ACES Participatory Methods Training 2011


Published on

Slides from ACES Participatory Methods Training Workshop held in January 2011

Published in: Education
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Previously in WB3 training we’ve focussed a lot on the methods and tools we can use in study sites - after the break we’ll think more about specific tools/methods for WB4 and beyond, but first I want to think more broadly about the process within which these methods fit First I’d like to start by challenging an assumption that I believe is very widespread, and that may have a major influence on the way in which we carry out stakeholder participation Much of the training we have done to date has focussed on equipping people with participatory tools and methods, but if we focus on this there is a danger that we miss the point and fail to “fix” anything with the tools we use I think this is a widespread misconception, something I encounter again and again in my own work. Many people think of stakeholder participation as a tool-kit of different methods – you just have to select the right participatory tool for the job I think it is important to recognise that participation is a process, in which various tools can be used . You need tools, but we should be focusing on getting the process right in which we use those tools
  • Instead of a tool-kit, I prefer to think of participation as a relationship between two people – a process that is: Long-term Developing trust as you work together Developing understanding of each other’s values and knowledge Negotiating together what you will do and where you will go together Choosing the right tools to achieve what you both want in the most relevant way
  • In order to explore these views and relationships in more depth, we conducted a Social Network Analysis. This first network diagram shows communication ties between people from five of the main stakeholder groups in the Peak District, and shows they are highly connected: Each dot (or “node”) represents an individual stakeholder Arrows connecting stakeholders show those who communicated with others in the network And two-way arrows indicate when this relationship was reciprocated Stakeholders depicted by large dots interact with a large number of other people in the network These people are likely to be able to act as bridges between different parts of the network By involving these individuals in our process, they may spread ideas, knowledge and attitudes to others in their wider social network The next figure shows communication ties between people who communicated on a monthly or more frequent basis, and you can see immediately that the network begins to break down: Three cliques emerge Recreation forms its own clique, water and conservation another, grouse moor managers and agriculture form a third And there is infrequent communication between the cliques This suggests there is a danger that recreation groups may get marginalised in our dialogue, so their engagement needs to be actively sought This final diagram shows people who shared views about upland management. You can see that despite infrequent contact between cliques, and apparently polarised views on burning (that we heard in interviews), there was considerable overlap between people’s views on upland management (in general) and the views of those they knew from other groups: This suggests to us that there is enough common ground for different stakeholder groups to participate in meaningful dialogue over areas of mutual concern in our future research
  • Ethnobotany is often referred to as Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) – you’ll see this quite often in the literature, but I prefer “local knowledge” I’m going to do some ethnobotanical research right here in class in a moment and ask you to turn to the person next to you and tell each other about a species you know about. But before I do that, I’d like to tell you about a species I’m particularly fond of…
  • ACES Participatory Methods Training 2011

    1. 1. Participatory Methods Workshop ustainable Uplands Learning to manage future change
    2. 2. Plan <ul><li>Basics </li></ul><ul><li>Process Design </li></ul><ul><li>Interview skills </li></ul><ul><li>Stakeholder analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Methods workshop </li></ul>
    3. 3. 1. Basics
    4. 4. <ul><li>What are stakeholders? </li></ul><ul><li>Anyone who can affect or be affected by a decision or action </li></ul><ul><li>(after Freeman, 1984) </li></ul>
    5. 5. <ul><li>What is stakeholder participation? </li></ul><ul><li>A process where stakeholders (e.g. individuals, groups and organisations) choose to take an active role in making decisions that affect them </li></ul><ul><li>(After Wandersman 1981; Wilcox 2003; Rowe et al. 2004) </li></ul>
    6. 6. What is ‘participatory governance’? <ul><li>Process component: how are decisions being taken? </li></ul><ul><li>Actor-related component: who participates in decisions? </li></ul><ul><li>Working definition: Participatory governance comprises all forms of public decision-making in which non-state actors (individual or collective), who are not routinely engaged in this decision-making and who broadly represent those who are affected by the decision or the problem it seeks to address, have a substantial influence on a collectively binding decision through a minimum of open input </li></ul>
    7. 7. What is ‘participatory governance’? <ul><li>Three dimensions of participation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>the scope of participants, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the direction and intensity of information flows, e.g. mere information of the public via brochures or face-to-face communication, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the influence participants are given and the influence they actually exert on the decision at stake </li></ul></ul>
    8. 8. Different levels/types of participation in community planning The ladder of participation (Arnstein, 1969)
    9. 9. Different levels/types of participation The wheel of participation (Wilcox, 2003)
    10. 10. Different levels/types of participation Communication flows (Rowe & Frewer, 2000) Facilitators Stakeholders Facilitators Stakeholders Facilitators Stakeholders Communication Consultation Participation
    11. 11. <ul><li>Discussion </li></ul><ul><li>Why participate? </li></ul><ul><li>Challenges for effective participation </li></ul><ul><li>Best practice participation </li></ul>
    12. 12. <ul><li>Why engage stakeholders? </li></ul><ul><li>Participation is increasingly embedded in policy for the normative & pragmatic reasons discussed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A democratic right e.g. Aarhus Convention </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Higher quality and more durable decisions </li></ul></ul>
    13. 13. <ul><li>Challenges and disillusionment </li></ul><ul><li>Empowering marginalised may interact with existing power structures to cause unintended consequences </li></ul><ul><li>Group dynamics may create “dysfunctional consensus” </li></ul><ul><li>Consultation fatigue as poorly run processes fail to deliver change </li></ul>
    14. 14. <ul><li>Evidence for claims of participation? </li></ul><ul><li>Few claims have been tested, but there is firm evidence that effective participation can enhance: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Quality of decisions: due to more comprehensive information inputs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Durability of decisions: due to stakeholder buy-in </li></ul></ul><ul><li>But, decision quality and durability are highly dependant on the quality of the process leading to them </li></ul>
    15. 15. Tools vs overall process <ul><li>Participation is more than a collection of tools and methods for engaging stakeholders </li></ul>
    16. 17. <ul><li>1. Stakeholder participation needs to be underpinned by a philosophy emphasing empowerment, equity, trust and learning </li></ul><ul><li>Empowering stakeholders: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensuring participants have the power to really influence the decision </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensuring participants have the technical capability to engage effectively with the decision </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Overcome power inequality between participants </li></ul><ul><li>Facilitating iterative and two-way learning </li></ul>
    17. 18. <ul><li>2. Where relevant, stakeholder participation should be considered as early as possible and throughout the process </li></ul><ul><li>Involvement typically at implementation and increasing in monitoring </li></ul><ul><li>Needs to be from concept development and planning, throughout process </li></ul>
    18. 19. <ul><li>3. Relevant stakeholders need to be represented systematically </li></ul><ul><li>Stakeholder analysis (later) </li></ul>
    19. 20. <ul><li>4. Clear objectives for the participatory process need to be agreed among stakeholders at the outset </li></ul><ul><li>“ As with any analysis, well-formulated questions are more likely to generate robust answers” (Lynam et al. 2007; online) </li></ul><ul><li>May require negotiation and trade-offs </li></ul><ul><li>If goals developed through dialogue, ownership and partnership building more likely, and outcomes likely to be more relevant to stakeholder needs & priorities </li></ul>
    20. 21. <ul><li>5. Methods should be selected and tailored to the decision-making context, considering the objectives, type of participants and appropriate level of engagement </li></ul><ul><li>Set objectives, then decide level of engagement, then select stakeholders, & only then select tools </li></ul><ul><li>Adapt methods to changing contexts e.g. literacy </li></ul><ul><li>Adapt methods to stage in process e.g. getting engagement versus evaluating outcomes </li></ul><ul><li>Need a range of tools so you can adapt </li></ul>
    21. 22. <ul><li>6. Highly skilled facilitation is essential </li></ul><ul><li>The outcome of any participatory process is far more sensitive to the manner in which it is conducted than the tools that are used </li></ul><ul><li>Same tool, different facilitator = different outcome </li></ul><ul><li>Skills in managing groups and difficult situations sensitively </li></ul><ul><li>Techniques to help (later) </li></ul>
    22. 23. <ul><li>7. Local and scientific knowledges should be integrated </li></ul><ul><li>Stakeholder processes need to be informed by scientific analysis: the “know-why” </li></ul><ul><li>Comparing/integrating with local knowledge (“know-how”) can investigate uncertainties and assumptions and develop a more rigorous understanding </li></ul><ul><li>More robust decisions </li></ul>
    23. 24. <ul><li>8. Participation needs to be institutionalised </li></ul><ul><li>Many limitations in participatory processes have roots in top-down organisational cultures e.g. non-negotiable positions </li></ul><ul><li>Decision-makers must commit to resource as-yet unknown outcomes: uncomfortable </li></ul><ul><li>Create organisational cultures that facilitate processes where goals are negotiated and outcomes are necessarily uncertain </li></ul><ul><li>Risky, but worth it? </li></ul>
    24. 25. 2. Process Design
    25. 26. What is important in planning an event? <ul><li>Understanding the situation </li></ul><ul><li>Purpose </li></ul><ul><li>Outputs </li></ul><ul><li>Stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>Timeframes </li></ul><ul><li>Process plan </li></ul><ul><li>Timetable </li></ul><ul><li>No. of workshops </li></ul><ul><li>Key tasks </li></ul><ul><li>Action plan </li></ul><ul><li>Event plan </li></ul><ul><li>Timing </li></ul><ul><li>Purpose </li></ul><ul><li>Outputs </li></ul><ul><li>Sessions </li></ul><ul><li>Task plan </li></ul><ul><li>Purpose </li></ul><ul><li>Questions </li></ul><ul><li>Groupings </li></ul><ul><li>Techiques </li></ul><ul><li>Practicalities </li></ul><ul><li>The team </li></ul><ul><li>The venue </li></ul><ul><li>The tools </li></ul>
    26. 27. Event planning <ul><li>What is the purpose of the process/event? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Are there pre-set decisions or options or open? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Disseminating information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consultation & information gathering </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Knowledge exchange & joint decision making </li></ul></ul><ul><li>What are the outcomes you want? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the outcomes stakeholders want? </li></ul>
    27. 28. Event planning <ul><li>Who are the stakeholders (stakeholder analysis)? </li></ul><ul><li>How does the event link to the wider project or your organisation’s goals? </li></ul><ul><li>What will happen next? </li></ul><ul><li>How will you keep people engaged? </li></ul>
    28. 29. Structuring an event <ul><li>Small groups? How will you group people? </li></ul><ul><li>Split discussions up with feedback and presentations </li></ul><ul><li>Let people know where they are in the process </li></ul><ul><li>Use techniques to encourage creative thinking and to get everyone involved </li></ul><ul><li>Use variety of techniques to gather different types of information </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Opening out </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Closing down – ranking/prioritising to make choices </li></ul></ul>
    29. 30. <ul><li>Make a facilitation plan </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Timings (include buffer – things you can skip) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Who will do what when? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Equipment list </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Session/activity titles (for participants’ agenda) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Detailed methods under each title </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Try out unfamiliar methods first </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Efficient handling of event outputs </li></ul>Structuring an event
    30. 31. Choosing techniques <ul><li>Be clear about outcomes and outputs required </li></ul><ul><li>Practical matters e.g. time available, no. participants, level of conflict </li></ul><ul><li>Alter group size depending on no. participants, no. tasks to be completed, the amount of in-depth discussion needed and the level of conflict </li></ul><ul><li>Choose most straightforward technique to answer question </li></ul><ul><li>Use a variety of techniques </li></ul>
    31. 32. Information gathering: opening out <ul><li>Brainstorming </li></ul><ul><li>Metaplan </li></ul><ul><li>Venn diagrams </li></ul><ul><li>Listing </li></ul><ul><li>Carousel </li></ul><ul><li>Mapping and participatory GIS </li></ul><ul><li>Conceptual modelling or mind-mapping </li></ul>
    32. 33. Exploring: analysis <ul><li>Categorisation e.g. card sorting and Q methodology </li></ul><ul><li>Problem tree analysis or cause-effect mapping </li></ul><ul><li>SWOT analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Timelines </li></ul>
    33. 34. Decision making: closing down <ul><li>Voting </li></ul><ul><li>Ranking </li></ul><ul><li>Prioritisation (e.g. sticky dots) </li></ul><ul><li>Multi-Criteria Evaluation </li></ul>
    34. 36. 3. Stakeholder Analysis
    35. 37. Plan <ul><li>Introduction to stakeholder analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Try out an interest-influence matrix </li></ul>
    36. 38. Why stakeholder analysis? <ul><li>We all have interests </li></ul><ul><li>We have a stake in the things that interest us e.g. what happens to a landscape you walk in </li></ul><ul><li>By holding an interest, we hold a stake: we are stakeholders </li></ul>
    37. 39. Why stakeholder analysis? <ul><li>But without power… </li></ul><ul><li>We can never drive our points/stakes home and we will never influence the decisions that affect us </li></ul>
    38. 40. <ul><li>To affect change, we need interest and power </li></ul>
    39. 41. <ul><li>Answers key questions relevant to all spatial planning: </li></ul><ul><li>Who are the interested parties? Who has the power to influence what happens? How do these parties interact? How could they work more effectively together? </li></ul>
    40. 42. What is stakeholder analysis? <ul><li>“ A process that: </li></ul><ul><li>i) defines aspects of a social and natural phenomenon affected by a decision or action </li></ul><ul><li>ii) identifies individuals, groups and organisations who are affected by or can affect those parts of the phenomenon </li></ul><ul><li>iii) prioritises these individuals and groups for involvement in the decision-making process” </li></ul><ul><li>Reed et al. (in prep.) </li></ul>
    41. 43. Development of SA <ul><li>Business management roots </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Stakeholders affect business </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SA to mobilise, neutralise or defeat stakeholders, to meet strategic objectives </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Development studies and natural resource management </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Projects that didn’t understand stakeholders were often hijacked or failed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Empowering marginal stakeholders to influence decision-making processes transparently </li></ul></ul>
    42. 44. Development of SA <ul><li>Major contributions from development studies and natural resource management: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Recognises that stakeholders and the issues that interest them change over time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Advocates ongoing and evolving involvement of stakeholders to meet needs and priorities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Capturing diversity of potentially conflicting views </li></ul></ul>
    43. 45. Typology <ul><li>Three types of methods for stakeholder analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Methods for: </li></ul><ul><li>Identifying stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>Differentiating between and categorising stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>Investigating relationships between stakeholders </li></ul>
    44. 46. Focus Groups Semi-structured interviews Snowball sampling Interest-influence matrices Radical transactive-ness Stakeholder-led stakeholder categorisation Q methodology Social Network Analysis Knowledge Mapping Identifying stakeholders Differentiating between and categorising stakeholders Investigating relationships between stakeholders Analytical categorisation (top-down) Reconstructive categorisation (bottom-up) Normative Instrumental Methods Typology Rationale
    45. 47. Interest/Influence Matrices High Low Influence Context setters - highly influential, but have little interest. Try and work closely as they could have a significant impact Key players – must work closely with these to affect change Crowd – little interest or influence so may not be worth prioritising, but be aware their interest or influence may change with time Subjects – may be affected but lack power. Can become influential by forming alliances with others. Often includes marginalised groups you may wish to empower Level of Interest High
    46. 48. Try it yourself <ul><li>Pairs: choose a familiar issue and think of a decision/project in which you might want to involve stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>Brainstorm stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>Who is affected by your decision/project, who have influence over it and have an interest in its successful or unsuccessful conclusion </li></ul>
    47. 49. More complex matrices <ul><li>Identify and evaluate stakeholders in turn: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What is their stake/interest </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What is their influence (qualitative info) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The most effective ways for researchers to gain their support and active involvement in the research </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Information re: how stakeholders relate to each other </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Consider categorising stakeholders with stakeholders e.g. 8 categories in uplands project </li></ul>
    48. 50. Categorising <ul><li>The stakeholder categories: </li></ul><ul><li>Water companies </li></ul><ul><li>Recreational groups </li></ul><ul><li>Agriculture </li></ul><ul><li>Conservationists </li></ul><ul><li>Grouse moor interests (owners/managers and gamekeepers) </li></ul><ul><li>Tourism-related enterprises </li></ul><ul><li>Foresters </li></ul><ul><li>Statutory bodies </li></ul>
    49. 53. Exploring relationships <ul><li>Social Network Analysis with 80-strong Moors for the Future Partnership </li></ul><ul><li>Communication ties between individuals and groups </li></ul>
    50. 55. Despite apparently polarised views on burning, upland stakeholders in the Peak District are highly connected… And despite the fact that certain groups have little contact with each other… The majority of individuals perceive considerable overlap between their views on upland management and the views of those they know from other groups Water Recreation Agriculture Conservation Grouse
    51. 56. Exploring relationships <ul><li>Showed roles of individuals played and identified more peripheral stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>These groups were targeted for inclusion to reduce bias, strengthen the legitimacy of the sample group, and include a variety of knowledges relevant to the research process </li></ul>
    52. 57. Summary
    53. 58. Find out more… <ul><li>Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC (2009) Who’s in and why? Stakeholder analysis as a prerequisite for sustainable natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management 90: 1933–1949 </li></ul>
    54. 59. 4. Participatory Tools
    55. 60. <ul><li>Your options </li></ul><ul><li>Exploratory tools: </li></ul><ul><li>Participatory mapping </li></ul><ul><li>Semi-structured interviews </li></ul><ul><li>Analysis and evaluation tools: </li></ul><ul><li>Problem tree analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Metaplan </li></ul><ul><li>Multi-criteria evaluation </li></ul>
    56. 61. 1: Participatory Mapping <ul><li>Individuals or groups </li></ul><ul><li>Draw a map (pen or on ground) </li></ul><ul><li>Mark key features </li></ul><ul><li>If drawn on ground transfer to paper </li></ul><ul><li>If appropriate: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>- visit places of interest or significance, disputed boundaries </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Check map and amend, use GPS </li></ul>
    57. 65. Exercise : Participatory Mapping <ul><li>In groups </li></ul><ul><li>Draw a map (using pen & paper) of Aberdeen and its surroundings </li></ul><ul><li>Mark key features </li></ul>
    58. 66. Questions <ul><li>Who held the pen? </li></ul><ul><li>Who directed the process? Why? </li></ul><ul><li>Are you all happy with the outcome? </li></ul><ul><li>Was there any disagreement? Did you have to negotiate your point? How did you do that? </li></ul><ul><li>Was anyone excluded, why? </li></ul><ul><li>How did you decide what was important enough to go on the map? </li></ul>
    59. 67. 2: Interviews
    60. 68. <ul><li>Structured interviews </li></ul><ul><li>Introduce yourself, develop good relationship </li></ul><ul><li>Use structured (planned) questions & stick to them </li></ul><ul><li>Use closed questions (e.g. yes / no answers) </li></ul><ul><li>Use tick boxes & expect short answers </li></ul><ul><li>Be keen to learn, respectful, friendly, open, good body language </li></ul><ul><li>Record answers on set answer sheet </li></ul>
    61. 70. <ul><li>In Pairs </li></ul><ul><li>Advantages & disadvantages of semi-structured interviews over traditional structured questionnaires: </li></ul><ul><li>More adaptable – cut irrelevant Qs and add new topics as required </li></ul><ul><li>More interesting/engaging for participants (if done well!) </li></ul><ul><li>Open questions better at capturing “why” </li></ul><ul><li>Qualitative: interview less folk in more depth </li></ul><ul><li>Qualitative: harder to get quantitative stats </li></ul>
    62. 71. Exercise: Interviews Role-play – the challenge of asking semi-structured questions
    63. 72. <ul><li>Participatory Methods 1: Multi-Criteria Evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Use to rank options against a range of criteria </li></ul><ul><li>List options in column (support with images?) </li></ul><ul><li>List evaluation/ranking criteria in row </li></ul><ul><li>Give participants counters (calculate number by multiplying options by criteria) </li></ul><ul><li>Participants allocate counters to each of the options and criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Calculate total counters per option </li></ul><ul><li>Visualises ranking decision </li></ul><ul><li>Process itself is difficult to understand </li></ul>
    64. 73. For example… What should we do next in this lecture? 4 5 0 11 12 14 Go home Move on Try out MCE Less work Saves time Enhances learning Criteria Option
    65. 74. <ul><li>Try out MCE </li></ul><ul><li>6 indicator flash cards per group + 12 paper-clips each </li></ul><ul><li>2 criteria: </li></ul><ul><li>How accurately do you think each indicator represents degraded rangeland? </li></ul><ul><li>How easy do you think it would be for land users to use each indicator? </li></ul><ul><li>Very accurate/ easy to use: lots of paperclips </li></ul><ul><li>Not very accurate/ easy to use: few paperclips </li></ul>
    66. 75. 5. Facilitation Skills
    67. 76. Benefits of facilitation <ul><li>Efficient: more discussed in less time </li></ul><ul><li>Impartiality </li></ul><ul><li>Clarity </li></ul><ul><li>A helpful atmosphere </li></ul><ul><li>Appropriate techniques </li></ul><ul><li>More people have a say </li></ul><ul><li>No organisation or individual in control or veto </li></ul><ul><li>The outcome is open </li></ul>
    68. 77. Obstacles <ul><li>Interpersonal Behaviour </li></ul><ul><li>Personal or positional power </li></ul><ul><li>Feelings </li></ul><ul><li>Different ways of considering an issue </li></ul><ul><li>Different backgrounds and values </li></ul><ul><li>Egos </li></ul><ul><li>Poor communication skills </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of information </li></ul>
    69. 78. Obstacles <ul><li>Structural and cultural obstacles </li></ul><ul><li>Perceived or actual competition </li></ul><ul><li>Our adversarial culture </li></ul><ul><li>Organisational power </li></ul><ul><li>Interpretation of data </li></ul>
    70. 79. <ul><li>Facilitation skills: interpersonal </li></ul><ul><li>Need to be perceived as impartial, open to multiple perspectives and approachable </li></ul><ul><li>Capable of building rapport with group and maintaining positive group dynamics </li></ul><ul><li>Handling dominating or offensive individuals </li></ul><ul><li>Encourage participants to question assumptions and re-evaluate entrenched positions </li></ul><ul><li>Get the most out of reticent individuals </li></ul><ul><li>Humble, open to feedback </li></ul>
    71. 80. <ul><li>Facilitating requires skills that are hard to learn </li></ul><ul><li>Not knowing who you are or not liking who you are, are major causes of insecurity </li></ul><ul><li>A facilitator who is insecure will typically either: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>a) lack confidence </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>b) hide their insecurity by being proud (“I know best”) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Such a facilitator will struggle to possess the necessary skills, no matter how hard they train </li></ul>
    72. 81. <ul><li>Facilitating requires skills that are hard to learn </li></ul><ul><li>Know yourself </li></ul><ul><li>Be yourself </li></ul><ul><li>Like yourself </li></ul><ul><li>Your calm confidence will be your greatest strength as a facilitator </li></ul>
    73. 82. Practical skills <ul><li>Active listening and understanding </li></ul><ul><li>Enable people to clarify their thoughts </li></ul><ul><li>Let people know their opinions are valued </li></ul><ul><li>Help people go beyond facts to meanings </li></ul><ul><li>Help people to ‘own’ their problems, take responsibility for them and think of solutions </li></ul><ul><li>Giving momentum and energy </li></ul><ul><li>Ensuring everyone has an opportunity to input </li></ul><ul><li>Making an impartial record of the discussion </li></ul><ul><li>Writing clearly and in a well organised way </li></ul><ul><li>Managing paper </li></ul><ul><li>Useful to have a recorder and assistant </li></ul>
    74. 83. Providing feedback <ul><li>Non verbal feedback </li></ul><ul><li>Eye contact </li></ul><ul><li>Nodding </li></ul><ul><li>Focussed attention </li></ul><ul><li>Smiling </li></ul><ul><li>Recording what is said </li></ul>
    75. 84. Providing feedback <ul><li>Verbal feedback </li></ul><ul><li>Sounds </li></ul><ul><li>Short phrases </li></ul><ul><li>Clarifying details </li></ul><ul><li>Encouraging: asking for more information </li></ul><ul><li>Summarising content and feeling; to confirm correct interpretation </li></ul><ul><li>Affirming/validating </li></ul>
    76. 85. Things to avoid <ul><li>Non verbal </li></ul><ul><li>Fidgeting </li></ul><ul><li>Flat facial expressions </li></ul><ul><li>Tense/defensive body language </li></ul>
    77. 86. Things to avoid <ul><li>Verbal </li></ul><ul><li>Advising </li></ul><ul><li>Judging or labelling </li></ul><ul><li>Analysing/diagnosing </li></ul><ul><li>Hostile questioning </li></ul><ul><li>Minimising/patronising </li></ul><ul><li>Ordering/threatening </li></ul><ul><li>Leading questions that aim to pre-determine the response </li></ul>
    78. 87. Asking the right questions <ul><li>Open and closed questions </li></ul><ul><li>Open: What? Where?, Which?, When? Who? </li></ul><ul><li>Closed: Yes/no answer. Often better to avoid but can be useful for specific purposes </li></ul><ul><li>Value silence </li></ul><ul><li>Parking space </li></ul>
    79. 88. Asking the right questions <ul><li>Reframing : </li></ul><ul><li>Technique to move people from a negative stance to discuss a positive way forward </li></ul><ul><li>Acknowledge what has been said </li></ul><ul><li>Ask an open question that seeks to get at the heart of the problem </li></ul><ul><li>Involve other members of the group in solving the problem </li></ul>
    80. 89. <ul><li>Building on this we can explore: </li></ul><ul><li>Identity and roles: what is your identity, how does it change in different contexts and what does this imply for managing group dynamics? </li></ul><ul><li>Avoiding conflict: how can you build rapport with the group you’re managing and identify early warning signs of conflict in yourself and the group </li></ul><ul><li>Power and influence: How can you identify those in a group with more or less power? How powerful are you and how can you increase your power and influence? </li></ul>
    81. 90. <ul><li>Your options </li></ul><ul><li>Deeper reflection: </li></ul><ul><li>Identity and roles </li></ul><ul><li>Power and influence </li></ul><ul><li>Avoiding conflict </li></ul><ul><li>Appreciative enquiry </li></ul>
    82. 91. Identity & Roles
    83. 92. <ul><li>1. We are typically more conscious of the parts of our identify that are different to those around us </li></ul><ul><li>e.g. if you are from a different country, older/married etc. </li></ul>
    84. 93. <ul><li>2. We use different parts of who we are in different situations e.g. when we are in different groups of people </li></ul><ul><li>We often do this without thinking about it </li></ul><ul><li>We are not changing our identity – we’re just drawing on different parts of ourselves to adopt different roles </li></ul>
    85. 94. <ul><li>3. This has implications for group dynamics </li></ul><ul><li>Groups take on their own identity – as a facilitator be aware of different identities within the group. </li></ul><ul><li>For example: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>an individual you interview may act differently and say very different things in a group </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>and they may do and say different things again if you put them in a another group </li></ul></ul>
    86. 95. 4. In conflicts, people slip into rehearsed opposing roles that prevent them listening or learning
    87. 96. Dealing with conflict
    88. 97. <ul><li>Avoiding conflict </li></ul><ul><li>Can building rapport / mutual understanding help avoid conflict? </li></ul><ul><li>Brainstorm: how can you build rapport (do’s and don’ts) </li></ul>
    89. 98. <ul><li>Early warning signs of conflict </li></ul><ul><li>First, be aware of your own feelings </li></ul><ul><li>Early signs of conflict you can detect in yourself? </li></ul>
    90. 99. <ul><li>Early warning signs of conflict </li></ul><ul><li>Early signs of conflict you can detect in yourself? </li></ul><ul><li>Anxiety, dread, frustration, anger </li></ul><ul><li>Irrational thoughts e.g. “they don’t like me”, “it is going to fail” </li></ul><ul><li>Behaving out of character e.g. nervous checking of things, working faster </li></ul><ul><li>Exhibiting high or low power characteristics that are out of role e.g. becoming bossy or submissive </li></ul>
    91. 100. <ul><li>Early warning signs of conflict </li></ul><ul><li>Early signs of conflict you can detect in others? </li></ul>
    92. 101. <ul><li>Early warning signs of conflict </li></ul><ul><li>Early signs of conflict you can detect in others? </li></ul><ul><li>Cold, distant, withdrawn </li></ul><ul><li>Withholding confidences or ideas </li></ul><ul><li>Closing body language </li></ul><ul><li>Threats and offhand comments (even as jokes) </li></ul><ul><li>Argumentative, not agreeing, blaming </li></ul><ul><li>Moralising, intellectualising </li></ul><ul><li>Silence, passivity </li></ul>
    93. 102. Power & influence
    94. 103. <ul><li>Group discussion </li></ul><ul><li>How can you identify those in a group with more or less power? </li></ul><ul><li>What signs can you look for in yourself or others to identify high or low rank? </li></ul>
    95. 104. <ul><li>How much power do you possess? </li></ul><ul><li>There are four types of power you can possess: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>situational </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>social </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>personal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>transpersonal </li></ul></ul>
    96. 105. <ul><li>Situational Power </li></ul><ul><li>Role in formal hierarchy </li></ul><ul><li>Seniority </li></ul><ul><li>Expertise or experience </li></ul><ul><li>Access to decision makers </li></ul>
    97. 106. <ul><li>Social Power </li></ul><ul><li>Race or ethnicity </li></ul><ul><li>Gender/ orientation </li></ul><ul><li>Age </li></ul><ul><li>Class </li></ul><ul><li>Profession </li></ul><ul><li>Wealth </li></ul><ul><li>Education level </li></ul><ul><li>Health/physical ability </li></ul><ul><li>Social network </li></ul><ul><li>Marital status/ children </li></ul><ul><li>Appearance or attractiveness </li></ul><ul><li>Religious affiliation </li></ul><ul><li>Title (e.g. Dr) </li></ul>
    98. 107. <ul><li>Personal Power </li></ul><ul><li>Self awareness </li></ul><ul><li>Self confident and assertive </li></ul><ul><li>Charisma </li></ul><ul><li>Strength of character </li></ul><ul><li>Emotional maturity </li></ul><ul><li>Ability to empathise </li></ul><ul><li>Ability to survive adversity </li></ul><ul><li>Life experience </li></ul><ul><li>Ability to communicate and influence others </li></ul><ul><li>Integrity and honesty </li></ul><ul><li>Creativity </li></ul><ul><li>Positive and honest estimation of your worth and abilities </li></ul><ul><li>Easy to get on with, so can build networks </li></ul><ul><li>Build others up </li></ul>
    99. 108. <ul><li>Transpersonal Power </li></ul><ul><li>Connection to something larger than yourself </li></ul><ul><li>Spirituality or faith (not religion) </li></ul><ul><li>Ability to move beyond or forgive past hurts </li></ul><ul><li>Freedom from fear </li></ul><ul><li>Service to an unselfish vision </li></ul>
    100. 109. You may not be able to change your situational power if you’re at the bottom of the organisation’s hierarchy But you may be able to increase your power in other ways, especially your personal and transpersonal power. What power do you already possess, and how can you increase your power?
    101. 110. <ul><li>Fill in questionnaire </li></ul><ul><li>Individually </li></ul><ul><li>Then pair up with someone (preferably who you know) and swap notes </li></ul><ul><li>Questions for you to both answer at the end of the sheet </li></ul>
    102. 111. <ul><li>Appreciative Enquiry </li></ul><ul><li>Turns problem-solving on its head </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on rediscovering and reorganising the good rather than problem solving </li></ul><ul><li>Process of sharing success stories from the past and present, asking positive questions in pairs </li></ul><ul><li>Conceive and plan the future on the basis of the successes and strengths that are identified </li></ul><ul><li>Can include everyone in change/future planning </li></ul>
    103. 112. <ul><li>Appreciative Enquiry </li></ul><ul><li>Pair up with someone </li></ul><ul><li>Ask them to tell you a story about one of their greatest successes </li></ul><ul><li>Get them to tell you right from the start, with a beginning, middle and end, like a story </li></ul><ul><li>Prompt them to tell you why they were so pleased, how they felt and draw out the positives </li></ul>
    104. 113. <ul><li>Appreciative Enquiry </li></ul><ul><li>How do you feel?! </li></ul>
    105. 114. The End