Resource Book on Participation

SECTION VII: METHODOLOGIES, APPROACHES AND TECHNIQUES FOR PARTICIPATION

Description

This Section presents the reader with an overview of some of the most frequently used and successful participatory methodologies and techniques. At the outset a distinction is made between a method and a technique with the principal difference being that a technique is but one of several interactive ingredients in any participatory methodology. The participatory approach works better when the parties involved are directed and strong and this requires innovative leadership. The essence of a participatory methodology lies in translating desire into intent and intent into practice. It is here that method enters the picture to bridge the gap between intent and practice. Many factors are highlighted to choose the method or technique that is most appropriate for a project. The best methodology for an individual practitioner, planner or manager to be used on a specific project, is one that ultimately responds to and matches with one's goals, values and capabilities. Finally, many methodologies and techniques are offered and described and their relative strengths and limitations assessed.

Methodologies, Approaches and Techniques for Participation

This Section presents a brief overview of some of the most commonly used participatory methodologies, approaches and techniques. For comprehensive information on each, it refers the reader to detailed published sources as well as specialized professionals at the Bank.

What is Methodology?

Within the context of this Resource Book, the term "methodology" is defined as follows: a comprehensive, organized, systematic and disciplined approach to a problem.

In accepting the above definition, a distinction is made between "methodology" and "technique". Technique is viewed only as an integral component of a methodology, as the means or procedures used to carry out the methodology itself. In other words, technique is but one of the many interactive ingredients in any participatory methodology formula.

The Need for Methodology

Just as professionals in such varied disciplines as agronomy, engineering, or economics work with a certain method, so does a participation specialist or facilitator. Facilitating participation in development is a legitimate specialization, and the skills involved are to be valued. No good participation specialist would proceed without a "roadmap" or working methodology!

For example, if a Project Leader turns over a task or an issue to a group of local stakeholders with no guidelines, objectives, constraints or limits, the results can be extremely ineffective. Responsible managers or leaders do not give up all control or responsibility for results just because they are involving a wider circle of people. The participatory approach works better when the parties involved in it are directed and strong... therefore innovative leadership, not just machine-like bureaucracy, is required. ONE OF THE PRIMARY LEADERSHIP ROLES IS TO PROVIDE A STRUCTURE AND DIRECTION FOR PARTICIPATIVE PLANNING.

The essence of participatory methodology lies in translating desire into intent, and intent into practice. Intent is the starting point... but how to evolve intent into action? That's where the need for methodology or the "how to" comes in to play.

Choosing a Methodology

Any methodology chosen must take the following factors into account:

the nature of the project being contemplated;

what goals the project proposers hope to obtain;

who and what kind of stakeholders will be involved;

where these stakeholders are to be found in the socio-political hierarchy;

what kind of social relationships already exist - including latent or active conflict; and

have the local stakeholders had any previous experience with participation.

All of these factors are integral to choosing the most appropriate methodology for your unique project. They require careful thought - don't rush into a hasty decision. It might also be helpful to consider the following when making your decision:

Stress the purpose of the proposed project or activity. Method must derive directly from purpose.

Ask yourself "what does participation intend to accomplish within the circumstances of this particular project?" The answer to this question will go some distance in suggesting both an appropriate methodology and "best-fit" techniques.

It is generally a good idea to use more than one set of techniques in your methodology. Different processes and techniques should complement one another and expand the range of both participants and ideas brought to bear on the problem.

The methodology chosen - and those responsible for its application - must be experienced in, and sensitive to, the cultural and social environment in which it is to be employed.

Available assistance

There is no shortage of help available (both inside and outside the Bank) in choosing methodologies, and designing and implementing a participatory process. Don't hesitate to use the resources available to you. Remember that participatory skills you may have gained from one type of project experience may not be relevant to another set of organizational and cultural circumstances. If necessary, engage the services of an individual, NGO or a firm skilled in participation design and facilitation relevant to the realities of your particular project.

A few pointers to keep in mind

There are many methodologies available. Any experienced specialist should be able to suggest the methodology most appropriate to your particular circumstances.

There is a good deal of similarity and overlap between and amongst methods. Whilst each method gives a certain emphasis or "spin" to particular aspects of the process, practitioners work from a shared body of experience. They read one another's methodologies and adapt techniques to their own preferred style.

There are process design specialists who claim that their technologies are adaptable to a very wide variety of circumstances. Suffice it to say, these claims need to be carefully checked before adopting them for your project.

To sum it all up, there is no magical or uniquely superior methodology. Everything depends on the circumstances of each and every project...

[We] believe that no combination of theories or techniques embraces the whole of reality. For us, the concept of "best model" is an anachronism. We think the best model for these methods is a kaleidoscope. We are all working with the same bits of colored glass, evoking new patterns as we gain experience. We believe that the best model for you is one that squares with your goals, values and capabilities. (Weisbord and Janoff, 1995, p.12)

Elements of a Good Methodology

The basic ingredients of all good participatory methodologies can be judged and categorized under the broad headings of social invention, social learning, social commitment, and iterative planning.¹

Social Invention

The participants design their own solutions to development problems, and these are not the ideas or solutions that outside experts would conceive in isolation.

An interaction between experts and stakeholders and a synthesis of social and technical expertise are highly desirable.

Social Learning

People develop a new level of understanding of the issues and problems and the way to solve them.

Behaviors are changed - people will approach things differently in the future.

Social Commitment

People are free to make whatever promises they choose (including promises to take no new action at all).

People make their promises publicly in the presence of the other stakeholders.

People understand what it will take to fulfill the promise.

People have (or believe they can obtain) the means and competence to fulfill the promise.

There must be an effective means of assessing whether commitments or promises made are genuine, to ensure sustainability.

Iterative Planning

Planning must reflect and respond to experience and the need for change.

Some re-planning is almost always necessary. Therefore, stakeholders must be able to re-assemble if this occurs.

A Word of Emphasis

Iterative planning is clearly one of the most significant elements setting participatory methods apart from the more traditional, expert dominated approaches. However, it may also be the very factor that causes the greatest unease among project planners - because it suggests a measure of unpredictability and delay. But, iterative planning is the one measure most necessary for a thorough commitment to participation. The methodology must provide for reasonable and responsive changes or amendments to the "plan" in order to achieve sustainable results.

A. Commonly Used Methodologies

1. Appreciation-Influence-Control (A-I-C) A Self-Organizing Process

AIC is a fundamental and universal organizing process drawn equally from the wisdom of ancient cultural traditions and from modern sciences. It is built on an understanding of the relationship between purpose and power, and ensures that the maximum possible energy is brought to bear on the achievement of any purpose. It is equally applicable at the individual, organizational and community levels.

While intellectually it draws greatly on the major social science, developments of the last fifty years, Kurt Lewin's field theory, Eric Trist's socio-technical system's and Russell Ackoff's interactive planning- and is consistent with the New Sciences - Relativity, Quantum physics and Chaos theory - it has taken these theories and practices to new levels by learning from traditional approaches to organizing in all major cultures. The result is a simple, elegant model that applies equally to the design of a fifteen minute meeting or a fifteen year national development program in any culture.

The Main Characteristics of AIC

AIC is a philosophy based on an understanding that power relationships are central to the process of organizing. This philosophy states, that purpose, not wealth, authority or knowledge, is the source of power. Identifying the purposes to be served, finding those whose needs are addressed by that purpose, and pursuing that purpose over a whole time cycle provide the potential power underlying successful accomplishment of purpose.

AIC is a model that illustrates the relationship between purpose and power. The model is named after the three fundamental and universal relationships involved in the design of any purposeful system-- the relationship to the whole (appreciation), the relationship between the parts of the whole system( influence), and the relationship of the individual part to itself (control). Just as the mixing of three primary colors can give millions of different colors, so can the mixing of A, I and C give millions of shadings of power relationships.

AIC is an organizing process which consists of:

a) identifying the purpose to be served;

b) framing the power-field around that purpose -- those who have control, influence and appreciation relative to the purpose;

c) selecting those with the most influence relative to the purpose (stakeholders) from the three circles and designing a process of interaction between them; and

d) facilitating a self-organizing process which ensures that the stakeholders:

1) step back from the current problems to fully appreciate the realities and possibilities inherent in the whole situation;

2) examine the logical and strategic options as well as the subjective feelings and values involved in selecting strategies; and

3) allow for free and informed choice of action by those responsible for implementing decisions.

AIC is not wedded to any particular methodology. It provides a framework that helps organizers choose or design methodologies appropriate to the phase of the organizing cycle and to the local situation. For example, in the appreciative phase it can use brainstorming, search conferences, Delphi techniques, story-telling, art, etc. In the influence phase, it uses methodologies such as dialogue, open-space, negotiation and conflict resolution. In the control phase it can use such methodologies as management by objectives, the Logical Framework, ZOPP, and PERT.

The AIC self-organizing process is consciously trans-cultural. Through the study of natural and formal organizations in many cultures we have learnt that individuals, organizations and cultures manifest a particular pattern of appreciation, influence and control. The AIC process uses this knowledge to draw out the best of each culture's natural process but also to transcend its natural limitations.

Applications

The AIC self-organizing process has been applied worldwide to both public and private organizations. It has been used at every level- village, regional, national and global. It has been applied to projects ranging from village development to the design of national policy in Cambodia, Colombia, Hungary, Indonesia, Mali, Norway, Sierra Leone, Thailand and the United States.

It has addressed very technical issues such as the design of policies for energy, very political issues such as the peace process in Cambodia, and complex institutional issues such as the design of market systems for Hungry.

In Thailand, the self-organizing process has taken on a life of its own, in both the private and public sectors. A Thai Foundation, which promotes the process, has been formed under royal patronage. A series of "five star" partnerships between the government, the private sector, community and religious organizations and NGOs has been created to promote programs of development that extend to 50,000 villages. The National Planning NESDB has recently completed the first national plan using the AIC process.

A partnership currently exists between the United Nations Research in Social Development and the George Washington University's Center for Social and Organizational Learning to disseminate and conduct further research in the application of this approach.

Contacts

The concept was developed by William E. Smith (202-387-6661) as part of his doctoral work in Social Systems Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton Graduate School of Business Its application in the developing world has been sponsored by ODII, Organizing for Development and International Institute -- contact Turid Sato (202-483-6344) or Dr. William E. Smith at:

Organizing for Development- An International Institute (ODII)

2134 Leroy Place, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20008

Tel.: (202) 483-6344

Fax.: (202) 234-1392

2. Consultation Process: A Regional Approach Stressing Partnership

The consultation process is premised on studies that have shown development projects that local people help design and carry out tend to work better than traditional top-down projects. Those policies and projects most likely to succeed are ones that invite input from key stakeholders, including traditionally excluded groups. These sectors can include the public and private sectors, academics, grassroots organizations, technical institutions and civil society. Dr. Aarón Zazueta working with WRI has developed this consultation process that gathers, recognizes, and tests the views and ideas of all competing interests and creates an opportunity to build understanding.

How does the Consultation Process work?

The consultation process assures that a long term plan or strategy incorporates all interests and actors involved in the project cycle. The process is approached in an open, transparent environment which generates an exchange by which points of consensus are identified and later used to establish an agenda. This "action agenda" attempts to include all the interested and active groups in the plan. The consultation involves three objectives:

1) Inform the participants of civil society and the governmental sector about the reasons and mechanisms by which the organizing body will develop, it's objectives and priorities.

2) Achieve participant contribution in the project and in the identification of new options in the definition of priority actions.

3) Promote the interactive dialogue of different sectors with the goal of stimulating better understanding between them of common worries, objectives and interests.

The Three Phases of Consultation

Phase One- Information:

This principal phase generates information between the participants and explains to each the objectives of the consultation process, the functions and history of the organizing institution and it's political components. These action lines(4 to 6) detail the most important ideas and allow participants to comment in a question and answer session.

Phase Two- Analysis:

The participants analyze the proposed action plans of the organizing institution, identify any additional options and prioritize the action plan. This is facilitated in mixed groups and each group focuses on one overall action line, which they divide up into various components. There is a high degree of interaction between the participants and each understands the others' interests, needs and worries. These groups take 2 priority actions from the larger action lines and elaborate on them discussing use of human resources, financing and institutional involvement.

Phase Three- Conclusions:

The results of the groups are disseminated and shared. The conclusions of each group are examined by other others in order to make appropriate comments on the ideas and priorities identified. The final product of the groups has three components:

1. Comments and modifications of the action plans.

2. 2 or 3 activities that the participants consider essential to each plan.

3. Suggestions on how to implement the plan with available resources.

Five Key Elements of the Consultation Process

1. Inviting diverse and representative participants

The forum works best when between 50 to 70 participants are invited to attend. In order for this process to work it is important to include diverse interests and points of view. This can be accomplished by inviting representatives from both the public and private sectors, social organizations, NGOs, academic sectors(universities) and the non-profit sector. Participation of women in this process is critical, therefore it is recommended inviting 50% women to the event. It is important to begin planning early and invite all the participants one month previous and confirm their attendance one week before the event. In addition, documents describing the process, agenda and objectives of the consultation can be distributed before to help prepare the participants.

2. Preparation of the consultation

a) Selection and preparation of the location

The location of the consultation should be big enough to receive the large number of participants, organizers, and facilitators. There should also be adequate conditions of good ventilation, quiet setting, good lighting, a/v availability, and space for displays.

b) Preparation of materials

This consists of all the materials and props that are required by facilitators and participants in the event. The quantities depend on the number of participants.

c) Preparation of participants and organizers

This stage is important in providing clear objectives and roles for those persons critical to the events' success. These goals can be reached through a small workshop or planning seminar involving all key actors in the consultation.

3. Role of facilitator

The facilitators play critical roles in the ultimate success of this consultation. This can be negatively impacted when the participants feel the process is being manipulated by the facilitator. It is important to acquire the principal messages of the participants and transmit them directly to the poster boards. The control and use of time assures that all the topics on the agenda are covered adequately. In addition, the ability to be flexible and adjust the process and activities to the needs and conditions of the participants is essential.

4. Identification of proposals

Frequently in these forums a great number of proposals can arise out of the diverse number of actors and groups involved. It is therefore important to synthesize the proposals into a handful that directly correlate to the most important problems or issues. The facilitator can accomplish this by helping the groups concentrate on 2 or 3 action proposals in the analysis stage.

5. Acknowledgment of conflicts

In seeking to build consensus it is important not to avoid or ignore conflicts amongst the groups. This can undermine the confidence and commitment of the participants by ignoring their concerns and forcing them to go along with consensus. The conflicts should be addressed and incorporated into the final report on consultation.

Strengths

Helps ensure that plans, strategies and long range goals incorporate different points of views and expectations of the stakeholders interested in sustainable development.

Promotes participation and encourages interactive dialogue of different sectors to gain a better understanding of common worries, objectives and interests.

Limitations

Often during the forums, conflicts and disagreements arise between various groups in the search for consensus and these can not be ignored by the facilitator.

Involves a great deal of planning and number of participants and will cost more in terms of both time and money compared to other techniques of smaller scale.

Further Reading:

World Resources Institute. 1993 El Proceso de Evaluación Rural Participativa: una propuesta metodológica.

Zazueta, Aaron. 1995 Policy Hits the Ground: Participation and Equity in Environmental Policy-Making. World Resources Institute.

Zazueta, Aaron 1995. Lineamientos Para Foros de Consulta. (WRI) Municipio de Holpechen. 1992 Comunidad Ejidal de"Nueva Vida", Municipio de Holpechen. Campeche, Mexico.

Taller de Evaluacion Rural Participativa de Manejo de Recursos Naturales.

Institutional Contact

International Center for the Environment and Development

World Resources Institute

1709 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

Tel. (202) 638-6300

Fax. (202) 638-0036

3. Future Search: A Consensus-Building Approach to Project Design

What is Future Search?

The main objective of Future Search is the achievement of consensus among stakeholders in the planning and design stage of the project cycle. All stakeholders meet to create the future they want and develop strategies for reaching it. There are many open-ended possibilities for country specific adaptations. Designed and packaged by Marvin Weisbord and Associates, the Future Search methodology emphasizes:

• whole system participation, as many interested parties as practical, not limited to direct stakeholders;
• envisioning future scenarios of what the "perceived reality" will be for an organization or community, which is put into historical and global perspective;
• people who self-manage their work and use dialogue not "problem solving" as their main tool;
• common ground rather than "conflict management" is the frame of reference, honoring our differences instead of reconciling them;
• the intensive "search conference" or single meeting of sixty (60) to seventy (70) people, representative of all stakeholding agencies or groups; and
• working through a disciplined process that has been refined over years of practice.
  
  

How does Future Search work?

The process (Weisbord and Janoff, 1995, p. 5), which is both experience and theory-based, usually takes three days and is structured around five tasks:

reviewing the past

exploring the present

creating ideal future scenarios

identifying common ground

making action plans

The main features are:

considerable emphasis on values;

exploration of the present and the past specific to the organization or community in question, and also globally. These are brought together through the process; and

the notion of finding common ground is an essential element. Any unresolved differences are left as such if they have not been resolved by the end of the conference.

Experience shows that there is normally a very substantial common agenda to implement the conference and a high degree of commitment when the event concludes. Although the "future search" methodology is rooted in North American corporate or organizational experience, Weisbord and his colleagues suggest some developing country adaptations.

Key Planning Issues

Inclusion of a broad spectrum of viewpoints, i.e. indirect stakeholders.

Focus on future (5 to 20 years) investment in ideal future scenarios.

Open systems exploration of trends within and between organization and outside.

Self managed tasks and roles for participants.

Hours of work spaced over three days.

Full attendance and participation of all involved.

Public action commitments.

Healthy conditions and comfortable environment for conference.

Planning a Future Search Conference

The planning meeting usually takes more time to plan than to do. The first planning activity is with the steering committee, to determine tasks, stakeholders and time frames. Next is the design of information and reframing of task worksheets. This is presented at the second steering committee meeting, where final plans are made. The second meeting should take place at the actual conference site. Planning groups can range from 2 to 15 people, with 6 to 8 as ideal. The planning meeting can turn into a stakeholders search, and the participants are encouraged to brainstorm a list of who has stakes and what their own stake is in the issue. It is necessary to determine who needs to be there for the tasks outlined

Questions to be Answered in the Future Search Process

1. Who should sponsor the conference?

2. Who should plan it?

3. Who should be invited?

4. Where, when and how long?

5. What tasks should be accomplished?

6. How will the output be communicated?

7. What are the next steps after the conference?

Learning Assumptions (Weisbord, 1975) Related to Future Search Conferences

It is assumed that each person:

Has a unique learning style, so a variety of methods are provided.

Learns at a different rate, so patience and repeating are essential.

Learns different things from a common experience, so trading of perceptions and views are encouraged.

Learns best from his or her own experience so, testing of ideas against own situation and healthy skepticism is productive.

Learns more in one conference than can be applied, so focus is on local action within global context.

Has the ability to help and teach others, so participation and drawing on others' expertise is sought after.

Benefits from trial, error and feedback, so this is provided in low-risk situations.

Strengths

By achieving consensus in the early stages, decreases the potential for stakeholder conflict.

The global view of a certain problem broadens the knowledge and awareness of the issues among isolated groups.

Accelerates and refines the planning process by bringing all stakeholders together simultaneously in one place.

Participants manage information, analysis and action planning themselves.

Focuses broadly on opportunities, not narrowly on specific problems.

Allows a diverse cross-section of stakeholders to participate and creates potential for innovative ideas and shared implementation.

Limitations

Necessary to have conference process in a situation with an established structure otherwise it can be very difficult to manage and is time-consuming.

Process depends on collaboration and non-traditional design which is not typically familiar to or adopted by business and professional participants.

Requires the attendance of the "power people" who control the resources and can commit to future scenarios. Possibility for participants to recreate unresolved conflicts or shirk assigned tasks.

Doesn't guarantee that the leaders or principal stakeholders will support the initiatives that arise out of the conference.

Requires a minimum level of attendance and diversity among participants for the conference to succeed and attain its objectives.

Further Reading

Weisbord, Marvin R.& Janoff, Sandra. 1995. Future Search: An Action Guide to Finding Common Ground in Organizations & Communities. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA.

Weisbord, Marvin R. and 35 International Coauthors. 1992. Discovering Common Ground. Berrett-Koehler Publishers: San Francisco, CA.

External Resource Persons and Training

Maria Mitros (800) 951-6333

Sandra Janoff (215) 842-2842

Marvin Weisbord (610) 896-7035

4. The Logical Framework Approach (LFA): A Structured Approach to Project Planning.

The Logical Framework methodology was developed in late 1979 and the early 1980s as a tool for the conceptualization, design, and execution of development projects. It is used to increase precision in project planning, relate multiple project objectives to project activities, clarify roles and responsibilities, and evaluate intended versus actual project results. It encourages participation in development through a rigorous process of stakeholder analysis.

At the Bank, the LFA is being used increasingly in project design. In addition, for the annual portfolio assessment exercise a project performance review form (PPRF) based on the LFA is completed for projects in execution. The guidelines for preparation of Project Completion Reports, which are currently being revised, will also reflect this widespread use of LFA.

The LFA is used for project planning in several international agencies, including the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), the German Corporation for Technical Cooperation (GTZ), the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD), the African Development Bank (AfDB), the Commission of the European Communities and Pan American Health Organization (PAHO).

What is LFA?

The LFA consists of a series of instruments:

Stakeholder Analysis

Problem Analysis

Objectives Analysis

Analysis of Alternatives

The Logical Framework Matrix

Execution Plan

Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Project Reports

The Logical Framework is a four-by-four matrix. The four columns in the matrix are:

Narrative Summary

Objectively Verifiable Indicators (targets)

Means of Verification

Assumptions

The four rows in the matrix reflect the underlying means-ends "logic" among the Goal, Purpose, Outputs and Activities.

Goal- is the underlying reason for undertaking the project, and to the resolution of which the project's purpose should contribute significantly.

Purpose- is the underlying hypothesis about the direct impact or benefit to be derived from utilization of the outputs.

Outputs- are the project's results or deliverables, in terms of works, studies, training program, institutional strengthening, etc.

Activities- are the inputs required or what is needed to accomplish the outputs.

Stakeholder Analysis - An Essential Technique in LFA

The Logical Framework Approach stresses that the success of a project depends to a large extent on the validity of the assumptions related to its various stakeholders and also to the underlying context or rationale for the project. As part of an iterative process that should also take place throughout the project cycle, stakeholder analysis is used to determine the overall strategy of the project (the Goal and Purpose of a project), to identify the assumptions related to the strategy selected, and to plan activities that will tend to increase the probability that the assumptions are valid during the implementation phase. It should be emphasized that the success or failure of a project is often determined by the behavior of the assumptions.

The project's stakeholders are identified, along with their interests and their perceptions of the specific problems connected with the development problem or context to be addressed through an intervention (e.g. health, education, sanitation, energy, environmental degradation, etc.) It asks the questions: Who is directly affected by the problem situation being addressed? What are the interests of the various groups of stakeholders in relation to the problem under consideration? How does each group of stakeholders perceive the development problem? What resources does each group bring to bear (positively or negatively) in relation to the problem? What organizational or institutional responsibilities do some of these groups have? Who should benefit from a project? What conflicts might a group of stake-holders have with a particular project strategy? What activities might be carried out that could satisfy the interests of the various stakeholders?

Problem analysis is based on the problems perceived by the various stakeholders, and is used to analyze cause-and-effect relationships. Through the use of objective analysis, these relationships are converted into means-ends relationships which underlie the structure of the logical framework matrix. Alternative analysis is used to identify possible project strategies, some of which will be further analyzed using various methods and criteria, including economic, financial, sectoral, poverty-related, gender-related, environmental, etc.

LFA utilizes stakeholder analysis at the beginning of the project cycle, and whenever log-frames are re-considered during the life of a project, a ratification of the original stakeholder analysis is often conducted.

Tips for Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis: ²

1. Prepare a "stakeholders table". This identifies all potential groups of stakeholders, including primary and secondary, lists all of their interests in relation to the central development problem under consideration, and briefly summarizes the likely impact of the project on each of these interests. It also indicates the relative priority assigned to each stakeholder.

Here are the main categories of the stakeholder analysis:

A) Group B) Interests C) Problems Perceived

D)Resources/Mandates E) Interest in Project

F) Potential Conflicts

Have all primary and secondary stakeholders been listed?

Have all potential supporters and opponents of the project been identified?

Has gender analysis been used to identify different types of female stakeholders?

Have primary stakeholders been divided into user/occupational groups, or income groups?

Are there new stakeholder groups that are likely to emerge as a result of the project?

What are the stakeholder's expectations of the project?

What resources will the stakeholder wish to commit (or avoid committing) to the project?

What other interests does the stakeholder have which may conflict with the project?

How does the stakeholder regard others on the list?

2. Assess each stakeholder's importance to project success and relative power/influence.

Classify stakeholders into different groups according to their importance and their influence (this involves taking factors such as authority, social, economic and political status, resources, and knowledge into consideration).

To assess importance to project success, ask which stakeholders the project gives priority to in terms of meeting their demands, needs, interests, etc.

3. Identify risks and assumptions which will affect project design and success.

What is the role or response of key stakeholders if the project is to be successful?

Are there negative responses to be expected and if so, what will the impact be?

What activities can be included that will satisfy stakeholders, encourage support for the project and dampen resistance to the strategy, thus increasing the probability that the assumptions will hold?

Once the risks and assumptions have been taken into account, the stakeholder analysis may contribute to the first column of the logical framework, ie. the hierarchy of objectives. In particular, outputs and activities may need revision in light of the expanded and refined analysis of risks.

Strengths

provides a uniform terminology which helps remove ambiguity.

provides format to reach stakeholder agreement on project objectives, targets and tasks.

provides a common analytic routine that can be used by Bank staff, consultants, and the borrower to develop and adjust the project.

helps design team conceptualize a project from the beginning to the end.

creates a better base for systematic monitoring and analysis of project effects.

use of LFA and systematic monitoring ensures continuity of approach when original project staff are replaced.

Limitations

a flawed stakeholder analysis can base project objectives and activities on false assumptions.

if not revised during project cycle, the stakeholder analysis matrix may become obsolete.

all parties utilizing the LFA need thorough training in the technique to prevent misapplication (i.e. using LFA as a blueprint by simply filling in the boxes).

the stakeholder analysis and application can occupy a considerable amount of time.

the approach can be less useful in dialogue with and participation of host country personnel and country representatives.

Further Reading

Binders. October 3-4, 1994. Training on the Logical Framework: Problem, Stakeholder and Force Field Analysis, Monitoring and Evaluation. Management Systems International.

Bittner, Gary W. 1986. "An Analysis of the Logical Framework Matrix, A Conceptual Project Planning Model Used by the U.S. Agency for International Development."

Inter-American Development Bank. May 31, 1995 Evaluation: A Management Tool for Improving Project Performance.

Inter-American Development Bank, Evaluation Office. 1996. Resourcebook on Logical Framework Approach.

Norwegian Agency for Development Co-operation (NORAD). 1990. The Logical Framework Approach: Handbook for Objectives-oriented Project Planning.

Solem, Ray. 1986. Retrospective on the Logical Framework. Center for Development Information and Evaluation, Memorandum.

Bank Resource Persons and Training

George P. Montalvan

Senior Evaluation Officer

Evaluation Office (EVO)

Phone: 202/623-1560

e-mail: georgem@iadb.org

Arthur H. Darling

Senior Economist

Environment and Natural Resources Management Division 1

Phone: 202/623-1951

e-mail: arthurd@iadb.org

External Resource Persons

Larry Cooley- President

Management Systems International

600 Water Street S.W. NBU 7-7

Washington, D.C. 20024

Phone: 202/484-7170

Fax. 202/488-0754

Moses Thompson- President

Team Technologies, Inc.

3810 Concorde Parkway, Suite 1600

Chantilly, VA. 22021-1128

Phone: 703/222-5555

Fax: 703/222-5159

5. Open Space: A Better Place to Meet (An Empowering Approach)

What is Open Space?

The objective of the Open Space approach is to empower individuals and the group by putting the opportunity and the responsibility for creating a valuable experience in their hands. This is facilitated by providing a structure which builds on energy, commitment, and shared leadership with the least possible time wasted on complicated logistics and advanced planning. The organizers of the event create a powerful theme statement which galvanizes people's interest and stimulates a broad scope for the discussion and development of session topics participants feel are important.

The Open Space Process

Preparation and Process

The day of the event, all the participants convene in a large room and sit comfortably in a circle. On one wall is an empty conference schedule and to one side is a matrix of Post It stickers with the columns headed by the names of available meeting rooms and rows representing times of the day in which sessions can be offered. The facilitator explains the theme and process, then invites anyone with a topic to co-convene a session. Conveners get a poster board and write their title session/name, and let others sign up for it.

Conveners

make a room/time reservation by taking Post It stickers from the matrix for the room and time preferred;

come to the center of the circle and announces the title, time/day and make any other brief promotional or explanatory remarks; and

place the poster on the wall schedule at the appropriate time/day location.

Once all the ideas have been announced and sessions posted, the Open Space becomes a market place, with the whole group moving to the wall. People sign up based on their own interests and they negotiate time changes and attendance issues. Successful sessions are quite commonly held with as few as two people or as many as thirty. Establishing the agenda takes about an hour, after which participants take the main responsibility for convening sessions.

Conclusion and Closing Process

After the sessions end, each convener is asked to summarize the highlights and agreed upon actions. These are then compiled into an account of the proceedings of the event. This summary can be done on site and compiled so that everyone leaves with the proceedings in hand.

If a follow-up process is necessary beyond what is already determined by the participants within the individual sessions, proposals are made, discussed and agreed upon. This often involves building on emerging leadership of session conveners and using a companion process for setting priorities. This can be accomplished in the actual Open Space process if long enough, or by a series of short meetings of the "intact" group upon their return to the workplace after the event. Once the implementation process is agreed upon, any participant who would like to comment on what he/she has learned has the opportunity to do so briefly as the entire group reconvenes in the large circle to close the Open Space.

Open Space Technology (OST) Checklist

Appropriateness- Is OST right for our purposes?

Theme- Is it clear and focused but with sufficient room for imagination?

Invitation- Is there sufficient information to insure that our guests arrive at the right place ready to go to work?

Time- Have we allotted sufficient time for what we want to do?

Main Space- Is our meeting room large enough to have a comfortable circle?

The Wall- Do we have an unobstructed wall in our meeting room that all can see?

Other Spaces- Do we have sufficient break-out rooms (10 rooms for 200 participants) that all can fit in comfortably?

Food and Drink- Have we made arrangements to manage the maximum possible flexibility for meals and snacks?

Supplies- Do we have all the necessary supplies ready to go?

Consultation with the Management- Have we spent enough quality time with the facility management explaining OST and our needs?

Four Key Principles

• Whoever comes are the right people. Every effort is made to invite people critical to the objectives of the gathering and once it begins the people who have come, are by definition, the right people for whatever reason they choose.

• Whatever happens is the only thing that could, and the participants are limited only by their expectations, so it is best not to worry about what might have been.

• Whenever it starts is the right time, and watching the clock can inhibit creativity and learning. All must take responsibility for their time and contributions.

• Whenever it's over, it's over. The creative process and groups have their own rhythms and sometimes take less or more time than expected.
  
  

The Law of Two Feet

Every person has the option of moving to another place or any time during the event. If you are in a place where you are unable to earn or contribute anything it is your responsibility to move to a place where you think you can. This can be done with grace and sensitivity, while leaving each person free to find their own way.

Strengths

Provides a very safe, inclusive environment in which diverse participants can exchange information, viewpoints and strategies on the development process.

Places the responsibility on the participants and with this empowering technique stimulates trust, shared leadership and commitment through participation.

Achieves participation at a low cost in an uncomplicated fashion which can be conducted by relatively inexperienced conveners or those not necessarily from official leadership positions of institutions involved.

Limitations

The loose structure of Open Space may reduce the ability of organizers to have certain actors attend specific sessions.

There is no guarantee that what the organizers think are the important issues are put on the agenda because participants are in charge of topic selection.

Some sessions may end up having too few or too many participants, when no limits are placed on demand.

Further Reading

Owen, Harrison. 1992. Open Space Technology: A User's Guide. Abbott Publishing: Maryland.

Owen, Harrison 1995. Tales from Open Space. Abbott Publishing: Maryland.

External Resource Persons

Giles Hopkins & Robbins Hopkins

8201 Wally Drive

Bethesda, MD. 20817

Tel.(301) 469-8003

Fax.(301) 469-0523

Harrison Owen

7808 River Falls Drive

Potomac, MD. 20854

Tel.(301) 469-9269

6. Participatory Action Research (PAR)

The Latin American tradition of Participatory Action Research (PAR) is a rich and vibrant one which has made a substantial contribution to development theory and practice throughout the world. Much of the participatory work is based on the concepts of Community Empowerment and Valorization of Knowledge.

What is PAR?

Participatory Action Research (or Participatory Research) is about re-discovering local knowledge (both production-related and cultural knowledge). It emphasizes long-term commitment, on the part of researchers, to the empowerment of the poor and the marginalized through the cyclical action-research-action process. In other words, PAR emphasizes an interaction (between the poor and outsiders) through which the poor become stronger, through the attainment of knowledge, and better able to take action to change their circumstances. Dominant groups tend to legitimize their economic and political advantage by means of their control of the production and dissemination of knowledge.

This knowledge is produced through the participation of committed intellectuals (external animators) and the base-groups (internal animators) in a common endeavor of research and social action. Both groups contribute their knowledge, techniques and experiences to the process on an equal basis, forming a subject/subject relationship. PAR is closely related to other approaches which fall under the broad category of "adult education", but which are identified with, and rooted in, the same general philosophy. These PAR-type approaches are in part movements, methodologies, or associations of community research practitioners. Some examples are:

popular education - a movement inspired by Paulo Freire which emphasizes open dialogue and the raising of consciousness through collective reflection.

popular theater (also known as "theater for development"). Community drama is a tool whereby groups gain a deeper understanding of their realities and express themselves.

The Main Characteristics of PAR are

Strong links are established between researchers and local people.

Long cycles of collective research and action occur in which processes of mutual learning are intensified.

Research findings are returned back to the community and are not extracted.

Research brings to light new research needs, thereby fueling the action-reflection-action cycle.

The PAR Methodology

Although PAR resists codification and inflexible step-by-step processes, there is, nonetheless, a discernable methodology:

As a general rule, a change agent initiates the study. The change agent may or may not come from within the community.

Begin with the problem - define it and identify the dimensions to be addressed.

Community participants choose the research design and methods through dialogue with the researcher in a team environment that demystifies the methodology and empowers the community to use the methodology again. Researchers will eschew secretive and extractive methods.

Dialogue is an essential methodological feature.

Although data gathering and analysis may utilize the full repertoire of qualitative and quantitative methodology found in the social sciences, the particular techniques chosen must be customized by the researchers involved with PAR as they are not as detached from their subjects as traditional researchers.

Results may be utilized in the most appropriate way determined by the participants. Something that an outsider may label "utilization" may occur at the end or part way through the study, or it may not occur at all. PAR is a continuous educational activity and it is often difficult to pinpoint where one project ends and the next begins.

Strengths

PAR is indigenous to the region, has cultural integrity, and has developed a substantial body of experience.

PAR strengthens the bottom up approach to development and involves the participation of marginalized groups and indirect stakeholders of projects.

PAR has a good project track record (El Canelo-Chile) in Latin and North America from industry to literacy and local community-based projects.

PAR promotes continual adjustment and re-invention because there is a large overlap of actors participating in the planning, experience, execution, modification and evaluation of innovations and projects.

Participants who view themselves as "clients" rather than "subjects" tend to be more motivated and have higher personal commitment.

Limitations

The practice of creating conditions of genuine equality in the encounter of different types of knowledge is difficult; there could be a lack of clarity in defining what that knowledge consists of between the participants.

The information that is gained from the research needs to be abstracted, codified and systematized in order to be accepted by larger society and there is the danger it will be dismissed as "folk culture," and not properly valued.

The knowledge produced from the research may set high expectations of group mobilization, political empowerment and social transformation: all of which may not be the desired result of those involved in process.

Empowerment, which enables an individual or group to more fully participate in the political order, can also have the reverse effect whereby these same actors become part of the system and strive to maintain their power once gained.

Further Reading

Fals-Borda & Rahman, M.A. 1991. Action and Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly with Participatory Action Research. Apex Press: New York.

Rahman, Md Anisur. 1993. Peoples's Self Development: Perspectives of Participatory Action Research; A Journey through Experience. Zed Books: New Jersey.

Park, Peter. 1993. Voices of Change: Participatory Research in the United States and Canada. Bergin & Garvey: Connecticut.

Park, Peter. 1989. What is Participatory Research? A Theoretical and Methodological Perspective. University of Massachusetts: Amherst.

Whyte, William F. 1991. Participatory Research. Sage Publications, Inc: Newbury Park, CA.

External Resource Persons

John Gaventa Patricia Ahern

Fellow on Participatory Research 3128 19th Street, N.W.

For Development Washington, D.C.

Institute of Development Studies Tel.(h) (202) 234-7708

University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RE Email: ahern5@aol.com

United Kingdom Fax.(202) 332-4142

Tel. 44 1273 678490

Fax. 44 1273 621202

John Gaventa

Fellow on Participatory Research

For Development

Institute of Development Studies

University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RE

United Kingdom

Tel. 44 1273 678490

Fax. 44 1273 621202

Patricia Ahern

3128 19th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

Tel.(h) (202) 234-7708

Email: ahern5@aol.com

Fax.(202) 332-4142

Organizations Specializing in PAR methods

Participatory Development Project

East-West Center

Resource Systems Institute

1777 East-West Road

Honolulu, Hawaii 96848

Tel: (808) 944-711

International Institute for East-West Center Environment Sustainable Agriculture Programme

3 End sleigh Street

London WC1H 0DD

United Kingdom

Tel. 44 171 388 2117

Fax. 44 171 388 2826

7. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): An Approach to Community-Level Participation

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) is the label attached to a growing family of approaches and methods which enable local (rural and urban) people to make their own appraisals, analyze and plan, share information, and monitor and evaluate development actions and programmes. (Chambers, 1994)

What is PRA?

Participatory Rapid Appraisal (PRA) is a specific form of Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), a research technique developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s by researchers in international development as an alternative and complement to conventional sample surveys. PRA is a way of learning from, and with, community members to investigate, analyze and evaluate constraints and opportunities, and make informed and timely decisions regarding development projects. A research team can quickly and systematically collect information for:

the general analysis of a specific problem, question or topic

needs assessments

feasibility studies

project identification and prioritization

project or program evaluations

Although RRA and PRA include the words "rural" and "appraisal", Robert Chambers, one of the leading authorities in the field, notes that "labels are a problem...'rural' is misleading since there are now many urban applications. And the word "appraisal" is too limited since PRA is a process involving much more than just appraisal" (Chambers, 1995). PRA is widely used in Africa and Asia, but is less well-known in Latin America. Some have suggested that because the language of PRA is not as explicitly political as the distinctively Latin American traditions (e.g. PAR), but shares many other similarities, it may be perceived as a less threatening approach whilst offering a substantial variety of experience-tested methods and techniques.

The Essential Elements of PRA

Multi-disciplinary PRA team of various skills and backgrounds.

Offsetting biases (spatial, project, person/gender, elite, seasonal, professional, courtesy).

Triangulation - using different methods, sources, disciplines, a range of informants in a range of places, and cross-checking through successive approximations.

Community members(insiders) participating in the appraisal.

Principal investigators maintaining direct contact, face-to-face, in the field.

Role reversals - learning from and with rural people and using their criteria and categories.

Optimal ignorance and approximate imprecision - not finding out more than necessary, measuring more accurately, or ignoring what is not necessary.

On-the-spot analysis to determine which direction to proceed.

Primacy of behavior, attitudes and rapport over methods.

Culture of sharing information, methods, food, field experiences, etc.

Critical self-awareness regarding our attitudes and behavior. (Chambers 1995)

Some PRA Techniques

The array of techniques used within the PRA methodology is rich, varied and creative. Space does not permit a complete listing, but a characteristic sample follows:

* semi-structured interviewing;

* casual, random encounter, focus and/or specialist groups;

* local people serving as investigators and researchers;

* case studies and stories;

* participatory mapping and modeling;

* local analysis of secondary sources (e.g. aerial photographs);

* transect walks;

* time lines, trends and change analysis;

* seasonal calendars and daily time use analysis;

* institutional diagraming;

* well-being or wealth ranking;

* matrix scoring and ranking;

* local indicators: e.g. what are poor people's criteria of well-being?;

* team contracts and interactions with agreed norms and modes of behavior;

* shared presentations and analysis. (ibid)

Some Common Applications of PRA

natural resources and agriculture (watersheds and soil and water conservation, forestry and agro-forestry, fisheries and aquaculture, biodiversity and wildlife buffer zones, village plans, crops and animal husbandry, irrigation and markets);

programs for equity (women and gender, credit, selection for poverty-oriented programmes, income opportunities);

health and nutrition (assessments, monitoring and planning of health, food security and nutrition, water and sanitation, emergencies);

policy (impact of structural adjustment and other policies, participatory poverty assessment, land policy);

adult literacy, organizational analysis, gender awareness and children (ibid).

Strengths

Willingness to take risks and try new ideas has resulted in a rich array of field-demonstrated techniques.

PRA informs and provides techniques which can be grafted onto or absorbed by other methodological groups.

PRA involves a high degree of participation among community members.

A growing network of development practitioners throughout the world are utilizing this approach and can provide specific case studies and results.

PRA raises people's self-awareness, suggests viable solutions, and helps people analyze complex issues and problems.

PRA techniques complement and in many cases substitute for, other research methods, and do not make redundant more formal, detailed surveys and analyses.

Limitations

Generalizing based on too little information or too few informants.

Raising high expectations of community where PRA is being carried out.

Lack of rapport with community or fear of outside researchers.

Seeing only part of the picture and missing key factors.

Difficulty in finding the right questions to ask.

Going through the process too quickly could make the analysis invalid.

Finding the right team with experience to complete the research.

Failure to involve all community members especially the poorest and women.

Further Reading

Chambers, Robert R. 1992. "Rural Appraisal: Rapid, Relaxed and Participatory." Institute of Development Studies Discussion Paper 311. Sussex, United Kingdom: IDS.

International Institute for Environment and Development. 1995. "PLA Notes, Notes on Participatory Learning and Action." IIED.

Theis, J. & Grady H. 1991. Participatory Rapid Appraisal for Community Development. London: Save the Children Fund.

8. Stakeholder Analysis Method: A Structured Group Approach

The stakeholder analysis method described below is useful in assessing a full range of stakeholder participation in development projects. This method is closely related to social impact assessment, as both emphasize identification over quantification, cost-effectiveness, sensitivity to environmental and socio-cultural factors and consideration of a variety of impacts in a diversity of settings. Stakeholder analysis uses a structured group process of panels of experts, each using different definitions of expertise. This is termed the Nominal Group Technique (NGT), which is designed to elicit information from a group of individuals meeting face to face and enhance group creativity while minimizing problems associated with standard committee meetings. This method includes panels of stakeholders (clients) as well as academic, professional and technical participants.

How are the "Experts" Selected?

The use of multiple definitions of expertise attempts to involve, in an equal and participatory fashion, various actors and groups essential to project success. These "experts" can be grouped into three broad categories:

1 Technical Experts- Drawn from ranks of academics, consultants, government and development agency staff.

2. Operations Experts- Drawn from development project staff involved in operations (day to day functioning of projects).

3. Community Experts-Drawn from community where project is based, very knowledgeable of local conditions, actors and group interests.

Helpful Hints for Panel Selection

The ideal number of panelists is 7 to 8. Five or fewer provides too limited a set of opinions and experience, while more than a dozen is too cumbersome to manage.

Members of the panel should share a common level of technical knowledge to establish balance and homogeneity amongst panelists.

Within the homogenous panels, there should be a diverse selection of participants, to stimulate multiple perspectives and active dialogue.

Conducting Meetings

The panels are conducted using a six-step modification of the nominal group process by a facilitator who guides the process, without influencing responses (i.e. No feedback, signs of approval or disapproval or reactions to provocative responses.):

1. When the panel is convened, the purpose of the meeting and the evaluation study is explained to all participants.

2. A question is posed to the panel, and each panelist should work silently writing his or her response on paper pads.

3. A round table listing of ideas is started, each panelist providing one response to the question.

4. Each idea on the list is discussed in turn.

5. After all items have been discussed, the most important are identified and ranked. After collecting the scores a group priority ranking of each item is calculated.

6. Copies of the draft report are made available to all panelists who are allowed to correct factual errors. This also informs them of the results of their efforts.

Strengths

This method involves an integrated and highly participatory range of stakeholders and clients in the project cycle.

Group members feel they are in control of the organization and dissemination of information and ideas.

Panelists determine the ranking and the final report of ideas, which helps strengthen consensus among various groups.

This technique can be used in a variety of settings while providing a wealth of information at a low cost compared to traditional evaluation methods.

Limitations

This process is dependent on writing. Therefore, panels cannot effectively include illiterates.

This process does not address the problem of valuation; summing up the impacts of a project in relation to the overall judgement of its merits.

In spite of efforts to avoid bias, the results of NGT selection may suffer from selectivity bias toward those most interested in project.

This process could exclude issues that are significant but that are beyond common knowledge or difficult to express in "lay" language.

Further Reading

Delbecq, Andre L.et al. 1975. Group Techniques for Program Planning. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman and Co.

Dietz, Thomas. 1987. "Theory and Method in Social Impact Assessment." Sociological Inquiry. 57, pp. 54-69.

Dietz, T. & A. Pfund. 1988. "An Impact Identification Method for Development Program Evaluation." Policy Studies Review. Arizona State University, Vol.8, No.1., pp.137-145.

Freeman, D.M. 1986. "Value judgement and social impact assessment: Strategic alternatives and their problems." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Sociological Society, Des Moines, IA.

VanGundy, Arthur. 1988. Techniques of Structured Problem Solving. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.

IDB Projects that have used Stakeholder Analysis

Two ORE studies have used NGT in the past: Evaluation Report on Health and Nutrition Activities in the IDB (1985, RE-127) and IDB and Microenterprise (1991, RE-179).

In the Health study, group interviews with stakeholders selected through purposeful sampling brought forth the weakness of IDB projects to address health issues. Findings from subsequent OEO evaluations of health projects, following more conventional methods, substantiated many findings of the ORE report.

In the Microenterprise study, the group interviews were used to identify issues of concern to microentrepreneurs followed by a questionnaire to measure the importance of issues identified. NGT brought to light special constraints suffered by poorer microentrepreneurs and underscored the need to design projects accounting for their needs.

Detailed descriptions of NGT and stakeholder analysis in practice can be found in "Listening to Stakeholders of Primary Schools"(Re-209) IDB, Evaluation Office, March 1996.

9. Technology of Participation (TOP): Winning through Participation

What is TOP?

The Technology of Participation (TOP) methodology is a group facilitation method developed by the Institute of Cultural Affairs (ICA) based in Chicago but operating in several parts of the world. The ICA applies its methodologies in both corporate and community development contexts in developing countries as well as in North America.

How does TOP work?

TOP is a set of techniques including the "focused conversation method", the "workshop method", "event planning and orchestration", strategic planning, "leadership development' and so on. Essentially it is a methodical guide to processes appropriate to these tasks. As an example, the TOP Workshop method follows these five steps:

* Set the context - the purpose of the workshop, the problem to be solved, the product or outcome expected, the process to be followed, the time and schedule and so on are explained and understood.

* Brainstorm data and ideas - for the purpose of eliciting data from the group. The leader poses questions; the participants record answers, read them aloud; and the leader records them on charts or cards for all to see.

* Order the data - putting data into categories that make sense to the participants. Relationships emerge that one might not have anticipated.

* Name the categories - putting a title that has meaning on each category.

* Evaluate the work and its implications.

Most of the above techniques are not unique to TOP. However, many participation facilitation organizations, such as ICA, customize their own package, based on particular experiences.

Further Reading

Spencer, Laura J. 1989. Winning through Participation: Meeting the Challenge of Corporate Change with the Technology of Participation.

Technology of Participation: Group Facilitation Methods. The Institute of Cultural Affairs.

External Resource Persons

Vaughn O'Halloran

1661 Cresent Pl. N.W.#401

Washington, D.C. 20009

Tel.(202) 332-0958

Fax.(202) 332-3173

Eunice Shankland

4910 Briar Street

Fairfax, VA 22032

Tel. (703) 503-5457

Fax (703) 503-5458

Organizations specializing in TOP Training

The Institute of Cultural Affairs

4220 N. 25th Street

Phoenix, AZ 85016

Participatory techniques

B. Commonly Used Techniques.

A very brief description of some of the techniques used in the participatory process are introduced in the chart below. The list is simply to introduce the reader to the subject and suggest a few possibilities, not to make judgements as to the relative merits of each. Descriptions of these techniques are to be found in a variety of texts and manuals and are not the private preserve of any one practitioner. New techniques are constantly introduced and adapted by practitioners so these too should be considered and added to this preliminary list. In general, the selection of the type or structure of participation technique will be as diverse and particular as the group itself. Hopefully then these examples will at least provide an idea of what is out there and how these different group formats can be utilized.

1. Meetings

a) Large scale and/or public meetings

b) Working meetings

2. Standing bodies

3. Information giving

4. Participatory data gathering