4. 2. Possible improvements in the training methodology
-
Unnecessary problems and delays were created by not
staying from the beginning to the
end of the workshop in the villages where the PRAs were conducted.
Out of diplomacy and respect for outsiders, WWF Pakistan organised
the first part of the PRA training in a guest house of the Forest
Department, 30 km from Ucchali and 14km from Dhadar.Much time
was lost commuting to and fro. Many opportunities for shared analysis
with the villagers were missed by leaving villages at nightfall
and not being there early in the morning. Participants drew these
lessons themselves and indicated that future PRA workshops should
be totally immersed in the village.
Facilitators did not initiate a sufficient number of buzz group
discussions. These "buzz sessions" encourage the participants
to share their experiences and reflect on their perceptions of
various issues. More games and interactive exercises should also
have been organised to improve group dynamics. More energisers
and games could have been introduced during the breaks. The general
aims of these games are to demonstrate the power of working in
groups, to encourage individuals to respond to others and to abandon
preconceived ideas. Interactive exercises can bring difficult
issues of conflict and dominance out into the open in a non-threatening
way.
- Using videos proved to be more effective than other methods
in encouraging discussion and motivating the participants to use
different methods.
- Individual representatives of the 3 villages did not participate
in the whole process. Although it was agreed that Ucchali and
Dhadar would send 2 people to participate in the workshop, only
one person from Ucchali joined the workshop for two days. More
village residents should have been involved in the workshop, particularly
for the slide shows and videos. Possibilities for locating and
training village facilitators were not sufficiently explored.This
probably reflected the inadequacy of some of the pre-appraisal
dialogues (see above).
- The relatively small number of women participants turned
out to be a handicap for the
group work and interaction with village communities. One of the
PRA teams had no women members and was therefore unable to understand
the perceptions and priorities of the village women.
- The dominance of the verbal mode in some field exercises was
another problem. Facilitators should have been more interventionist
in encouraging the participants to make a switch from verbal dialogues
to visualisation and diagramming. It is vitally important to spend
time facilitating interviews and discussions around visuals, such
as maps or diagrams, in order to make the best use of them and
for other reasons given in table 2.
- Stationery materials were available in the right quantities
and all audio-visual machines
worked well except the TV and VCR. This resulted in a very poor
first video showing and some negative feelings amongst participants.
A second technical problem was the breakdown of one of the two
computers brought in for the report writing. Much time was wasted.
Ideally, 3 computers should have been made available for such
a large group.
- Pre-planning and post-review sessions were important in
structuring the PRAs in the
villages. They enabled group members to focus on issues, prepare
mental check lists, review group contacts, share information and
plan the next steps. Inter-group reviews in which each village
case study village was presented in workshop sessions were equally
useful. Group to group presentations fostered a healthy spirit
of emulation and provided a mechanism to challenge group members
further.
- The excitement and enthusiasm of the participants was
sustained throughout the
workshop but were always higher during and after the field work
and interactions in the villages. These personal experiences helped
make participants realise the value of basing the whole PRA in
a village, where there are many more opportunities to learn with
and by villagers.
- Insufficient time was spent at the end of the workshop discussing
"What should WWF do other villages of the Ucchali complex",
even though this topic was on the workshop agenda. This would
have provided useful inputs to WWF's wetland conservation programme.
Moreover, the discussion would also have helped evaluate the extent
to which the attitude and behaviour of WWF and Government Department
professionals had changed and whether or not they visualised any
change in their way of working with local people.
<<----BACK
|
|