment and community. These pictures are then shown to interest groups and/or used at community meetings. Participants are asked to comment on the images, to tell a story related to them or to identify positive and negative aspects of the object, situation or event shown.

Purposes

Slide language can be used for a variety of interactive purposes such as participatory environmental assessment, gender analysis, evaluation of services or appraisal of traditional and new technologies. Slide language should not be confused with the use of pre-developed audio-visual materials for demonstration or didactic purposes.

Steps in using the tool

• Train members of an interest group in using the camera and in composing and selecting significant images (some practice may be needed).
• Decide the purpose of the session and collectively prepare a list of relevant scenes to be photographed; try to clarify with the group what each image is meant to show; using this information, draft a written text to accompany the slides.
• Assist the group in taking pictures; each image may be taken from three or four different angles, by different group members and under different light conditions (this will increase the chances of producing good-quality slides).
• After developing the slides, meet with the group and assist them in selecting the images they would like to show; images should be relevant to the written text, meaningful, easily recognizable by the audience, and of good technical quality; eight to twelve good slides are sufficient for a session.
• Start the session by explaining its purpose; prepare relevant key questions for each image to be used in promoting discussion; project each slide for enough time so that details can be identified and discussed.
• Take notes on the main points of the discussion. Use them for wrapping up the session so that a list of the problems elicited by the slides and possible solutions is agreed upon before its conclusion.

Strengths

• Slide language is a creative and participatory way of visual portrayal.
• It enhances local knowledge and can also be used in low-literacy communities.

Weaknesses

• Slide language is a relatively expensive tool. Cameras, slide films, a good projector and often a portable generator are required.
• It may take some time for the tool to be properly effective. During the first sessions participants may be more attracted by the 'show' than by its subject matter.

B.13 Gender analysis

Purpose

Gender analysis in an initiative dealing with population dynamics and the local environment helps to illustrate the difference in the ways men and women contribute to population dynamics, perceive it and are affected by it, and how they use natural resources, rely on them, and have access to alternatives. It also helps to make explicit the constraints (financial, legal, cultural, etc.) that differentially affect the ability of men and women to respond to, and participate in, common initiatives.

Steps in applying this process

Gender analysis can refer to any topic and be incorporated in all types of tools and processes, including: natural group interviews, gender-based interviews (natural group, focus and key informant), seasonal calendars, trend analysis, mapping exercises, household interviews, informal discussions, and so on. First, it is important to access and record data in 'disaggregated' and specific terms with respect to men and women. In other words, questions should probe in detail, for instance:

• Who migrates?
• Who wants large (small) families?
• Who is benefiting from large (small) families?
• Who is paying the price?
• Who has access to what resources - finance, equipment, land, natural products, etc.
• Who uses which natural resources, and for what?
• Who carries out which tasks?
• What role do women (men) play in decision-making about resource use?
• What is getting better for the women (men)?
• What is getting worse for the women (men)?

Second, both men and women should be allowed to provide their answers and their views, if necessary in separate meetings. In some cultures, women are reluctant to attend meetings and to speak their minds. In these cases, a woman facilitator may assist in rather informal gatherings and use great sensitivity to let the women find out for themselves what they wish to discuss and how?

The information collected through the gender analysis will have explicit reference to women and men and help with identifying - and possibly redressing - existing balances and inequities. In fact gender analysis could be the basis of gender-based planning, in which women and men present their concerns as separate interest groups.

Strengths

• Gender analysis ensures that the knowledge of both men and women is made available in the design and management of community initiatives.
• It explicitly acknowledges the importance of the role and contributions of women (not a 'given' in many communities).
• It protects women from having to bear unforseen and unacknowledged costs which may result from community initiatives.
• It enables constraints on women's participation to be addressed.

Weaknesses

• Patient and sensitive facilitation is required if women show reluctance to participate (due to shyness, male opposition, etc.).
• Addressing gender differences may be seen as a threat or a criticism of the local culture and cause some resentment

B.14 Some tips on good facilitation

There is an old saying about working together. We can accomplish anything, as long as we don't worry about who receives the credit.

Encouraging people

Facilitators guide a participatory process by asking questions and refraining from stating their own opinions, or instructing participants in answers presumed by them to be correct or incorrect. Their job is to stimulate the people to think and act in a self-reliant manner. It often means convincing people that they have an important role to play in their communities. Facilitators enable people to get into the habit of trusting their own ideas and organizing for action.

Many people, perhaps most, are shy of expressing themselves in public. In dome cultures, this is especially true of women and minorities. A lot of encouragement (not necessarily verbal) from facilitators is needed for such people ot speak. Facilitators assure them that their ideas are important. Even the slightest hint that their ideas might not be valuable discourages some folks from actively engaging in a discussion. A facilitator, therefore, never rejects a response. There are no 'wrong' answers. Everyone has something to contribute and every contribution has an insight at its core.

This does not mean that every contribution is easily understood when it is first presented. Many ideas may be expressed in convoluted or unclear terms, especially by people who have too little (or too much) experience in public speaking. The facilitator's job is to make sure that the concerns someone is trying to convey are actually expressed and understood.

Facilitation is difficult because its style is different to much development work. Facilitators must break the conventional mould of a teacher or extension officer. Educators in the developing world are often trapped by the 'anti-participation orientation' found in post-colonial schools, while extension officers tend to become 'salesmen', hawking predetermined plans from a central development office. Neither serves as a good model for a facilitator.

Becoming a good facilitator is an ongoing process that involves continual learning. No-one is simply born a good facilitator. Facilitators work as a team and learn from one another. The most valuable training they receive is 'on-the-job' training. Good facilitators are continually reflecting on their performance and on how they might be able to improve their skills.

The major challenge of a participatory process is to discern the miminum level of facilitator support that still allows it to be an effective catalyst for self-reliant initiative. A systematic pattern of monitoring visits can accomplish this. Many facilitors, however, are tempted to skimp on follow-up work so they can conduct new seminars in additional communities. This tendency must be strongly resisted.

Probing for detail

A typical problem encountered in planning workshops is one of abstraction. Hopes and dreams are stated so broadly that they become mere indicators of a broad, general direction - thereby losing the compelling power of bold but concrete visions. Abstract statements can be transformed into specific vision statements by asking: "What would we see if this was to happen?" Take, for example, a statement about 'improved health'. A facilitator might ask: "If we were to return in five years and take a picture of new developments in health/health care what would we see in the photographs?" Caution would have to be maintained to keep the responses realistic; it is doubtful if most rural villages can establish their own dispensary and clinic with a doctor. Realistic answers might include: "Pit latrines at every home," "Education classes in sanitation and hygiene," etc.

Below are some typical abstract vision statements followed by some statements that are more concrete and substantial. These are merely examples and are not intended to be 'right' answers. Every group will have its own unique perspective on its vision. Remember a good vision statement describes a reality that can be seen.

Statements about obstacles describe underlying causes that are preventing the village's hopes or plans from being realized. Just as weeds in the fields must be pulled up by their roots, obstacles, too, have root causes which must be addressed if they are to be overcome. Though obstacles are often referred to as 'problems', they are really windows to the future showing a group where they need to move.

'Lack of money' is one of the most frequent items to appear in brainstorming seesions on obstacles. But insufficient funds is a surface reading of the problem. After all, most communities will never reach a point where they are satisfied with available funds. The challenge of the facilitator is to ask questions that enable participants to look beyond the surface towards the contributing causes for a shortage of funds over which they have some control. These may include poor financial planning, unprioritized expenditures, unaccountable use of funds, untapped resources for more income generation, etc.

Obstacles are real problems that are blocking progress towards the vision like a fallen tree in the road. They are not empty phantoms as 'lack of' statements seem to imply. When boarding a rural commuter bus in the rain, a passenger sees very concrete problems: bald tyres, broken windscreen wipers and unmarked roads rather than 'lack of safety'. If participants say 'lack of' something is a problem, facilitators can enable concrete statements to emerge by asking about the underlying causes.

Below are some examples of shallow obstacle statements and some more revealing counterparts. As before, these provide facilitators with some illustrations of good obstacle statements and are not meant to be definitive of every group's experience.