While some educators are
preparing focus groups and surveys, others prefer to go into the field and talk
to people who are working with the target audience or constituency. This has
the advantage of being quick, if adequate care is taken in establishing with
whom conversations should be conducted. It also helps give educators access to
a range of nuances and undercurrents that are difficult to achieve in any other
way. Another benefit is that such people provide a fund of local knowledge
about educational conditions, the political environment, and the identification
of educational issues.
This consultation or
conversation is conducted at a practitioner level, educator to educator; or at
the level of educator and community leader. So it also ensures that ownership
of the programme is developed from the very outset. There are disadvantages to
this approach, particularly if it is relied on to the exclusion of additional
data collection. But for educational purposes, where local knowledge and local
ownership are so important, it is a potent and relatively cost-effective way to
get the programme into the field.
It can be extended in
effectiveness at limited additional cost by adding two related techniques. The
first is the consultative conference where a range of people come together and
discuss educational needs and educational conditions in a structured programme.
The structured programme can either be very formal in nature, with different
speakers addressing different topics, or more informal and dialogue oriented,
with brief introductions to issues followed by facilitated round table
discussions.
The specialised focus group
selection of membership is based on practitioner competence and local
knowledge.
Two Different Types
of People
Going into the field and
talking to people at random is not adequate. Care must be taken in the
selection of people. Understanding the use of the two terms
"interlocutor" and "intermediary" gives some insight into
the selection that needs to be made. The terms also indicate some of the
difficulties and limitations that can be encountered and allude to the care
that must be taken. Interlocutors speak in the place of the target constituency
or on behalf of them. Intermediaries stand between the educator and the
audience and act as a bridge between them.
Educators will develop a
list of people with whom to converse on the basis of their assessment of
effective community education and nongovernmental organisations operating
within the sphere of investigation. The sphere of investigation may be
national, regional, or local. In addition, they will identify community leaders
based on their legitimacy within the particular community.
Finally, they can engage in
fruitful conversation with individuals who interface with the community and the
world of the educator, such as students, academics and members of diplomatic
bodies. The latter can be a particularly helpful group where there is a wide
gap between the educator group and the community: as for example when an
international programme is being planned or when the educator group has to work
in a part of the country where they have no previous experience. Indeed it will
be essential to identify such people who can join the educator team on an
extended basis if possible, even as interpreters and drivers if not as
educators themselves.
Identify People
Once a tentative list has
been gathered, it can be assessed in cooperation with individuals who have
already been identified. In other words the collection of the list of people is
an interactive process. Educators identify a first round of people, perhaps
based on advice from a trusted NGO, or even as a directive from the election
authorities. This group of people then suggests others whom the educator should
contact.
The second list will grow
and also contain people nominated on a regular basis. A second round of
conversations will take place and the list will grow. At some point in this
exercize, the list will become circular. In other words, new references will be
made to people with whom the educators have already spoken.
Educators will want to take
care to maintain good records of the conversations they have had and the
details about those they have interviewed.
Confidentiality
In situations where these
discussions are undertaken in contexts of conflict, and where those involved
are discussing the needs of members of their own constituencies, there will
need to be an understanding that the information being collected will be
handled confidentially. Especially when conversations are being conducted
between practitioners, there will be critical and reflective comment on organisations
operating within the community and with the given constituency. The assumption
of these conversations is that programmes are being developed to assist target
audiences. Any other use of the information can have an impact on the
relationships that exist between those being interviewed and the communities
within which they operate.
Limitations
The techniques being
proposed here are based on a methodology used in evaluation studies and
described as "triangulation". This term is used in establishing the
position of a place or person on a map. In other words, information is obtained
which establishes a particular direction. Knowing where the direction is taken
from enables one to draw a line across the map. Then a similar direction is
taken from another position. If this is done three times from different points,
a small triangle will be formed on the map. That is where the person or place
will be found.
In the case of
conversations and interviews that take place with a variety of interlocutors
and intermediaries about the same community, the educator will be taking notes
both about the information being given and the source of that information. In
other words, they will judge the information relative to the interests and
position of the person giving the information.
If this is done with care
and if the same conversation is conducted with a range of people, the data
about the community will become more and more reliable. It will be possible to
place the community within a map of data, some of which confirms and expands
while some of which establishes scepticism and negative implications.
As mentioned, there can be
problems. These can be overcome, however, if this particular technique is
coupled with the gathering of information from other means, such as surveys,
existing data and focus groups. It is also possible to test the data being
gathered with a reference group.
Reference Groups
Educators can establish a
small reference group of trusted organisations and individuals with whom they
can review the information they are obtaining in the field. Such groups meet
regularly but do not have a direct interest in the proposed direction of the
programme or its intended outcome.
Collusion and
Unreliability
There are times when it is
in the interests of some people and organisations that educators have a
particular view of the community. There may be a perception that the educator
team has access to money that will be spent in the community, or that the
educator team should develop programmes in a specific way that benefits the
community or even a particular political party. If the educator team is
comprised of outsiders, they may not even be aware that those they are
interviewing are meeting one another and discussing implications of the
programme amongst themselves.
Such collusion need not be
undertaken in order to diminish the reliability of the information being
provided. People have an interest in being considered intermediaries or
maintaining their prestige within a community. They may not be willing to admit
to areas of ignorance and may overplay their level of influence in order to
impress the educator team.
Groupthink
There may also be a
dominant view amongst those selected about local issues that doesn't entirely
match the present reality. During transitions and crises, there are substantial
shifts in conditions of reality, and organisations in particular cannot always
keep up with these shifts.
Or there may be dominant
political organisations and ideas that are taken for granted. These may be
real. A single party may well have the support of all members of a local
community. But in such positions of dominance, often it is easy for dissent to
be suppressed and to become invisible. Of course, this raises the interesting
proposition that members of minority support parties can also make claims that
cannot be tested.
Gate-keeping
Finally, there are those
who act as "gate-keepers" rather than guides. They control access to
community information. Some are admitted to the community, others are not. And
the reasons for this gate-keeping may be political, ideological, or personal.
Educator teams will develop internal diversity in order to ensure that they are
not kept out because they are all men, or all from a particular country, or of
a particular cultural and ethnic background.
This alone will not prevent
gate-keeping. But the development of an iterative approach can assist in
overcoming it. In traditional societies, educators may have to be patient if
they want to get through the gate. There is a range of strategies for dealing
with this, but perhaps the most effective is the development of a relationship
of trust with an intermediary who can introduce the educator to the traditional
leadership.
Testing Information
Educators moving into
situations where they suspect the information may be coloured by any of the
above will be looking for reflective individuals who are willing to be fair to
all political points of view and who can demonstrate the reliability of their
opinions by pointing to supporting evidence. Or they may choose to conduct
interviews that include members of the target audience directly on the basis of
a small sample, just for verification purposes, rather than conducting a full
survey.
