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 the 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 two 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 iterative 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 exercise, 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 crisis, 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.
Gatekeeping
Finally, there are those who act as 'gatekeepers' rather than guides. They control access to community information. Some are admitted to the community; others are not. And the reasons for this gatekeeping 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 gatekeeping. 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 are 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.
