back

 

The Fundamentals of Action-Research 

in Development Cooperation

 

Action Research and Development Cooperation

back

Although action research methods were originally used by scientists, the re­search situation was from the outset strikingly similar to the situation confront­ing a development aid worker or expert. In both cases an individual from a different social stratum, and often a different culture, is faced with a group with which he wishes, or is required, to work together in order to encourage the members of this group to gain insights and change their behaviour. What could be more obvious than to compare the approaches used in the two fields and enable each to learn from the other?

Action research was initially unable to learn much from the development co­operation sector, for the approaches employed in the latter were for the most part characterised by paternalism, dirigisme and authoritarianism.  Action re­search methods were adopted first by international organisations and subse­quently by bilateral donors as well in a process which began somewhat hesi­tantly in the late seventies and gained momentum during the early eighties. There can today be virtually no governmental or private donor organisation which does not know and use action research methods.  Development co­operation organisations have already gained so much experience with action research that the academic world can also benefit from their findings.

Action research is attractive to development cooperation because it places in the hands of development professionals its methods for the participatory and process-oriented planning, implementation and evaluation of promotion measures.  Action research methods foster the identification and analysis of problems by the affected persons and groups themselves, and facilitate those persons’ and groups’ quest for solutions and planning of measures.  Finally, they encourage them to implement their plans accordingly on a self-reliant basis.

Facilitating Self-Help

back

Action research generally aims to initiate and sustain processes intended to help groups bring about permanent changes in their situation on their own ini­tiative and through their own efforts.  Use of the attributes ‘participatory' and 'process-oriented' in any characterisation of action research is in fact unneces­sary, since it is these features which constitute its defining elements.

Action-oriented research in development cooperation seeks to bring about social changes.  It tackles existing structures at the root, supports self-reliant activities of existing initiatives, and fosters the formation of groups.  Through ongoing motivation and communication or 'animation' work, it supports the efforts of the population to express their problems, elaborate options and take self-reliant decisions.  It makes the joint evaluation of results by all actors a precondition for further promotion measures.  Action research is thus by definition a fundamentally participatory approach.

Process-oriented development cooperation refrains from creating new, cost-intensive structures.  Instead, it supports independent activities on the part of existing groups, promotes the formation of new groups and networks, and works together with existing organisations.  Since it prefers to support existing groups and assist them in developing their organisational structures, it tends to make itself superfluous before long.

Linking Theory and Practice

back

By dissolving the division of labour between 'researcher and researchee', action research avoids the error frequently made by conventional research and planning methods of viewing 'affected persons and groups' as a 'storehouse of information', i.e. as being passive and incapable of analysing their own situation and identifying solutions to their own problems.

During the joint research process, knowledge and insights leading to consequences are triggered on both sides.  As the respective interests dictate, the facilitator tends to draw consequences with regard to the documentation, processing and presentation of the information gained, and with respect to continuation of the initiated experiential process.  By contrast, the users change their behavioural mindset and implement actions which they believe will yield benefits.  Thus in the normal course of events both sides derive benefit from action research.  Supported by an external facilitator, the group of users gain knowledge and insights which lead to changes in their mindset and actions, whilst the facilitator gains access to information which cannot be gained any other way.

Users Play the Lead Role

back

It is the project's users who play the lead role, for they are the actors. They analyse their situation, seek solutions, and design and implement measures.  To begin with, the adviser simply creates the prerequisites for these activities. As soon as the activities are under way, a variety of issues start to crop up.  Depending on which problem complex the users tackle first, these may relate to areas such as organisation, taxation, land law, administrative law, technolo­gies, medicine or education.

If development cooperation wishes to initiate and sustain social processes, it should confine itself to providing the necessary stimuli, creating appropriate conditions and enabling action to be taken (facilitation), and should leave all decisions and action to those affected by the given situation, who are the users of the development cooperation measures.

The project personnel thus act as facilitators.  They offer the users or their re­presentatives some form of opportunity to state their most pressing problems, seek potential solutions, work out plans of action and determine activities, and they encourage them to act in line with their plans and intentions.

The project personnel never impose their own ideas on the partners in action and never act for them or in their stead.  They confine themselves strictly to a participatory and demand-oriented approach.

The joint definition of objectives, methodological procedures and long-term measures by all actors, as well as the implementation of exemplary measures during the planning phase, are designed to test long-term cooperation.  Responsibility and decision-making competence, which in conventional programmes rest with those actually outside the process, i.e. donor organisations, external consultants and governmental institutions, are reserved for the members of autonomous self-help groups, which are the actual users of later promotion measures.  External support is therefore confined to in-process consultancy and mediation in the development of self-reliant activities and efforts to self-organise by the population.  It helps mobilise grass-roots initiative, and in so doing tends to make itself superfluous.

For concrete participatory planning procedures in the field, this means:

  • A programme that is fixed from the outset and non-revisable must be avoided.  The overall strategy of the promotion measures can only emerge in a process of joint discussion with the appropriate partners.

  • Promotion structures must be developed which allow ongoing communication between all actors.

  • The categorical distinction between 'interviewer' and 'interviewee' must be avoided.  Openly structured discussions should be pursued which foster a situation of dialogue.

  • The process of supporting artisans' proposals and actions should help verify whether the will to cooperate is feasible and appropriate on both sides.  Similarly, it should help facilitate the drawing-up of a long-term promotion programme geared towards practical application.

Establishing Animation and Facilitation Teams

back

To ensure that regular contact is maintained with the artisans during the fieldwork phase, animation teams should be set-up, each of which should cover its particular region on several occasions.  This guarantees that all of the participating craft trade organisations and/or businesses ‑ even in the remotest rural areas ‑ receive several visits in the space of six months, and are included in a process of ongoing discussion.

The teams cover their respective regions at regular intervals, discuss jointly with the artisans their (the artisans') main problems, proposals and initiatives, and reach agreements on supporting the artisans' activities.

If the users of a project or measure are truly to have the chance to determine the methods employed, define objectives and results and plan activities, the project personnel must adapt to their partners' discussion style and general rhythm of life.

The project personnel must be familiar with action research methods; they must have freed themselves of the concept of the 'omniscient expert' and be at ease in the users' accustomed environment; they must be versed in non-directive communication techniques; they must be good listeners who are able to refrain from interfering; they must be inquisitive and open-minded; they must be capable of empathy; and they must possess the ability to win others' confidence without ingratiation, to offer suggestions and advice without being patronising, and to question ideas and proposals without seeking to appear superior.

To be capable of sustaining a social process, project staff must be highly flexible and mentally agile, and possess a great deal of imagination.  This because they must help prompt the users to respond quickly and appropriately to situations and to the responses of others, to identify partners, and either forge alliances with those partners or enter into negotiation with them.  They must also be able to quickly identify experts and expertise to address complex issues.  They will find this easier if they possess a certain degree of expertise themselves. 

Participatory Planning, Implementation and Evaluation

back

Participation essentially means 'active involvement'.  But who is involved, who is 'being' involved, and by whom?  How much participation is 'allowed'?  Consequently, participation as a key concept always needs to be defined in the context of a concrete project.  Only then does it become apparent whether the participatory approach selected merely serves to legitimate interests or some other instrumental purpose, or whether it truly serves to increase the self-reliance of actors from the bottom up.

In conventional strategies, the concept of participation is still often used to mean no more than the involvement of national implementing organisations, the competent ministries and national elites.  In these strategies, the direct users are often considered incapable of self-reliant participation.

Participation as understood by action research accepts that priority must be attached to an active, bottom-up role of the users – small entrepreneurs, the village population, members of a women's cooperative, and members of other self-help groups.  Self-reliant development includes the assumption of responsibility in all phases of cooperation, i.e. in planning, implementation and evaluation.

The evaluation of cooperation and discussion of further activities jointly with the users is an integral component of participatory promotion.  It enables the users to pursue self-organisation on the sound basis of their own assessment of the situation, to compare their assessment with the proposals of other groups, and to plan and execute on a largely self-reliant basis further activities to solve the problems which they have identified.

When assessing the project's benefits, the evaluator should base his conclusions on the objectives and results defined by the users themselves and on their view of the benefits achieved.  The external evaluation will then incorporate at least some elements of the internal evaluation.  In order to accomplish this, the evaluator must communicate with the users as much as possible and ensure that the evaluation is conducted along participatory lines, which will include informing the users about his findings and discussing these with them before the evaluation report is submitted to the donor organisation.

Action Research and Organisational Consultancy

back

There is clearly a close relationship between action research and organisational development (OD), a discipline which was originated some time ago by organisational sociologists in Western industrialised nations, and which has been refined by users and is now covered by specialised consultants.  OD seeks to solve problems affecting the structures and procedures of organisations by motivating and encouraging the people living or working within the organisation to elaborate proposals of their own for overcoming the problems or at least to work together with experts in seeking solutions.

This strategy is based on the premise that those who live or work within an organisation are likely to be more familiar than anyone else with its formal and above all informal structures for operation and communication, and that they are thus most likely to come up with appropriate and realistic solutions.  This assumption is reinforced by the fact that this group should themselves hold a stake in reforms which genuinely represent an improvement over the status quo ante, since it is they who are the first to suffer if attempted reforms prove unsuccessful.

The parallels with action research are obvious, and demonstrate that action research methods can be applied not only to individuals (e.g. farmers, artisans, women, town-dwellers, population of settlements) and their groups at the microlevel with the aim of raising aware­ness, promoting emancipation and reducing poverty, but also to relatively prosperous individuals and groups at the micro-, meso- and macrolevels.

Strengths and Problem Areas of Action Research

back

Strengths

For the following reasons, action research methods are particularly suitable for initiating development processes by means of external stimuli and sustaining them thereafter:

  • The users themselves learn a great deal about their own situation and the reasons for it.

  • The users learn problem-solving techniques which they can also apply to other aspects of their life and work.

  • It is the users of the measures, rather than external experts, who learn from their experience and mistakes; as it is they who suffer the consequences of their mistakes, they develop an enhanced sense of responsibility for their own actions.

  • The users generally begin by tackling a problem which they consider pres­sing and in their efforts to solve it encounter a whole series of other prob­lems calling for solutions in a growing number of different sectors; this pro­motes the organic development of an 'integrated' approach.

  • The users almost automatically take account of the socio-cultural environ­ment and political power structure of which they are themselves part; in this way sustainable solutions can be found without the need for the external project personnel to first understand the socio-cultural factors in full.

  • As it is usually aimed to find solutions which benefit a group or profession rather than a single individual, action research methods generally have broad impacts and a good cost-benefit ratio.

  •  Determination of objectives, methods and actions, along with implementa­tion of measures, by users and project during (open) orientation phases serve as 'trial runs' for cooperation and are thus important in helping to design the implementation phase.

  • Where conventional planning methods are used, the target groups are in­volved at best through representatives with some form of authorisation who are obliged to fit into a structure imposed by outsiders (seminar situation, programme targets, discussions dominated by 'experts' and conducted in technical language).  By contrast, participatory planning methods enable the users as a group to remain within their accustomed living and production environment.  They can thus work out their intentions and proposals for themselves by way of collective discussion over a lengthy period.  As the discussion is conducted within the groups' own environment and in their everyday language, it helps to strengthen their position vis-à-vis experts and representatives of government institutions, who unconsciously or covertly, by applying their own logic, always represent their own interests.

 Problem Areas

Project implementation experiences gained in recent years have demonstrated that users are not always willing from the outset to accept the conditions of help towards self-help – i.e. the requirement that they provide their own inputs and contributions, as well as the temporary nature of the promotion measures.  This is the case especially when users are confronted with external project implementation, and have already gained experience as recipients of previous projects.

 Consequently, training and facilitation measures in future should place greater emphasis on not overrating short-term results of project work.  Instead, they should view each individual measure in terms of its contribution to strengthening the self-help capability of the users.  Promotion measures can be implemented to the satisfaction of users, without users enhancing their self-help capability or demonstrating sustainability.  Such measures can foster a recipient mentality (e.g. repeated lending to the same group without the users forming their own capital within a foreseeable period).  Project personnel should be more vigilant in this respect.  The project side must therefore make promotion dependent on criteria and conditions, especially where an action research-oriented approach is being pursued, and this must be made clear to the users.

Criteria for Promotion

back

One objection against action research is that it allegedly seeks to turn users into grass-roots experts, whilst the facilitators play a largely passive role.  The subjective interests and wishes of the target group are, it is argued, made the sole criterion for decision-making, leaving the target group incapable of learning from their mistakes.

Although the principle is correct that the user is best able to identify his needs in his own setting, the converse inference that the facilitator is robbed of his self-reliance is based on a misconception.  Action research does not imply autonomous action by one group alone.  As a participatory approach, action research means that at least two sides must engage in an ongoing process of negotiation.  When discussing promotion measures, project personnel should raise the issue of the following conditions, of which users are not always aware, or are not always willing to accept from the outset:

  • self-initiative and financial input by the users;

  •  feasibility, and

  • appropriateness of the project.

Due to the possibly discrepant value systems of the respective actors, this negotiating situation is neither unproblematic nor conflict-free; nevertheless it cannot be avoided, assuming that neither side wishes to submit unconditionally to the other.  Where possible, the discussion should therefore be conducted within the framework of criteria agreed between the two sides.  For instance, an entrepreneur’s desire to obtain financing for a combined sawing, planing, milling and drilling machine, even though he himself is unable to provide any significant input of his own, will fail to comply with the agreed criteria of input provision by the entrepreneur, and self-help.  Profitability and financial analyses will help place the discussion on an objective footing.

Implementing Action Research

back

When project planning and implementation begin, various questions affecting project design and organisation arise which need to be answered:

  • How can an ongoing process of dialogue with the later users of promotion measures be developed?

  • What would be an appropriate animation strategy, and how might the animators be selected and trained?

  • Which instruments and methods are appropriate for conducting an analysis of the situation and problems of the users?

  •  How can the users' initiatives and promotion needs be identified?

  • What kind of promotion activities are possible and appropriate?

  •  What would be an appropriate project infrastructure?

These and other questions need not be elaborated on any further in this brief introduction.  For more detailed discussion, the reader is referred to the following publications:

  • Gagel (edit.), Gellermann, Hillen, Mund,  Muziol, Reinhard, Schneider-Barthold,  Vogt, Wolterstorff: 

    Action-Research and small enterprises promotion. Methods of participatory project planning and implementation in development cooperation, 

    GTZ, Eschborn 1995

    download

(The material contained on the present webpage is taken largely from the latter publication).

 

 

 

 

 


powered by FreeFind