ACES Participatory Methods Training 2011
•
3 gostaram•1,669 visualizações
Slides from ACES Participatory Methods Training Workshop held in January 2011
![Plan ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (19)
Destaque
Destaque (20)
Semelhante a ACES Participatory Methods Training 2011
Semelhante a ACES Participatory Methods Training 2011 (20)
Mais de Aberdeen CES
Mais de Aberdeen CES (20)
Último
Último (20)
ACES Participatory Methods Training 2011
- 1. www.see.leeds.ac.uk/sustainableuplands Participatory Methods Workshop ustainable Uplands Learning to manage future change
- 3. 1. Basics
- 8. Different levels/types of participation in community planning The ladder of participation (Arnstein, 1969)
- 9. Different levels/types of participation The wheel of participation (Wilcox, 2003)
- 10. Different levels/types of participation Communication flows (Rowe & Frewer, 2000) Facilitators Stakeholders Facilitators Stakeholders Facilitators Stakeholders Communication Consultation Participation
- 46. Focus Groups Semi-structured interviews Snowball sampling Interest-influence matrices Radical transactive-ness Stakeholder-led stakeholder categorisation Q methodology Social Network Analysis Knowledge Mapping Identifying stakeholders Differentiating between and categorising stakeholders Investigating relationships between stakeholders Analytical categorisation (top-down) Reconstructive categorisation (bottom-up) Normative Instrumental Methods Typology Rationale
- 47. Interest/Influence Matrices High Low Influence Context setters - highly influential, but have little interest. Try and work closely as they could have a significant impact Key players – must work closely with these to affect change Crowd – little interest or influence so may not be worth prioritising, but be aware their interest or influence may change with time Subjects – may be affected but lack power. Can become influential by forming alliances with others. Often includes marginalised groups you may wish to empower Level of Interest High
- 55. Despite apparently polarised views on burning, upland stakeholders in the Peak District are highly connected… And despite the fact that certain groups have little contact with each other… The majority of individuals perceive considerable overlap between their views on upland management and the views of those they know from other groups Water Recreation Agriculture Conservation Grouse
- 57. Summary
- 67. 2: Interviews
- 71. Exercise: Interviews Role-play – the challenge of asking semi-structured questions
- 73. For example… What should we do next in this lecture? 4 5 0 11 12 14 Go home Move on Try out MCE Less work Saves time Enhances learning Criteria Option
- 91. Identity & Roles
- 95. 4. In conflicts, people slip into rehearsed opposing roles that prevent them listening or learning
- 102. Power & influence
- 109. You may not be able to change your situational power if you’re at the bottom of the organisation’s hierarchy But you may be able to increase your power in other ways, especially your personal and transpersonal power. What power do you already possess, and how can you increase your power?
- 114. The End
Notas do Editor
- Previously in WB3 training we’ve focussed a lot on the methods and tools we can use in study sites - after the break we’ll think more about specific tools/methods for WB4 and beyond, but first I want to think more broadly about the process within which these methods fit First I’d like to start by challenging an assumption that I believe is very widespread, and that may have a major influence on the way in which we carry out stakeholder participation Much of the training we have done to date has focussed on equipping people with participatory tools and methods, but if we focus on this there is a danger that we miss the point and fail to “fix” anything with the tools we use I think this is a widespread misconception, something I encounter again and again in my own work. Many people think of stakeholder participation as a tool-kit of different methods – you just have to select the right participatory tool for the job I think it is important to recognise that participation is a process, in which various tools can be used . You need tools, but we should be focusing on getting the process right in which we use those tools
- Instead of a tool-kit, I prefer to think of participation as a relationship between two people – a process that is: Long-term Developing trust as you work together Developing understanding of each other’s values and knowledge Negotiating together what you will do and where you will go together Choosing the right tools to achieve what you both want in the most relevant way
- In order to explore these views and relationships in more depth, we conducted a Social Network Analysis. This first network diagram shows communication ties between people from five of the main stakeholder groups in the Peak District, and shows they are highly connected: Each dot (or “node”) represents an individual stakeholder Arrows connecting stakeholders show those who communicated with others in the network And two-way arrows indicate when this relationship was reciprocated Stakeholders depicted by large dots interact with a large number of other people in the network These people are likely to be able to act as bridges between different parts of the network By involving these individuals in our process, they may spread ideas, knowledge and attitudes to others in their wider social network The next figure shows communication ties between people who communicated on a monthly or more frequent basis, and you can see immediately that the network begins to break down: Three cliques emerge Recreation forms its own clique, water and conservation another, grouse moor managers and agriculture form a third And there is infrequent communication between the cliques This suggests there is a danger that recreation groups may get marginalised in our dialogue, so their engagement needs to be actively sought This final diagram shows people who shared views about upland management. You can see that despite infrequent contact between cliques, and apparently polarised views on burning (that we heard in interviews), there was considerable overlap between people’s views on upland management (in general) and the views of those they knew from other groups: This suggests to us that there is enough common ground for different stakeholder groups to participate in meaningful dialogue over areas of mutual concern in our future research
- Ethnobotany is often referred to as Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) – you’ll see this quite often in the literature, but I prefer “local knowledge” I’m going to do some ethnobotanical research right here in class in a moment and ask you to turn to the person next to you and tell each other about a species you know about. But before I do that, I’d like to tell you about a species I’m particularly fond of…