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