Case Studies
Writeshops: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field Experiences
Julian F. Gonsalves Bernadette Joven
WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Published in the Philippines in 2010 by the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction, International Potato Center - Users' Perspective with Agricultural Research and Development, with funding from the International Development Research Centre.
ISBN: 1-930261-27-6
C International Institute of Rural Reconstruction and International Potato Center - Users' Perspective with Agricultural Research and Development
The publishers and authors of the individual papers encourage readers to quote, reproduce, disseminate and translate materials from this document for their own use. Due acknowledgement, with full reference to the authors and publishers, is requested.
Correct citation: Gonsalves, J.; B. Joven (eds). 2010. Writeshops: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field- based Experiences (Case Studies). International Institute of Rural Reconstruction, International Potato Center - Users’ Perspective with Agricultural Research and Development. Manila, Philippines.
For further information, please contact:
International Institute of Rural Reconstruction Y.C. James Yen Center Silang, Cavite 4118 Philippines [email protected] www.iirr.org
International Potato Center-Users' Perspectives With Agricultural Research and Development (CIP-UPWARD) Elvira Tan Hall, PCARRD Complex Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines [email protected] www.cip-upward.org
International Development Research Centre Regional Office for South Asia and China 208 Jor Bagh, New Delhi 110003, India www.idrc.ca / www.crdi.ca
Cover design and layout: Celso C. Amutan
ii WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Preface
Ever so often one stumbles upon innovations in human development somewhat hidden from those who could benefit from them, resulting in the proverbial "reinventing-the-wheel". While many times information relating to these exists only in the heads of development practitioners who were part of generating it, at others, it lies inscrutable in documents such as scientific research journals. Writeshops, a participatory way of packaging knowledge over a short period of time, have helped document tacit "experiential" knowledge. They have also been useful in enhancing the relevance of explicit "expert" knowledge, by making it understandable and thus, more easily usable.
In trying to improve documentation of project experiences, IFAD projects and partners in Asia-Pacific discovered writeshops and how these could complement and supplement their efforts. Over the period 2003 to 2010, starting with simpler writing skills sessions, several project and country teams organised writeshops to document project experiences, learning from and adapting the process to their needs and context. All these happened in almost complete isolation of other writeshop experiences accumulating across the globe since the year 1987, when the first writeshop was organized by the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR). What is notable is that IFAD had produced a document Enhancing Ownership and Sustainability: A resource Book on Participation with IIRR and the Asian NGO Coalition (ANGOC) using a writeshop approach as early as 2001. However, the wider use of and experimentation with the methodology at the hands of IFAD project and country team members began later, in the year 2003.
With several experiences building-up within the IFAD family, the opportunity was ripe to analyze its learning, validate it with other users and create tools for future users both within and outside of IFAD: in essence, a review of the writeshop methodology and its relevance to development practice.
To do this, IIRR and Knowledge Networking for Rural Development in Asia-Pacific Region or ENRAP — a joint initiative of IFAD and IDRC supporting knowledge- networking among IFAD projects and partners since late 1990's — joined hands. Papers on experiences of users were invited and authors along with key experts met over a three-day period at IIRR, the Philippines, in early July 2010 to share learning and good practice. Specific recommendations were also made for guidelines in organizing and conducting writeshops.
WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences iii A series of three publications — Workshop Proceedings, Case Studies, and A Guide to Organizing Writeshops — resulted from the deliberations of the Writeshop Methodology Review exercise. These are available as printed copies and in a CD. All these are also available on the ENRAP website www.enrap.org.
This compilation of experiences or Cases, is part of the twin pack that goes along with the Guidelines. It is aimed at building evidence on use and efficacy of the methodology as well as helping users in dealing with some common challenges. Cases described cover a large part of the globe and have been produced by those involved in designing, conducting and using writeshops.
I hope that this effort will help make available "hidden" field knowledge and thus, make voices from the field become part of global dialogues on development more effectively. I also hope that this will help knowledge translation, making expert knowledge more accessible and usable for development practitioners.
Shalini Kala ENRAP Coordinator International Development Research Centre Regional Office for South Asia and China
iv WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Acknowledgement
The richness of this series of publications has been possible mainly because of the generous sharing of experiences of workshop participants who travelled from different countries to get together for three days in July 2010 at IIRR, Silang Campus, in the Philippines. They are Maksat Abdykaparo, Jose Roi Avena, Isaac Bekalo, Joy Caminade, Dindo Campilan, Li Chanjuan, Hidelisa de Chavez, Marise Espineli, Keam Han, Bernadette Joven, Jennifer Liguton, Denise Melvin, Paul Mundy, Khanhkham Ouneoudom, Sudhirendra Sharma, Pech Sithan, Juan Su, and Yinhong Sun.
As members of the steering committee, Marise Espineli, Shalini Kala, Priyanka Mohan, Paul Mundy and Emily Monville Oro, played a key role in shaping the design and implementation strategies for the workshop.
Many thanks to the IIRR team who were involved in workshop organization as well as production of the workshop outputs. Dulce Dominguez and Lilibeth Sulit-Villela of IIRR, Sucheta Rawat and Reema Singh of IDRC, and Jhennelyn Dogelio formed the backbone of the effort by providing excellent support to administration, logistics and communications. Their engagement at the workshop and from behind the scene contributed to the smooth operations of the workshop and post-workshop activities.
Paul Mundy, Shalini Kala, Priyanka Mohan and Celso Amutan provided extremely useful and detailed feedback and constructive suggestions at different stages of this effort. Celso Amutan painstakingly worked on the design, editing and layout of the many versions of the workshop outputs. Thanks are also due to Chase Palmeri of IFAD; without her support and encouragement this would not have been possible.
Finally the editors would like to thank the donors who were behind this effort — the International Development Research Centre Office for South Asia and China, International Fund for Agricultural Development and the Canadian International Development Agency.
Julian Gonsalves and Ricardo Armonia Editors 15 September 2010 Philippines
WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences v Introduction
Writeshops were originally used by IIRR and some its early partners, mainly to address the issue of poor engagement of field workers in the process of documentation, learning and sharing of knowledge. Successful field projects whose impacts remained localized were another issue to be addressed. Ways had to be found to increase their influences in the wider community. The challenges posed by the limited uptake of exemplary practices, and the reality that useful knowledge often remained in the mind of workers or in reports and unpublished documents, prompted the discovery and testing of writeshop approaches .
At the outset, writeshops were an intensively participatory approach, involving a diverse range of stakeholders and players. Field workers had little time to sit down, reflect on and write their experiences: they were simply too busy doing what is really more important i.e., staying engaged and connected with local communities, where the real action was. Field workers were brought together for a brief time, usually in a workshop setting, during which they reflected and were provided support to synthesize, draw lessons and write their experiences. Working with their peers had a strong motivating effect. Sometimes academics and researchers helped these field workers to better understand the value of their knowledge and contributions. Editors and artists were around to assist in the process. Witnessing how their rough outlines and drafts underwent transformation, and finally seeing their names as "authors" on the last day served as rewards. Their outputs were displayed on the last day and their supervisors were invited to view the near-final products. Field workers returned to work with an increased interest to write and share. Supervisors reported that participants wrote better reports and understood why case studies were important.
At another level, researchers also began to be challenged by issues of knowledge management. These challenges came from civil society and donors wanting to see a more direct impact of investment. The issue of unused knowledge was simply not an issue of extension workers performing, it was much more complex. It was often a matter of the limited relevance of their knowledge products and direct usability. Here, writeshops were used to transform research outputs. Increasingly, this was
vi WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences referred to as a "repackaging" effort involving the use of editors and artists. Original authors were not necessarily involved in the process. Secondary material was identified through scoping studies and then shortlisted for repackaging by production teams. Researchers valued such efforts by others to promote wider application of research outputs and scientific conference proceedings. Writeshops began to be used to help the research community as well.
The adaptation of writeshops continued and now are being used for a range of other purposes: developing project proposals, evaluation frameworks, case studies, case stories, curricula, policy briefs etc. Writeshops lend themselves to adaptation provided certain key principles were followed e.g., multi-stakeholder and peer participation, frequent review and revision, increased use of transformation approaches (not just the classic editing approaches) in writing, need for flexibility and openness to revising topics and papers, increased use of graphics, artwork, and design to enhance presentation, etc.
The Writeshop Review workshop organized in the Philippines in July 2010 resulted in this series of three publications and is a modest effort to share what was learnt through the review. The first publication is a Workshop Proceedings written to highlight experiences, lessons and principles for learning purposes. To that extent, its not just a workshop report but a proceedings which documents the writeshop processes. The second publication — Case studies — is a collection of experiences in using the methodology. The cases are intentionally not presented as abstracts as is often done. They are presented in abridged forms to ensure that the reader benefits from the details in the experiences shared. This is for future users interested in using writeshops and wanting to know what lessons can be learnt from previous experiences. The third publication is a Guide to Organizing Writeshops. It provides a short summary of the writeshop process, related pointers and recommendations. It also has short product-specific guidelines, focusing on the four major products emphasized at the workshop. In addition, a CD is available with the entire collection of workshop outputs
WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences vii The editors are very conscious that these outputs do not completely reflect the breadth and range of experiences. Writeshops are too powerful a mechanism for us to be rigid about them. They must evolve and they must be tailored to each organization’s needs. The best one can offer is experiences and insights for others to test, develop and adapt. To that extent it is hoped that the readers will consider this as a work in progress and will develop these ideas further. The potential for writeshops has yet to be fully maximized and readers are encouraged to explore this interesting tool in their own work.
Julian Gonsalves and Ricardo Armonia Editors 30 September 2010 Philippines
viii WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Table of Contents
Preface …………………………...... iii Acknowledgement …………………………...... v Introduction …………………………...... vi
Adapting the Writeshop Process …………………………………..3 Capturing Voices from the Field through Writeshops: The IFAD Experience …………………………...... 15 Evolution of a Knowledge Product — Sourcebook on Transition Towards Resilience: Coping with Disasters…...... 25 Producing and Adapting an Information Kit on Upland Management ……………...... 35 Integrating ICT Tools to the Writeshop Methodology ………….41 Writing for a Cause, Writing for Effect …………………………...55 Initiating Knowledge Management and Inter-institutional Cooperation through the Lao Uplands Sourcebook …………63 Developing Simple and Culturally-Appropriate Materials: A Field-Based Writeshop Adaptation ……………………….…75 Module on Writing Policy Briefs: A Drawing Board for a Tool to Influence ………...... 81 Conducting Participatory Evaluation the Writeshop Way …..…89 Using the Writeshop for Participatory Approaches in Education …………………...... 99
WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences ix Utilizing Writeshop to Innovate Graduate Textbooks on NRM …………………...... 109 Using A Writeshop for Publication Development in Cambodia.…………...... 121 Bridging the Information and Imagination Divide ………....…129 Conclusion Acronyms Used ...... 135
WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Annex 8. Training Writeshops: Using Writeshops to Teach Writing .....154 Annex 9. Writing Clinics: Writeshops Without Presentations .....155 Annex 10. Emerging Trends, Challenges, and Innovations for Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) in Cambodia .....156 Annex 11. Writing Workshop on Rural Livelihoods and Natural Resources (RLNR) .....157
WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences xi Adapting the Writeshop Process
Paul Mundy Independent Specialist in Development Communication E-mail: [email protected] Websites: www.mamud.com; www.writeshops.org
Producing information materials presents a number of problems. The information typically comes from many different sources. The materials must be accurate and supported by scientific research or field experience, and they must be relevant to the needs of the audience. To be effective, the materials typically need to be simply written, well-illustrated, and carefully laid out.
However, many information materials, particularly Ways to produce information materials: those written by scientists, do not fulfil these criteria. They draw information from only a few sources. They l Single author are scientifically accurate, but may not be relevant to l Small team of writers the needs of the audience. Many such materials are l Multiple authors who submit not simply written, and they contain few, if any, manuscripts to an editor l Journalistic reporting illustrations. Therefore, they are not effective. l Conference or symposium l Writeshop Among the many ways to produce information materials, the writeshop process stands out. It is an effective methodology to capture, distill, and transform research results and field- based experience into friendly, useful knowledge products.
Background
A writeshop is a very intensive process aimed at bringing together authors, editors, artists, and desktop publishing specialists to produce a publication in a very short time. It is a very flexible way of producing various types of information materials. The basic process can be used to produce a whole range of different products,
Adapting the Writeshop Process 3 from bound books to leaflets, and from training materials to policy briefs. Writeshops have been used to generate a wide range of information materials in various countries.
A two-week writeshop can produce near-camera-ready material for a 200- page extension manual containing up to 100 separate topics. A writeshop is.....
Short writeshops (1-4 days) can be used l suitable where a large number of people know a little, to develop first drafts of information but no one knows a lot about the subject. materials. The participants need to l intended to produce illustrated materials that present bring information and ideas with them, relevant, practical information in simple language - such as extension materials. but do not have to do any writing l flexible as it can be modified and adapted to suit beforehand. At the writeshop, a team of individual situations. editors guides the participants through l a platform for producing materials in a very short time. the writing process. Artists draw With suitable preparation and for some subjects, it is illustrations for each manuscript. After possible to produce materials ready for the printing the writeshop, the editor edits the within a few days after the end of the writeshop itself. l a venue to bring together different groups — scientists, manuscripts (and incorporates the extension personnel, NGO staff, policymakers, farmers artwork) and contacts authors to check — to develop and produce a common set of materials. on any questions. The participants benefit from the discussions and networking that result. Such writeshops are best suited for l a process that enables comments and revisions from other participants (analogous to the peer review in subjects where each participant has conferences). Several authors can contribute to each information on a separate, specific section of the materials. topic. They are less appropriate where l an opportunity that allows for members of the intended the authors have a large degree of audience (farmers, extensionists...) to contribute to the overlap and need to confer intensively preparation of the materials, if they are present in the writeshop. It also enables a certain amount of pretesting with one another. The topics must be of the materials. fairly similar in structure and l relatively expensive since the host must cover the food treatment; this allows the editor to and board, airfares, staffing and possibly per diems of guide many people through the writing the participants. process at the same time. In a short l very intensive. The time is sometimes insufficient, and writeshop, most participants can write the process places a high demand on the abilities of the editors and other staff. A few participants may complain only a few pages. This means that such that their manuscripts have been revised too much. short writeshops are suitable only for l not useful for lengthy literature reviews or presentation fairly simple topics. of detailed information.
4 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Three main processes occur during a writeshop:
1. Presentations and comments. Participants present their drafts to other participants, peers, subject matter specialists, and members of the target audience, who provide comments on the draft. They are able to validate the information, expand on it, or generalize it to other situations. We can think of this process as one of horizontal communication or information exchange. 2. Editing and rewriting. Participants discuss their drafts in detail with an editor, who helps them rewrite and adapt them to suit the intended audience and publication. This discussion enables a critical and detailed look at the structure, content and style of the draft. The editor helps the author convert the draft from scientific jargon (or "farmer talk") into text that is aimed at a particular audience. An artist may help turn messages into illustrations or graphics. We might think of this process as one of information transformation. 3. Small-group sessions. Writeshops frequently include sessions where small groups draw on their own knowledge and experience, as well as the drafts that have been presented, to brainstorm new ideas. These ideas may become part of an analysis section of the resulting book, or the recommendations section of a policy brief. These sessions embody information generation.
These three processes may be more or less important in different writeshops. Some writeshops emphasize the presentations and comments; they are suitable where the authors are skilled writers and know their audience well — for example, where
Presentations Information and comments exchange
Editing and Information rewriting transformation
Information Small groups generation
Figure 1. The three main processes of a writeshop.
Adapting the Writeshop Process 5 scientists are writing for other scientists. In such a situation, little information translation is required. More important are the exchange of information and peer review enabled through the presentation sessions.
Other writeshops emphasize information transformation: where scientists are writing for extension personnel, farmers or policymakers, for example. Here, the editor's critical eye and probing questions are more useful. Indeed, in "writing clinics", presentations and comments from the participants are unnecessary.
Small-group sessions are invaluable to get participants to analyze and build on information that has been presented.
The Standard writeshop model
Before Writeshop During Writeshop After Writeshop
l Identify audience and l Introduce writeshop l Editor revises objectives procedure manuscripts and checks l Identify type of materials l Each author presents draft final queries needed l Audience comments l Final draft laid out, l Identify theme of book, l Editor and author revise proofread, printed and break it into separate manuscript distributed “topics” l Artist draws illustrations l Prepare guidelines for l Author presents draft 2 authors, invite authors to l Small groups develop ideas write drafts
Facilitator Editor
Presenter
Upon approval of author and core group Artist Editor Core Group Paper presentation, editing and rewriting Printing and distribution
Small Groups
6 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences A typical writeshop requires a long lead-time for planning and to arrange logistics. It involves perhaps 20-50 parti-cipants from many different organizations, who stay throughout the writeshop period. A team of 2 facilitators and coordinators, 2-4 editors, 2 artists, plus photocopying and logistics staff is needed to plan and run the writeshop. It may last from 5 to 10 days, and is held in a hotel or conference center. All these make it a major undertaking — one that is relatively expensive.
A "standard model" for a writeshop consists of three parts: before writeshop; during writeshop; and after writeshop
Adaptations to the standard model
This standard model approach can be modified in numerous ways. As writeshops are flexible, possible adaptations can be implemented based on specific purpose and needs.
Too many participants and manuscripts? Presenters l Break it down to sub-plenaries. Divide the participants into two or more sub-plenaries and Small groups have parallel presentations. By doing this, the same number of manuscripts is discussed more quickly (although this puts extra pressure on the editors, who are often a bottleneck in the revision process).
Want more focused and in-depth results? l Conduct a scoping study before the writeshop. Some subjects require a lot of preparatory work to discover what is known, determine the range of current practices, and develop a framework for the book. In such instances, a scoping study or literature review may be necessary before planning the writeshop. The scoping study is used to guide what the book should be about, what its structure should be, and who should be invited to contribute. During the writeshop it can be presented for comments (just like any other manuscript). l Perform a heavy-duty analysis after the writeshop. Ideally, a writeshop output is a complete document that needs just minor polishing before it can
Adapting the Writeshop Process 7 Scoping be published. But this is not always before the the case. Sometimes a key author writeshop has not had time to deliver a vital chapter beforehand. Or perhaps some heavy-duty analysis (such as economic analysis) is needed on the data gathered during the writeshop. In such cases, it is necessary to leave enough time after the writeshop for these tasks to be done and the text Analysis after the writeshop to be written.
Want to spread the load?
l Put in more resource persons. Having several resource persons or subject matter specialists can ease pressure on the editors. They can contribute to the analysis and editing work. If a resource person and an editor are assigned to help each author, they can split the revision tasks between them. For example, the resource person can ensure the technical details are correct, while the editor can focus on the language and style of the manuscript.
l Ask participants to act as facilitators. Once the participants understand the process, they can take over tasks such as facilitation, note-taking and coordination.
Resource persons help authors and editors revise text Time is limited?
l Break into small groups. Divide the participants into groups of 4-8 people, give them a task ("develop some policy recommendations", or "identify the five most important factors"), and ask them to report back to the plenary at a specified
8 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences time. The individuals' own experience and their shared knowledge from the presentations make it possible to produce a set of ideas within a short time. l Have only one presentation. A single presentation enables the participants to comment on the draft, and the author and editor to take notes. The author and editor meet afterwards to discuss revisions. This approach typically leaves the editor more to do after the writeshop, and several rounds of emails between author and editor may be necessary to finalize the manuscript. l Skip presentations, go straight to comments. There are various reasons for omitting the presentations: (a) there may not be enough time to devote to a full presentation; (b) some participants find the presentations tedious; (c) people can read a text much faster than it can be presented; and (d) for the second drafts, participants are already familiar with the content, so no presentation may be needed. In such cases, the participants are given five minutes to read through hard copies of the draft. The facilitator then asks them to comment on the draft page by page, section by section, while the author and editor take notes.
Skip presentation, just comments
l People can read faster than they listen l Saves time l Useful for second draft
l Skip presentations and comments. What appears to be the heart of the writeshop process, the presentations and comments from participants, may not be necessary for several reasons: the authors have no time to attend
l Writing clinics l Presentations and participants’ comments may have Production team little value - e.g., for non-overlapping subject areas
Adapting the Writeshop Process 9 presentations; participants all work in different regions or subject areas, so they can make only few (if any) legitimate comments about the other manuscripts; and the participants may already know each other as they may be working for a project nearing completion; hence, little is to be gained from presentations in terms of networking or team-building. In such a situation, use writing clinics: dispense with the presentations and comments altogether. Get the editors to hold "clinic" or "surgery" sessions with each author in turn to review the text and plan illustrations. The authors can then revise the manuscripts while the editor holds the next appointment. Several such appointments may be necessary in order to finalize each chapter.
Want to produce information materials more quickly? l Be more spontaneous. Gather a few staff members together for a day or two, and ask each of them to write a few paragraphs about a particular aspect of the issue. Give them a couple of hours to write, then ask them to present what they have written. Get the other staff members' comments, then put the various contributions together and edit them. l Fewer people, shorter time. A writeshop does not have to have scores of participants. The same approach can be used with as few as five people. The time needed depends on the length of the information product you want to produce. It is possible to produce a two-page policy brief or an extension booklet in a day or even in an evening.
No drafts or manuscripts? l Have a writing writeshop. Many authors have insufficient time to prepare a manuscript before the writeshop, so come with a hastily drafted manuscript or none at all. This may or may not be a problem: some participants can write their manuscripts the evening before the writeshop starts, while others may The authors write their manuscripts, and the complete them on the second or editors and facilitators can help them write. third day.
10 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences One solution is a writing writeshop: do not ask the participants to bring a manuscript with them; instead, explain to them on the first day what is needed, give them a template to work with (such as a form to fill in with details of their case), and a day in which to write. The authors then write as individuals, or in pairs or small groups. The editors and facilitators can also help them as they write. This approach works well where all the chapters are fairly short and have a parallel structure; indeed the standard of the initial drafts is often much higher than if the authors bring manuscripts with them.
Language problem? l Do simultaneous or consecutive translation. Where participants speak different languages, simultaneous translation (using interpreters in booths and participants wear headsets) or consecutive translation (where an interpreter translates each sentence immediately afterwards) are possible. Simultaneous translation is more expensive but much faster and less obtrusive than consecutive translation. Where only a few participants do not speak the main writeshop language, whisper translation (where a bilingual participant translates for one or two other people sitting next to him or her) may be possible. For manuscripts, services such as Google Translate (http:// translate.google.com/) offers a wide range of languages. It is not even necessary for the writeshop coordinator to speak the language of the writeshop: the coordinator can guide the facilitator and editors on the writeshop process, then monitor to make sure all is functioning smoothly.
No electricity? l Back to basics. Yes, it is possible to do a writeshop in a village under a tree. Forget about computers and projectors: use notepads and flipcharts. Have authors hand-write their manuscripts and present them orally. Jot down comments, then get the authors to discuss the drafts with an editor. Bring the originals back to the office to type them up and polish the text.
Want to cut on cost but still achieve optimum results? l Combine it with training. A training writeshop combines a training course with a writeshop, wherein the facilitator guides the authors through the
Adapting the Writeshop Process 11 writing process, and editors help them revise their manuscripts (or write them from scratch). l Conduct a revision writeshop. Too difficult or expensive to bring all the authors together for a writeshop? In a revision writeshop, you gather the manuscripts beforehand, and ask a panel of specialists to review and discuss each in turn. The editor then rewrites the text and checks it with the authors afterwards. l Piggyback on another event. Bringing participants together can be very expensive, especially if international travel is involved. Consider holding a writeshop before or after a conference or other event that most of the participants plan to attend — then you only have to pay for a few extra days' stay. Beware that participants may already be tired after the conference, and may not be able to stay away from their desks for much longer, so limit such writeshops to three days. You can also hold a mini-writeshop on the last day of a conference, for example to prepare a policy brief summarizing the conference's outputs and recommendations.
Conference Writeshop l Hold it with a single organization. The participants do not have to come from different areas and organizations. You can use the writeshop technique to generate information materials based on the experiences of a single organization. You can hold the writeshop in the organization's own meeting room (no need to rent outside facilities), and can spread it over several days or weeks (so staff can attend to their regular work).
12 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Want to innovate? l Use the cloud. It should be possible to combine face-to-face writeshops with electronic communication to enable people who are not present to contribute to the text. Indeed, it should be possible to dispense with face-to-face meetings altogether and adapt the writeshop process to a purely electronic form using email, instant messaging, conference calls, wikis and online documents. XML- tagged documents also offer the potential for easier publication and multi- platform products.
Want varied outputs? l Diversify. Writeshops have been used to produce loose-leaf information kits, booklets, and bound volumes. You can also use them to produce two books on different subjects at the same time. Divide the participants into two groups, one for each book. Have separate presentations and editing teams, and bring the two groups together if you need to discuss issues of common interest. Or have one group develop a policy brief and another draft a presentation or video script based on the main output of the writeshop. The table on the next page outlines the range of possible outputs from a writeshop.
Source of illustrations: Mundy, P. (2010, July 7-9). Adapting the writeshop process. Powerpoint lecture presented in "Writeshop Methodology Review." IIRR, Silang, Cavite, Philippines. http://www.mamud.com/presentations/ 108_adapting_writeshop_process.ppt.
Adapting the Writeshop Process 13 Table 1. Types of products produced through writeshops
Category Definition
Information kits Sets of loose-leaf information materials in a folder Sourcebooks The bound equivalents of the loose-leaf kits: a set of short, illustrated items describing experiences, approaches or techniques, grouped together into several sections on particular topics. How-to manuals A systematic set of chapters covering a particular topic, focusing on the how-to. Each chapter may contain short, embedded cases illustrating how an approach was used in a particular instance. Extension materials Short information materials aimed at farmers or agricultural (or other) extension personnel. May be brochures, flyers or booklets. Case-based texts Books with chapter-length cases selected to illustrate a particular topic, placed within a theoretical framework and analysis. Scientific papers journal articles or conference papers Policy briefs Short, 2 or 4-page leaflets aimed at policymakers Training curricula and materials Training materials consisting of curriculum outline, manual for trainers and learners, exercises and resources Project design documents Documents needed for project proposals and detailed design Project evaluation documents Evaluation documents for an on-going or completed project Video and audio scripts Scripts for audio and video programs, including narration, interviews, sounds, visuals and treatment Textbooks Textbooks aimed at schoolchildren and students, with readings, instructions and exercises Websites Structure and content of a website: text, graphics, interactive materials
14 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Capturing Voices from the Field through Writeshops: The IFAD Experience1
Shalini Kala Coordinator Knowledge Networking for Rural Development in Asia-Pacific Region (ENRAP)
Good quality written documentation of project experiences, knowledge, and lessons learned was a need expressed uniformly across the Asian region by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) projects and partners. While initial requests related to conventional writing skills training to address this need, successful results from the use of writeshops led to an increase in these requests. It was reported that writeshops not only helped produce specific written outputs as an immediate result but also helped improve the quality of project documentation in general. In particular, they helped add the missing element of qualitative analysis in project reports.
This paper describes how IFAD projects and partners discovered and adapted the writeshop methodology2 as a solution to their need for good quality project documentation, the role that Knowledge Networking for Rural Development in Asia-Pacific Region (ENRAP) played in this journey, and lessons that emerged for rural development community in general.
1 This paper benefited from research support by ENRAP staff - Apoorva Mishra, Research Officer, and Sucheta Rawat, Program Assistant. 2 Over the past 4-5 years, writeshops have become a significant addition to a variety of efforts that IFAD country portfolio members undertake to document project experiences.
Capturing Voices from the Field through Writeshops: The IFAD Experience 15 Background
Like most rural development projects, IFAD projects also struggle to adequately capture project experiences. Field staff, closest to project innovations successes and learning, are unfortunately heavily involved in implementation, with little time for anything else. While project monitoring is a priority throughout project life, documentation3 of experiences generally receives attention only towards the end of the project. Periodic progress reports tend to be mostly compilation of quantitative monitoring data. Qualitative analysis however, is essential for drawing lessons and for learning. There is often inadequate systematic and regular reflection4 on project implementation results and poor documentation during the project life.
In the last decade, IFAD's emphasis on good knowledge management (KM) practice increased, creating a strong motivation for projects to improve project experience documentation. ENRAP5 is a specific initiative of IFAD's Asia-Pacific division to improve KM in the region6. It is a collaborative effort of IFAD and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC)7 of Canada, aimed at nurturing knowledge-sharing networks among IFAD projects and partners in Asia-Pacific. Under this initiative, a variety of efforts were supported to capture field knowledge on rural development.
Under its broader mandate to create knowledge-networks among IFAD projects and partners, ENRAP supported several requests to capture project knowledge primarily through implementing actors. What started as training in writing skills evolved into a more focused and output-oriented methodology, namely, the writeshop. While writing skills sessions provided training to improve the general documenting practice, it did not necessarily result in an increase in emphasis on documentation. Further, it also did not significantly change the ability of the trainees to produce better documents in the long run.
3 Most of the time, project documentation is seen as an end-of-the-project output and less as an ongoing exercise to learn from project experience. 4 This was tellingly reflected in the general absence of related activities in the annual work plan and budget of projects. 5 ENRAP (www.enrap.org) is in its third phase. It was initiated in 1998 covering a small set of projects and activities. Since then, its coverage expanded to include all of IFAD's projects and partners in Asia-Pacific in the current phase. 6 IFAD KM Strategy, April 2007 is available at http://www.ifad.org/pub/policy/km/e.pdf. 7 IDRC (www.idrc.ca) has been a key promoter of the writeshop methodology for many years, even before the start of ENRAP. It has supported several such efforts in the past.
16 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Writeshops, however, helped improve the general documentation skills of the trainees and provided Milestones them an opportunity to reflect on, analyze, and l Towards the end of its first phase, the document project experiences during the 4-5 days Cordillera Highlands Agriculture Resource event. This resulted in immediate knowledge outputs Management (CHARM) Project in the and improved long-term project capacity for Philippines organized a comprehensive documentation. effort in 2005-2006 to train 19 hand- picked staff from the Department of Agriculture and partner NGOs in writing skills, photography, and film making. Writeshop Methodology Over a period of 4 weeks and 2 sessions - The immediate purpose for writeshops has been the training-orientation at the beginning and need to document project experiences in an a writeshop towards the end - around 40 project stories were produced apart from interesting way for readers within the IFAD family 5 films and various radio broadcasts. and outside. It also provided an opportunity for staff Most of those trained were included in the to reflect on their experiences and inform project project implementation team of Phase II management8. of CHARM.
A. Gaps in capturing project knowledge l In 2007, the Western Mindanao Community Improvement Project (WMCIP) in the Philippines documented ENRAP's mandate is to promote and support about 30 project experiences through a knowledge-sharing networks at the project, national, training-cum-writeshop for about 45 and Asia-Pacific level. Network building is expected implementing staff from the Department to start with IFAD projects and partners and further of Agrarian Reform and its partner NGOs. connect with actors in the rural development arena, l From June 2007 onwards, connecting with outside of IFAD. Asia-Pacific division's newsletter, many of the country-level writeshops helped One of the initial challenges faced was the inadequacy produce country-specific issues of the or lack of appropriate knowledge products featuring newsletter. This newsletter is targeted at project experiences for sharing across the network. a large number of external partners of IFAD to share its experience and is seen The most common way of sharing was face-to-face as an important vehicle to share good events which seriously limited regular sharing within practice. projects, and across projects dispersed over large areas. Since 2007, Martina Spisiakova, coordinator of the newsletter production for the Asia- Pacific Division, has been an integral part in the implementation of writeshops aimed at producing newsletter articles. She coordinates 8 Projects towards the end of their life were invariably the ones most eager with IFAD teams and consultants supporting to document project experiences; they had so much to tell and wanted country writeshops. to leave a record of project experiences behind.
Capturing Voices from the Field through Writeshops: The IFAD Experience 17 Even when project staff met face-to-face, there was little in the way of documents that they could share as their experience or carry back as learning. Projects and partners recognized this shortcoming; many felt that the key reason was that project staff were pressed for time to document project experiences.
Accordingly, some suggested having external communication consultants to handle the documentation of project experiences. However, there was a realization that the effectiveness of external consultants depend on the kind and quality of project information provided to them. Supervision mission members9 shared their frustration over receiving piles of paper consisting of detailed project information, with little qualitative analysis.
Project implementers mentioned the need for specialized support in improving writing skills to be able to capture their experiences and in doing qualitative analyses. Project staff admitted that their strength was project implementation; writing was not necessarily their forte10.
B. Purpose of writeshops
From 2003 onwards, there was a growing interest among projects and partners inlearning how to do project experience documentation. Project leaders saw this as an opportunity to train staff in analyzing and documenting information. Those working on younger projects requested writing skills training probably because they had more time than those handling mature projects. However, gradually IFAD project staff became convinced of the need and importance to produce knowledge outputs11. They also realized that in their project routine it was going to be difficult to do documentation effectively. Consequently, there was a general inclination towards organizing writeshops instead of pure writing-skills training.
Projects nearing completion were keener than others in documenting project lessons. They saw the benefits of doing so primarily with implementing staff and with some specialized support, instead of outsourcing the effort.
9 This was related to the advice and suggestion from the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS), which was supervising IFAD projects until 2006. 10 In 2003, the project staff of the West Guangxi Poverty Alleviation Project in China shared with the author that technical staff of the project were specialists and scientists who are generally not good writers. 11 These were mostly in the form of stories from the field, case studies, brief technical notes, and newsletter articles.
18 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences C. The process and the actors
Starting in 2003, requests began to grow for writing skills training and writeshops. By 2006-2007, efforts to organize these at the national level12 began to materialize.
ENRAP funded a wide variety of efforts for capturing project derived knowledge. Its role has been to support the identification and documentation of what worked best, allowing experimentation to suit project needs. The sharing of experiences from the early writing skills training, as well as from writeshops, provided the necessary evidence to the IFAD projects and partners of what was needed. Clearly,
Finalization of writeshop Defining Purpose Identification of consultants design
l Initiated by project leaders in l Consultants or experts l The consultants, along consultation with IFAD designed and with CPO and/or project Country Program Officers implemented the leadership, finalized the (CPOs) and Country writeshop based on writeshop design, Program Managers (CPMs)* specific needs of the participant list, dates, - To document key project group. lessons? and logistics. - To produce thematic articles for newsletter? - To document case studies on seleced Writeshop implementation project experiences? l In general, participants connected with the * CPOs are based in-country consultant over e-mail before the writeshop to and assist CPMs with IFAD share selected themes or topics. In turn, the portfolio supervision working consultant gave tips on the structure and flow of with projects, partners and the the document. national governments. CPMs are based in IFAD headquarters In some cases, the groups follow a 2-step in Rome steering design and approach where the consultant met with the development of projects in participants in the beginning to do a short consultation with national documentation training and advice them on data partners. collection, structure, and flow of the final documents. After a gap of few weeks, the consultant and the writers got together again in Publishing and dissemination the writeshop mode. With drafts on hand, they worked on them and finalized their drafts. l Products of writeshop were published and distributed. They could be articles l The draft document was submitted to the for Asia-Pacific division's newsletter, consultant either immediately before or at the case studies or field stories on project writeshop. experience, etc. Most writeshop l Peer-review process followed. outputs were made available on-line l Target was to finalize the documents as ready-to- and in printed versions. circulate by the end of the writeshop.
Figure 1. The writeshop process adapted by IFAD projects
12 India, Nepal, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Bangladesh invited representatives from all projects in the respective countries to these events.
Capturing Voices from the Field through Writeshops: The IFAD Experience 19 writeshops seemed to be working better in capturing knowledge effectively by providing, along with expert support, the required time for reflection and to document experiences. Even though participants struggled to come up with near- final version of their documents during the writeshops, at the end, they felt satisfied by being able to produce a written output over a relatively short period of time. And the project leaders could notice the skills improvement among the trainees13.
D. Adaptations List of some publications resulting from various To capture project knowledge effectively, IFAD workshops: projects and partners went through this process of 1. The Poor in Times of Crisis - Voices from experimenting and learning. Writeshops, as a IFAD-funded Projects in Southern methodology, evolved almost organically. While the Philippines - Two versions of this essential character of writeshop was retained, many document were produced: one which modifications were made along the way to suit the contains full length stories written by the context and needs of the IFAD group. implementing staff and the other was abridged. 2. Documentation and Dissemination of Some adaptations: Best Practices on Agriculture, Natural Resources and Rural Infrastructure l In some instances, the first part of the writeshop Management in the Cordillera Highlands: was devoted to educating participants on writing Stories from CHARM Project in skills. Philippines 3. Special Issue May 2010 - Bangladesh l Alteration in writeshop duration (half day or 3-4 Country Newsletter: Supporting days) depending on the participants' needs. Agriculture and Food Security l Pre-writeshop preparation at times involved a 4. Stories from WMCIP: Best Practices and combination of a face-to-face training and virtual Lessons Learned Documentation coaching. For others, it was only via online 5. Articles published on IFAD India website conversations. Some groups also maintained and in different issues of IFAD Asia- Pacific Newsletter as a result of a post-writeshop contact with the consultant for writeshop in December 2008: http:// continued assistance. enrap.org.in/press_releases. asp, http:/ /enrap.org.in/HumanStories.asp 6. Articles published on IFAD Vietnam website and blog as a result of a writeshop in Vietnam in 2009, 13 Forty-two percent of the IFAD project directors who responded to the www.ifad.org.vn, http://ifad-un- ENRAP M&E survey admitted to benefiting from this exercise aimed vn.blogspot.com at improving written documentation including writeshops and writing 7. Stories from IFAD Nepal Experience, skills training especially for their participating staff. As one project 2009 director declared, (the training) "enhanced knowledge of writing reports…improved the quality of write-ups". ENRAP M&E Report, ASK, February 2010, page 53.
20 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences l Relating the writeshop outputs to the Asia-Pacific division's newsletter made packaging and dissemination easier. Writers used a pre-designed template for articles for the newsletter produced by IFAD headquarters. The existence of a vehicle for disseminating written outputs helped in the advance planning of theme-specific writeshops. l The key plank of ENRAP, which pervaded in all these efforts, was networking among the participants. Peer reviews within project teams and among projects have been popular at the writeshops. Several participants have kept in touch with each other and with consultants via email.
Challenges and Lessons Learned
Challenges
Though there were several challenges during this journey, still, IFAD's Asia-Pacific division, project leadership, as well as participants, identified writeshops as an important way of improving general writing and analytical skills. During the ENRAP M&E survey in 200914, a project director revealed that, "After the writeshop training, our project staff prepared the annual reports themselves. Now they are preparing success stories of their project areas as well." However, the challenge of mainstreaming writeshops within regular project activities persists.
At the country level, Nepal, India, Vietnam, and Bangladesh have started to organize writeshops as annual events. Others have yet to find a way to regularize the use of writeshops. However, IFAD's new project, Knowledge Sharing Skills (KSS)15, is intended to be a vehicle for helping the projects do this.
14 ENRAP M&E Report, ASK, February 2010, page 54 15 The new IFAD grant for Development of Knowledge Sharing Skills is being implemented by FAO and focuses on strengthening knowledge sharing skills of IFAD project and partners through capacity-building in the area of face-to-face and online knowledge sharing effective writing, and field documentation. The grant has been a response to the growing demand of IFAD staff for better knowledge sharing in line with IFAD's knowledge management strategy. This has largely been an outcome of the initial investment in capacity-building on knowledge sharing skills through ENRAP III.
Capturing Voices from the Field through Writeshops: The IFAD Experience 21 The following are other key challenges faced:
1. Convincing projects and partners to take an output-oriented approach in all activities addressing documentation. Even during writing skills training, producing an initial set of documents at or immediately after the training remained a serious challenge. As early as 2003, IFAD projects and partners recognized the need to document project experience but struggled with identifying the most suitable ways to do so. With help from ENRAP, they were able to test some methods for this purpose and choose and adapt the ones that suited them the most. The writeshop methodology was seen to be effective as reflected in its apparent popularity.
2. Initiating a culture, among IFAD projects and partners, of planning for writeshops during project life. Usually, writeshops were held as desperate end-of-project efforts to ensure documentation of project lessons become available. This would involve identifying the purpose, themes, resources, and timelines for writeshops and linking this to learning within IFAD and efforts to share with the larger community. Projects-coming-to-an-end endorsed the effectiveness of writeshops in producing good quality project experience documentation. This encouraged younger projects to explore the methodology during regular project life and not just at the end. The fact that an external funding mechanism existed through ENRAP helped projects in taking up this decision. However, ENRAP support was always limited and partial in nature with projects contributing significant funding and effort of their own to organize writeshops.
3. Identifying experienced agency or consultant. Because of wide diversity of languages used in the Asia-Pacific region, local consultants who could work both in English and the main working language of the country were used. In most cases, IFAD's country offices, Asia-Pacific division's Newsletter Coordinator, and ENRAP had to work with consultants to help them organize and conduct writeshops. The Empowerment and Learning Development Centre16 was hired for a writing skills training for Nepalese projects and partners in September 2008. In the following year, it was encouraged to help project documentation in the writeshop mode.
16 www.eld.org.
22 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences 4. Managing diversity. The diversity in the capacity of writeshop participants was particularly noticeable at the national level writeshops where different projects and partners were represented. Such heterogeneity made it difficult to design the writeshop as different groups had different needs. This also made it difficult to come up with a document of uniform quality write-ups produced at the writeshop.
Lessons Learned
In addressing the challenges that IFAD projects and partners faced in discovering and implementing the writeshop methodology, a few key lessons have emerged.
1. Writeshops are effective ways of documenting IFAD project lessons. 2. To get the most out of writeshops, they need to be planned early in the project life cycle and not just as an end-of-the-project activity. If integrated well in the project learning life cycle, writeshops not only help improve project documentation and staff writing skills but they also provide an important break for implementing staff to reflect on and analyze project activities. 3. Publication and dissemination of writeshop outputs are important motivation for participants. 4. Organizing writeshops with in-country consultants require high level of engagement as experienced writeshop organizers are not always available.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The IFAD experience in experimenting with different ways to document project knowledge confirmed that writeshops are an effective way of integrating voices from field implementors. Writeshops helped project staff find time to reflect on their efforts, document, and learn from them; each writeshop thus adds to the project skills set. In this sense, writeshops can become crucial parts of the learning life cycle of rural development projects.
However, planning, designing, and organizing writeshops pose several challenges which may differ by context. While organizing a one-time writeshop event is easy, its benefits are limited. Integrating writeshops as part of project learning life cycle, maybe difficult and might require long-term vision and planning. However, it can
Capturing Voices from the Field through Writeshops: The IFAD Experience 23 provide important benefits in terms of capturing knowledge and strengthening analytical skills of implementing staff. Writeshops designed keeping in mind the local context and needs tend to be more successful.
One of the key factors to be considered here is the identification of local resource persons or agencies and their engagement in planning, designing, and organizing of writeshops. In this regard, a larger pool of competent and capable resource persons with experience in the use of writeshops, would help rural development actors understand the methodology, its benefits, and methods of organizing writeshops. Probably, a community of writeshop users could be one way to address this issue. The community could act as a promoter of the methodology by providing necessary information and help to refine the process of designing and implementing writeshops.
24 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Evolution of a Knowledge Product - Sourcebook on Transition Towards Resilience: Coping with Disaster
Priyanka Mohan1 and Julian F. Gonsalves2 1 Research Officer, International Development Research Centre (IDRC) 2 Independent Consultant
Many countries have disaster management systems put into place to respond to both natural and manmade hazards. Researchers and practitioners still understand the concept of resilience building in that context. In the wake of global warming and increases in the number and intensity of weather events and disasters, humanitarian agencies have started reviewing their methods and approaches to improve the effectiveness of their disaster response strategies. Today, vulnerability is increasingly understood in a wider context that aims to integrate two previously separate areas of disaster mitigation and climate change adaptation, with a strong emphasis on resilience building.
Especially since the December 2004 tsunami, many steps have been taken to test and demonstrate different mitigation measures. It is also now better understood how communities A sourcebook consists of a collection of themselves are learning to cope with uncertainties. articles that stands on their own and Promotion of many mid- to long-term interventions, therefore can be read independently of strategies, scientific, and practical approaches have each other. The purpose is to make each been intensified, aimed at increasing community article accessible to any and as many readers. This enables the reader to learn, resilience and improving the lives and livelihoods of understand, and analyze articles that are the affected. Such experiences or stories of change of interest, and subsequently utilize the often go unrecognized, hence, not shared with wider information, as required and needed. audiences.
Evolution of a Knowledge Product-Sourcebook on Transistion Towards Resilience: Coping with Disasters 25 Recognizing this gap, the editors of this book decided to initiate an effort to document experiences from a four-year South Asian project on "Strengthening Resilience in Tsunami Affected Communities of India and Sri Lanka", funded by the International Development Research Center (IDRC) and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). Three NGOs, the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF) in India and Sarvodaya and Practical Action in Sri Lanka, implemented the project in over 26 coastal villages. Cases and field experiences (i.e., primary sources) became the building blocks of this sourcebook. Additional information on frameworks, concepts and issues related to community resilience and vulnerability were sourced from secondary sources.
Background
The sourcebook is intended to bridge the gaps between conceptual frameworks, research constructs, and stories from the field and is intended to serve as a reference on disaster resilience. It is designed as easy-to-use information material, for a wider community of practitioners and for field researchers with little time for research and study.
The sourcebook consists of more than 80 articles focussing on coastal issues and threats, related frameworks and concepts, and concepts of resilience building and their elements, with a key component devoted to field case experiences.
IDRC will publish and disseminate the book, with Practical Action UK. It will be made available in the IDRC website (downloadable for free) and on a website developed and maintained by Practical Action. The link to this book will also be provided to all the recipient websites. Approximately 1,500 copies will be printed and distributed in South Asia via local publishers, with accompanying CDs which include the soft copy versions of the sourcebooks as well as a set of short video clips.
Writeshop Methodology
1. Planning
The initial plan was to solicit article contributions mainly from primary sources i.e. recipients involved in the post tsunami project. An initial list of topics was prepared building on project reports and end-of-project evaluation information. The topic list was sent to project stakeholders for their critical review prior to
26 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences finalization of topics. Once the articles were written, a one-week writeshop was organized (for Indian recipients), after which participants worked on their articles from home. Initially, due to limited numbers of submitted articles (especially on the conceptual aspects), materials were sourced from the internet. A strong rationale evolved for balancing materials from both primary and secondary sources.
A core team consisting of the two main editors and a production team consisting of teams of editor-artists were responsible for the production of the sourcebook. The details of coordination and each team's responsibilities are captured in Table 1.
The main editors, one located in Philippines and the other in India, coordinated with more than 50 people including illustrators, authors, contributors, and
Table 1: Roles and responsibilities of different players.
Core Team Production Team Authors
l Identified potential topics for the l Consisted of editors, l Identified and sourcebook artists, and desktop contributed appropriate l Prepared guidelines for the publishers working titles for the sourcebook product, critical review, and from their own l Wrote the primary assessment of relevant materials locations and at their articles l Ensured quality of publication own pace l Gathered baseline l Coordinated with the authors l Communicated with information and regarding content, identified gaps, the core team on presented results and structure of content, veracity of the repackaging of achievements based on data, and analysis prior to materials, the participatory M&E submission to the core group comments, l Ensured that data and l Collected signed copyright forms suggestions, and content were relevant, from the authors and co-authors changes that need to well-analyzed, and for publishing of article. be done on the synthesized l Gathered secondary papers and draft, via email and l Coordinated information other relevant information only occasional face- gathering and verification resources and identified gaps in the to-face meetings with field staff, overall flow of the content l Artists coordinated contributors, and l Identified external authors for directly with the community potential articles editors. There was l Shared draft articles with l Repackaged secondary materials no involvement with co-authors and l Coordinated with illustrators for the original authors contributors involved in the artworks at this stage. information sharing and l Identified experts from the relevant l Prepared, did the gathering thematic areas and organized the layout, and finalized l Suggested alternative reviewshop for finalizing the the manuscript titles and new topics in product case the core team l Finalized each article based on the missed any inputs given by authors and l Reviewed draft articles reviewers for finalization l Final scrutiny by the core team for l Gave signed consent on errors and quality of the content the article written by l Submitted the final manuscript to them and the respective the publisher co-authors
Evolution of a Knowledge Product-Sourcebook on Transistion Towards Resilience: Coping with Disasters 27 reviewers from across the globe. The authors of primary materials were located in South Asia, Europe, and Canada. This network of project contributors was mostly connected via web-based tools such as email, Skype, and phone calls. The main editors met thrice in India for planning, executing, and monitoring the overall progress.
2. Commissioning of articles
Initially, the editors planned to gather the primary articles over a period of five months and this was to have been followed by a single writeshop to finalize the manuscripts. But after assessing the slow submission pace of papers and poor feedback from authors, it was decided to provide authors additional time to write their articles. For over seven months, the editors were constantly challenged as writers were either slow to respond, required time to gather data to analyze the possible outcomes from the field, or were busy with other project commitments. Eventually, thanks to the flexibility of the donors and willingness to extend the timeframe, all authors Capturing evidence submitted their papers with copyright forms. In this project, a three-tier participatory M&E system was developed so that the All the screened articles were then forwarded to recipients could collect data and consolidate production teams in the Philippines (editor-artist- the results from the field. This system was desktop publishers) for repackaging. Repackaging of useful while writing the articles. Also, for the authors, the M&E system and findings articles involved the reduction of content to the most from the evaluation report became the basis basic and important messages, inserting appropriate for selecting the topics for this sourcebook. illustrations and graphics, and improved layout. The articles were then sent back to the authors for comments. Authors were given ample time to revise the articles based on the comments and suggestions. Spin -offs Those articles with shallow content or lacking evidence and which the authors failed to adequately The local institutions were able to refine the substantiate were dropped. drafts for repackaging the content into booklets. Especially stories from India are now available in both Telugu and Tamil, For the secondary materials, the process was also which are also accessible to the grassroot fairly intensive. Research preceded the selection of NGOs and the coastal community. topics. Over 150 articles were referred to during the process and short-listed before their selection for The capacity building, evaluator and M&E repackaging (shortening, repackaging). After seven officers are using writeshop for developing products for program initiatives (brochure, months of constant follow-up and critique of each pamphlets, and content development). article, the draft manuscripts were ready for sharing with key reviewers.
28 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences 3. Writeshops/review workshops/external review a. Chennai, India The writeshop was organized to expose recipients to the concept and the training involved in using writeshop as a tool to document lessons from the field from the post-tsunami project. The reviewshop-cum-training provided hands-on experiences to the recipients. For the draft manuscript, 15 articles were finalized by the authors and the facilitator at the end of the writeshop. The writeshop covered the following aspects: a. Why is documentation important? b. Who are the users and audiences for the products developed? c. What should be documented and why? d. What are the different types of information that can be recorded? The Goa and Colombo Review Workshops e. How to conceptualize the text, prepare a structure, and prepare articles (using case stories The participants in both workshops only)? provided critical feedback on the articles. f. How do facilitators and peer reviewers screen The following criteria were applied: and give feedback to written articles? l Assessment of the relevance and quality g. What is the process for submitting final articles of the content; for the sourcebook. l Review of chapter and sourcebook titles; l Clustering of articles into chapters; and Both field staff and project coordinators (scientists, l Feedback on the cover page and chapter M&E coordinator, and the capacity building officer) separators. from six different NGOs (five NGOs were guided by MSSRF) participated in this workshop. Recognizing The facilitator ensured the following: that experiences from the field are always rich and l Expected outputs were defined by the informative, the editors made special efforts to get the two lead editors. field staff to write articles. The editors discouraged the l All articles were assigned and outsourcing of the documentation process to ensure commented on by at least one reviewer. l The sessions were facilitated and that the capacity-development objectives were met. moderated adhering to a specified time frame. A short training followed by a practical session was l Gathering of hard copies of the articles organized to provide the participants with from the reviewers (with their opportunities to write, edit, and refine the draft which comments on the content, article title and artwork). they had prepared either prior to or developed during l An effective method of sharing the writeshop. The facilitators gave ample time for comments among the participants was them to work on individual papers which were shared arrived at consultatively. at the end of each day. Participants also invested
Evolution of a Knowledge Product-Sourcebook on Transistion Towards Resilience: Coping with Disasters 29 additional time to gather information and data while Who were involved? at the workshop. Facilitators provided critical The 3-day reviewshop organized in Goa comments on the quality of the content and the was the first, which involved experts and presentation style. authors from India. They were a combination of researchers and At the end of the four-day intensive writeshop, the practitioners in the fields of disaster risk participants drafted 12 articles of which 8 were almost reduction, water management, natural finalized. The project coordinators needed an resource management, agriculture, environmental management, information additional two weeks to review the articles with the communication technologies for project manager. development, livelihood and micro- finance, and climate change adaptation. b. Goa, India Participants were split into two groups, each assigned Two editors and a facilitator coordinated the review shop. Two artists were present a chapter with 10 articles. Groups had to critically to either make changes to the existing assess the articles and provide comments on the illustration or develop new artworks based quality and relevance of information. This was on feedback from the reviewers. A challenging and time consuming. Reviews within the videographer was also taken in to develop groups were limited as too many articles had to be the visuals needed. scrutinized within a short time frame. This method also required cohesiveness within each team. The approach was changed and only one article was assigned to a single reviewer. Each paper was commented on in detail and with care by a single reviewer, while other reviewers skimmed through other papers pointing out only the most obvious mistakes. The drawback to this exercise was that not all participants were able to review all the articles. The reviewers preferred the second approach and this lesson was noted for future writeshops.
Each paper was commented on for gaps in the content, lacking data, layout, and the relevance of the artworks. The reviewers handed over the document with their comments and proposed changes. Some illustrations were also reworked. The main editors also jotted down discussion questions and points that need to be addressed.
c. Colombo, Sri Lanka The editors did a one-day reviewshop in Sri Lanka to revise more than 20 articles based on the feedback obtained from the Goa review workshop. Only one main editor carried out this exercise with 10 participants, mostly authors. Authors reflected on the gaps and added important information to strengthen the article. In the Goa review workshop, the entire manuscript could not be reviewed and hard copies from both the reviewshops were compiled by one of the editors. The production team ensured that relevant comments were addressed in subsequent versions.
30 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences d. Seeking feedback from individual external reviewers The main editors sought feedback from researchers on the relevance of the content, its quality, and the book's relevance. Striving for a quality product, the editors received feedback in two ways:
1. Electronically from researchers from Canada, Europe, and India prior to the reviewshop in Goa and Colombo. The feedback was received over three weeks via emails. 2. In-depth assessment of each article were undertaken in the two reviewshops in Goa and Colombo.
4. Production and submission to publisher
The reviewers retained 90 articles, while some shallow ones were identified for revisions only or eventually dropped.
5. Printing (work in progress)
To date, the complete manuscript is being finalized and has been sent to the publisher. The process flow illustrating the steps undertaken in the production of this sourcebook, the key players in the stages, and some concerns is shown in Figure 1. The sourcebook gradually evolved from a collection of raw primary and secondary materials into a compendium of easy-to-understand set of field-based experiences and stories in community resilience and disaster management.
Challenges and Lessons Learned
A list of challenges and lessons learned was drawn from the whole writeshop and reviewshop activities. l The concepts and methods of sourcebook, writeshop, and reviewshop are still new to many practitioners. l Practitioners should be able to take on these methods as a way to strengthen their capaities in doing documentation. l There is not enough recognition for the need and value of documentation (except when enforced by the donors). l Available literature needs to be scrutinized for its relevance to the target audience. l When working with participants who have weak communications skills, support from documentation and communication experts should be sought.
Evolution of a Knowledge Product-Sourcebook on Transistion Towards Resilience: Coping with Disasters 31 Activities
l Planned and finalized writeshop design l Listed possible topics l Gathered primary articles from recipients involved in post-tsunami Planning Phase project (3 weeks) l Recipients reviewed, selected, and finalized topics for possible inclusion in the sourcebook; the list of topics served as "brainstorming device" and a benchmark for article contributions from recipients l Did active search for secondary materials online
l Continued gathering of articles from concerned recipients and authors l Authors wrote articles and submitted their drafts to editors l Team of editors-artists-desktop publisher repackaged each article and Commissioning of submitted these to editors Articles l Editors forwarded the drafts to key researchers, via online, for comments (7 months) and review l Of the total materials collected (primary and secondary), at least ¾ were about project/field experiences, while ¼ were about concepts, frameworks, and tools.
l Set up review committee composed of authors and few external experts l Authors commented on and reviewed drafts in plenary set-up; areas assessed were relevance of content, illustrations, chapter titles among others; due to limited time, cross-verification and critical analysis of the Reviewshops content across authors did not happen as planned. Chennai, India - 4 days l New materials were still accepted at this point. However, problems Goa, India - 4 days such as tracking of paper origins and progress level became difficult. Colombo, Sri Lanka - 1 day l One of the editors worked with commissioned artist to develop the visual presentations for the sourcebook. l Participants brought home their draft articles to integrate corrections and do the necessary revisions.
Production and l Reviewers retained 90 articles; other articles were dropped. Submission
l The manuscript is being finalized for printing. This work is still in progress. Printing
Figure 1. Process flow in producing this publication.
Hiring a consultant having technical knowledge, strong communication skills, and openness made it easier for the participants while developing the product. l A neutral facilitator-cum-moderator at the reviewshop made a difference in gathering critical comments from participants. l The writeshop and review workshop methodologies bring together those experts who are otherwise cut off from field action. Those who have been involved in such exercises are more likely to popularize and adopt these methods.
32 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences l The diverse group of experts and practitioners were able to bring in their various viewpoints Limitations of Field thereby adding value to the manuscript. Practitioners l Writeshops and reviewshops offer opportunities l Practitioners are not always authors to go beyond the scope of the particular project or typical researchers. being documented. l One (the manager) rarely recognizes l An iterative and participatory process was that preparation of any adopted by the editor in Delhi in commissioning documentation is a process that the primary articles. requires dedicated time for writing l Most draft articles were not submitted to the and for self reflection. l The emphasis for documentation is facilitators prior to the writeshop as planned. The usually at the end of a project and facilitators had to redesign the writeshop to allow resources are usually limited. authors more time in writing the articles. l Lacking clarity in "What should be l Additional time was required as authors needed documented?" vs "What need not be to either gather additional data or to recheck documented?" and "For whom and why?" evidence of change. The timing of the production of the sourcebook was also deferred by a couple of months. The project was fortunate to have had the time and resources to support this extension. l Although draft articles were shared with the participants, not many were read carefully enough prior to the reviewshop. However during the reviewshop, reviewers critically assessed each article for quality of content and illustrations. A complete critical review of all the manuscripts by each participant was not achieved in either of the review workshops. l Last minute dropping out of Sri Lankan participants at the Goa, India workshop led to the need to organize another review session, which meant putting in additional resources and added cost (absence in the first reviewshop was mainly due to visa issues of Sri Lankans to India). l Slow progress meant that the editors had to work on an extended timeline. The overall task was planned to take place within a period of nine months but has stretched to four extra months to finalize the content. Figure 2 presents a comparison of the planned and actual time frames.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Adequate amount of time is required to produce a sourcebook of this kind, based on both primary and secondary sources (the first time something like this is being done by the two main editors). This sourcebook experience highlights the importance of documenting and disseminating project experiences even if it can
Evolution of a Knowledge Product-Sourcebook on Transistion Towards Resilience: Coping with Disasters 33 Commissioning of the Planning Review Production and Commissioning of product (text and CD) phase Phase submission to publisher articles work in progress (2 weeks) (1 week) (3 months) (5 months) (6 months)
Planning Commissioning of Writeshop to Production and Printing of the product phase articles fnalize the submission to (text and CD) work in (3 weeks) (7 months) manuscript publisher (3 months) progress (6 months) (3 weeks)
Figure 2. Comparison between the planned timeline vs actual progess. be quite difficult to work with multiple recipients and different sources of information. Methods, such as the writeshop and review workshop, are extremely useful and excellent hand-holding tools for field practitioners. These methods can be introduced in the project planning stage itself so that the culture of documentation can be brought into the project planning processes.
Working in collaboration with multiple partners/participants from across continents can be a challenge. Below are some recommendations drawn from this experience: l Effective and easy-to-use online communication tools to facilitate quicker reviews/revisions need to be explored/identified. l An effective participatory M&E system could be utilized to capture empirical evidence and learning, which serve as vital inputs in writing articles. l Secondary articles can help address information gaps, and bridge research and field application. l The process calls for working with an expert to facilitate the process (very critical in first time situations). l Building capacity on the methods and tools for effective writing and documentation should be integrated into the project planning process. l Iterative, flexible, and participatory approaches should be chosen so that the appreciation for documentation and the required skills can be slowly nurtured. l Constantly keep an eye for unexpected opportunities and ongoing spin-offs.
34 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Producing and Adapting an Information Kit on Upland Resource Management
Chun K. Lai Consultant Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines ([email protected]) and former APAN Regional Coordinator (1991-1997) Bogor, Indonesia
In 1994, some 40 participants from six countries assembled in a two-week consultative workshop organized by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR). Held on the IIRR campus in the Philippines, resource persons worked together with a team of editors, artists, and desktop publishing staff to produce an information kit on Resource Management for Upland Areas in Southeast Asia.
This section describes the background and methodology behind the workshop, as well as the subsequent adaptation and use of the information kit by some participants in their own countries. It also draws some lessons and concluding thoughts for further consideration.
Background
Uplands in Southeast Asia face daunting problems caused by increasing population, deforestation, soil erosion, and underdevelopment. Logging and illegal clearing for farming have already destroyed large areas of forests. Unsuitable farming practices are causing massive erosion in the uplands. Rising populations and low crop yields force farmers to clear yet more land. Meanwhile, the eroded soil clogs reservoirs and makes rivers downstream shallow, resulting in flooding in the lowlands.
Producing and Adapting an Information Kit on Upland Management 35 Improved farming methods can help solve these problems. Simple techniques, such as contour planting across the slope can slow down erosion and help maintain soil fertility. Growing a combination of crops, livestock, trees, and fish — in integrated agroforestry systems — can also raise farm income and reduce the need to clear more land.
Against this backdrop, the FAO-supported Asia-Pacific Agroforestry Network (APAN) and IIRR conceived the idea of convening a workshop/writeshop to produce an information kit focusing on sustainable approaches to agriculture and natural resource management (NRM) in the uplands. This happened in September 1993. The kit was intended to be adapted and used by extension specialists of government agencies and non-government organizations (NGOs) throughout the region.
Writeshop Methodology
Held from 29 August to 9 September 1994 at IIRR, the workshop/writeshop stressed three "Ps" — process, participation and product — and aimed to:
1. Expose participants to a consultative and participatory process for producing useful information on upland management; 2. Maximize participation and harness the experiences, interdisciplinary knowledge, and creative and analytical powers of the diverse group of participants and organizers; and 3. Produce an information kit that can be easily adapted and translated into local media and languages for specific training and extension purposes, and be tailored to particular user groups.
The workshop used the writeshop process developed by IIRR to produce information kits on a range of topics. This process involved intensive work before, during, and after the workshop (APAN 1994):
Table 1. Writeshop phases and tasks involved.
Pre-workshop During workshop Post-workshop
identified topics to be presented first drafts prepared final drafts covered in the kit revised first drafts printed and distributed selected resource persons presented second drafts sourcebook assigned topics revised second drafts did the evaluation and prepared logistics prepared third drafts follow-up activities obtained financial support identified follow-up activities
36 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Under the leadership of Dr. Julian Gonsalves (former Vice President for Programs), IIRR mobilized financial and technical support from a range of partners, including FAO, Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development, and the UK Freedom from Hunger Campaign.
1st DRAFT PRESENTATION REPACKAGING
l Each participant presented draft l Editor-artist team helped the author paper, page by page, using revise and edit the draft and draw overhead transparencies. appropriate artworks. l Other participants were given l Edited draft and artworks were desktop- hard copies of the draft for published to produce second draft. comments, suggestions, and critiquing.
2nd DRAFT PRESENTATION
l Each participant presented his/her 2nd 3rd DRAFT PRESENTATION draft, page by page, using overhead transparencies for another round of l Towards the end of the critiquing and suggested revisions. writeshop, the 3rd draft was l After the presentation, the editor- made available to the other artist-desktop publishing staff team participants for final comments helped the author revise and develop and revisions. the 3rd draft.
PLANNING
l On the last day of writeshop, the participants worked in country groups to brainstorm and develop follow-up plans to adapt and use the WRITESHOP publication in their own countries.
POST WRITESHOP ACTIVITIES
l Writeshop output was a 290-page illustrated manuscript prepared and revised by the resource persons, as well as other materials and appendices developed during the workshop (e.g. glossary, commonly used agroforestry species, resource institutions, etc.). l Final editing and layout by the IIRR team l Printing of the information kit in the Philippines - early part of 1995 l Distribution of publication through FAO (free of charge) and IIRR (on a cost-recovery basis) l Final published kit contains 207 pages with six major chapters.
Figure 1. The writeshop process and activities involved.
Producing and Adapting an Information Kit on Upland Management 37 APAN and IIRR initiated the process of selecting Adaptation and Use resource persons from government agencies, NGOs, universities, research institutions, and international A number of participants were able to organizations in China, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, follow through with the action plans they developed to adapt and translate the kit Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. In February 1994, for use in their own countries, with support a list of potential topics was developed and resource from various partners (APAN 1995, APAN persons were identified to develop first drafts on each 1997, FAO 1997). topic, using the guidelines provided. l In 1995-96, the Royal Forest Department (RFD) produced the information kit in Thai on agroforestry Challenges and Lessons Learned extension, which was printed with support from the FAO Forest, Trees, 1. Resource mobilization. Producing an information and People Programme (FTPP). A kit required considerable technical and financial "National Workshop to Produce an resources — from the writeshop up to the printing, Information Kit on Agroforestry Extension" was organized by RFD in distribution, and subsequent publication September 1995 in Chiang Mai. adaptation — which not all organizations may readily have. Fortunately, IIRR was able to A total of 35 participants (GOs and successfully raise funds for the workshop, and NGOs) were invited and requested to APAN and other FAO partners provided support present papers on selected topics. for the adaptation and translation of the Working groups were assigned to review and compile all presented information kits in a number of countries. papers to make into a final kit in Thai. 2. Diversity of experience and expertise. The FTPP supported the printing of the kit workshop/writeshop created a platform which for distribution to key organizations allows incorporation of inputs from all participants involved in agroforestry extension in with varying experience and expertise. Thailand. 3. Networking. The sharing of experiences among l In 1996-97, similar kits were prepared participants allowed the development of networks in Laos, Indonesia, and the Pacific that would continue to be fruitful long into the Islands. Parts of the original kit were future and lead to concrete follow-up activities in translated and adapted in China, Viet the countries concerned. Nam and the Philippines. 4. Knowledge use and reuse. Through this process l In 1997, the APAN National Secretariat and with follow-up support, useful information in Indonesia translated and adapted was compiled and then adapted/translated for the kit into Bahasa Indonesia, in use by local extension staff and farmers in several collaboration and with support from countries. This also demonstrated that a regional GTZ, Agricultural Education and activity can provide the basis for launching Training Institute, Forestry Extension Center, Studio Driya Media (a local relevant follow-on activities at the country level. NGO) and other partners. 5. Expediency. Confining resource persons, editors, artists, and desktop publishing staff and
38 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences resources at one time and place enabled materials to be produced more quickly than is typical for similar publications. 6. Inevitable discord. There may be cases when some participants proved to be rather antagonistic, condescending, and negative toward the process or even the papers produced by the resource persons. In such instances, the organizers should not allow these participants to affect the overall workshop dynamics and outcomes. If at all, one could only hope that at the end of the day, the participants would come to realize the value of the process and product.
Conclusion
The information kit workshop/writeshop approach and product was generally well-appreciated by the participants and subsequent end users. One essential element for making this process work was a core group of champions who were able to mobilize the human and financial resources needed for such an endeavor, as well as provide support for follow-up adaptation and use of the kit. The overall process was intensive and time-consuming, and may need to be modified or simplified in situations where the available time of resource persons is limited. Perhaps, there is sufficient flexibility within the process (e.g., reducing the number of drafts during the workshop) to accommodate these modifications.
References
APAN. 1994. Information Kit on Upland Resources Management, pages 3-4, APANews No. 9, Bogor, Indonesia. http://foris.fao.org/static/pdf/apan/ad046e/ad046e02.pdf APAN. 1995. Fifth Asia-Pacific Agroforestry Network Advisory Committee (APANAC V) Meeting. APAN Report No. 21, Bogor, Indonesia. APAN. 1997. Summary Report of APANAC VII Meeting, 10-11 November 1997, Bogor, Indonesia. FAO. 1997. Asia-Pacific Agroforestry Network: Project Findings and Recommendations. APAN Terminal Report. FAO, Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/docrep/field/ 383973.htm FAO and IIRR. 1995. Resource Management for Upland Areas in Southeast Asia. FARM Field Document 2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Bangkok, Thailand, and International Institute of Rural Reconstruction. Silang, Cavite, Philippines.
Producing and Adapting an Information Kit on Upland Management 39 Integrating ICT Tools to the Writeshop Methodology
Hidelisa d.R. de Chavez, Dindo M. Campilan, and Julian F. Gonsalves International Potato Center-Users' Perspectives with Agricultural Research and Development- (CIP-UPWARD) c/o IRRI DAPO 7777 Metro Manila, Philippines
Research and development organizations now recognize the value of effective information dissemination strategies in enhancing their outcomes and impacts on target user groups. Over the past years, the international agricultural research community has generated enormous amounts of information on agriculture. However, this information is generally disseminated only within the scientific community targeting specialized technical audiences. While this information is of potential value to the development community, it remains inaccessible to non-technical audiences who are at the forefront of development work. Moreover, the value adding potential of participatory approaches has yet to be fully explored by research and development practitioners. There remains a major need to document empirical cases and systematically assess the impact of participatory research and development.
Thus, the International Potato Center- User's Perspectives With Agricultural Research and Development (CIP- UPWARD) adapted and modified the writeshop approach pioneered by the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) to distill, consolidate, simplify, and repackage
Integrating ICT Tools to the Writeshop Methodology 41 field-tested concepts and methods on participatory research and development (PR&D) and conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity.
The modified writeshop took advantage of information technology combined with a modified editors-artists writeshop, face-to-face working group meetings, and advisory group meetings. These publications aimed to support the capacity development of field-based researchers particularly in developing countries. Other key intermediate users include nongovernment organization (NGO) workers, government extension workers, program managers, donors, trainers, and educators.
Background
1. The first sourcebook
The first CIP-UPWARD writeshop was conducted in 2002 and aimed to produce a sourcebook on Conservation and Sustainable Use of Agricultural Biodiversity. The sourcebook was intended to offer concise and practical information on agricultural biodiversity presented in non-technical language and highly illustrated format.
As a global effort, the project involved 115 authors representing 90 international and national research organizations, NGOs, donor agencies, universities, and community-based organizations from 27 countries. Most of the contributors came from Asia (51%), followed by Europe (29%). Africa (9%), Latin America (3%), and North America (8%) were under-represented. Most of the contributors were development workers, researchers, scientists, and policymakers.
Key institutional partners include international agricultural research centers (e.g., International Potato Center and Bioversity International formerly IPGRI), donor agencies (e.g., International Development Research Centre, IDRC, and German Agency for Development Cooperation, GTZ) and a nongovernment organization (Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment, SEARICE).
A 13-member international advisory committee (AC) was setup to ensure that the end product meets scientific standards and quality. The AC was also formed to provide further technical support in planning and implementing the publication process. Members of the AC were chosen on the basis of their expertise and experience in agricultural biodiversity conservation, and their willingness to support and participate in the production of the sourcebook. It consisted of scientists and experts from institutions like Wageningen University, MS
42 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF), Local Initiatives for Biodiversity Research and Development Specific tasks of the AC: (LIBIRD), Bioversity, IDRC, CIP, and GTZ. l defined the substantive focus of the sourcebook; Four resource persons, actively involved in agricultural l provided input in the topical biodiversity conservation and use, and a production structure and outline; team consisting of 15 editors, graphic artists, and l identified potential contributors; illustrators were involved in the writeshop. Some and l reviewed and commented on draft members of the production team were veteran manuscripts. "writeshoppers" since they have been involved in the previous writeshops conducted by IIRR.
A six-member core working group (WG) was fully engaged in the project from conceptualization to sourcebook finalization and distribution. The combined efforts of the entire production team effectively produced a 675-page, 3-volume publication showcasing experiences and lessons in agricultural biodiversity from 33 developing countries.
2. The second sourcebook
Building on the experiences of the first modified writeshop, the second sourcebook on Participatory Soliciting articles: Research and Development in Sustainable Agriculture and l The invitation letter explicitly Natural Resources Management was produced using a indicated the copyright-free and similar process from conceptualization to evaluation semi-technical nature of the with several adaptations and improvements. There publication. were 150 contributing authors representing 39 l The tentative outline of the countries. The sourcebook came out as a 648-page, sourcebook, time frame, publication process, and guidelines in writing the 3-volume publication, containing 79 papers, draft papers were included in the first packaged in simple but attractive boxes. communication with potential contributors. Key institutional partners include international l A sample article was provided to give agricultural research center (CIP-UPWARD), the potential contributors an idea of what the final article would look like Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and in terms of content and format. Gender Analysis (SWP-PRGA), and donor agencies l Contributors were given the (e.g., IDRC and International Fund for Agricultural opportunity to modify the topics Development, IFAD). initially identified by the WG and AC for them to write. A 9-member international AC consisting of scientists, development workers, and experts in participatory
Integrating ICT Tools to the Writeshop Methodology 43 research and development from CIP-UPWARD, IDRC, SWP-PRGA, IFAD, AGRECOL, Community Development Services (CRS), and China Agricultural University (CAU) were involved. The production team consisted of 9 editors, 12 graphic artists/illustrators, and 7 WG members from CIP-UPWARD.
Writeshop Methodology
The writeshop took advantage of the efficiency of the electronic medium to reach more people and organizations involved in conservation and PR&D efforts from different regions of the world. The approach was combined with a modified editors-illustrators team mode of writeshop, face-to-face WG group meetings, and an AC meeting.
The sourcebook development was divided into three main phases (Figure 1): a) planning and compilation of materials; b) production; and c) finalization, distribution, and monitoring and evaluation.
1. Planning and compilation of materials
Step-by-step process: a. A member of the WG searched for relevant materials by contacting individuals and downloading resources from the World Wide Web. b. The collected secondary resources became the basis for the initial set of materials from which a tentative list of topics was arrived at. c. The list was critiqued and gaps identified. Continuous sourcing of new materials was done at this point. A Philippine-based WG was formed to prepare and review the initial list of topics and themes. The initial list was then forwarded to the AC for discussion, comments, and suggestions. d. After the framework, guidelines, and process were finalized with the AC, solicitation of additional articles — through e-mail — was facilitated by the WG (roughly 50% of the articles were obtained in this mode). Special effort was made to: 1) cover previously unpublished and lesser-known work through secondary materials and literature search in various websites and printed materials; and 2) translate original contributions written in other languages like Spanish and Thai, to English. e. New contributions submitted, translated materials, and secondary materials initially collected were then evaluated and consolidated. These were then
44 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Phase 1 Planning and compilation of materials
1 2 3 4 5 Collection of an Preparation of Critique of the Call for Preliminary initial list of a tentative list intial list of contributions screening of papers from of topics based topics/ and compilation paper secondary on secondary Identification of materials contributions by sources sources of of gaps and the production materials new topics team
9 8 7 6 Review of the Develop first Authors’ Repackaging first draft by draft of full review and of paper Phase 2 advisory sourcebook revisions of contributions Production institutions/ manuscript paper selected by partners contributions the production team during a writeshop
Phase 3 10 11 12 Preparation of the Printing and Monitoring and Finalization, revised version and distribution evaluation of the distribution, final approval for usage of the monitoring and printing by the advisory sourcebook evaluation committee
Figure 1. The modified writeshop process using ICT
divided among the members of the WG for comments and to guide the editors on which parts of each paper need to be emphasized.
2. Production of materials
Step-by-step process: a. Prior to repackaging, an initial orientation was given by the WG to the production team regarding the theme/content of the sourcebook and the writeshop process. Paper contributions were repackaged by a pool of editors, illustrators, and layout artists in a writeshop under the close guidance of the WG. Each editor-illustrator team worked on a number of articles which were then forwarded to the layout artists.
Integrating ICT Tools to the Writeshop Methodology 45 The editors presented one or two repackaged A sample of how repackaging papers to the production team and WG as a test was done… run to guide them in repackaging the remaining A 16-page article, written as pure text in a papers. Second drafts were produced based on letter size (8.5' x 11') bond paper, was the comments from the WG. These were further reduced to a 6-page illustrated article. edited by the managing editor (also a member of the WG) prior to sending to authors for feedback l Based on the comments and suggestions and comments. of the Working Group, the editor reduced the paper by synthesizing the content, taking out unnecessary details, and A second writeshop involving the WG and highlighting important information in selected editors, illustrators and layout artist was boxes (e.g. definitions, case experiences, set to repackage additional papers and to fill any statistical information, etc.). gaps in the existing compilation in terms of topics, l With instructions from the editor, the artist drew appropriate illustrations. The sectors, and issues. editor placed notes on the draft on where illustrations should be placed. b. The repackaged papers were sent back to the l The text and the illustrations were then authors. They were given 2-3 weeks to comment passed on to the desktop publishing staff on the second draft/s. Specific comments were for layout. solicited from the author in terms of layout, l A group of Development Communication graduate students from the University of terminology, artwork, and content. the Philippines Los Baños pre-tested the c. Based on the author's comments, each article was individual articles. Each component or revised once more by the managing editor, an section of the article was analyzed and illustrator and a layout artist, and then compiled. evaluated in terms of message clarity and The entire compilation was sent to the AC for appropriateness of symbolics. The pre- testing respondents corresponded to the preliminary review in terms of content, form, sourcebook target user groups. artwork, and layout prior to the meeting with Suggestions for revision were submitted partner institutions. to the WG. d. During the partners' meeting, comments of the AC were addressed and consolidated. A few additional papers were added to fill in the gaps of unrepresented topics in the compilation. Some papers were dropped, merged, or split into several papers. The final packaging (e.g. from a single volume to a 3-volume set, including the specific subsections in each volume) and products (e.g. auto-run CD) was decided during the meeting.
46 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences 3. Finalization, distribution, and monitoring and evaluation Sourcebooks' global distribution At some point, there was a growing clamor for the Step-by-step process: sourcebook from non-English speaking users in Latin a. Repackaging of additional papers and America and Africa, hence, the production of the Spanish and French translations. Production of the incorporating of comments from partner French version by GTZ was prompted by the institutions were carried out at this stage. announcement of the sourcebooks in CTA-Spore Final editing and revisions of the Magazine French version, originally published in illustrations and layout were made English. towards the camera-ready copy of the The sourcebooks have been distributed widely. For the publication. Final approval from the AC agricultural biodiversity sourcebook, most of which and partner institutions took the process was distributed by UPWARD and GTZ with distribution to the next stage. performance as follows: b. The publication was then printed and Agricultural Biodiversity Sourcebook readied for distribution. A downloadable, Versions No. of countries No. of Copies online version of the sourcebook was English 54 564 made available in the UPWARD website Spanish 22 127 (http://www.cip-upward.org) and the French 57 678 website of collaborating organizations PR & D Sourcebook (through hyperlinks). Other promotional Versions No. of countries No. of Copies efforts include flyers, website and e- English 87 1,125 groups announcements, newsletters, and Spanish 28 419 exhibits in workshops and conferences. This list includes copies given to contributors, advisory Complimentary copies were also committee members, partners and production team. distributed to individuals and organiza- Copies were also given to libraries, resource centers, tions in developing countries. academe, universities, people and organizations c. Monitoring and evaluation of publication working on agricultural biodiversity and conservation and PR&D either as complimentary copies or sold at usage - feedback on use was monitored discounted price. by UPWARD. The multiple usage of the sourcebook by different individuals and organizations from different places showed its relevance in the promotion of agricultural biodiversity conservation and use and PR&D. Based on a survey and communication with authors, AC, and partner institutions, the sourcebooks were used in the following ways and forms:
Agricultural Biodiversity Sourcebook l Primary source of teaching and training materials for local and international trainings l Reference material by Went of Germany for its Annual International Course on Agrobiodiversity and Poverty Alleviation
Integrating ICT Tools to the Writeshop Methodology 47 l Farmers' training and trainers' training manual in Zimbabwe and India l Extension workers, professors, and farmers in South Brazil (Spanish version) l Reference material for graduate students in several agricultural colleges and universities in China, India, Zimbabwe and Netherlands l Reading materials. Several articles were included in FAO Links Project's training manual titled "Building on Gender, Agrobiodiversity and Local Knowledge" both in hard copy and CD-ROM. l Reference material for the production of promotional materials, e.g. booklet for environmental orientation to school education in Marathi "jaivik vivihata" - a project of Ministry of Human Resources Development of the Indian Government l Knowledge promotion materials. Sourcebook was distributed in meetings and conferences, e.g., World Social Forum, India; Farmers' Technical Conference, Vietnam; and International Farmers' Technical Conference, Malaysia. l Individual articles in newsletters, e.g. Soil Fertility Newsletter l Individual articles uploaded in websites, e.g. Ecoagriculture l Reference material for proposal preparation, e.g. SADC and IDRC l Resource material for writing papers for publications and conferences
This project was nominated by CIP for the 2004 CGIAR Science Award for Outstanding Communications.
PR & D Sourcebook l Primary teaching material for international training used in the International Rice Research Institute's (IRRI) International Training on Primary Research and Extension l Teaching material for graduate students in several agricultural colleges and universities, e.g., CAU, Beijing and Jilin Agricultural University (JAU), Changchun. l Published articles, e.g., LEISA Magazine produced by ILEIA, CD-ROM produced by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) for African scientists, policymakers, and students l Key reading materials/reference for university courses, e.g., Loma Linda University and Newcastle University l Indexed in several libraries, e.g., University of Hongkong Libraries, British Library for Development Studies, UCB Library Catalog, Philippine eLib l Reference material for research proposal preparation by the Asian Vegetables Research and Development Center (AVRDC) of Sub-Saharan Africa l Toolkit - publication produced by Wise Act Inc. titled Mainstreaming Gender in Sustainable Agriculture by the Women's Institute for Sustainable Economic Action l Cited as reference in journal articles (Ecology and Society Journal)
48 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Challenges and Lessons Learned
1. A more proactive search for relevant materials, using the online platform, resulted in a good collection of important and noteworthy paper contributions and increased demand for the sourcebook. This practice was more intensive in the PR&D sourcebook compared to the agricultural biodiversity sourcebook. Eleven online magazines and newsletters, 12 websites and 12 e- groups were tapped to solicit contributions as well as to announce the availability of the finished products.
2. While gathering diverse paper submissions was one of the targets, voluminous paper contributions would necessarily require more resources, work, and expertise of all individuals involved in the project. This concern was addressed by doing preliminary screening of paper contributions by the WG prior to the writeshop proper. Paper contributions which were not accommodated in the printed version went into the CD and online versions, thus, addressing also the high cost of mailing/courier of the printed copy.
3. Continuous monitoring and evaluation of the overall publication performance was a great challenge, yet an essential part of the process. To find out the importance/relevance of the online version, the UPWARD website was designed to track users' profile and frequency of sourcebook downloads. A year after the online release of the PR&D sourcebook, the UPWARD website recorded 184 downloads by a wide variety of users (Table 1). Asia and the Pacific, Latin America, and Africa registered the most number of downloads mostly coming from the academe, national research institutes, international research organizations, and NGOs. They were from the field of agriculture, community development and extension, and ecology and resource management.
There is still a continuing challenge of monitoring the utilization of the sourcebook especially those not posted in the internet, or people and organizations with no internet connection or at the very least even email access. Evaluating the long-term impact on the practice of agricultural biodiversity conservation and participatory research and development at the field level is a major challenge and undertaking.
4. Demand for the sourcebook prior to its official release and during the first month of distribution indicated the value and relevance of the product to intended users. An important factor was the various options made available to target recipients:
Integrating ICT Tools to the Writeshop Methodology 49 Table 1. Number of PR&D sourcebook downloads from UPWARD website.
Region No. of No. of Institutional No. of Specialization No. of countries downloads affiliation downloads downloads
Asia & Pacific 15 77 Academe 42 Agriculture 48 Latin America 8 32 National 35 Community 40 research development institute and extension Africa & 12 30 International 30 Ecology and 29 Carribean organization resource management Europe 8 23 NGO 26 Forestry 11 North America 2 13 Consultancy 26 Health 9 Middle East 5 6 Unclassified 35 Information 8 services No answer 3 No answer 9 Monitoring & 8 Evaluation Sociology 5 Communication 5 Others 10 Unclassified 2 No answer 9 Total 50 184 184 184
l paid orders with reduced rates for users in the South; l exchange deals with key libraries and organizations; and l giving out of complimentary copies to strategic individuals and organizations.
Earthprint, a UK-based commercial publication distributor, directly contacted UPWARD and offered to include the sourcebooks in its distribution portfolio. In 2008, Earthprint and CIP reached a formal agreement for the commercial distribution of all CIP publications, including the UPWARD sourcebooks. Bogus websites selling the sourcebook (at much discounted rates!!) could also be avoided if distributed through these outlets.
5. Working with multiple partners can, at times, slow down the post-workshop phase. Since each partner institution had different publication guidelines and requirements (e.g., styleguide, copyright policies, administrative concerns, etc.), securing clearance can be an arduous process. The issue of copyright-
50 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences free publication is very important and should be Sourcebook Evaluation clear among all stakeholders right from the very start of the undertaking. In 2006, a study of Chapter 1 of the sourcebook was conducted by Barte, a 6. On the whole, the highly participatory and Development Communication student from collaborative process (particularly among the AC, the University of the Philippines Los Baños production team, and contributors) was the key (UPLB). factor to the successful completion of the project. Faculty members, research staff, and However, teamwork and commitment were extension staff from UPLB did the evaluation based on comprehensibility, found to be crucial in ensuring cooperation from acceptability, self-involvement, and the key stakeholders and in producing a product attractiveness. that meets the needs and expectations of all those Perceived usefulness in the areas of involved. instruction, research, and extension (the three major thrusts of the university) was 7. Keeping the composition of the AC members to an included in the evaluation. optimum number from 6 to 8 is recommended as Majority of the respondents did not find it somehow delimited the outpouring of too much anything undesirable except for highly diverse perspective. Project implementation would sectionalized presentations of papers and be more efficient, and the product of better quality, use of jargons. Furthermore, they did not if the AC meeting was scheduled earlier in the find anything that may be untrue, bothersome, or offensive. process. AC inputs were critical as early as the selection of papers and identification of gaps, prior In terms of attractiveness, majority of the to the repackaging process. respondents found the organization of the papers, titles, font sizes, font types, and layout, including illustrations, very 8. Evaluation of sourcebook through empirical attractive. The writing styles of papers were research provided a more in-depth appraisal of the attractive while tables were fairly comprehensibility, acceptability, and attractiveness attractive, according to the respondents. of the PR&D sourcebook. Perceived uses of papers in Chapter 1 include research, reference material for extension Sourcebook Spin-offs projects, training programs, and class lectures. It was, however, suggested that a comprehensive evaluation of the whole The modified writeshop approach had caused the sourcebook and further simplification, to evolution of varied approaches in participatory make it more user-friendly, be carried out. sourcebook development. It had been used as guide in In terms of attractiveness, majority of the the development of other publication or sourcebooks. respondents found the organization of the l Publication on Community-based Natural papers, titles, font sizes, font types, layout Resource Management (CBNRM) by project including illustrations very attractive. The partners of IDRC in Asia writing styles of papers were attractive while tables were fairly attractive, l Sourcebook on Fundraising by Ventures for according to the respondents. Fundraising
Integrating ICT Tools to the Writeshop Methodology 51 Table 2. Summary of features, modifications, and adaptations employed in the agrobiodiversity and PR&D sourcebook writeshops.
Features Agrobio Sourcebook PR&D Sourcebook
People involved l 6 WG members l 6 WG members l 15 production staff l 20 production staff l 13 AC members l 10 AC members
Call for contributions l mainly contacts of WGs, l contacts of WGs, AC, and AC, and partners partners l Selected websites/ l 12 e-groups, 12 websites, 11 newsletters newsletters/magazines (printed and online)
No. of articles included 72/77 79 articles in printed sourcebook in the final printing vs. + 15 articles online /140 papers no. of articles screened
Number of contributors 115 151
Core product 678 page 3-volume 648 page 3-volume English version English version
Online products Downloadable version from l Downloadable version from partner websites partner websites (with additional 15 articles) l Auto-run CD accompanying the printed sourcebook
Appendices List of internet resources List of internet resources, additional reading references, CD-ROMs
Derived products Spanish version Spanish version produced by partners French version
Monitoring of use l Mailing lists l Mailing lists l Short survey among l No. of sourcebook downloads authors from UPWARD website l Other website hits l Other website hits l Sales records l Correspondence among authors/ l Acknowledgment card institutions producing derived products l Sales records l Acknowledgment card l Direct contact with newsletter editors
Evaluation of Pretesting of drafts Evaluation of final printed product sourcebook
Promotion Use of flyers Actively advertised in e-groups, websites, and newsletters
Distribution Monitored by UPWARD and 95% distributed through UPWARD GTZ (English & Spanish) thus monitoring is easier
52 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences
table continued next page... l Sourcebook by VECO Indonesia l Sourcebook on Enhancing Access of the Poor to Land and Common Property Resources produced by the Asian NGO Coalition l Sourcebook based on research experiences in Africa by Strategic Initiative on Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture (SIUPA)
Table 2 summarizes the features, modifications, and adaptations made in the writeshop process used for the agricultural biodiversity and the PR&D sourcebooks.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The writeshop process to produce sourcebooks provides an excellent example of a participatory collaborative process of repackaging complex information to make them readily accessible in a useful format to a wider non-technical audience. This unique initiative has successfully:
1. Tapped the global pool of scientific knowledge in offering practical, field- tested concepts, and methods to development workers involved in local conservation activities; 2. Established a general pool of field-tested PR&D concepts and methods. It was able to validate a key assumption about the rich field-based experiences already available but which require consolidation, distillation and repackaging; 3. Facilitated a collective effort among a wide range of institutional partners which includes the CGIAR centers, donors, academic institutions, NGOs, and community-based organizations in mobilizing resources and expertise toward greater utilization of research outputs; 4. Developed an innovative product that combined the: a) technical expertise of researchers in critically reviewing available research-generated information, b) creative abilities of communication professionals in designing a user- friendly sourcebook, and c) continuous feedback from its target readers; 5. Demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of a publishing process relying mainly on electronic communications, supplemented by face-to-face workshops/ meetings. An open, critical review process ensured appropriate balance and comprehensive coverage in sourcebook content; and 6. Facilitated a wider and easier access of the sourcebooks by the target readers by making them available through multiple channels and formats (i.e. printed, auto-run CD and on-line).
Integrating ICT Tools to the Writeshop Methodology 53 Recommendations
Some of the recommendations for improving upon similar activities are the following:
1. A fully functional project secretariat needs to be set up at the outset as it plays a key role in coordinating communications and the various activities of the entire publication production process. The project also requires a competent pool of editors and graphic artists/illustrators who take direct responsibility for the information repackaging tasks. 2. To promote wider dissemination and further adaptation of the sourcebook, it is important to explicitly state that readers can freely use the publication and develop second-generation products from it. This enhances the usefulness of the sourcebook by making its content available for more specific audiences and learning purposes. 3. More economical options in marketing and distribution need to be explored. High courier/mailing costs somehow restricts users' access to the printed version in other countries and regions. A more decentralized distribution set-up (e.g., through arrangements with commercial distributors or using local offices of partner organizations as purchase points) might help address this constraint. 4. There is a need to document the outcomes in terms of capacity development. After all, the product is only as good as its use. Continuous monitoring on distribution, uses, and efforts in further adaptation is a necessary and longer- term task.
References
Barte, Arlene C. 2006. Evaluating the Contents and Potencial Usefulness of the Participatory Research and Development Sourcebook: Perspective of the UPLB Faculty and Staff. Unpublished BS Thesis. University of the Philippines at Los Baños. 56pp. De Chavez, Hidelisa, D. Campilan, J. Gonsalves and J. Caminade. 2006. Communicating Science to Support Agricultural Biodiversity. In "At the Human Scale: International Practices in Science Communication." Cheng Donghong, Jenni Metcalfe and Bernard Schiele (eds). Beijing: Science Press. p 336. Gonsalves, Julian S. and J. Rivaca-Caminade. 2001. Enhancing Ownership and Sustainability: A Resource Book on Participation. Philippines: IIRR and IFAD p.151-157. UPWARD. 2003. Conserving Agrobiodiversity. A Sourcebook for Development Workers. A Terminal Report. 19pp. UPWARD. 2005. A Sourcebook on Participatory Research and Development for Natural Resource Management. A Terminal Report.
54 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Writing for a Cause, Writing for Effect1
Jose Roi B. Avena Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist IFAD-funded Rural Micro Enterprise Promotion Programme (RuMEPP) Philippine Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)
Yolando C. Arban Country Programme Officer International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) - Philippines
The writeshop methodology is a preferred tool among project staff and partners of IFAD-Philippines in translating rich and valuable experiences and field stories on the ground into knowledge products. For IFAD projects in the Philippines, the writeshop process has been instrumental in delivering the desired results. Made possible through Knowledge Networking for Rural Development in Asia/Pacific Region (ENRAP) II support, the writeshop continually helped create a culture of knowledge generation and sharing within and among IFAD projects and partners. More concretely, use of the writeshop in IFAD projects contributed to some very interesting and far-reaching outcomes. For the period of 2004-2007, the most successful and high-impact ENRAP-supported projects on systematization, documentation, and dissemination of best practices had writeshops as their culminating activity and preferred mode for capturing field experiences among the rural poor located in frontier areas.
1 Adapted from the title of a presentation by Solidaridad Para sa Makabuluhang Balita, Inc. (SMBI) in the course of the IFAD/ENRAP Field Stories Writeshop in July 2009.
Writing for a Cause, Writing for Effect 55 Background
Inspired by the success of previous writeshops, 25 members of the IFAD- Philippines Country Program Management Team (CPMT) convened in July 2009. The CPMT tackled the challenge of communicating through simple and popular means the knowledge by which the rural poor coped with the effects of the 2009 global financial crisis and the resurgent conflict in battle-scarred Mindanao. Also central to the discussion was how IFAD-funded projects managed to deliver vital services amid these pressing situations. Hence, improving the capacity for knowledge facilitators and communicators of IFAD-assisted projects and partners to collect and communicate knowledge sharing and learning at the project and country levels has been of utmost concern. These felt needs found fulfillment through, among many other ways and forms, the Writeshop and Publication of Field Stories showcasing inspiring stories from the field.
On 7-9 July 2009, 25 development workers, field implementers, and story contributors convened for the IFAD/ENRAP Field Stories Writeshop to draw inspiring stories from the areas where IFAD operates. The 3-day writeshop consisted of lectures on story identification, writing and photojournalism, actual writing, and
Milestones projects on marine protected areas. Because of this, the local Buluan Fisherfolks Association became l In 2006, a team from the Northern Mindanao part of a larger support network — the Marine Community Initiatives and Resource Management Protected Area Support Network, based in the (NMCIREMP) Project systematically documented, University of the Philippines. through a writeshop, the process of formulating ancestral domain sustainable development plan l In the Cordillera Highlands Agricultural Resources (ADSDP) in the municipality of Lanuza, Surigao Management (CHARM) Project, the documentation del Sur. This documentation became the basis for of best practices consolidated and validated in the the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples course of the writeshop was translated into a (NCIP) to review and revise its guidelines, thereby, "school on the air" curriculum, and then broadcast ensuring proper recognition of the indigenous over radio, covering Benguet and Mountain peoples (IPs) in local barangay (village) Province. This initiative opened other possibilities development plans. of combining the use of different information technology and media for wider information and l In the Western Mindanao Community Initiatives knowledge sharing. Project (WMCIP), the establishment of fish sanctuaries in Brgy. Buluan, Ipil, Zamboanga Source: Quizon, A. 2009. An Assessment of the Sibugay was documented and published as a result Knowledge Network of IFAD Projects and Partners in of a writeshop. The UP Marine Science Institute (UP the Philippines. A report prepared for ENRAP lll of the MSI) commended it as one of the Philippines' best IDRC Regional Office for South Asia.
56 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences critiquing of story materials. Over 20 inspiring stories were produced in that writeshop and these comprised an integral part of the planned IFAD publication titled The Poor in Times of Crisis: Stories from IFAD-Assisted Projects in the Philippines. More than 10 stories were also harvested for the IFAD newsletter.
As an incentive, 10 best stories were chosen (7 for the book and 3 for the newsletter) with each of the writers receiving a specially-engraved pen, with additional cash prizes for the two top awardees in both categories.
IFAD commissioned the Solidaridad Para sa Makabuluhang Balita Inc. (SMBI) to facilitate the workshop, with a highly experienced team of newsmen from a leading national daily, lending the journalist's keen eye and pen in the preparation and packaging of the stories.
The publication was formally launched during the 3rd IFAD Knowledge and Learning Market (KLM) held in October 2009. It has since been disseminated not only to IFAD projects in the country but also to various departments of the Philippine government, civil society groups, and offices within IFAD Headquarters itself in Rome.
Writeshop Methodology Writeshop Participants
A total of 25 participants, a mix of project staff and From IFAD projects: personnel from implementing government agencies, 1. Cordillera Highlands Agricultural attended the writeshop, which aimed at enabling the Resources Management (CHARM) participants to: Project 2. Northern Mindanao Community Initiatives and Resource 1. Identify topics for the field stories book and the Management (NMCIREMP) Project IFAD newsletter; 3. Rural Micro Enterprise Promotion 2. Translate the identified topics into book- and Programme (RuMEPP) newsletter-worthy stories; and 4. Western Mindanao Community Initiatives Project (WMCIP) 3. Submit cleanly-written stories by the end of the writeshop. From implementing government agencies: Figure 1 clearly illustrates how the writeshop and 1. Department of Agriculture (DA) post-writeshop processes were implemented. 2. Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) 3. Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)
Writing for a Cause, Writing for Effect 57 Raw Draft Input on story identification Project implementers Facilitator discussed how to and partners brought identify the most important Actual story writing their documentation of story angle within a topic or field stories to be used in within a set of raw data (e.g., the writeshop reports, presentations, etc.)
Input on writing Critiquing of outputs DURING WRITESHOP Facilitator lectured on how to write clearly and correctly
Planning Input on photojournalism Output The group identified the next Facilitator taught 19 stories for the book steps that would be taken participants how to take 13 articles for the towards the book’s and photos for newspapers and newsletter newsletter’s publication other publications.
Editing - Edited existing stories and Finalization of stories Layouting filled in data gaps - wrote additional stories - An editorial committee was created composed of the Field visits by IFAD Country Programme consultants Printing Manager, Country Programme - Filled in data gaps Manager Facilitator, some - Validated information mebers of the IFAD - Took additional photos Philippines Learning and Innovation Network for Book launching Knowledge Sharing (LINKS) POST-WRITESHOP working group and the consultants
Figure 1. The writeshop process in making the book and the articles for the newsletter.
Challenges and Lessons Learned
1. Identifying and picking the right stories/cases to develop
In the first session of the writeshop, quite a number of stories seemed to converge on NMCIREMP's positive experiences working in and with the Municipality of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur. On the other hand, a dearth of inspiring stories coming from other projects and areas was observed.
To manage and balance the long list of proposed cases/stories and to ensure that there was a good representation across geographic and sectoral profiles of
58 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences participating projects, guidelines on how to identify a good case/story were provided by the writeshop facilitators.
Accordingly, it was suggested that a good case/story should: l Be personal. Inspirational stories are all about the power of personal connections. They should be accounts of real people's lives. Do not shy away from the emotion, as strong and powerful feelings are central to good inspirational articles. Bear in mind that these stories should connect to the minds, hearts, and souls of the readers. l Involve an emotional struggle or challenging decision. The cases and stories should clearly describe the struggles, obstacles, or difficult choices that the people faced. Basic questions as to how they recognize the problem, how they deal with it, and how it was overcome should be covered. l Paint a scene. Help the readers visualize what the people in the story went through. Describe the physical locations and the social context where the events took place in a precise manner. But do not stop there. Appeal to your readers' sense of smell, sound, taste, and touch. l Include a universal message. Inspirational cases/stories usually end with an epiphany. They enlighten or remind people about the essential nature or meaning of some elements of their daily living. These are often very simple lessons e.g., the importance of family and friends, the joy in giving, the danger in stereotypes, or the value in facing our fears. l Be true. Inspirational stories/cases must always be factual. It is all right to change the names or locations in the story for as long as they have been clearly indicated. Making up stories to play on the readers' emotions is unacceptable. Telling lies destroy the readers' trust towards the writer and the organization being represented.
2. Making newsletter stories newsworthy2
Selected first drafts prepared by the participants were presented by the facilitators for peer critiquing. Not long after the title and first sentence were read, the field stories began to read and sound more like the typical long-winding progress reports that most project staff have been used to writing. Along this line, the journalist-facilitators expertly shared pointers to make the style and structure of the field cases/stories "headline-worthy."
2 Adapted from IFAD guide to writing newsletter stories
Writing for a Cause, Writing for Effect 59 To further inspire the writeshop participants to Ways to make a case/story produce well-written cases/stories, a mini-competition more interesting: was announced at the onset — where 10 best stories 1. Use strong headline or title, emphasizing will be chosen (7 for the book and 3 for the newsletter). on key words. Winning writers received specially-engraved pens and 2. Write it as you tell it. the two top awardees — one for each category — were 3. Skip the introduction and go straight to given cash prizes. Top winners for the book and the WHO, WHAT, and HOW. newsletter, respectively, were Mr. Dominador Gomez 4. Start with catchy and simple sentences. of NMCIREMP for his story about the Higaunon tribe's Tell the essence of the story at the outset. Avoid jargons and complicated drive to reclaim self-governance and Mr. Julius de Villa, sentences. also of NMCIREMP, for his article about a community 5. Use strong sub-heads to break up the volunteer from the Banwaon tribe. story. 6. Put the most important facts at the start 3. Dearth of good quality "photos in action" of the story. Less important details can appear towards the end. If possible, include links to other stories and sources None of the participants was an expert photographer (cross-referencing) and details such as or photojournalist. To capture and use pictures that tell contact information. or best sum up the chosen field story posed a challenge 7. Use quotable quotes from project to the group. The photojournalist-facilitator addressed participants, high-ranking officials from the government or partner institutions, this by sharing valuable points when taking pictures, or technical people to help draw the which the participants were very appreciative of. attention of readers to the case/story. 8. Ideally, the case/story length should be 4. Consciousness of and respect for socio- about 600 words. cultural sensitivities — the Indigenous Peoples' (IP) Intellectual Property Rights
The field cases involving NMCIREMP's work with the IPs in CARAGA 3 were some of the most interesting stories presented to the group. While that was a welcome appraisal, apprehensions were expressed by the author, himself an IP clan member, about the implications of the stories being printed. According to him, publishing particular IP terminologies describing certain customs, rituals, and traditions, without the IP clan's permission, could be considered an infringement of the IPs' right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), a key principle enshrined in the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA).
There have been instances in the past (not in IFAD projects) when indigenous knowledge, customs, and traditions (e.g., indigenous healing practices,
3 Caraga or Region XIII is the newest region of the Philippines covering four provinces, Agusan del Norte, Agusan del Sur, Surigao del Norte and Surigao del Sur.
60 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences knowledge of endemic varieties of medicinal plants, customary laws) have been exploited by outsiders for Things to remember when their own personal and commercial gain. taking a picture:
l Tell a story with the picture, report Realizing the seriousness of the issue, the writeshop with the camera, and record the moment facilitators and participants suggested that the case/story in time or the fleeting instant when an author go back to the local community, consult with, and image sums up the story. Henri Cartier- seek permission from the elders of the tribe concerned Bresson called it the "decisive moment." before committing the case/story for publication. Venues or settings may vary but the mission is the same - to inform, report, or carry the scene to the reader - whether 5. Fact-checking, validation, and triangulation they are thousands of miles away, or just down the street. Pictures show the readers Validation of information contained in the field cases/ something which they might not have had stories is something that cannot be readily done a chance to see themselves. during the writeshop (unless the author is armed with l Content. The picture should tell a supporting data). Figures such as dates, monetary story. values, production values, etc., as well as direct quotes from certain personalities need to be l Composition. Each element in a counterchecked to establish and preserve the integrity picture should not compete for the reader's attention. As the eye tracks of the publication. across the picture, the position and composition of the elements make the eye To address this concern, part of the facilitators' tasks move on or stop and study the image. was to conduct field visits, where necessary, to validate information, fill in data gaps where they l Avoid photo clichés e.g., "Firing exist, and gather additional photographs prior to Squad", "Check Passers", "The Pointman", Three Men and a Piece of Paper", "The finalization of the stories/cases for layouting. Ribbon Cutters", and the "Smorgasbord".
Conclusions
The use of writeshop by IFAD projects in the Philippines for documenting project lessons through case studies/stories was proven to have created the most impact in terms of: a) improving staff writing skills; b) improving project capacities and performance; c) creating an internal culture of learning and sharing; and d) bringing publicity and recognition to specific target communities.
Going beyond numbers and the cold statistics which characterize regular project progress reports, writeshops yielded knowledge products which dwelt on tangible results and concrete manifestations of impact that matter not only to policymakers, but more significantly to the end-clients of development interventions.
Writing for a Cause, Writing for Effect 61 By unveiling the names and "putting faces" behind the statistics, the CPMT could make the wider public appreciate and empathize more with the plight of the rural and conflict-affected poor. It advances development models to alleviate their living conditions, and inspire commitment and garner resources of governments, donor communities, and civil societies. With the initial gains from using this methodology, replications in other similarly affected areas may be carried out.
Recommendations
The writeshop is a tool for drawing best practices and lessons from field experiences of IFAD stakeholders. However, some issues need to be addressed meanwhile: l The writeshop process needs to be further strengthened and followed up on, to sustain the impact it has created. l Project staff have to be trained in the validation and triangulation of information, to ensure improved integrity of information included in the published work. l Sensitization workshops or seminars should be conducted to equip staff in handling socio-cultural sensitivities, to uphold the rights and ensure justice to peoples or communities whom we choose to depict as subjects in our field stories/cases.
62 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Initiating Knowledge Management and Inter- Institutional Cooperation through the Lao Uplands Sourcebook
Bandith Ramangkoun1 and Michael Victor 2 1 Deputy Director, Center for Agriculture and Forestry Research Information (CAFRI), National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI) 2 Communication Adviser, Upland Research and Capacity Development Programme, NAFRI
In 2004, the National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI), in collaboration with National Agriculture and Forestry Extension Service (NAFES) and the National University of Laos (NUOL) initiated a process to develop the Lao Uplands Sourcebook. The sourcebook was developed with the following objectives in mind: 1) to capitalize on the 20 years of rich experiences in uplands development; 2) to ensure the wide dissemination of captured learning; 3) to set in motion a number of processes to improve coordination and collaboration among different organizations; and 4) to open the door for improved access to information among all stakeholders within the Lao Agriculture and Knowledge Information System (LaoAKIS)1.
This section provides an overview of how the sourcebook was produced using the writeshop process, highlighting the lessons learned throughout the process. Experience and lessons confirm one important fact: the writeshop process is as important (if not more) as the product itself in terms of alliance building and in ensuring that the sourcebook is used after it is produced.
1 An AKIS links people and institutions together to promote and enable mutual learning and generate, share, and use agriculture-related technology, knowledge, skills, and information.
Initiating Knowledge Management and Inter-Institutional Cooperation through the Lao Uplands Sourcebook 63 Background
The uplands of Laos are where the most poverty is found, and where the highest amount of cultural and biological diversity is located. They represent an area of key development interest to both the Government of Lao PDR and most international donor agencies. Marginalized by remoteness, inaccessibility, and language barriers, the upland farmers have the highest poverty index and lowest quality of life in the country. For many households, basic food security remains to be the main problem.
NAFRI focuses on research for development (R4D) and recognized early on the important role that information and knowledge could play in assisting different actors make informed choices and decisions. Thus, in the early 2000s, NAFRI embarked on a process to improve linkages and coordination within the LaoAKIS.
In 2004, NAFRI organized the national workshop on shifting cultivation stabilization and poverty reduction. Dubbed "Poverty Reduction and Shifting Cultivation Stabilization in Lao PDR," the four-day workshop brought together more than 300 professionals working on all aspects of uplands development. It was a pioneering
The uplands form an integral component in Lao PDR's development agenda. They draw great interest and concern among the Lao government, donors, and international agencies.
64 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging ang Sharing Field-based Experiences effort that opened opportunities for gathering collective experiences of development efforts and charting future directions. This was important as most projects and government agencies worked in isolation of each other. It was in this workshop that an agreement to produce a sourcebook was forged.
Preference for the sourcebook format was attributed to several reasons:
1. The "one-solution-fits-all" approach to extension does not work in the uplands due to the diverse environmental, economic, and cultural conditions. Thus, step-by-step manuals are not useful. 2. The format provides a menu of options to extension agents and it paves the way to bring together a diverse body of knowledge on a range of topics. 3. A number of materials from the upland workshop already existed and could be readily and easily repackaged. 4. It provided a vehicle for broader information dissemination. 5. It provided an avenue for continuous building of partnerships and linkages between and among the different actors working for uplands development.
Writeshop Methodology
The sourcebook workshop process (Figure 1) was iterative and highly participatory. As this was the first attempt to develop a sourcebook, the conventional writeshop process — bringing technical specialists and production teams together — was adapted to the conditions in Laos. First, the organizers decided to start with the English medium because many of the materials were already in English. Moreover, there was little experience in writing a sourcebook type of material directly in Lao language.
Establishment of advisory Development of articles Production of English version and translation to Dissemination and Use board and of article and review workshops (February 2007) identification (Oct 2004 - April 2005) Lao language version (September 2004) (May 2005 - Jan 2007)
Figure 1: The sourcebook and workshop process employed in the production of the Laos Uplands Sourcebook.
Initiating Knowledge Management and Inter-Institutional Cooperation through the Lao Uplands Sourcebook 65 1. Establishment of Advisory Board (AB) and identification of articles
Development of the sourcebook began in earnest in September 2004. During the planning stage, the AB was formed comprising of staff from the following: government (NAFRI and the National Agriculture and Forestry Extension Service, NAFES), academe (NUOL), key support projects (International Center for Tropical Agriculture, CIAT; International Rice Research Institute, IRRI; etc.), and donor partners (SDC, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, SIDA, and GTZ. In addition, a project management team was formed within NAFRI to oversee the entire process.
The development of the AB was important for the following reasons: l it allowed staff to forge linkages and partnerships with a broad range of actors; l it established authority for the AB in addressing participants' concerns on the process, substance, and other workshop facets; and l it enabled greater coverage and support in the production and dissemination of the sourcebook owing to the multi-institutional composition of the group.
Potential articles were identified from three broad sources:
Papers from the 2004 Previously produced reports, New articles on identified gaps uplands workshop publications, and other and undocumented experiences documentation materials
Figure 2. Sources of potential articles
66 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging ang Sharing Field-based Experiences 2. Development of articles and review workshop
From October 2004 to April 2005, materials were repackaged and edited. Repackaging started with the two main advisors (Dr. Julian Gonsalves and Dirk Van Gainsburghe) marking the draft to identify key messages to include and highlight in the article. The editors converted the article into a more interesting, focused (discussion skewed more on the process and learning rather than the outcome), and succinct piece of material not exceeding six pages. A pool of talented young Lao artists was tapped to create artworks to complement each article. Artworks are a key element of the sourcebook because they bring more clarity to concepts, bring life to key messages, and make the publication more pleasing to the eyes. Young artists contributed fresh Principles and strategies and innovative artworks in the sourcebook. The used in the sourcebook opportunity was likewise a good capacity building workshop process: exercise for these young people. l Capacity building was integral in the process as nothing of this kind had yet been done in Laos. It was hoped that the process would be the start of other innovative processes in conducting writeshops and/or production of information, education, and communication materials. l Participation was vital to ensure that the sourcebook encompassed a wide range of topics and issues. Participation also developed a sense of ownership among those working in projects in the uplands. l Alliance building should be a planned outcome of the process. In this specific case, a strong strategic alliance was developed between the National Extension Service (NAFES) and the National University of Laos (NUOL). More than 20 organizations Figure 3. Sample marked-up articles ready for and projects contributed articles. repackaging. Towards the end of the workshop, a directory of participants was In order to engage the staff from different provided to help them keep in touch organizations, two review workshops were held: in even after the activity. This created a knowledge network among those December 2004 and March 2005. The objectives of the working in the uplands. review workshops were to:
Initiating Knowledge Management and Inter-Institutional Cooperation through the Lao Uplands Sourcebook 67 l provide an opportunity for staff from key organizations to comment and critique on the draft articles; l ensure feedback from a range of disciplines; and l allow the staff to critically review articles even if they go beyond their area of expertise.
At this point, artwork and mock-up versions of the final layout and covers were also shown to the workshop participants to solicit feedback. Some of these staff became so eager that they even went on translating the sourcebook to Lao language. The activity instilled in them a spirit of genuine support for the sourcebook.
3. Production and translation of the sourcebook
Each article is a “stand-alone” material as it conveys a complete message in itself and one need not read the book from cover to cover to understand the whole picture that it wished to paint. Scientific concepts and complex processes were simplified and articles were richly illustrated, shortened, and focused in order to draw attention to the essential messages. The sourcebook's layout and design strongly reflects Lao nature and culture.
After the review workshops, final editing and layout were done on the English version, which was subsequently printed and disseminated in January 2006 — about a year and three months from the start of the project.
During this time, the process of translating the sourcebook to the local Lao language was set in motion. Direct translation from English to Lao is inherently difficult because of the differences in sentence construction between the two languages. What made it even more difficult was the mixed discussion of concepts, approaches, and methods for each article which entails in-depth understanding before one could come up with accurate translations. Technical experts tried to translate the sourcebook but even they themselves ended up with outputs of varying degrees of quality. This caused some delays in the final editing and approval of the Lao version. To address these issues, those who had actual involvement on or close affiliation to the projects were asked to do the translation.
The sourcebook was produced in Lao and English versions consisting of 70 articles and a glossary of terms The English version was divided into two volumes, printed on an A4 size book. It was felt that A4 size was more appropriate as the English version would be used by foreigners who are used to the larger formats.
68 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging ang Sharing Field-based Experiences
Figure 4. Young Lao artists were tapped to illustrate the sourcebook
The packaging of the Lao version was done differently About the artworks from the English version. It was decided to break up the sections into five (5) shorter volumes which were The artworks of the sourcebook deserves packaged in a smaller format (a bit bigger than A5). special notice. There were long discussions This was the consensus because this format is more over what type and style of artwork would be used. It was decided to go for a classic, suitable for district extension agents. Smaller booklets realistic style given that the sourcebook were seen as less intimidating than the larger volumes. is intended for extension workers and The Lao version was finalized in January 2007, almost students. a year after the English version got off the press. There was a feeling that the cartoon style 4. Dissemination and use could be acceptable to farmers and local communities but may not be taken seriously by extension workers or even The English version was widely disseminated both managers. within Laos and internationally. Hard copies were provided to all major institutions and to the Feedback on the artwork had been very individual authors. All articles were uploaded on the positive and many users felt that the artwork drew them in and depicted each institutional website and can be downloaded for free. of the stories appropriately. The artworks were stored in CDs and uploaded on the website for easy access and wider use. Interestingly, most of the artists got commissioned to work on a number of For the Lao version, multiple copies were provided similar development projects. These new to different organizations to benefit the local staff. contacts knew of the artists through the publication credits, which included some Copies were also given to key university departments personal details, found in the sourcebook. and agricultural schools. Unfortunately, there was no
Initiating Knowledge Management and Inter-Institutional Cooperation through the Lao Uplands Sourcebook 69 monitoring and evaluation done on the English Some of the initiatives the version. However, the Lao version had favorable sourcebook was indirectly responsible for include: feedback which included: l Writeshops to develop extension and l Many foreign and Lao consultants used the reference materials from NAFRI research. sourcebook as reference material when developing Three workshops have been held to projects and programs. In the past, there was little develop posters, technical sheets, and other materials from research efforts. access to reference materials on upland l Establishment of the NAFRI-NAFES development; hence, project designs usually failed Working Group on Agriculture to factor in lessons or experiences from previous Information Management (AIM) Group. projects which could properly direct strategic The initial collaboration for the planning activities. sourcebook was the precursor for the l NAFRI and NUOL used it as an example of R4D establishment of AIM working group. l Use of sourcebook in universities. Colleges (research for development) material and this and universities have been the highest user effective communication tool assisted in getting of the sourcebook. Teachers from different funding for other communication activities. institutions have praised the sourcebook l Developing a shared resource led to further as a true 'tour-de-force' of learning for initiatives to develop more holistic materials that students and staff and provide a rich source of teaching materials. go beyond institutions and projects. l Use of sourcebook in primary and l English language schools (e.g. Vientiane College) secondary schools. The clarity of writing teaching agriculture and NRM used the has been demonstrated among primary sourcebook as a tool for teaching complex topics and secondary school students who use it and subjects in English. to study their natural environment. l The largest and most interested users of the l Projects did not "reinvent the wheel". Oftentimes in Laos, projects overlap and sourcebook have been universities and students project design does not consider lessons who yearn for information. They used it as a case and successes from other projects. Many material and key reference document. There have project design teams have used the been a number of requests for more copies from sourcebook as baseline information so that different schools. repetition of past mistakes could be avoided, valuable efforts enhanced and l District staff responded positively to the sourcebook multiplied, and innovations be well- and found it a rich source of ideas. However, it was planned on future projects. not clear as to how it had been translated into action in the field (e.g., deriving products from the sourcebook for use in extension). l There was a second attempt to develop a sourcebook of upland technologies carried out by NAFES and a group of NGOs.
Since the main target for the sourcebook were the district extension staff, special workshops were organized to introduce the sourcebook to them. The NAFRI- NAFES Working Group on Agriculture Information Management (AIM) held
70 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging ang Sharing Field-based Experiences regional workshops throughout the country to disseminate the sourcebook as well as to introduce concepts of information and knowledge management so as to begin developing a network of staff from the national, provincial, and district levels. These workshops were key in sensitizing staff as to the importance of information and the potential uses of the sourcebook.
The sourcebook served as prototype both for deriving secondary products and how research-extension-education collaboration can be done in the future. The assumption with the first sourcebook was that the initial high costs of hiring consultants would pay off in the long term in terms of new partnership arrangements and use of the writeshop process for different purposes and occasions. Based on the number of spin-offs and the network that the sourcebook established, it is believed that the initial investment had a high recovery rate.
Challenges and Lessons Learned
1. Information and knowledge management are integral parts of any development effort. The sourcebook demonstrated the importance of knowledge management within development processes. Before the sourcebook, there were no platforms to bring together a body of knowledge in Laos on a particular theme. For the most part, information was seen as power and so these remained unshared among different actors. Donor-funded projects (who were often the most reluctant to freely share results), government agencies, and NGOs have become more willing to espouse an 'open access' policy to information. In 2007, the AIM working group held a
Initiating Knowledge Management and Inter-Institutional Cooperation through the Lao Uplands Sourcebook 71 workshop on open access to information. More than 20 organizations signed on the agreement to share their information more widely.
2. Popularization of research and reference materials is essential for research to be relevant. Research for development always implies a special concern about research utilization and the need to find ways to enhance the use of research outputs. This is not a task that can be merely delegated to extension but must be jointly addressed by both the research and extension sectors.
The sourcebook provided one of the first avenues for researchers to systematically document researches and share results more widely. NAFRI, like many other research organizations, had been challenged to demonstrate a pro-poor orientation and to come up with pragmatic, high impact, and cost-effective projects. The sourcebook clearly showed that NAFRI possessed ample research results that can be repackaged into short and relevant messages. Previously, the only outlets for NAFRI research results were scientific journals or research reports that needed to be approved by the scientific councils.
3. The menu-based approach is a good option. Through the writeshop process, it was further affirmed that farmers and extension agents require options and choices rather than just top-down technical recommendations. Rural people needed information that helps them assess alternative livelihood strategies.
Simple technical recommendations may not be helpful. The sourcebook was the first reference material which did not take a “silver bullet” approach but rather provided options and menu that those working in the uplands could choose from based on their own local situations.
4. Deriving extension materials from the sourcebook is a challenge and the application of the sourcebook needs to be properly evaluated. While the idea of a “menu-of-options” was useful for some target audiences (namely academic institutions), the concept proved quite difficult for district extension staff to translate and develop into extension materials. The sourcebook is not an extension manual or a set of guidelines. It was meant to offer a menu of choices whereas an extension manual provides step-by-step instructions and focuses more on technologies and field techniques.
72 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging ang Sharing Field-based Experiences 5. There is a need to embed strategic communication within materials development Development professionals (both Lao and processes. foreign) mentioned that they used the sourcebook as a source of information. It It was realized that there was a need to use a strategic proved valuable in designing interventions communication approach whereby materials are and building upon successes. However, planned, developed, implemented, and monitored examples demonstrating where district based on the needs of the intended target group. staff directly adapted information from the Related to this, one of the biggest challenges or missed sourcebook into extension materials have yet to be uncovered. opportunities was to carry out a comprehensive evaluation of the sourcebook to derive lessons and ideas for future materials development.
6. Materials need to be produced more quickly The NAFES information centre has been testing a simple strategic communication and efficiently. process which is now embedded in their The length of time (more than two years) in producing own work. This process was also tested out information and knowledge materials was too long. by AIM working group to develop a set of Also, experience dictated that materials should be strategic materials for smallholder rubber developed directly in the Lao language, with district farmers in Lao PDR. Again, these materials built on the concept of 'options and choices' staff, researchers, and communication staff. The need for farmers and the campain was entitled to get out intermediate materials as the process for "think before you plant". editing and approval can be too long was apparent.
Initiating Knowledge Management and Inter-Institutional Cooperation through the Lao Uplands Sourcebook 73 Conclusion and Recommendations
Knowledge and information are increasingly important inputs into agriculture and natural resource development. Sourcebooks and writeshops are important ingredients into this process in terms of linking different actors and synthesizing existing knowledge and information. In the Lao example, the uplands sourcebook was an important starting point for strengthening research and extension linkages and translating often technical and abstract research results into easy-to-read articles. However, the actual use and application of the sourcebook in actual extension activities remain limited.
74 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging ang Sharing Field-based Experiences Developing Simple and Culturally-Appropriate Family Planning Communication Materials: Adaptation for Field- based Writeshop
Isaac Bekalo International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) Silang Cavite, Philippines
Success in a community's utilization and understanding of family planning is largely dependent on effective communication by health workers. In rural communities where the majority of community members cannot read and write, it is difficult to communicate abstract concepts such as family planning techniques and contraceptive options. Community health workers (CHW) or Community- based distributors (CBD), with basic education levels, struggle to explain to a group of rural women who have a rudimentary understanding of human anatomy how an intra-uterine device (IUD) or a contraceptive pill works.
In many Asian and African languages or vernaculars, there are no equivalent words for some parts of the reproductive anatomy. Health workers coin their own vocabularies to explain these concepts. In many of these cultures, talking about reproductive organs and contraceptives is taboo, thus, creating an even more complicated scenario. How then can health workers discuss terms like sperm, ovaries, semen, ovulation, etc. to these people?
In many villages, lack of clear communication causes misconceptions about contraceptives, which create further barrier for their use. If the concept of family
Developing Simple and Culturally-Appropriate Family Planning 75 Communication Materials: Adaptation for Field-based Writeshop planning and the options available are not thoroughly explained and understood, the required behavioral changes will not occur and the goal of reducing the alarming rate of population growth in rural villages will not be attained.
Background
Through years of experience working in rural communities, the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) developed the cultural/agricultural approach to family planning and reproductive health. The approach puts farmers and rural communities at the center of the family planning dialogue, using their cultural insights to help generate parallel analogies to communicate family planning terminology, concepts, and resources.
The participatory documentation and communication The big question is not only approach originated in the Philippines. It evolved WHAT needs to be through a continuous dialogue between health communicated, but more importantly HOW it should be workers and farmers. The health workers explained the communicated. unfamiliar concept they wished to communicate to the community leaders, and the local farmers suggested l For example, to explain IUD, they say familiar analogies that closely describe those concepts. "uterus wire" and the uterus itself does The analogies were then expressed in a one-page not have a local equivalent, so they call picture that was presented and tested to ensure an it "stomach". effective transfer of information and understanding of l A health worker wanted to recommend the concept. This field-based approach was later child spacing. Farmers suggested adapted to classroom settings. In partnership with the analogies like the planting of fruit trees Family Planning Associations of Ethiopia, Kenya, at a distance from each other results in Ghana, and Uganda and other partners in the a bigger and better yield. Philippines, India, and Bangladesh, IIRR and partners produced a series of posters and flipcharts that are being used to effectively communicate technical terminology and contraceptive methods in these areas.
Writeshop Methodology
A. Adaptation of the methodology
The writeshop process pioneered by IIRR is a participatory approach which is adapted to produce simple, easy-to-read and well-illustrated materials for various
76 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences audiences. Adapting the writeshop has many advantages. It can give voice to common people like farmers when editors help capture their stories and artists assist in illustrating their ideas. Materials are produced faster because various experts work together at the same time. The quality of materials is better because many contributed to arrive at the desired end-product. Finally, since many people are involved in its production, the material gets used and distributed morewidely.
In this case, family planning field workers, farmers, editors, artists, facilitators, and logistic staff came together to produce posters and flip charts with simple messages in order to communicate family planning concepts aimed at increasing contraceptive acceptance. The process had three phases: 1) the pre-production phase also known as the preparatory phase; 2) phase 2 - the writeshop; and 3) the post-writeshop or testing and refinement phase (Figure 1).
Phase 1: The Preparatory Phase 2: The Writeshop Phase 3: Post-writeshop (Pre-production) (Testing and Refinement)
1. Family planning workers and their 1. The facilitator oriented the participants on the writeshop pro- 1. Draft posters and flip charts organizations identified and com- cess. The participants reached an agreement on the roles and were edited. piled a complete list of the known responsibilties of all participants such as ownership, copy- 2. The final edited set of post- communication gaps and chal- right, field testing, refinement and distribution of final prod- ers were produced for field lenges they faced related to family ucts. testing. planning and contraceptives. 2. Health workers presented the concepts and terminology they 3. The posters and flip charts 2. The family planning workers (CHW identified as difficult to communicate. were field-tested by CHWs and/or CBD) and other relevant 3. The facilitator worked with the participants to solicit additional or CBDs in the community technical experts agreed on and concepts and terminologies that were difficult to commun- and comments were gath- record the information they need to icate. ered. convey to the target population (ru- 4. The participants were divided into mixed groups of 5-6 people 4. Comments from the field ral communities). representing the different skills. The concepts and terminolo- were incorporated and third 3. Local leaders and other influential gies were further refined and new ones were generated. drafts were produced. men and women in the village who 5. Health workers and/or technical experts described in detail 5. Posters and flipcharts were have a good understanding of the each concept and term to both the community represent- further refined by the offi- local cultural and agricultural prac- atives and the artist. cially designated “final edi- tices were selected and recruited to 6. The community leaders suggested locally relevant analogies tor”. participate. that may best describe the technical concepts or the scientifc 6. Posters and flipcharts were 4. Representative health workers terms that need to be communicated. mass produced and distrib- (CHW and/or CBD) were invited to 7. The analogies were debated for logical consistency and cul- uted. attend. tural relevance until the group members agreed that the con- 5. Depending on available resources cepts and analogies communicate well. and the complexity of the concepts 8. The artist drew a draft sketch to illustrate the family planning to be addresed, editors (1-2), local message to be converted and the analogy that farmers sug- artist (1-2), a faciltator, and other gested side by side. logistical staff were identified and 9. The participants commented on the illustrations until they contracted. clearly represent both the analogy and the concept to be com- 6. Logistics (venue, accommodation, municated. transportation, food materials, 10. The complete set of illustrations were then presented in a ple- etc.) was organized. nary session for additional comments and suggestions and to ensure all required concepts were addressed. 11. The illustrations were further refined and presented for a sec- ond time. 12. Final comments were incorporated and the set of draft post- ers and flipcharts were produced.
Figure 1. The writeshop process in producing family planning posters
Developing Simple and Culturally-Appropriate Family Planning 77 Communication Materials: Adaptation for Field-based Writeshop B. Roles of various actors in the writeshop
The typical writeshop had 35-50 participants comprised of resource persons (farmers, extension agents, researchers, etc.) a team of editors, artists, layout specialists, facilitators, and team of logistics persons. All throughout the writeshop process, these key actors assumed vital tasks and responsibilities as described in Table 1.
Key considerations for success:
1. Participants matter The success of the process is largely dependent on the expertise of the participants. Community leaders, health workers, and family planning technical staff should be carefully selected. Community leaders and health workers should not be selected because of relationships/seniority but because of their ability to contribute. Careful selection of participants is a key to the success of the writeshop. Organizers should come up with clear criteria of the type of people who should attend and ensure that these criteria are followed.
2. Translation complicates Language can be another challenge. Editors and technical staff who participate in the production process often do not understand the local language. In the process of interpretation, a lot of information is lost, misunderstood, or distorted. This considerably slows down the editing process of the illustrations. Whenever possible, it is recommended that organizers seek local artists, technical experts and people who speak the local language. The role of a facilitator is crucial in drawing insight from all participants, especially from the local leaders.
3. True understanding leads to clear explanation Good analogies are developed from a clear understanding of the concepts and terminologies. Often, health workers are not sure of the message they want to communicate. Some may not even have a technical understanding of the concepts. In order for community leaders to suggest relevant local analogies, they must be provided with clear descriptions of terms, concepts, and other relevant information (e.g., How do contraceptives work? What does the Family Planning concept entail? How exactly does IUD work? etc.). Some concepts are very technical and health technicians may not explain them well and a skilled facilitator can often help.
78 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Table 1. Roles of the various actors in the writeshop process.
Actors Roles
Community leaders and l Suggest appropriate analogies that helped communicate abstract farmers or other concepts or technical terms community members l Suggest appropriate illustrations experienced in agriculture l Critique illustrations and suggested improvements and local practices l Confirm that the message and the illustrations were culturally acceptable
Family planning l Identify echnical terminologies and concepts that were difficult to promoters communicate or health workers l Share cultural barriers like taboos that have hindered communicating messages effectively l Ensure that analogies were sensitive to local traditions and were relevant
Technical (family planning) l Identify family planning concepts and technical terminologies experts required to be addressed l Provide technical input during the discussions l Check the technical soundness of the messages and analogies l Clarify any misconceptions and fears l Ensure that the analogies and illustrations were relevant and communicative
Facilitator l Manage and coordinate the entire process and ensure that the tasks were accomplished on time l Inform individuals and groups of their roles and when they were expected to present or contribute l Ensure active participation of all writeshop participants during plenary presentations and small group work l Develop daily schedule and assign tasks to individuals and working groups l Ensure that various drafts and illustrations were ready for each of the scheduled presentations l Ensure that all topics were addressed and agreement was reached before the writeshop concludes
Editors l Review each manuscripts from a learner's perspective l Edit drafts for appropriateness of translation and grammar l Help in constructing messages l Suggest illustrations l Responsible for the final editing of materials
Artists l Draw illustrations for the analogies as suggested by community leaders, farmers, and health workers using familiar local objects l Revise and finalize illustrations based on the suggestions of writeshop participants
Logistics Coordinator l Track expenses and required reimbursements l Provide the general administrative support to the facilitator and participants as needed l Scan illustrations when necessary l Organize social events and arrange ransportation and accommodations l Photocopy documents and assist in typing as needed
Developing Simple and Culturally-Appropriate Family Planning 79 Communication Materials: Adaptation for Field-based Writeshop 4. Shortcuts obstruct originality Often, there are tendencies to copy what other similar organizations have produced. This limits creativity and originality of the analogies and the messages conveyed. It is important not to take shortcuts if creative ways to communicate are to be used.
5. Monitoring and evaluation are difficult but essential As is often the case with development work, it is difficult to truly gauge impact in the field. While the testing often incorporates knowledge transfer testing, further testing and confirmation of effectiveness rarely occur. Training of field staff and the creation of templates for evaluation of community understanding are very important to ensure sustained success of the materials.
6. Create and recreate There is no built-in revision process for materials after the final documents are created. This means that the writeshop is often a one-time process. Reconvening of key actors to update materials also allow for fresh viewpoints to emerge. Luckily, the writeshop process is cost-effective. Unlike other products (e.g., field manuals and tool kits), poster production is simpler and does not usually require sophisticated editing. Writeshops can take place outside of the city centers to reduce expenses and can be done in a relatively short time frame. Depending on the number of messages to be conveyed, the writeshop can be completed in just 2-3 days.
Conclusion
The writeshop process is a very powerful methodological tool in that it draws on the knowledge, experience, and expertise of many actors, most importantly the target communities. IIRR has focused on inclusive and culturally-appropriate community development work for over 50 years. As an architect and proponent of the original writeshop process, IIRR wholeheartedly recommends this process as an effective means of engaging, communicating and serving the rural poor.
80 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Module on Writing Policy Briefs: A Drawing Board for a Tool to Influence
Jennifer P.T. Liguton Director for Research Information Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS)
It has often been said that "sound policy recommendations emanate from good policy research." Good policy research and sound policy recommendations, however, do not always necessarily get translated into sound policy decisions and the desired policy change. And while there may be various reasons for this, one critical element is the lack and/or ineffectiveness/inadequacy of communication between researchers and policymakers.
To bridge this gap, the Philippine National Health Research System (PNHRS) initiated a capacity-building program which aimed to help health and medical researchers, professionals, faculty, and practitioners in their goal and desire to translate research results into policies and actions.
This paper describes the objectives, rationale, methodology, and key contents of a module presented in a capacity-building program sponsored by PNHRS during the 2nd Philippine National Health Research System Week on August 13, 2008.
During the PNHRS Week celebration, several parallel sessions were held, one of which was the module on "Writing Policy Briefs." This particular module was carried out for one whole day, with 90 participants in attendance.
1 Case paper presented during the "Writeshop Methodology Review Workshop," sponsored by the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) and held at the IIRR Headquarters, Silang, Cavite, Philippines on July 7-9, 2010.
Module on Writing Policy Briefs: A Drawing Board for a Tool to Influence 81 Background
The PNHRS is a conglomeration of various stakeholders (academe, industry, government, civil society, professional organizations, and media) engaged in health-related research. Among its core agencies are the Department of Science and Technology-Philippine Council for Health Research and Development (DOST-PCHRD); Department of Health-Health Policy Development and Planning Bureau (DOH-HPDPB); the Commission on Higher Education-Office of Policy, Planning, Research and Information (CHED-OPPRI); and the University of the Philippines Manila-National Institute of Health (UP-NIH).
The PNHRS' mission is to create and sustain an What is a Policy Brief? enabling environment for health research
A Policy Brief is a 4-6 page write-up featuring toward evidence-informed health and health- an analysis and observation on a particular related policies and actions. It is widely issue, with implications to policy. recognized that there is an interplay of factors that determine why and how research-based Distinguishing features: and other forms of evidence related to health · Brevity - must be short and quick to read issues are likely to be adopted into policies and · Conciseness of points · Simplicity- has less abstractions and programs by policymakers and practitioners. includes laymanized concepts with One critical element is the manner and format concrete meanings and examples by which such research and evidence are · Reader-friendly - must have ease in transported and communicated to the policy language comprehension and does not sphere. contain technical jargons · Clarity and focus · Attractiveness/appeal The PNHRS recognizes that one way of · And most important, its policy orientation. attaining a more evidence-informed set of health policies and programs is to address this research-policy uptake linkage. This can be accomplished by capacitating health researchers not only in terms of improving the quality of research production but also — and equally important — in terms of being able to translate their research outputs into "policy- friendly" reports and write-ups. This can be done through skills development programs for policy advocacy and influence, one tool/ instrument of which is the policy brief; hence,
the conduct of the module on "Writing Policy Briefs."
82 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Workshop Methodology
To reiterate, the module was meant to help develop the skills of the members of PNHRS in translating research outputs into information product formats that are "policy-friendly." The objective was to increase the chances of these research outputs to be used as inputs in policy deliberations and in the design and implementation of programs. This could happen if policymakers and practitioners have better appreciation and understanding of the value of these policy-friendly information products.
The PNHRS participants expressed a desire to know more about the process of translating or packaging research results into more policy-friendly vehicles of information and knowledge that can serve as inputs in policy deliberations. They have heard of the usefulness of the policy brief as an effective vehicle for such.
Listed are the steps that the resource person undertook in teaching how to make an effective policy brief (Figure 1).
1. Profiling of participants and scoping
The resource person first sought out information from the program organizers on the profile of the participants, the expected size of the group, and their level of familiarity and knowledge with the concept of and experience on policy briefs. Given the relative difficulty of administering a pre-workshop questionnaire to the participants, due to the size and diversity of their places of origin (as relayed to the resource person), the desired advance information were therefore solicited only informally from the program organizers.
The expected number of participants ranged from 50-70 (the actual number was 90), coming from various institutions located in different parts of the country. The
Module Development and Implementation Profiling of Participants and Parts: Scoping 1. Introduction and familiarization of policy briefs 2 Workshop on drafting of policy briefs n Gathered information 3. Presentation and critiquing from organizers. 4. Conclusion 5. Evaluation
Figure 1. Profiling of participants and scoping
Module on Writing Policy Briefs: A Drawing Board for a Tool to Influence 83 participants comprised of varying work backgrounds: heads of research departments in academic institutions (from northern Luzon to Southern Mindanao), medical doctors, planning officers, educators/researchers, and economic specialists.
2. Module development and implementation
From the gathered information during the profiling, the resource person developed a module that was of a lecture-workshop format divided into four main parts: 1) introduction and familiarization of policy briefs; 2) workshop on drafting of policy brief; 3) presentation and critiquing; and 4) conclusion. The workshop was conducted for one whole day, specifically 3 hours in the morning and 4 hours in the afternoon.
a. Introduction and familiarization of policy briefs At the very beginning of the session, the resource person approached everyone, going from table to table, asking each about his/her background and what he/she hopes to get from the workshop. From there, the resource person was able to relate experiences that connected with the backgrounds and areas of work of many of the participants. The resource person also tried to interest them at the outset on the uniqueness and potential use of policy briefs in their work. This approach allowed for an active and dynamic discussion of the topic on hand.
In each part of the module, the interactive approach was employed. The resource person asked the participants to cite some of their own "encounters", if any, of policy briefs and to answer questions on some of the things discussed. Illustrations/examples were used to explain each element.
Given the limited time to absorb everything A very valuable factor in the discussions was the about the policy brief (normally, this kind openness and willingness of the participants to learn of a module is given for 2-21/2 days) and something which was new to them. Common to the that majority of the participants may not participants was all of them are, in one way or at all be familiar with the policy brief, the resource person tried first to establish full another, involved in health research either as the appreciation and understanding of the value producers themselves, administrators of the research, and usefulness of the policy brief among the or as educators. participants. Their resolve to initiate efforts in their respective institutions to begin They have all been engaged in undertakings that have writing and making policy briefs as part of their knowledge-sharing and dissemination information/knowledge and evidence which they feel products to "reach" the policymakers was are very important and should get into the policy and also banked on. program deliberation sphere so that they can help to further reform or improve the people's health and
84 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences overall well-being. Thus, they wanted something that would help them in the strengthening of this knowledge/research to policy/program uptake and linkage. The vehicle that they were introduced to was the policy brief. In the open forum, they raised questions on how they can effectively initiate the drafting of policy briefs as part of their advocacy. b. Workshop on drafting of policy briefs Part 2 was the drafting of policy briefs. Because of the huge number of participants, they were divided into four groups. Each group was assigned to read and study, individually, a particular 15-page report. They were then asked to discuss among themselves what they digested from the report and tried to see how they can come up with a proposed 3-4 page policy brief based on the report.
Unfortunately, by the time the participants finished reading the reports and started discussing, the time allotted for that part of the workshop was almost up and almost everyone was so tired that they found it quite difficult to focus on writing. c. Presentation and critiquing Among the four groups, only two presented outlines on how they planned to go about writing the policy brief. The other two groups begged off and instead offered to participate in the critiquing of the proposed outlines presented by other groups. d. Conclusion After the presentations and critiquing, the resource person concluded the session with a summation of key points.
Challenges
Some challenges faced by the resource person are outlined below.
1. Large group size. Ideally, a program of this type would be more beneficial with smaller groups more as attention would be more focused and interaction more dynamic. Since participants to the PNHRS capacity-building program were asked to choose the module that they wanted to attend, a large number signed up for this module. In fact, the final count ballooned to 90, from the tentative 50-70 figure earlier relayed to the resource person. Nonetheless, since the resource person was previously informed of the possible influx of participants, a strategy to get their attention and involvement right at the very beginning was already thought of. The session started off with an interactive opening with the resource person
Module on Writing Policy Briefs: A Drawing Board for a Tool to Influence 85 approaching each table in the big function room, trying to get to know the participants' interests and backgrounds, and to interest them at the outset on the uniqueness and potential use of policy briefs in their work. This approach allowed for an active and dynamic discussion of the topic on hand.
2. Time constraint. A program like this normally runs for 2 to 2-1/2 days. Unfortunately, because only one day was allocated, the resource person had to make the most of the time. Thus, the resolve to focus more on the introduction and familiarization aspects of the module rather than on the actual practice of drafting/ writing a policy brief. The goal was to have the participants really know and understand what a policy brief is all about, and to appreciate its relevance and use so that they will be encouraged to make it a part of their advocacy program to influence policy. This is also largely due to the fact that almost all, if not all, of the participants were not familiar with what a policy brief is, what it looks like, what it contains and how it is written. Thus, the resource person decided to really focus more on the introduction and familiarization portions.
Whether this decision was wise or not may be subject to discussion. On the one hand, based on the summary of feedback, all the participants found the presentation and discussions to be stimulating, useful, and interesting. In this sense, the resource person's objective of stimulating the participants' awareness, interest, and knowledge about the topic was achieved.
3. Lack of follow-up and/or uptake of practices. In a recent conversation with one of the organizers, the resource person found out that hardly any one, if at all, of the participants in the 2008 module had begun to write policy briefs as part of his/her work. The exact reasons were not known to the resource person but it would be interesting to find out why this was so. It could be due to institutional constraints or lack of time on the part of the participants. Or it could be that they are not confident enough to try to begin doing so.
Lessons Learned
Reflecting on what had transpired in the one-day capacity-building module, the following lessons were drawn:
1. Implementing modules like this need more than a day to enable participants to digest everything.
86 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences 2. Relatedly, fatigue can be a very limiting factor. Towards the end of the day, it became quite difficult for participants to focus. This very realistic problem calls for some adjustments in the scheduling of sessions. 3. A smaller group of participants is ideal to be able to impart the knowledge and techniques more intimately and thoroughly. 4. More examples and handouts referring to the particular sector of the participants should be given. In hindsight, the resource speaker realized that more examples related to the health sector should have been given. Unfortunately, there were not very many examples of policy briefs on this sector, thus, limiting the resource person's choices. 5. Adoption of the interactive approach led to a stimulating and dynamic discussion. Openness and willingness of the participants to learn something that is new to them were vital in the discussions.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The importance of promoting a greater research/knowledge to policy/practice uptake cannot be overemphasized. To be able to have a more evidence-based policy- and decision-making process, more ways or modes of translating knowledge/ research into policy or of reaching the policy sphere should be adopted. One tool or instrument for influencing and informing policy is the policy brief.
If prepared, conceptualized, and written well, the policy brief can be used as input in deliberations, reflection, and decision-making. It is thus important to formulate well-designed capacity-building programs for writing policy briefs not only in terms of content, but equally so, in terms of format, schedule, and group size. This will help ensure that the policy brief is indeed used as an effective tool for informing and influencing policy.
Module on Writing Policy Briefs: A Drawing Board for a Tool to Influence 87 Conducting Participatory Evaluation the Writeshop Way
Li Chanjuan 1, Qi Gubo 2 , Xu Xiuli 3 1 PhD Candidate and Research Assistant in the College of Humanities and Development Studies, China Agricultural University 2 Professor, College of Humanities and Development Studies, China Agricultural University 3 Associate Professor, College of Humanities and Development Studies, China Agricultural University
With the increasing concern for ensuring increased efficiency and effectiveness of agricultural research in helping small-scale farmers, experimentation has been directed at identifying the appropriate methodologies for conducting farmer- centered research. Farmer-centered research defines the role of farmers in the process of research, and the role of partnerships in tackling the complex realities faced by both farmers and researchers.
The International Research Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) supported the initial set-up of the Farmer-Centered Agricultural Research Network in China, under the coordination of the Center for Integrated Agricultural Development/ College of Humanities and Development (CIAD/COHD) of the China Agricultural University (CAU). CAU is a member of the wider network of institutions called Farmer-Centered Research Network, China or FCRNC.
The International Development Research Center (IDRC) provided a grant to the CIAD/COHD to further strengthen the network member institutions' capacity to conduct research activities. Action research contributed to building capacities of network members (attitude, realization and skills). This include farmer-centered research approaches, cross visits and study tours, trainings, workshops, and information sharing and publication.
This paper discusses the authors’ experience in using the writeshop methodology. The essential steps in the evaluation process and the behaviors and roles of the
Conducting Participatory Evaluation the Writeshop Way 89 relevant stakeholders involved in the Evaluation of Member institutions of Capacity Development (ECD) program are reviewed. FCRNC: Experiences on the effectiveness of the writeshop 1. Jilin Agricultural University process as a tool for documenting good experience 2. Inner-Mongolia Academy of are presented and some key factors contributing to Agricultural Sciences the success of the final outcomes are summarized. 3. Shanxi Academy of Agricultural Science 4. Center for Environment and Poverty Alleviation 5. Center of Biodiversity and Indigenous Background Knowledge 6. Yangliu Science and Technology Farmer-Centered Research Network, China (FCRNC) Association is an informal academic group consisting of 7. Yunnan University universities, research institutes, technical development 8. Shannxi Institute for Losses Plateau departments, and individuals which focuses on Control 9. Xinjiang Academy of Agricultural research, promotion, experimentation, and extension Science of participatory technology and research management. 10. Anhui College of Agricultural Involving 19 institutions, it was formally established in Technology and Science July 2000 . The network is committed to: 1) strengthen 11. Hebei Agricultural University farmer-centered research capabilities and policy 12. Centre for Environment, Development and Poverty Alleviation (CEDPA) impact; 2) increase the effectiveness and relevance of 13. Southwest Agricultural University the agricultural technology system, through the 14. Sichuan Academy of Agricultural promotion of participatory approaches within the Sciences research system; and 3) achieve the ultimate goal of 15. Guizhou Academy of Agricultural improving farmers' livelihoods. Sciences 16. Guangxi Subtropical Crops Research Institute From 2001 to 2004, the network focused on capacity- 17. China Academy of Tropical Agricultural building of member institutions in participatory Sciences agricultural research methods through trainings, 18. China Academy of Science small grants and trial projects, seminars, field visits, 19. China Agricultural University and the like. After 2004, apart from the capacity- building initiatives, the network started to look deeper into the policy implications of the participatory agricultural research approaches, including the impacts on institutional policies, local government policies, and even at higher levels. The network took on a new dimension, that is, information sharing and publication.
In 2005, the network carried out a systematic evaluation program of the small grant research projects and capacity-building experiences and results. The writeshop methodology was used in this systematic evaluation process to:
90 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences 1. capture observed changes on the individual, community, and institutional levels brought about by the capacity-building activities; 2. collect personal stories and evaluation papers from the network partners; 3. learn more about the participatory capacity evaluation methodology; and 4. improve the writing skills of network members with the end goal of publishing a book and several papers on assessment results.
Over the years, a number of network member institutions have undertaken field research using the farmer-centered research methods. Unfortunately, the good practices, experiences, and modest accomplishments from these efforts were not documented, consolidated, translated, and promoted. Some partners even conveyed regret saying, "We did a lot, but without any visible outcomes and results for the future."
Through the participatory evaluation program, the network aimed to systematically sum up the experiences and achievements of each case in the project. The evaluation sought to answer five key evaluation questions focusing on three stakeholder groups of the network. Individual questionnaire, focus group discussion, and key informant interview were used as the main methods for data collection.
The purposes of the system evaluation include the following: l To clarify how network activities contribute to the capacity-building of researchers, institutions, and local communities; l To systematically summarize experiences of network members (the last five years) in promoting China's agricultural research system policy reform and in mainstreaming the participatory approaches in this system; l To provide advice and suggestions for future capacity-building activities of more members and institutions in the network; and l To learn how to conduct capacity evaluation, especially the participatory technology development capacity-building assessment.
Prior to the actual evaluation, the methods were pretested in Shannxi (though it was not selected as a focus site due to some changes in the institutional structure). Initial data from all the involved researchers were recorded and questionnaires were sent to them by email. Out of the 215 researchers involved from 19 institutions, only 67 responded. Six institutes and their research sites were selected to be the focus of evaluation, while 11 institutes did the self-evaluation/self-reflection.
The compiled report and data will be published in the book titled, From the Laboratory/Station to the Field. To date, the book is still in the production stage (i.e.,
Conducting Participatory Evaluation the Writeshop Way 91 editing, revision). The self-evaluation reports were included in the Participatory Technology Development — Innovating China's Agricultural Science and Technology System, which brings together assessment papers of nine agencies. These articles reflected the cases in the early exploration process of Participatory Agricultural Research and Development in China. It was a reflection process of promoting the Chinese agricultural research change from the laboratory to the field. This evaluation program focused on the reflections of participatory agricultural research methods, the impacts, and the barriers in mainstreaming the process.
Writeshop Methodology
The following section illustrates how the evaluation process used the writeshop methodology (Figure 1).
1. Preparation phase
At the beginning of the evaluation program, the FCNRC network coordination group (NCG) already had some thoughts of the evaluation contents and the framework. But due to lack of experience in capacity-building assessments, the evaluation procedures changed frequently. This resulted in the compilation of data
Preparation Phase Finalization of Evaluation n Invited a consultant to Test Survey Framework and Design help in the capacity- building assessment n Pretesting of survey n Duties and n Consultant conducted was held in Shannxi. responsibilities of training workshops on n From the results of participant were clarified. capacity development the test survey, n From the results of the evaluation outline of FGD, Kls, test surveys, outline of n NCG designed and and questionnaires FGD, KLs, and detailed action plans to were revised. questionnaires were be used in the evaluation finalized. process. n Modified the guidelines and questionaire
Data collection, Printins of Review Report writing consolidation, and publication analysis
Figure 1. The participatory capacity-building assessment writeshop process.
92 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences which were not useful for the analysis. These dynamic changes in the process caused a big challenge in the evaluation index system design.
Later, the FCNRC got support from the International Potato Center - Users' Perspectives with Agricultural Research and Development (CIP-UPWARD), and invited a consultant from the same institution to help out in the capacity development assessment. The consultant provided training inputs through workshops on capacity development evaluation for network members over a period of six months.
The trainings and activities improved the evaluation capacity of each participant involved, including the In the evaluation process, some concerns professors, senior managers of institutions, network surfaced. For instance, the focus group interview really took so much time from coordination group, and also the students and young the farmers. How to sustain farmers' people in the organizations and communities. At the interest and effective participation in the same time, the activities served as a process adapting process was a challenge. For some key external knowledge and experiences to the local players, the task of making the personal Chinese context. and organizational questionnaires and key interview was a test of patience and persistence. Also, finding common time In a workshop held in December 2005 at Chongqing, among staff of member institutes also 11 member institutions presented and worked together proved to be very complicated. But with with the ECD on the participatory technology projects. the dedication and excellent coordination Output from that workshop were the framework and of all the participants and the network action plan to be used for the evaluation process. The coordination group, situations were managed. workshops did not only involve training, but also interactive discussions and brainstorming methods which upgraded the capacity of all the participants.
Eventually, the NCG was able to form a two-level evaluation plan: the network level and cooperating agencies level. Three aspects were evaluated: 1) the degree of capacity change on individuals, communities, and institutions, 2) the impacts of the network, and 3) the obstacles in mainstreaming the participatory research methodology in the agricultural research system.
2. Test survey
After several modifications on the guidelines and questionnaires, a test survey was held in Shannxi. From the test survey, the outline of focus group discussion and key interviews and individual questionnaire were formed. The set of materials factored in the farmer's level of knowledge and the variety of methods and
Conducting Participatory Evaluation the Writeshop Way 93 assessment tools in developing a detailed workflow of the evaluation process. This guaranteed that all the indicators were quantified and the evaluation results were under control.
3. Finalization of evaluation framework and design
After the Chongqing workshop, the NCG clarified the duties of each participant in the "FCNRC Evaluation Framework" based on the discussions results. Under the expert's guidance, the framework and design were finalized forming a multi- level (individuals and teams, organizations, communities and farmers, the network), multi-perspectives (combined assessment on the process and the results), and multi-dimensional evaluation framework system. It was a new assessment method and new perspective for participants. Figure 2 details the key actors and their roles in the writeshop process.
CAU and other network members Expert Group
n Collected, analyzed, and shared n Trained and guided the group research results n Provided assistance and n Wrote articles and final reports support to the team n Most important subjects in the n Coordinated activities conduct of assessment n Subjected to the assessment as primary assessment object
Network coordination Group (NCG)
n Assured an oversight function in the Farmers entire evaluation process n Organized exchange workshops and site n Most important sources of cross visits information n Provided support in the process n Assessed object in the assessment through network whole evaluation process coordination nand management n Topics evaluated: changes n Ensured the publication of findings, influenced their day-to-day including modifications in the evaluation living and agricultural and report, if any, and finalization of the final non-agricultural group and papers productions
Figure 2. The key actors and their respective roles and responsibilities.
4. Data collection, consolidation, and analysis
The evaluation program was divided into two parts:
94 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences 1. Field survey - Six cases were selected for this. The evaluation team composed of experts from CAU and the practitioners from local agencies were tasked to do this. They worked, lived, and learned together to familiarize themselves with the evaluation tools and methods to improve their own evaluation ability and skills. 2. Self-assessment - 11 agencies under FCNRS voluntarily participated to do the information-gathering, categorization, and report writing. Each of the volunteer institutions independently conducted this field assessment.
5. Report writing
The coordination group provided an outline to be followed in writing the evaluation report. To guide in the writing, the NCG invited several members of FCNRC, with writing experience such as university teachers to serve as resource persons. They were paired with each author. The NCG also provided a normative framework of report writing for each author based on the evaluation findings. The evaluation results were presented in a Products derived from the workshop to diagnose challenges and proposed writeshop process: solutions. Preliminary assessment results were then 1. Book on Participatory Technology summarized providing details of documented Development - Innovating China's experiences. Agricultural Science and Technology System published in October 2008 The early stages of report writing was a bit chaotic but 2. CBNRM course has been delivered was immediately addressed by the coordination in China Agricultural University, group by providing a standard outline for the peer Hebei Agricultural University, Jilin Agricultural University and review and report writing process. Even the outline Guangxi Agricultural University itself underwent repeated modifications to respond 3. Paper titled A Bright Future Comes to varying opinions from experts. Also, given the though Change: An Evaluation of divergence of authors' writing abilities and academic Farmer-centered Research Network background (e.g., some used formal reporting styles, in China included in the book Using Evaluation for Capacity while others were scholarly and academic). To Development: Community- Based address this, training in writing skills was conducted. Natural Resource Management in The proposed outline and review guidelines were Asia also simplified, taking out some difficult parts. Non- 4. Manual titled Participatory availability of baseline data for small grants project Technology Development - A did not help in the analysis process (comparison of Farmer-centered Research Field Manual the "before" and "after" scenario was not possible), 5. Posters themed Toward Policy hence, writing outline was adjusted according to the Impacts authors' requirements.
Conducting Participatory Evaluation the Writeshop Way 95 6. Review activities
Besides the peer-to-peer review, the NCG also organized two review activities where the invited resource persons gave feedback, comments, and suggestions for each article. Inputs from the exercise were given to the authors, who in turn revised their articles until it was acceptable for publication.
E-mails and telephone were the most useful communication tools between NCG and the authors in the review and revision of the reports. In hindsight, the review process shifted from a sometimes chaotic state to a state of consensus, through friendly compromises and continuous exchanges and open and smooth communication flows.
7. Printing of publication
Upon receiving all the final drafts, the NCG did the final revisions on each article. In October 2008, the evaluation report got published. Some evaluation articles were not included in this particular material but they are currently being revised for future publication.
Challenges and Lessons Learned
A writeshop is a powerful tool for documenting good practices on any theme, although in reality, the process presented several challenges. l Absence of baseline survey data. Without baseline data, the impacts of the participatory project implementation on capacity changes were hard to analyze. Therefore, the first part of the evaluation design sought to rebuild baseline data. In the self-evaluation stage, the same situation was experienced (papers appeared to be general/vague due to lack of verified data). So the network group proposed for a field survey or focus group interview to be undertaken. l Diversity confuses many. Authors with different backgrounds and different levels of writing skills posed coordination difficulties. Although the diverse academic backgrounds brought broader perspectives, it also contributed significant differences in writing styles and article quality. l Long-term process discontinued the writing process. Authors from the network agencies tended to leave their work post to pursue higher education or to find better opportunities in other institutions. This put a halt to the
96 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences writing process. But looking at it from a different perspective, personnel changes brought in more competent and younger people. This outflow of talent also brought the participatory method to other institutions. l Geographical difference was a hurdle. Remote locations of participants were also a challenge as there was not enough opportunity to discuss the articles face- to-face, further restricting opportunities to improve the quality of the book. l One hundred people have one hundred thoughts. Varying points of view and difficulty in bringing people to work towards the same objectives complicate matters. So compromises and concessions are important. During the writing process, one institution expressed its desire to withdraw. The review also called for more time than could be supported by the project. Though the process was difficult, the capacity development contributions were significant, especially for the writers.
Reviewing the whole evaluation process, several key factors emerged. l The strong support from the NCG group was one of the most important factors contributing to the success of the program. Its strong support was manifested in all aspects of the evaluation process (e.g., organizing seminars and exchange workshops, coordinating the assessment training, coordinating of assessment training and carrying out the writeshop, etc.). l Opportunities elicit participation. The program could not provide large amount of available funds to support time and labor. Yet, people participated because the program provided them growth and development opportunities. l Capacity-building, evaluation experience training, and teamwork were fundamentals that motivated people to join. l A timely adjustment of strategic plans to different circumstances was a key tool in the successful completion of this writing process. l Respect for other people's opinion is very important. Every person in the team, their ideas, and wishes should be respected. This principle encouraged people to join in. Network activities enhanced their capacities. l Attention to the quality of final results contributed greatly to the program's success.
Conclusion and Recommendations
To organize a successful writeshop, pay careful attention to: l Identifying common interests in order to determine relevant objectives l Building a team with sufficient ability or potentials to achieve goals
Conducting Participatory Evaluation the Writeshop Way 97 l Organizing a well-planned writeshop l Identifying the action framework and plan and defining each person's responsibilities and roles l Training participants on research development, social networking, effective writing, and healthy collaboration or teamwork. l Collecting and collating required and relevant data and information.
References:
Li Xiaoyun, Qigubo, and Xu Xiuli. 2008. Participatory Technology Development - Innovating China's Agricultural Science and Technology System. Mao Miankui, Li Xiaoyun, Qigubo, and Xu Xiuli. “A Bright Future Comes though Change: An evaluation of farmer-centered research network in China”, from the book of Using Evaluation for Capacity Development: Community- Based Natural Resource Management in Asia. Campilan, D., A. Bertuso, W. Nelles, and R. Vernooy (eds.).
98 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Using the Writeshop for Participatory Approaches in Education
Maksat Abdykaparov Program Manager Skills Training in Rural Areas (STAR) Program Helvetas, Swiss Association for International Cooperation 7220022, 43 \ 1 Grajdanskaya St., Bishkek, the Kyrgyz Republic
The Kyrgyz Republic is a small mountainous country located in Central Asia bordering China, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. It used to be one of the Soviet Republics and gained independence in 1991. The collapse of the Soviet Union has brought stressful and fundamental changes in all aspects of the peoples' lives (e.g. social, economy, education etc.). Transitioning to market economy, the agriculture sector contributes the most to the national domestic production while providing economic and livelihood opportunities for rural people.
One such opportunity is provided through the VET1 system. Although the system faces a number of challenges, it remains an effective means to address the learning needs of rural people and offers modern and effective ways of farming. The system is open for new innovations and tries to promote alternative learning approaches, which allow users of the VET education to enhance their potentials and create more possibilities. This program of Helvetas for the skills development sector has
1 VET aims to prepare people for work and also for all aspects of the social, economic, and technical environment rather than merely passing on task-specific skills. It refers not only to task-specific practical instruction, but also to a broader and more transferable type of learning which is required for continuing effectiveness in the work role and during the whole of an individual’s working life. http://www.donors.kg/upload/docs/ reports_and_studies/DonorsViewVocationalEducation_En.pdf
Utilizing Writeshop to Innovate Graduate Textbooks on NRM 99 been supporting local partners (e.g. vocational schools, training centers) in their endeavors to introduce innovative, attractive, and locally adapted rural education. This section describes the program approaches and the process of curriculum development through participatory approaches. The paper also shows the achievements, lessons learned, and future outlooks of the system.
Background
The Kyrgyz Government has been implementing a wide range of reforms, which includes the education sector emphasizing on decentralization, participatory decision-making, public management, and the like. In general, education (including vocational education), is considered important in growing the country's economy. With the societal and economic developments in the country, the private sector also requires more and more qualified and competent labor force. Likewise, the increasing number of farmers needs additional skills in farm management, production, processing, and marketing in order to be competitive and sustainable.
As the Kyrgyz Republic undergoes some changes and l Vocational schools are recognized as service providers development in its educational system, it is important to the Kyrgyz economy when it comes to provision of that key players take a major part in the entire process education and training programs that respond to the for several reasons: requirements and needs of employers or job providers. Hence, the business sector should be closely involved l The reforms can go smoothly and rather fast if the in developing the content of educational and training teachers/trainers themselves would be involved. materials, at all stages of development. Providing teachers/trainers with new equipment and teaching materials could encourage direct In summary, involvement in developing new programs, l Communities, as well as vocational schools, should curriculum, and textbooks. be involved at all steps of the change process in order l Participatory development of curriculum and to create the best, most adapted curricula, and textbooks would most likely elicit positive teaching educational/training system that integrates well into behavior and active participation in a learner- existing structures and can be easily managed by centered curriculum development. The teaching the existing staff of schools and education authorities. profession would also get more attractive and its l The involvement of community members in importance would be more recognized. developing proposed changes in the curricula and l In the old tradition under the planned economy, the educational system allows them to learn and people had low participation and decisions always practice their own skills in participation. This is come from the 'top'. Participatory approaches crucial for guaranteeing the implementation of create an atmosphere of creativity, which is participatory processes in the continuous updating important in generating a strong sense of ownership of the curricula and the management of the and feeling of satisfaction among key players. educational system.
100 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Education and training have been seen as primary enablers for people living in rural areas to achieve sustainable livelihoods in a climate of rapid social, cultural, and agro-ecological change. Therefore, local training providers are faced with the challenge of reorienting their curriculum and teaching approaches to be more learner- and client-based. This requires up-scaling of efforts in introducing, emphasizing, and developing the problem-solving skills, knowledge and understanding of marketing and management, ability to communicate effectively, and the right attitudes and values of the populace.
The Skill Training in Rural Areas (STAR) program supports local partners in adapting the agricultural vocational education system to the new situation of the private market economy. The program creates and implements new forms of education which enables rural citizens to gain relevant and applicable lessons and experience that is adapted to local conditions. The curriculum, teaching, and learning approaches are based on the realities of Kyrgyz life and are developed with the stakeholders: students, parents, teachers, local and national authorities, training providers, and private sector.
The introduction of the participatory approach was important in the decentralization efforts and in reducing the State's role in the society compared to the planned economy. In this regard, the involvement of practitioners, together with the trainers, in designing farmers' course was important to produce real and up-to-date training content. Definitely, the writeshop methodology was a useful tool in reaching the overall goal in the whole learning process, with wide and active participation of the main players in training governance (i.e., farmers, policy makers, trainers, students, parents). So far two agricultural training courses — one for 16 months and another for a 3-year duration — have been developed.
Writeshop methodology
Education is the gateway to community development. However, many rural communities are faced with the huge challenge of adapting to the market economy for which available trainings fail to respond appropriately to their needs. Moreover, the quality of trainings does not help in developing the business skills of the learners. Most vocational schools offer outdated and standardized training courses approved by national centers (top-down), thus, making it difficult for vocational schools to integrate programs in the local context. At the same time, communities do not participate actively in improving the services of these vocational schools and training providers. The STAR program has started to
Utilizing Writeshop to Innovate Graduate Textbooks on NRM 101 deviate from the conventional training styles in that it tries to involve all stakeholders in training implementation through participatory methods.
While the final beneficiaries of the project are the students attending the new farmer training courses, the staff of the vocational schools — namely the teachers and the school administration and the specialists from the National and Regional Methodological Centers of the State Agency for Vocational Education, are the main partners for the project. Their participation in developing the course structure, curricula, and textbooks allows for the adaption of innovations that focus on the needs of small-scale farmers or an apprenticeship system, which is completely new to the Kyrgyz Republic.
The involvement of the national education authorities guarantees that newly developed courses and the related certificates, curricula, and textbooks are standardized and officially approved. Furthermore, local farmers could contribute at all stages of development in order to guarantee the applicability of the curricula and the developed materials in the local context and environment.
The PCD process
The Participatory Curriculum Development (PCD) process is an emerging approach which builds on the many success stories of participation in development programs (Taylor, 2002). In a PCD process, the focus is not only on developing new curricula in a participatory way but also in building the capacity of the involved community members to run the PCD processes on their own in the future. There is growing evidence from many countries that the PCD approach improves the effectiveness and sustainability of training courses by creating partnerships between the trainers, participants, and others who have an interest in the training and its outcomes (Taylor, 2003). PCD allows the local community to define what knowledge and skills are needed in order to become a successful farmer entrepreneur.
Thus, the training courses focused on developing practical skills which allow the graduates to improve their knowledge on farm management and entrepreneurship (e.g., home-based processing, handicraft production, etc.), thus, improving their household income. Furthermore, the students got to formulate and implement their own business plan with the help of a micro-credit facility which allows them to learn proper credit utilization and management and creates conditions for successful entrepreneurship in their local community. Last but not the least, the students were required to pass an apprenticeship period on a farm. Experience showed that during
102 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences the apprenticeship, a mutual learning process took place. The students learned valuable practical skills from the farmer, while the latter acquired additional theoretical skills from the student and the textbooks.
By using PCD, female farmers, students, and teachers were able to convey the need to be trained for specific skills and knowledge that would help them become successful farmers, through the development of competence profiles which in turn provided the basis for curriculum development. Similarly, textbooks were developed in a participatory way with a balanced mix of men and women farmers and teachers discussing the content with the authors. All teaching materials were written in the national language Kyrgyz, facilitating the replacement of old and outdated Russian textbooks.
The PCD process (Figure 1) was quite intensive and the writeshop methodology was one of the tools that made the process smooth and efficient. During the process, text and visuals were used to record information and share knowledge with the participants. The process helped all the participants share their experiences in a particular area of interest through written cases and experiences. It also allowed them to deepen their understanding through a series of sessions. The reflection also helped fine-tune the contributions and actions of policy makers and employers as well as providers. As a tool, the writeshop helped document all reflections and lead to the production of several outputs: curriculum, training needs assessment, recommendations, and regulations.
Despite having participants with different backgrounds and views, the participatory approach and writeshop methodology guided them in finding topics of common interest. Even as facilitating a big crowd proved challenging, the results of such great work inspired the participants with the thought that they are the most important asset and resources there is. Another inspiration was that participants were provided with an opportunity to learn from each other and arrive at common agreements. The resource persons contributed a lot in helping bring shape to the topic at hand. The participants also assisted in the editing, proofreading, and revisions of educational and training materials while the STAR program supported the circulation and publishing costs. In this sense, the writeshop also became a capacity-building instrument.
The structure and organizational processes of the Kyrgyz VET system, created through a top-down approach during Soviet times, have hardly been changed over the last 15 years. There was hardly any decentralization of the system with most management decisions being taken at the level of the central education
Utilizing Writeshop to Innovate Graduate Textbooks on NRM 103 Inception Workshop Training Needs Assessment (TNA)
n Involved all key stakeholders on PCD n Formed a working group involving stakeholders n Agreed on the main purposes and n Planned and prepared a TNA, agreed on the reasons of the planned actions, i.e., methodology and process of the Participatory curriculum development and working Rapid Appraisal (PRA) areas for intervention n Identified the required knowledge, skills, and n Clarified potential constraints and attitudes (KSA) factors for further development of the process n Introduced the idea of PCD and the benefits of using this method Conceptualization of Current Curriculum n Identified potentials and roles of Framework and Content stakeholders and their involvement in the PCD process n Developed the curriculum framework and n Developed action plan for content implementation n Reflected on the results of the TNA n Agreed on organizational issues and n Undertook a participatory review of existing logistics curriculum and learning materials n Formulated curriculum goals, main learning objectives, topics and content
Training Workshop Curriculum Development n Developed the learner-centered method of Training of Trainers (ToT) n Developed the curriculum framework based on n Conducted the learning materials the set framework development training n Developed specific learning objectives n Build the capacities of trainers to n Wrote the more detailed curriculum content plan, develop, use, and apply new, n Identified and prepared/adapted learning learner-centered teaching methods materials through training n Identified the appropriate learning methods n Developed the assessment/evaluation instrument
Testing of Revised Curricula
n Tested new/revised curricula n Implemented new curricula with groups of students/trainees and evaluated and further modified the curricula as required and as necessary
PCD Refinement
n Refined the PCD evaluation system in terms of stakeholder participation, teacher performance, student performance, and training impacts
Sustained the PCD Process
n Maintained the process of PCD n Reviewed the PCD process through M&E system, revise, maintain, and support as necessary
Figure 1. The Participatory Curriculum Development process
104 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences authority. Therefore, the vocational schools had very few links to the community they were situated in and the community hardly took any responsibility for their local training provider. The local community members were often not aware of the course offerings and new developments at their own vocational school. Most vocational schools did not conduct training needs analyses among the local community nor were they linked up with employers (to adapt their course offerings to the labor market demands). Both employers and the administration of the vocational schools were waiting for the other party to take the initiative to ensure that trainings relate to the demands of the labor market.
Following the participatory development approach to producing curricula and textbooks, the teachers were empowered through methodological and subject- related trainings offered by the program. As there was no government financing for lesson materials, the STAR program initiated, together with the rural community, the Local Vocational Training Funds which co-financed the operational costs of training. Through (half-yearly) investment projects for improving classrooms and workshops and the tailor-made school manager qualification program, the STAR program supported the administration of the partner schools in improving their management and the relevance of the vocational schools.
This new approach was based on the principles of "New Public Management" theory which divides education into four functions: ownership, financing, provision, and demand. For a sustainable and market-oriented provision of VET, each function of education had to be assigned to clearly defined actors. The demand was expressed by the users of VET (directly through the clients of a course and indirectly by way of the labor market requirements for self-employment). So far, no VET providers exist other than the government vocational schools. Although allocating the ownership and financing function was somewhat more difficult, it was made clear, in the current context of insufficient government financing, that only a wide coalition of local and national community members can guarantee a sustainable financing and ownership of local VET training offers. In order to organize this function at the local level, the STAR program developed, together with its community members, the innovation of "Local Vocational Training Funds" abbreviated in the Kyrgyz language as KOJO 2.
The approach chosen by the STAR program to create the KOJO through participatory bottom-up processes was rather unique and this approach was
2 KOJO is the abbreviation of “Local Vocational Training Fund” in Kyrgyz. At the same time in the Kyrgyz language “Kojo” can also mean owner or host. More information about the KOJO can be found on www.kojo.kg
Utilizing Writeshop to Innovate Graduate Textbooks on NRM 105 chosen to strengthen the local ownership of training through participatory processes. The idea of local ownership and fundraising was explained to the staff and administration of the vocational school for them to decide whether they wanted to take on this new approach. After receiving the commitment of the school staff, the STAR program supported them in organizing a village assembly where all community members were invited to participate.
Since the agricultural training course is financed through the KOJO, the main target groups are the local farmers and members of agricultural cooperatives. Furthermore, potential financers such as representatives from local (processing) enterprises, cooperatives, local and regional administration and other locally influential people such as village elders were invited to the assembly, too.
During the assembly, the school staff outlined to the local community the new agricultural training courses offered and explained the idea of local fundraising and ownership. If the assembly decided to create a KOJO and support the local vocational school in fundraising, a Steering Council (SC) would be elected out of the members of the assembly. After the assembly, the SC, which consists of at least two-thirds of farmers, announces the position of a leader of the KOJO and selects a suitable candidate.
With the new approach, the teachers and school administration have to plan carefully expenses to ensure cost efficiency of training (as the budget cannot be higher than the financing capacity of the local community plus additional potential donor contributions). During the SC meeting and the yearly assembly, the local community is informed about the expenditures and feedback is obtained from the local community.
Lessons learned and recommendations
Participatory approaches are essential components for the success of the STAR program in bringing about change in the vocational education at all levels - from the classroom up to the government offices. However, participatory approaches only work if they are carefully planned and correctly applied. Furthermore, participation should not be a dogma. The experience in Kyrgyzstan showed that a pragmatic approach is ideal when using participatory models and it should be determined to what extent it should be used. Some lessons learned through the STAR program are as follows:
106 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences 1. Presume optimal ignorance when handling PCD. In conducting participatory workshops, it should be clarified to the participants at the outset what information is needed and relevant for the planned development activity. Rather than impose participation, an appropriate level of "optimal ignorance," as used in Participatory Rural Appraisals should be applied. State explicitly the opinions and views of the community members in achieving the set objectives.
2. Well-guided participatory processes yield better results. In the PCD process, it is important to have important and related written documentation (e.g., curriculum) prepared for each step of the process for more efficient implementation. Inputs from community members should also be factored in. This allows for a more grounded and concrete discussion of the proposals. Community members may not be experts in the topic and if pressured to participate, they may be forced to formally accept pre-fabricated solutions. This can be further complicated by misinterpretation of written text which is not critically discussed by the community members.
3. Level off with community members. Participatory steering and monitoring of a project is a valuable tool to improve accountability and adequateness of project interventions. However, community members involved in these can only fulfill the expected functions if they possess the necessary and enough knowledge about the project.
4. Quick results vis-a-vis actual learning. For participatory processes to be sustainable, a longer project timeframe is needed to ensure intensive training and coaching of the community members is undertaken, to develop the desired participatory behavior. As projects tend to be rather short and result-oriented, there is not enough time allocated to processes — particularly the learning processes. This and the constant fluctuation in the number of trainees can impact on the capacity of the community members to develop the participatory behavior. Thus, attention should be provided to ensure a good balance between achieving quick results and pacing out the entire learning process.
5. Participation should be at all levels. Knowledge and learning products (such as curricula, textbooks, etc.) that are created in a participatory manner may also be applicable to other regions of a country, with other groups of people. Additionally, they can be mainstreamed from the field level into national policies. However, this requires the involvement
Utilizing Writeshop to Innovate Graduate Textbooks on NRM 107 of sectors at varying levels at the outset. There are risks that the participatory approaches are not recognized at the policy level and/or remain at the pilot level.
6. Impediments to participatory processes. Participatory approaches are prone to be taken over and distorted by influential community members in a social position to impose changes against the will of the other community members. If such personal (often financial) interests are put above social and institutional development goals, then participation will fail. Participatory approaches need to have clear rules which are agreed upon by the community members and their continuous commitment has to be guaranteed. When there is misuse of funds and corruption, donors should be swift enough to discontinue support by intervening or stopping the financing.
7. The right timing for handing over a project is vital. Switching from the top-down system to participatory approaches can stimulate the enthusiasm and creativity of community members, eventually resulting in productive outcomes. The more participatory the implementation process, the easier the project turn over would be. Keeping and sustaining this spirit is crucial. Determining the right and ripe time for the handing-over of the project to the community is essential. Community members develop a dependency attitude from too long facilitation of the process. Leaving the community prematurely, may also diminish their motivation and interest. Insufficient skills in implementing participatory approaches by the community members, combined with the phasing out of outside funding, can bring participatory processes to a complete standstill.
108 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Utilizing Writeshops to Innovate Graduate Textbooks on NRM
Isaac Bekalo International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) Silang, Cavite, Philippines
With contributions from Pascal Sanginga
Numerous publications in natural resources management (NRM) and related fields can be found in many African universities, but such resource materials often have limited or no relevance to the African context and concerns. Additionally, most of the materials on the graduate and post-graduate level do not include relevant case studies drawn from the region, written by African authors for the unique needs of that region. Moreover, such books are expensive and students often share limited copies. Graduate students have limited practical knowledge of local realities, making it difficult for them to influence development in general and NRM in particular. Members of the faculty either do not possess the local development experience or are constrained with time, preventing them from writing the kind of textbooks that they need. There are also few mechanisms to coordinate curricula or share teaching materials across universities. Educational institutions in Eastern and Southern Africa have struggled to address these problems, including local knowledge gap in NRM and other development fields.
This situation prompted the idea of bringing together a diverse team of African scholars, academics, and experts working on different aspects of NRM in Africa to produce locally relevant graduate and post-graduate materials in NRM and related fields. The resulting textbook represented collective endeavors to filter and contextualize NRM concepts, theories, and practices for Eastern and Southern Africa, while offering opportunities for exploring the linkages between African NRM and development from a broader people-centered perspective. The book
Utilizing Writeshop to Innovate Graduate Textbooks on NRM 109 was written to encourage a new way of thinking, teaching, and learning to improve the current knowledge base and practice of NRM in the quest for the more sustainable socio-ecological systems that Africa needs.
Background
Research and knowledge about local NRM already exist. The International Research Development Centre (IDRC) and other international and national development partners have accumulated learning and field experiences in Eastern and Southern Africa over the years. Their work have produced a considerable body of knowledge about innovative approaches, field methodologies, and lessons learned. However, with exceptions, there has been limited utilization of these valuable research outputs, and field-based experiences have not been packaged into teaching materials.
Responding to this issue, the Regional Center of IDRC, through its Poverty and Environment Programme, and the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) led an effort to produce the NRM textbook. IIRR has championed and taught the writeshop process for more than 20 years as a tool for documenting and synthesizing knowledge into popular, user-friendly, and more understandable pieces of literature. It lays claim to having produced over 70 publications (e.g., field guides, resource books, manuals, tool kits, etc) using the writeshop process.
The multi-disciplinary team convened for the creation of the book consisting of lecturers from the University of Nairobi, Egerton University, Kenyatta University, University of Zimbabwe, University of Malawi, Makerere University, and University of Dar-es-Salam along with NRM experts from regional and international research organizations including the International Centre for Research in Agro Forestry (ICRAF), World Agroforestry Center, IDRC, IIRR, Africa Forest Forum, Nairobi Museum, and RUFORUM. The writeshop process and results are detailed below.
Writeshop Methodology
The writeshop methodology pioneered by IIRR is a participatory approach which is adapted to produce relevant and well contextualized learning and resource materials for specific audiences. In this case, university lecturers, professors,
110 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences researchers, doctoral students, together with facilitators, came together and produced the NRM book. In August 2009, a 2-day planning workshop was organized in Nairobi to introduce participants to the writeshop The writeshop has several advantages over a process and to challenge them to work as conventional method of producing a publication. It a team to produce textbooks relevant to speeds up the production process, taking full African NRM. The participants developed a advantage of experts who participate. A team of table of contents for the NRM book and subject matter experts contribute to each topic which identified relevant NRM case studies from the region. provides opportunity for technical peer review. Having the post-graduate students in the writeshop A SC was elected and they were tasked to provided an opportunity for pretesting the NRM work with IIRR staff to lead the process, material for relevance and simplicity. The experience ensure that the work was of the highest quality, assess progress along the way, and of lecturers and professors in curriculum design and identify new authors and case studies as materials production contributed to improving the needed. A lead author and co-author/s quality of learning objectives and outcomes, review were also selected to write assigned questions, and methods proposed. chapter/s. The SC then identified peer reviewers for each chapter (in most cases professors or lecturers in NRM). Two From their experience in various fields of NRM, students were selected to join the review participants contributed practical NRM cases from team that would critique each chapter their own work and works of their colleagues. The using a review guide. writeshop was an opportunity for learning, A content editor was appointed to review exchanging, and networking among researchers and all the final drafts (but because of time teachers, across the various universities offering constraints, this did not happen). Work on NRM courses. Knowledge translation, simplification, the draft chapters commenced and the and synthesis were achieved during the writeshop. team worked remotely for eight (8) Because the process involved many people and months. Reviewers' comments and edits organizations, the publications were subsequently were incorporated by the authors as they refined their manuscripts into final drafts widely distributed and used. for presentation during the writeshop in April 2010. The writeshop process was divided into three phases, namely: 1) the preparatory phase; 2) the writeshop; and 3) the post-writeshop phase.
Phase 1: The Preparatory Phase
The writeshop process (Figure 1) began with a needs assessment to establish the demand and requirements for a graduate-level resource book in NRM. Visits to universities offering NRM post-graduate programs formed part of the process where a review of program content and discussions with post-graduate lecturers was undertaken.
Utilizing Writeshop to Innovate Graduate Textbooks on NRM 111 An exploratory scoping study was also commissioned to assess the state of NRM teaching and the best practices in selected universities in Eastern and Southern Africa. As part of the scoping study, department heads, university lecturers, researchers, and post-graduate students were interviewed.
A content analysis of the different program modules and course units on NRM was also done. The results were presented to a steering committee (SC) and to a group of university lecturers and NRM researchers and practitioners. The results of both the needs assessment and the scoping study clearly established a significant gap in locally-focused NRM teaching and revealed a considerable interest in and commitment to developing appropriate teaching and learning materials.
Phase 2: The writeshop
The bulk of the book was produced during an intensive participatory writeshop held on April 22-29, 2010 in Nairobi involving 25 authors, NRM specialists, facilitators, editors, university students, and logistical staff. During the writeshop, the content editor presented general guidelines for reviewing each chapter. Each chapter was designed to include a brief introduction, learning objectives and outcomes, the body of the text, case studies from the region, learning activities, review questions, and chapter summary.
Workshop participants were grouped into clusters of 4-5 people according to their strengths and interests to review and critique each chapter and provide feedback to the lead author and co-authors. Each group's feedback was shared in a plenary session to allow for further comments from the content editor and other participants.
The lead authors and co-authors incorporated the comments into second drafts which were again presented in a plenary session to elicit more comments and gain approval. The participants focused their critiques on the content flow, clarity of the learning objectives and outcomes, relevance of the learning activities, appropriateness of the selected case studies, and relevance of the review questions. After receiving the final feedback, the authors and co-author/s produced a third draft — the final output of the writeshop.
Phase 3: Post-writeshop
In the usual post-writeshop process, the third draft is sent to a language editor who also completes the layout, and generates a camera-ready text for printing. In this case, some adjustments were made because of the size and level of complexity
112 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Writeshop Proper
First Draft Review n Facilitator oriented participants to the writeshop process and Preparatory Phase Post Writeshop agreement was established on the review guide, authorship, copyright, n Identified knowledge and distribution procedures. n Editorial team gaps and developed n Author/co-authors presented drafts reviewed all chapters proposal to the plenary and took note of and rewrote and n Conducted a scoping comments incorporated new text study to assess the n Group critiqued the first draft using and case studies. state of NRM teaching review guidelines n Diagrams, tables, and and uncover needs n Authors/co-authors developed the charts were redrawn n Held a planning 2nd draft based on comments from by the artist. workshop to develop group, content editor and other n Authors and co- table of contents, resource persons. author/s made the agree on themes and final reading and chapters, identify Second Draft Presentation revisions. authors and co- n Authors presented 2nd draft to the n Did the professional authors, and select plenary, citing major changes made language editing, relevant case studies (e.g., revised table of content, design/layout, and objectives, learning outcomes, n Nominated the printing preparation cases studies, learning activities, Steering Committee n Printing, book launch, and review questions, etc.) (SC) and distribution n Authors/co-authors revised text n Authors and co- based on suggestions from the authors wrote draft group. manuscripts. n New case studies and learning n Draft articles were activities were incorporated. peer reviewed by selected lecturers and Third Draft Completed PhD students. n Authors presented revised second n Authors and co- draft. authors revised the n Authors and co-authors manuscripts to incorporated the changes produce first draft. suggested by workshop n Content editor was participants and resource persons. recruited to review all n Third drafts were produced by the chapters. end of the writeshop. n Participants agreed on the book title and proposed suggestions for cover page.
Figure 1. The process for the production of textbooks for graduate students of the topic. The original plan was for the content editor to do the final revision, refinement of text, cross-referencing of the various sections of the book, filling of information gaps, enhancement of the text with new case studies, and work on the flow of information. But this proved to be too complex for one individual to handle. Instead, the IIRR and IDRC representatives called in an external expert who formed the editorial team to primarily do the final review of the content.
Utilizing Writeshop to Innovate Graduate Textbooks on NRM 113 The 3-person editorial team worked with an artist over four days to review each chapter and make all the necessary adjustments and revisions. The finalized chapters were later sent to each of the original authors and co-author/s to give the manuscript a final review. Then, the manuscript was sent to a commercial firm for professional language editing, indexing, cross-referencing, bibliography checking, quality checking of the drawings, generation of the table of contents, and coordination with the printer. An official book launch is set in time for the Agriculture Ministers and University Vice-Chancellors Meeting in November 2010 in Kampala, Uganda.
Writeshop participants People hold different roles before, during, and after the writeshop. During the writeshop, a total of 25 people participated which included the authors, co-author/ s, graduate students, a content editor, facilitators, and support staff. The following table outlines their roles and responsibilities.
Table 1. Roles of the various actors in the writeshop process.
Actors Roles
IIRR team / l Responsible for the overall coordination, leadership, and communication with secretariat all actors l Chaired the SC and set the agenda l Undertook research on the information needs l Assembled the technical team and contracted external resource persons l Identified case studies and other resource materials l Organized all logistics, managed project funds, and was responsible for financial reporting
Steering l Provided the IIRR team committee l Reviewed progress, especially during the writing of the manuscripts l Identified authors, co-authors, peer reviewers, and graduate students who helped in the review process l Supported IIRR in gathering relevant research works and other documents l Served as information sources to the IIRR team and authors l Reviewed and approved the author’s guide
Authors and co- l Worked together to write the draft manuscripts authors l Revised manuscripts based on feedback from peer reviewers l Participated in the writeshop, revised individual manuscripts, and incorporated suggestions from other writeshop participants l Finalized the manuscript based on suggestions by the editorial team during the post-writeshop period
Peer reviewers l Using guidelines provided, they reviewed and gave written feedback on the specific manuscript in their area of expertise
table continued next page...
114 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences ...Table 1 continued
Actors Roles
Graduate students l Reviewed specific manuscripts from a learner's perspective l Participated in the writeshop and critiqued each manuscript from the perspective of graduate students, the primary intended users of the resource book
Content editor l Developed a review guide to be used to critique manuscripts during the writeshop l Participated in the writeshop and provided comments on each manuscript
Language editors, l Did the professional editing design, and layout l Cross-referenced chapters and texts across the book l Checked references, bibliography (content and style), and did the indexing l Ensured the quality of drawings, charts, and diagrams and boxes l Generated the final table of contents for the book l Did the layout and design of the book l Coordinated with the printer
Artist l Drew or redrew diagrams, charts, figures, boxes, and tables as needed l Designed the cover page
Facilitator l Managed and coordinated the entire process and ensured that tasks were accomplished on time l Informed authors and work groups of their roles and when they were expected to present or contribute l Provided critical comments on the content of each manuscript and identified gaps in each chapter l Developed daily schedule and ensured that manuscripts were photocopied and distributed for advance reading l Coordinated with the support team for logistics and ensured needed materials were provided to authors and others l Facilitated all sessions and ensured timely completion of tasks
Editorial team l Reviewed each chapter for consistency and completeness l Filling in information gap l Generated new information and cases l Generated new diagrams and other illustrations l Re-wrote learning objectives, outcomes, learning activities and review of some topics
Secretarial and l Tracked expenses and required reimbursements administrative l Photocopied drafts for authors and other participants to read support group
The textbook content The book contains nine chapters of comprehensive review of the major areas and issues on NRM development in Africa. These chapters follow a sequence designed to help the readers, teachers, and learners to achieve a progressive mastery of the different concepts, theories, and issues in the field. Each chapter was structured to make the reading and learning as interesting and engaging, yet systematic and
Utilizing Writeshop to Innovate Graduate Textbooks on NRM 115 academic, as possible. Each chapter starts by outlining the objectives and learning outcomes and presents an overview of the content. Learning activities and review questions are meant to stimulate discussion and to make the teaching and learning interactive and lively.
Adapting the writeshop process for an academic publication Producing an academic book required considerable adaptation of the writeshop process that IIRR and its partners typically use to produce publications. The adaptations were evident in each phase of the process although some differences were discovered along the way.
1. Writeshop participants. Unlike the general audience of most IIRR publications, this one focused on the academic community. Participants of the writeshop were researchers, lecturers, professors, and graduate students. The usual IIRR writeshop participants like farmers and extension workers were not invited.
2. Format of the book. Care was taken that the book meets academic standards which included referencing, bibliographic citations, learning objectives and outcomes, learning activities, and review questions at the end of each chapter. Typically, writeshop materials are not meant to be taught in a group context; rather, they are individually read.
3. Peer review. Most academic publications require a peer review process which was also adapted for this publication. For each chapter, a professor or lecturer and a graduate student were selected to review a particular chapter within their realm of expertise. In most IIRR publications, the review process during the plenary sessions (with participants of varying field of expertise) of the writeshop was considered adequate.
4. Content editors. Given the length of the book (more than 500 pages), it was not possible to provide comments and feedback for each chapter, page by page, during the writeshop. It became necessary to engage a highly knowledgeable and experienced content editor to undertake a pre-writeshop critique of the various chapters, participate in the writeshop as a main resource person, and finalize the content after the writeshop.
5. Language editor. The language editors, the key actors in most of the other IIRR publications, were not invited to attend the writeshop since the focus during the writeshop was to complete the content. The language editing was
116 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences postponed until the content was completed. This also conserved the overall costs of having a language editor attend the writeshop when the content was not yet ready. The Nairobi University Press was commissioned to do the language editing, design, and layout of the publication instead of hiring individuals to assist at the writeshop.
6. Writeshop participants. Conventional writeshops typically have 40-50 participants and include farmers and extension workers. Unlike most IIRR writeshops, this one had fewer participants (25), mainly authors and co- authors from the academic community. Usually, 2-3 language editors attend such workshops in addition to the content editor. Likewise, it was not necessary to invite an artist to the writeshop, since the task was more of redrawing existing illustrations and not creation of new ones. These changes contributed to a reduced production cost.
7. Review process. Given the size of each chapter (40-50 pages), the authors and co-authors were clustered into small groups of 4-5 people. Each group was assigned a chapter to read individually and then as a group, to generate practical comments. The group presented their combined comments during a plenary session where the facilitator, content editor, and the authors took notes. The authors then incorporated the comments and produced the second draft. Finally, the authors presented their work in a plenary session, detailing the major changes they had made focusing on learning objectives and outcomes, learning activities, practical case studies, and review questions.
8. Editorial team. Originally, it was planned that one content editor will complete the work. But it was discovered that the task was too complex for one person. Hence, a team of three editors was formed to do the final review of each chapter. Each of the editors took care of 2-3 chapters based on their knowledge of the subject matter. The work ranged from complete rewriting of some sections; reorganizing text between sections to ensure coherence; identifying new or improving on existing charts, tables, or diagrams to be added; and developing learning objectives, outcomes, and activities. Side by side with the editors, the artists worked to redraw diagrams, tables, and charts. The revised text was then sent to the authors for final comments after which it was sent for language editing, design, and layout.
9. Authorship and copyright. In previous IIRR publications, all writeshop participants were acknowledged through direct reference accompanied by a brief biography at the end of the publication. In this case, following traditional
Utilizing Writeshop to Innovate Graduate Textbooks on NRM 117 academic procedure, the main authors, co-author/s, and contributing authors were listed at the beginning of each chapter. This explicitly gave credit to each author for their work.
Challenges and Lessons Learned
This was the first academic textbook written using the writeshop process. Working with the academic community required an understanding of the academic environment and its unique culture. The following were some challenges and lessons learned.
1. Author commitment. Most of the authors were busy individuals teaching classes and engaged in various consultancies to supplement income and enhance their professional growth. This made it difficult to get quality work product completed in the time period required. It required a patient and dedicated team in the project leadership to get the work delivered. It was important to time writeshops (for academic publications) when universities are out of session.
2. Peer review. Like the authors, the peer reviewers were busy people. Unlike the authors who were promised some monetary incentive and recognition, there was little to motivate the peer reviewers to engage actively and in a timely manner. It took a lot of time and persuasion to get feedback and quality work done. Provision of incentives to peer reviewers in the future might be considered.
3. Steering committee. The contribution of the steering committee was very much dependent on individual interest and dedication. Selection of committed individuals was a key to the success of the publication. The few committed members contributed considerably and it was important to limit the numbers to those committed few.
4. Content editor. This new concept of bringing in a content editor was thought to be useful but was eventually proven to be counterproductive. Although the task was clearly spelled out in the job contract, the person chosen did not have the needed capacity for the task. Time was wasted in trying to make the system work and later, to resolve disputes. The content editor must have a clear idea of the process and ample time should be given for understanding the process. Careful selection of support staff and resource persons is also essential.
118 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences 5. Time management. There were so many variables which made it difficult to determine the delivery time of the written products. Even during the tightly- managed writeshop, some of the authors who confirmed their attendance pulled out at the last minute. Careful identification and selection of the few participants who are committed to the process is crucial to get the tasks completed in time.
6. Money matters. In Eastern Africa, where the cost of living is high, university lecturers look for ways to supplement their income. While there were some who would willingly commit to professional engagements such as the writeshop, absence of financial incentives may discourage participation and the job may not be done on time. Adequate budget allocation to cover professional costs is important.
Conclusion
Despite the challenges faced, the writeshop approach resulted in a compilation of knowledge and training materials derived from African practice and anchored on the expressed needs of the African students and academic institutions. The writeshop process emphasizing local knowledge generation, translation, documentation, packaging, and use has demonstrated to African universities a valid and effective tool for curriculum development. After this successful pilot, the individuals involved may want to come together to develop common course curricula, materials, and syllabi. In the long run, such cooperation could pave ways for graduate students to cross-enroll, transfer credits from one university to another, and ease the exchange of faculty across universities and colleges. Our hope is that this will ultimately contribute to the overall improvement in academic quality and relevance of education in the region.
Furthermore, the collaboration between academic faculties will build a critical capacity in the Eastern African universities for continuous documentation and use of the African experiences, making education relevant to the development needs in the region. The writeshop process has proven itself again to be very powerful in that it draws from the knowledge, experience and expertise of many actors. Bringing together such a rich diversity of personalities, skills, views and experiences through the writeshop process has proven to be ideal for nurturing professional and personal relationships. The production of this first book with universities and research institutions fulfills IIRR's long-term desire and interest to translate the writeshop process for higher learning institutions.
Utilizing Writeshop to Innovate Graduate Textbooks on NRM 119 Using a Writeshop for Publication Development in Cambodia
Keam Han and Karlyn Olsen The Learning Institute, 2010
Publication development is a complex and lengthy process. It often involves compiling works by many authors from different backgrounds and fields of expertise into a single document. In these instances, publishers are faced with the challenge of establishing a common writing style, technique, and procedure among multiple authors. One method that can be used to set a basis for publication development is through writeshops. Writeshops are workshops that intend to set a standard among participants on writing techniques, sourcebook production, curriculum development, case studies, or other print materials.
This case paper provides an opportunity for others to learn about the practical experiences of key selected writeshops, conducted to document various approaches used in community-based natural resource management (CBNRM)
Using Writeshop for CBNRM Publication Development in Cambodia 121 in Cambodia. Documentation of these practices served as a platform to learn and share among multiple stakeholders across the country. In addition, the outcomes of the writeshops contributed to producing useful publications/sourcebooks which identified and analyzed key emerging trends, challenges, and innovations for CBNRM approach development and implementation.
The CBNRM publication was facilitated and coordinated by the Learning Institute (formerly the CBNRM Learning Institute) with a mixture of professional researchers, CBNRM practitioners, students, and policy makers. Experiences from the development of other publications and case studies were used to ensure a high quality and effective product.
Background
The CBNRM Volume II is the outcome of a series of learning symposiums, consultations, meetings, and workshops, staged over a period of two years with local and international practitioners and academics working in the field of CBNRM. By working with a multi-disciplinary team with different expertise and experiences, many different ways of writing and designing papers contributed to the quality of the publication produced. Their collaborative efforts led to the development of 31 chapters by more than 70 authors and involving 30 peer reviewers who all shared their skills and experiences and dedicated their time and energy to the process.
Writeshop Methodology
To ensure a high quality standard of writing papers, the writeshop methodology was designed and implemented in the process of developing the publication — both the quality of the outcome and the process of development were given emphasis.
A clear strategy and mechanism was designed and implemented, which included five main activities: 1) call for papers; 2) thematic symposiums; 3) national symposium; 4) paper development and peer review; and 5) publication launching and planning of follow-up activities. Following this clear strategy, the two main writeshop activities used in the process of developing the publication were the thematic symposiums and the peer review workshops.
122 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Writeshops as integral to the Publication Development Process in Producing the CBNRM Sourcebook in Cambodia.
1, Call for papers Writeshops 2. Thematic symposiums
Governance Tenure Decentralization Livelihoods Issues
3. National symposium
4. Chapter Development Writeshops and Peer Review
5. CBNRM Volume II publication
Figure 1. Writeshop methodology used for the CBNRM Volume II publication.
1. Thematic symposiums Abstract selection hinged The thematic symposiums were the initial steps for on the following criteria: writing papers and were designed with the following l Does the abstract give the objectives: information on the "who, what, when, where, and why?" l To facilitate learning and sharing among l Is the content relevant to the stakeholders; theme/s? l Does the abstract show that the l To provide basic information on writing papers; project or paper has thorough data, l To establish standards for paper development clear results, and logical and discussion; and conclusion? l To simplify the process of peer review and l Does the abstract demonstrate editing. innovations in the project or paper and would contribute in advancements in the field of NRM? The thematic symposiums employed a set of different l Is the abstract understandable and steps to aid in preparation and implementation of the clearly written? writeshop.
Using Writeshop for CBNRM Publication Development in Cambodia 123 a. Selection of abstracts All abstracts received from the call for papers were classified into different themes such as participatory planning and local monitoring, governance, livelihood, etc. These themes served as the basis for the thematic symposiums. Discussion and agreement among members of the selection committee and observing the set criteria helped ensure the selection of quality abstracts. Authors of selected abstracts were invited to make a presentation to share more detailed information on research findings and experiences. b. Identification of resource people Based on the common themes arising from the range of selected abstracts, the coordinating team (CT) discussed and identified key resource people and peer reviewers who facilitated the discussion, identified issues that needed clarifications, and provided feedback to presenting authors. The key resource people were also briefed on the purpose of the activity and other information. Firming up of the schedule of the thematic symposium was done at this stage. c. Formulation of guidelines for paper development The CT established guidelines to ensure consistency in the writing style and technique among all the authors. A guideline for draft paper/chapter development was presented and discussed with respective authors and copies of the guidelines were distributed. d. Development of guidelines for peer reviewers and editors Guidelines for peer reviewers and editors helped convey to the authors ways on how they could strengthen their arguments and how to modify their papers. It also ensured commonality and consistency in comments and feedbacks. e. Implementation of thematic symposiums Thematic symposiums were designed to ensure learning and sharing among stakeholders from different geographical areas across the country. Presentations,
124 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences small group discussions, and plenary discussions offered avenues for reviewers to give feedback to the authors. Each thematic symposium was divided into different parts as follows: l Brief introduction of the publication development process by the CT provided a clearer understanding of the processes and objectives of the symposium. l Presentation of the overview of the theme, current situations, and future trends by the resource people provided a link to specific research papers/case studies presented by the authors. l Paper presentations by the authors enabled them to present more information about their paper, results of their research work or case study, experiences, and lessons learned. l Comments and feedback from the resource people and/or peer reviewers helped the authors to further improve their paper and identified areas to be clarified. This interaction among authors, resource people, and reviewers helped in the identification of key results and in-depth reflection on research methodologies. l Guidelines for paper development and peer reviews helped peer reviewers and editors to properly and constructively give comments and feedback to authors. l Follow-up activities provided opportunity for further improvements of submitted papers. l Monitoring and evaluation focussed on the documentation of the symposium process: the M&E questionnaire identified areas requiring improvement and lessons learned for future symposiums. f. Follow-up activities The CT was responsible for following up with the authors on their progress in improving their drafts and, with the reviewers and editors, to gather feedback and comments on the draft. Ensuring that reviewers' and editors' comments and feedback were properly addressed and integrated by the author in the next draft was a function of the CT. Adherence to the agreed timeline and work plan also fell under the CT’s duty. When all of these were covered, the revised papers were sent by the CT to assigned peer reviewers for another round of comments. Peer reviewers emphasized research methodology and findings and discussed theories and concepts. The revised papers were forwarded to the editors for language editing (quality control in terms of grammar, spelling, and writing and referencing style). Comments and feedback from peer reviewers and the editors were discussed and clarified with the authors in the next writeshop activity called "peer review feedback workshop."
Using Writeshop for CBNRM Publication Development in Cambodia 125 2. Peer review feedback workshop
The peer review feedback workshop was an important activity to improve the papers. It served as a platform for selected authors to discuss, present, and clarify the comments and feedback generated from the peer review and editing process. In addition, this workshop also helped build relationships between and among the authors, peer reviewers, editors, and the CT as they worked on finalizing the first drafts.
The peer review feedback workshop was conducted with the following objectives: l To discuss comments, feedback, and required clarifications of draft papers; l To support interactive learning and relationship building among authors, peer reviewers, and the editors for the follow-up discussions and finalization of papers; and l To agree on and acknowledge the process of publication development to ensure a high quality publication. a. Execution of the peer review feedback workshop The peer review feedback workshop was designed using a similar approach as the thematic symposiums. It only differed from the thematic symposium by way of gathering all authors, peer reviewers, and the editors together for the workshop and discussion. Using the results from the thematic symposiums, the peer review feedback workshop was implemented through different steps and follow-up activities. l Brief introduction of the publication development process by the CT. Participants were briefed on the progress of publication development and the next steps. l Paper presentations by the authors, under the appropriate sub-theme of the workshop, allowed the participants to better understand their topic and make necessary connections in response to reviewers' comments. Participants also learned from other papers. l The authors revised their drafts, integrating comments of reviewers. The revised draft was then submitted again to the CT for further comments and finalization.
126 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences l Planning of follow-up meetings for further improvement of papers entailed good coordination by the CT for follow-up meetings for final discussion and revisions. b. Follow-up activities for finalization The CT conducted follow-up paper with each author prior to final submission. l Paper review and revision The CT organized the discussions between the author and peer reviewers. However, in some cases, the authors communicated directly with the peer reviewers. l Final editing and formatting After all the papers were finalized by the authors, draft papers were sent to the CT for final review, editing, formatting, layout design, and overall quality control. l Final proofreading The camera-ready draft still needed final proofreading by the CT to check on errors in formatting, spellings, etc. before it was sent to the printer or publisher.
Challenges and Lessons Learned
Adapting the writeshop methodology in producing the CBNRM publication involved some challenges and valuable lessons were learned along the way.
Challenges
1. Organizing a multi-stakeholder symposium can be difficult particularly in finding a suitable time for the wide range of stakeholders from the local and national levels. Symposiums are best held at a time when most stakeholders would be able to attend. 2. Varying opinions and suggestions of resource people made it difficult for authors to consider everything. The CT would need to take a more active and bigger role in proposing an effective set of criteria and guidelines. 3. Language differences (some peer reviewers were foreigners) made it harder for the authors to understand some suggestions. A translator was hired to ensure that everything was clear between authors and peer reviewers.
Using Writeshop for CBNRM Publication Development in Cambodia 127 Lessons learned
1. Providing guidelines for paper development helped authors in drafting their papers, ensuring consistency across papers. 2. Providing guidelines to resource people for comments and feedback was very important. This helped ensure that comments and feedback to authors were clear, consistent, and easy to follow. 3. Follow-up meetings between authors and peer reviewers helped authors finalize their papers because clarifications arose even after the workshops. 4. Final review and proofreading were crucial activities to be taken seriously before the final material goes to the press.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Undeniably, writeshops are very important in developing publications, sourcebooks, or case studies. An effective writeshop process has positive effects on the quality of the publication. It also provides opportunities to learn and share with other relevant stakeholders. The methodology lends itself to some level of flexibility; hence, elements and processes can be modified depending on the context and objectives of a specific publication.
From the experiences in the production of the CBNRM publication, the CT identified some important considerations in the preparation and implementation of a writeshop methodology.
1. Preparation for the writeshop should consider the different levels of stakeholders to be involved and identify effective ways of implementation that are acceptable to all. 2. Relevant guidelines should be developed and provided to relevant stakeholders at the outset to have more consistent outputs. 3. Implementation of writeshops should be a learning and sharing process to engage more discussion and interaction between authors and peer reviewers in finalizing papers. 4. Follow-up activities should be done in any and every step of the writeshop process. These help keep track of completed outputs and ensure that the set schedule is followed. 5. Editing and proofreading of the draft publication should be done frequently before it is sent for final printing.
128 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Bridging the Information and Imagination Divide1
Sudhirendar Sharma2 The Ecological Foundation 7 Triveni, A6 Paschim Vihar New Delhi 110063, India E-mail: [email protected]
Isn't writing more than the mechanical process of putting words together? Instead, writing is akin to thinking on paper. Acclaimed designer, author, and artist Edwin Schlossberg has gone a step ahead to argue that it should make 'other people think'. In the conventional (developmental) view, thinking has remained distanced from writing as quite often the focus is on narrating cause-effect relationship of tangible interventions. The contextualization and characterization of development (within projects) remains rooted in the paradigm of reporting, which may not necessarily demonstrate the projects' impact persuasively.
Within the context of Lant Pritchett's assertion that 'billions of dollars spent on development assistance The skill of writing is to create have not translated into actual impact on the poor', a context in which other people the challenge for `development writing' is to can think. demonstrate impact through imaginative reflections - Edwin Schlossberg on apparent facts.
If this be the case, development writing ought to transform into an insightful inquisition beyond the obvious or what is sarcastically referred to as the problem
1 Paper presented at the ENRAP-supported IIRR-UPWARD-CIP Writeshop Methodology Review Workshop held at Y.C. James Yen Center, Silang, Philippines from July 7-9, 2010. 2 Journalist by training and environmentalist by passion, the author is an independent researcher, writer, and consultant on agriculture, environment and development, and refers to himself as a ‘skeptical optimist’.
Bridging the Information and Imagination Divide 129 of 'the law of small numbers'. The curious idea is to lower the noise-to-signal ratio such that there is something interesting to relate, reflect on, and write about. One cannot depend on one's eyes when the imagination is out of focus.
This section deals with the unstructured imaginative process to engage with knowledge focal points (across small, medium, and large projects) in building perspectives, in locating contexts, and in articulating perceptions. It neither creates writers overnight nor does it transform outputs; instead it helps develop imaginative insights on perceiving development as it is not, rather than as it is? The outputs (of writing) thus generated seem to enhance 'curiosity' because a writer is not supposed to solve problems but allow them to emerge, such that other people who read it can think and contribute to addressing the problem.
Background
Across multilateral, bilateral, and NGO projects, the broader framework of writeshop has been used to address the product, process, and related aspects of knowledge generation. The readers' fatigue related to predictable outputs using familiar vocabulary has been the unsaid concern that the outputs from such writeshops have been able to demonstrate.
The principal challenge has been to train the participants to look-beyond-the- obvious by locating the point-of-reference within broader socio, economic, cultural, and political contexts. Any transformation on such account is gradual and process-related, subject to how the working conditions, growth environment, and cultural context impact the participants.
Methodology
Not necessarily a structured methodology, the process of engaging with potential writers has been a spontaneously evolving process that has continued to move to the next level through intense introspection of the previous levels. Needless to say, the outcome has been unpredictable, if not amazing.
Level 1
Distilling driving principles It began as an appreciative inquiry into the impact of the World Bank-supported
130 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences 1 2 3
Capitalizing on predominant The outcome of the project The process took a detour oral tradition of interventions were from the conventional case stakeholders, the first step discussed in light of the study format based on was essentially an exercise dominant socio-economic success stories to a more in listening to stories on and ecological externalities radical approach of inter- and intra- village of the region for locating distilling ‘driving principles’ issues and how the project the creative streaks that not only help capture activities were conceived, emerging from project the undercurrents of designed, and implement to implementation. change but create scope address them. for questioning the process too.
Integrated Watershed Development Project3. A multi-stage participatory process, wherein there was equal involvement of project staff as well as intended beneficiaries, involved the following steps:
Level II
Non-fiction story telling Within the realm of development, information is considered synonymous to knowledge. In reality, field reporting on data generated by the monitoring and evaluation processes could only be part of knowledge generation. The 'non-fiction story telling' is a process-oriented framework (applied across IFAD projects4) that makes a clear distinction between information and knowledge for participants to move to the next steps.
Core Components Information = data + facts + perception Knowledge = idea + analysis + imagination
Figure 1. The components of information and knowledge.
3 Launched in 1990, the World Bank’s Integrated Watershed Development Project (Hills) addressed the problem of land degradation in mid-Hills in Haryana in north India. The project lasted till 2004. 4 Selected steps from the Non-Fiction Story Telling framework have been applied by the author in ENRAP- supported writeshops for IFAD projects’ Knowledge Managers in 2008 and 2009.
Bridging the Information and Imagination Divide 131 A. Beyond pictures and behind words Words and pictures are the essential ingredients for any 'document', and can easily be a document's nemesis if used uni-dimensionally. A picture, it is often said, is worth a thousand words. Using a set of pictures, the participants are made to look for those elusive '1000 words'. The challenge posed before them is to segregate picture into 'expressions' and recreate another picture (in the mind) using those expressions. It helps in looking beyond a picture, taking a veritable journey into the world of immense possibilities. For instance, a picture of a burning fire can easily hold the expression of 'anger' and 'violence'. A mild version of the same 'fire' may reflect 'warmth' and may get seen in the context of a 'mother'.
Similarly, each word hides several meanings, some said For instance, the word 'seed' may mean and some unsaid. Exposing the participants to a set of more than its dictionary meaning. It can reflect 'autonomy' as well as 'monopoly', `words' can be immensely engaging. Triggered into the for the manner in which seed production world of imagination through 'beyond pictures' and distribution has been centralized exercise, the writeshop participants start looking at the and driven away from farmers' control. meanings hidden behind the `word' intently. Similarly, the word 'forest' may mean a political artifact or an industry or even Not only has the process been found engaging, mean bureaucracy in the manner in which it has been distanced from entertaining, and engrossing by the participants; the community control. net output has been an inroad into the world of imagination and expression.
B. Reading profile and temperament For such a process to move to the next stage, it is critical that the writeshop participants possess a reading profile that backs it up. Curiously, however, reading is a rarity in most situations and the project environment doesn't encourage it either. Bogged down by the vagaries of daily routine, most projects do not inspire their knowledge focal points to engage in out-of-the-box thinking and writing. Temperament testing is part of the process such that participants' desire to break away from self-conceived shackles gets identified.
Level III
Getting back to the source Another pilot that the author has recently designed relate to testing the veracity of writeshop outputs with the communities on whom the write-up is based. Most project writings are presumed to be true reflection of ground zero; however, in reality the characters rarely get a chance to present their part of the story. To address this glaring gap, the writeshop participants would be made to narrate the
132 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences The Flight of Imagination5 Once there was a drought year and the crop suffered badly. A woman was coming back from the field after picking up whatever grains she could. On the way she met a parrot who started staring at her. She asked the parrot why he was looking at her so intently. The parrot replied that he was actually feeling confused after looking at the woman's necklace. The necklace had a green agate stone. The parrot thought it was a grain, not a stone. The woman asked the parrot whether he had eaten any food. The parrot replied, 'Haven't you collected all the grains from the field, even the ones that had fallen on the ground?' The woman realized that the parrot was hungry, but she needed the grains to feed her children too. The woman invited the parrot to come home but the parrot flew away leaving the woman dumbfounded. The folk tale helps the participants imagine what might have gone through the minds of the woman as well as the parrot. It brings interesting insights as it also reflects on participants' backgrounds and experiences. The exercise helps visualize diverse perspectives from the story that looks plain and simple on paper (as many as 35 different responses were generated from this story during a multi-stakeholder workshop that the author had conducted in Indonesia). perceptions with communities to authenticate the outputs as much as improve upon them. A significant value addition to the end-product is expected.
Challenges
Do such writeshop frameworks deliver results? These do, provided quality time and an out-of-the-box thinking gets encouraged across projects. More often, the staff managing knowledge portfolio are constrained by space and scope to perform. Also, for staff to get oriented towards building broader contexts, creating sub-plots within those contexts and avoiding being predictable in outputs remain tall order. All said, such frameworks need to be nurtured over time to elicit results.
Recommendations
Emphasis on knowledge management is evident but mainstreaming it may call for deliberating some of the operational aspects: l Knowledge Focal Points across projects face a challenge in transferring the learnings from the field into meaningful products. The need for in situ trainings and hand-holding to demonstrate the effectiveness of the process is crucial.
5 Not only folk tales, data from current projects have also been used to test the participants’ power of imagination in articulating the findings of a project.
Bridging the Information and Imagination Divide 133 l Such frameworks and their variants need to be periodically tested to ensure continuity and consistency. It should be reiterated that the participants must remain the same in such trainings for creating impact. l The writeshop methodologies must remain flexible and innovative to encourage creative contribution from the members. There is a limit to what structured processes/methodologies can deliver. Cloning may indeed be discouraged. l Such trainings should be held in the project areas such that its effect could percolate down to field-level functionaries. Further, field level exercises could provide perfect clues to skimming knowledge out of the available information on the ground. l Within the hierarchy of a system, it will be prudent to suggest that the project leaders be brought on board for not only building a culture of 'knowledge' at all levels but for instilling confidence in those engaged in this onerous task too.
134 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Conclusion
The organizers and supporters of the Writeshop Methodology Review are acutely aware that the July 2010 event in the Philippines involved only a small cross- section of practitioners of writeshop approaches. The three outputs resulting from the event are presented with the full knowledge that much more is being done and far more is known, than has been addressed in the three reports: Workshop proceedings, Case Studies and The Guide to Organizing Writeshops.
The Case Study compilations in this book show the rich range of writeshop methods which should serve as a strong motivation for anyone interested in using writeshop in documenting field experiences or in transforming research outputs. It is a reality that field project experiences and knowledge resulting from field projects are largely underutilized. Also recognized is the need to shorten the time normally taken to document field experiences. Well prepared workshops — organized away from office settings, with opportunities for face-to-face interactions, featuring openness to constructive critiquing sessions, could greatly enhance the relevance, quality and the potential influence of knowledge products.
Practitioners of Writeshop approaches strongly emphasize the need to prepare and plan, well in advance of a writeshop. Being clear about the audience and the purpose for a publication is crucial and is best arrived at through consultation and negotiation with peers and key stakeholders. It is also important to know if there are other ways to doing the publication besides Writeshop approaches, and, to determine what are the unique advantages of doing a publication "the writeshop way". Scoping missions, google searches , questionnaires and round table discussions are useful mechanisms for identifying the scope of a proposed publication.
Workshop logistics too must be well planned. Writeshops are held away from offices and work settings to allow participants to focus and work undisturbed, in an environment conducive to reflection and learning. Communication/production teams to assist authors are an essential element. All these involve costs and expenses and so the reason for using a writeshop should be well justified: i.e.,
Conclusion 135 should have significant potential for impact and influence. To reduce costs, one can "piggy back" writeshop need assessment consultations with other events, to take advantage of the resource persons present.
Case writers have also strongly endorsed the need for writeshops to provide clear guidelines. Although writeshop is a participatory approach to producing materials, it must have limits and boundaries. Structures, formats and rules apply. The strong reliance on reviews and constructive critiquing could mean that authors are unable to address a range of (sometimes) conflicting suggestions. This is when workshop coordinators, facilitators and resource persons have to mediate and help arrive at consensus on revisions. Writeshop product-editing is about editing for content, and, judgments are exercised all the time. Editors are there to "serve" the authors (field workers), not to dictate and impose. Openness for thinking out of the box can help greatly so that field experience and creative solutions are given more attention.
Source books and case-based texts offer the readers a menu of options to choose from. Each article stands on its own and is often used independently of each other. There is no need for achieving consensus across articles and thereby distort the uniqueness of each contribution. Each article is valued because it features a field- tested and proven idea.
Writeshops have been reported to be very effective mechanisms for building partnerships, nurturing increased coordination and cooperation between agencies working in a particular geographic or thematic area. Writeshop can nurture mutual dependence and "force the need" for consultation, negotiation and consensus building by the diverse range of peers involved in the process. Writeshops can bring a range of donors together to one platform — a platform that emphasizes learning, synthesis and sharing, all inherent to and basic elements of the writeshop process. Writeshops bring donors and their partners to a common platform, a neutral venue among equals for purposes of sharing exemplary practices. Writeshops nurture partnerships for purposes of information sharing but eventually and inevitably, result in increased networking. Most of the cases at the Writeshop Review offered evidence of increased networking resulting from their efforts. It should not surprise us therefore that Knowledge Management is receiving more attention than at any time in the past. Writeshops are known for incubating and nurturing a culture of knowledge generation, sharing and utilization among the many organizations that have tested the writeshop approach.
Researchers are also realizing that knowledge generation by itself is an academic endeavor and often difficult to justify to civil society donors and others challenged
136 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences by the realities of un-addressed poverty across the world. New ways are being sought for transforming research knowledge so that they may find their way into policies for wider application and practice. In this sense, writeshops have been found useful to scientists and researchers. Research outputs, i.e., as secondary materials, are being simplified, illustrated and mainstreamed for wider possible application — thanks to facilitated assistance and support provided during writeshops by communication-support teams. Good editing and hand drawn artwork (usually developed by local artists) enhance the cultural relevance of articles. Attractive artwork and their generous use, characterize many writeshop products and, often, are said to be a special feature of the user-friendly publications associated with writeshops — hardly found in technical and scientific reports.
Most writeshop promoters end up recognizing the capacity-strengthening contributions of writeshop processes and have started to emphasize this complementary objective. Some have emphasized writing skills training as being a preliminary step to doing writeshops. Others prefer an the on-the-job approach of building capacities and provide mentoring assistance to first time authors/ writers. Whatever model is used, supervisors have taken notice of the improved capacities of their staff and improvement in regular reporting, increased use of qualitative information, increased interest to document and share.
Knowledge products resulting from writeshops are being used for different purposes: to inform, to educate and to advocate. Distinctions are probably needed to ensure there is an adequate understanding of the differences between knowledge products done for public relations purposes from those done for public awareness or education. Here once again, the importance of being clear about the purposes, audience and objectives cannot be overemphasized. With the increasing numbers of writeshop practitioners, these issues are already being addressed by an increasingly "sophisticated" and discerning set of advocates and proponents for knowledge management. It is likely that this group should start to consider itself as a community of practice, recognizing the value of staying in touch and exchanging experiences and continuing to discover new applications and enhanced processes for doing writeshops. There is a need to assessing spin -offs and unintended outcomes and evaluating impacts and influences of both the knowledge products and processes. It is hoped that these compilations will encourage others to take on the agenda for documenting adaptations, processes and in organizing, conducting and assessing writeshops. The writeshop practitioners represented in this compilation of cases will hopefully remain in touch and, with time, grow into a global community of practice of writeshop practitioners.
Conclusion 137 Acronyms Used
AB - Advisory Board AC - Advisory Committee ADSDP - Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development Plan AGRECOL - Agricultural Ecological Solutions AIM - Agriculture Information Management APAN - Asia- Pacific Agroforestry Network AVRDC - Asian Vegetables Research and Development Center
CAU - China Agricultural University CBD - Community Based Distributors CBNRM - Community- Based Natural Resources Management CGIAR - Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CHARM - Cordillera Highlands Agriculture Resource Management CHED-OPPRI - Commission on Higher Education-Office of Policy, Planning, Research and Information CHW - Community Health Workers CIAD/COHD - Center for Integrated Agricultural Development/ College of Humanities and Development CIAT - International Research Center for Tropical Agriculture CIDA - Canadian International Development Agency CIP - International Potato Center CIP-UPWARD - International Potato Center - Users' Perspective with Agricultural Research and Development CPM - Country Program Managers CPMT - Country Program Management Team CPO - Country Program Officers CRS - Community Development Services CT - Coordinating Team
DA - Department of Agriculture DAR - Department of Agrarian Reform
Acronyms Used 139 DOH-HPDPB - Department of Health-Health Policy Development and Planning Bureau DOST-PCHRD - Department of Science and Technology- Philippine Council for Health Research and Development DTI - Department of Trade and Industry
ECD - Evaluation of Capacity Development ENRAP - Knowledge Networking for Rural Development in Asia- Pacific Region
FAO - Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United States FCRNC - Farmer- Centered Research Network, China FGD - Focused-group Discussion FPIC - Free, Prior and Informed Consent FTPP - Forest, Trees and People Program
GTZ - Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH
ICRAF - International Centre for Research in Agro- Forestry ICT - Information and Communication Technologies IDRC - International Development Research Center IFAD - International Fund for Agricultural Development IIRR - International Institute of Rural Reconstruction ILEIA - Centre for learning on Sustainable Agriculture ILRI - International Livestock Research Institute IPCBI - International Potato Center and Biodiversity International (formerly IPGRI) IP - Indigenous People IPRA - Indigenous Peoples Rights Act IRRI - International Rice Research Institute IUD - Intra-Uterine Device
JAU - Jilin Agricultural University
KLM - Knowledge Learning Market KM - Knowledge Management KOJO - Local Vocational Training Fund in Kyrgyz KSS - Knowledge Sharing Skills
140 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Lao PDR - Lao People's Democratic Republic LaoAKIS - Lao Agriculture and Knowledge Information System LEISA - Agricultures Network (magazine) LIBIRD - Local Initiatives for Biodiversity Research and Development LINKS - Philippines Learning and Innovation Network for Knowledge Sharing
MSSRF - M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation
NAFES - National Agriculture and Forestry Extension Service NAFRI - National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute NCG - Network Coordination Group NCIP - National Commission on Indigenous Peoples NGO - Non- Governmental Organizations NRM - Natural Resources Management NUOL - National University of Laos
PCD - Participatory Curriculum Development PNHRS - Philippine National Health Research Systems PR&D - Participatory Research and Development
R&D - Research for Development RFD - Royal Forest Department RLNR - Rural Livelihoods and Natural Resources RUFORUM - Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture RuMEPP - Rural Micro Enterprise Promotion Programme
SADC - Southern African Development Community SC - Steering Council SDC - Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency SEARICE - Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment SIDA - Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency SIUPA - Strategic Initiative on Urban and Peri- Urban Agriculture SMBI - Solidaridad Para sa Makabuluhabg Balita Inc. STAR - Skills Training in Rural Areas SWP-PRGA - Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis
Acronyms Used 141 TNA - Training Needs Assessment TOT - Training of Trainers
UNOPS - United Nations Office for Project Services UPLB - University of the Philippines Los Baños UPMSI - University of the Philippines Marine Science Institute UP-NIH - University of the Philippines Manila-National Institute of Health VECO - Vredeseilanden Country Office Indonesia VET - Vocational Education and Training
WG - Working Group WMCIP - Western Mindanao Community Improvement Project
142 WRITESHOPS: A Tool for Packaging and Sharing Field-based Experiences Writeshops
In recent years, development practitioners and organizations have come to discover and recognize the writeshop as an effective methodology for the documentation and distillation of project learning. A writeshop is a participatory and highly intensive process which involves bringing together authors, editors, artists, and desktop publishing specialists to produce a publication in a relatively short time. Writeshops are characterized by critical reviews and revisions, involving peers and a diverse range of stakeholders and users. Writeshops have been found particularly useful in helping field workers and practitioners document their experiences, making field-based evidence more widely available.
A writeshop is...
1. Suitable for documenting or transforming knowledge which otherwise might be under-used. 2. Relevant and suitable when producing materials for a large number of people. 3. Results in illustrated materials that present relevant, practical information in simple language. 4. A platform for producing materials in a very short time, sometimes within a few days, often by the end of the writeshop itself. 5. Is a highly participatory process: right from identifying the scope of the publication to evaluating its effectiveness. 6. A venue to bring together different groups – scientists, extension personnel, NGO staff, policymakers, farmers – to develop and produce a common set of materials, where participants benefit from the discussions and networking. 7. A process that enables comments and revisions from other participants. Several authors can contribute to each section of the materials. 8. An effort to produce “stand-alone” information sheets – materials which can be read independently of each other. 9. Is a forum for cross-validation, updating and synthesizing of experiences around specific issues. 10. Very intensive. The time is sometimes insufficient, and the process places a high demand on the abilities of the editors and other staff. 11. An expensive process and it implies a considerable commitment from the organizers – as the timeframe can change frequently. 12. An opportunity to bring together donors and agencies that otherwise might work somewhat independently of each other. 13. A process where the free sharing of knowledge is emphasized. About the partners in the writeshop review
Knowledge Networking for Rural Development in Asia-Pacific (ENRAP) ENRAP is a joint initiative of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and Canada 's International Development Research Centre promoting networking for increased knowledge exchange and improved rural knowledge systems to support poverty alleviation. Towards this, ENRAP has supported the use of writeshops as a method of documentation of rural development efforts by IFAD projects and partners in Asia . (www.enrap.org)
International Development Research Centre (IDRC) IDRC is a public corporation created by the Parliament of Canada in 1970 to help developing countries use science and technology to find practical, long- term solutions to the social, economic, and environmental problems they face. Support is directed toward developing an indigenous research capacity to sustain policies and technologies that developing countries need to build healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous societies. (www.idrc.ca )
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) IFAD is a specialised agency of the United Nations that was established in 1977 as an international financial institution. IFAD's goal is to empower poor rural women and men in developing countries to achieve higher incomes and improved food security. Since its inception, IFAD has financed over 550 projects in 115 countries, the main focus of which has been the improvement in productivity of on- and off-farm activities. (www.ifad.org)
The Canadian International Development Agency(CIDA) is Canada's lead agency for development assistance. CIDA aims to manage Canada's support and resources effectively and accountably to achieve meaningful, sustainable results and; engage in policy development in Canada and internationally, enabling Canada's effort to realize its development objectives. (www.acdi- cida.gc.ca)
Users' Perspectives With Agricultural Research and Development (UPWARD) is an Asian network of scientists and development specialists working to increase participation by farmers and other users of agricultural technology in research and development. UPWARD seeks to link users and R&D professionals for more effective agricultural innovation; bring sustained benefits to less favored farming areas and marginalized groups, especially women; and work with households and local communities as key actors in research and learning activities. As a Partnership Program of the International Potato Centre (CIP), it serves as platform for adapting and scaling up innovations for sustainable rootcrop livelihoods. (www.cip-upward.org)
The International Institute of Rural Reconstruction(IIRR) has over 80 years of history in participatory, integrated and people-centered development. IIRR enables people and their communities to effect meaningful change in their lives through action research and learning processes and generating and acquiring knowledge about participatory human development derived from practical experience and learning. The Institute has a long history of documenting and disseminating field-based experience through its publications. (www.iirr.org)