Projects | Southern India - MYRADA
Trip Report 3: July - December, 2000
Kamasamudram, India

Beyond Problem Analysis: Using Appreciative Inquiry to Design and Deliver Environmental, Gender Equity and Private Sector Development Projects

DFID Reference Number AG1798

Goals of the Project and Purpose of the Trip

The goal of this project is to advance sustainable development and facilitate sustainable livelihoods by providing governmental and non-governmental organizations in India with a better method of designing and delivering programs—one that identifies and reinforces a community's strengths, achievements and vision, rather than focusing on its problems, deficiencies and needs.

The purpose of this project is to build capacity within a network of 11 non-governmental development organizations (NGOs) in the use of appreciative inquiry (AI). This is a new community development methodology that moves beyond participatory problem/needs analysis by identifying and building on past achievements and existing strengths within a community; establishing consensus around a shared vision of the future; and constructing strategies and partnerships to achieve this vision.

Objectives for the Period July-December, 2000

1. Continue training and fieldwork with Myrada and partner organization staff in appreciative inquiry;
2. Develop a field guide on appreciative inquiry;
3. Develop and embed a measurement and evaluation within appreciative inquiry;
4. Design the terms of reference for an external project evaluation; and
5. Develop an outline of the field guide on appreciative inquiry.

The objectives for the third six-month period were largely met. Given the ongoing nature of most of these particular activities, further work will take place on them before the project completes in May 2001. Several activities that were not anticipated in the last six-month report were also undertaken. Most notable of these unanticipated activities was the presentation of two papers on appreciative inquiry at an IFAD/IIRR workshop on participatory approaches to project design and implementation.

Team Members

Graham Ashford, project manager/community development specialist, IISD

• Jo-Ellen Parry, project officer, IISD
• Saleela Patkar, local project coordinator/community development specialist, MYRADA

For a full list of workshop participants and core training team members please refer to the respective Annexes.

Project Activities (July-December, 2000)

Presentation of two papers on appreciative inquiry at an IFAD/IIRR workshop on participatory approaches to project design and implementation (July 3-13 in Bangalore). The outcome of the July workshop will be a resource kit for field-level project staff. The participants included community development specialists, project managers, academics and government officials. While the activity was not included in the original workplan, the team felt it was an excellent way to promote appreciative inquiry while also receiving useful feedback on the method.

The workshop was designed so that papers were presented in plenary, revised based on the group discussion and then re-presented for final comments. Graham wrote and presented a summary paper on appreciative inquiry principles and practice. Saleela wrote and presented a paper on MYRADA's experience using the approach. The papers were well received. The workshop organizers and participants considered the appreciative inquiry material a valuable part of the kit. The first of the two papers has been finalized and is attached as Annex A. The second paper will be included in the next six-month report.

MYRADA core training team meeting to review project and appreciative inquiry method.

The objective of this workshop was to bring together the India-based core training team to review the first year of the project; prepare a draft outline of the field guide; discuss the use of appreciative inquiry in organizational development; identify the skills necessary to be effective in applying appreciative inquiry; develop strategies for sharing project results; and discuss training activities to pass the skills on to other agencies. The workshop was very productive. The ideas and analysis informed the subsequent field guide workshop in November. The workshop report, presented as Annex B, provides greater detail on this meeting.

Meeting to develop a strategy for embedding measurement and evaluation within appreciative inquiry. During the third six-month period the project team worked with a measurement and evaluation specialist from German Agro-Action to develop a monitoring and evaluation approach that is consistent with appreciative inquiry, yet supplies objective information. The team concluded that, for internal purposes, if appreciative inquiry exercises are conducted regularly within the community-based organizations (CBOs), goals and progress will be regularly updated—meeting most of the objectives of a monitoring and evaluation program. However, in some situations where external institutions are involved, accountability issues may require a more involved participatory impact monitoring or evaluation exercise.

Meeting to design the external project evaluation. During the third six-month period the team also began developing the terms of reference for an external project evaluation that will help to identify the benefits and limitations of the project. To assess the impact of the project the evaluator will review case studies; attend training and fieldwork sessions; and interview project staff, partner organizations and community members. The terms of reference were not fully developed by December as had been expected, but will be finalized by March 2001. The evaluation will take place in May 2001. The terms of reference will be sent to DFID for review prior to engaging the evaluator. Further details of this meeting are included in section 5.3 below.

Workshop to develop a field guide on appreciative inquiry. A workshop was held November 27-30 to plan the field guide. The meeting took place at MYRADA's Huthur project, and included most of MYRADA's senior training staff. The workshop provided an excellent opportunity to discuss many aspects of appreciative inquiry in depth. The outcome was a framework for assessing the quality of an appreciative inquiry, including criteria and verifiable indicators. An outline of the field guide was also produced. The details of this workshop are included in section 5.4 below and in the workshop report that is attached as Annex C. An overview of the appreciative inquiry training program that is currently being used is included as Annex D.

Trip Report - November 18 - December 3, 2000

The purposes of this trip were to:

review the experiences of MYRADA staff with AI in the field;

work on the development of a field guide for AI practitioners; and

develop plans for the final six months of the project.

The November workshop and meetings did a great deal to advance IISD and MYRADA's understanding of appreciative inquiry and its various uses in organizational and community development. There were many important conclusions reached and a lot of enthusiasm for the work. The details of the November mission by IISD to India are included below.

Schedule of Activities

November 18, 19 IISD team travelled to Delhi

November 20 IISD team travelled to Bangalore

Planning meeting with MYRADA

November 21 Travel to Holalkere project

Visit with SHG Federation

November 22 Visit with SHG Federations

Meeting with Anke on monitoring and evaluation

November 23 Tour of Manjunatha Watershed

Meeting with MYRADA staff in Chitradurga

November 24 Return to Bangalore

November 25 Rest day

November 26 Travel to Huthur project

Workshop planning meeting

November 27 Field guide workshop in Huthur

November 28 Field guide workshop in Huthur; field visits

November 29 Field guide workshop in Huthur; wrap-up

November 30 Travelled to Bangalore

December 1 Project planning

December 2 Meeting with Kanshik Mukherjee (KAWAD Society)

IISD team departed

Visit to the Holalkere Project

November 21

Field Visit to HD Pura

The team travelled to the Holalkere project during the morning of the 21st. Following lunch, the team travelled with individuals from the Holalkere project to visit with the Self Help Group Federation Sarwashakti in HD Pura. The federation members have completed an appreciative inquiry training session in February 2000, and a two-day session in October. The federation members (all women) met the project team and MYRADA staff members under some Singapore cherry trees behind a local school. Graham and Saleela inquired about the history of the federation (which is about 10 years old) and the appreciative inquiry training they had experienced. Some of the points which came out of this meeting were:

the federation members did not view the training they received in appreciative inquiry as "training";

they felt the AI process was very useful as they were able to develop a vision for their future;

one of the visions that the federation members had developed was to establish a park by the year 2003. The area in which the team meet was the realization of this vision. The federation members had claimed the area for the park from the Village Panchyat after some struggle, and has planted trees and flowers. Some of the trees are now about six feet high. The federation has divided up the park so that each of the self-help groups it represents is responsible for a particular part of the park;

the federation is planning to establish a second park outside one of its buildings.

Another vision of the federation was to hire one person who will be responsible for maintaining the books of the organization and being a main contact person between the federation and SHGs. They have already selected this individual, who is currently in the process of being trained. The plan is that she will have this administrator position for one year, but will be responsible for training her replacement about six months into her term.

After leaving HD Puri, the team visited the MYRADA office in Chalakere and spoke with the staff members about their work in watershed development.

Planning Meeting with MYRADA staff

Upon returning to Holalkere, the team met with a variety of MYRADA staff members who were at the field station attending a workshop on the development of the Participatory Impact Monitoring field guide being developed with Anke. During the meeting, the goals of the two week trip were discussed and plans were made for the field guide workshop taking place the following week. Some of the issues which were discussed during this meeting included:

What have been some of the benefits of using appreciative inquiry?

What have been some of the lessons learned regarding how to best train people in the use of AI?

Who is the intended audience for the field guide?

What should be included in the field guide?

How can the progress of the CBOs towards achieving their visions be monitored?

With respect to the latter question, some of the topics suggested for inclusion were:

• There should be an introduction which covers the theory behind the success of AI and introduces the concept of the four stages.
• The methodology of implementing all four of the stages should be discussed. It was suggested that this section be designed such that there is enough detail for someone to complete either the full 4-D cycle or to use one aspect (or 'D') and modify the process to suit their own needs.
• Case studies of the different experiences MYRADA staff members have had with AI should be included. With in this section possible topics could be:

• Depending on its goals, the depth to which the inquiry should go. E.g., one hour inquiries versus one year inquiries.
• Other variations in terms of the size of groups which may be appropriate for doing appreciative inquiry, and different interview approaches (one-on-one versus group interviews).
• How to use in non-literate groups.
• How to convert existing methodologies so that they fit the appreciative mode.
• Introduction of games and songs both as an ice-breaker and in the process itself.
• How to use this methodology with different audiences, such as CBOs and local bankers.
• How to keep the energy up.
• Spacing out the 4-Ds (some groups will not go through the cycle as quickly as others as some are not ready or skilled enough).

November 22nd

Field Visit to Chikjajur

During the morning, the team visited two SHG federations. The first federation, SHG Federation Kaveri in Chikjajur, spoke about the training they had received in appreciative inquiry (in October?) and their visions for the future. As part of their training, the federation members (all women) had been asked about their personal visions for their role within, and the future of, their families. The members presented the pictures they created to depict their future to the team and staff members. They also shared some of the stories which emerged through the appreciative inquiry training, and noted that through the telling of these stories the federation members had learned more about each other and increased their affinity. The federation's visions included expanding the number of SHGs, increasing their savings, and having a stronger federation.

Field Visit to Malladihalli

The team then travelled to Malladihalli, where it met with the SHG Federation Mahalakshmi. This federation includes both all-women and mixed gender SHGs. The members also presented their individual visions and spoke about the federations plans for the future. Many of the person and group visions shared by this federation where similar to those shared by the members from Chikjajur.

Project Evaluation Planning Meeting

In the late afternoon, the team met with Enka to discuss the design of the project evaluation to take place during the upcoming six months. Following some discussion, it was decided that the following macro categories should be used to assess the project:

1. Attitudinal change

Has the use of appreciative inquiry changed the way MYRADA staff approach communities and groups?

Evaluate the following:

Interaction between MYRADA and CBOs

Interaction within MYRADA

Interaction with CBOs

2. Transfer of Skills

the number of training workshops within MYRADA

the number of training workshops with CBOs

clarity of AI concepts

3. Use/Application

use with different groups

number of groups AI has been used with

variety of applications

May also include:

sustainability of the project

sense of empowerment

sense of ownership/community involvement

usefulness in vision building

usefulness in action planning

usefulness in implementing/attitudinal change (e.g., for the two projects in which AI has been used for valuations/assessments, can discover whether the outcome differed from the previous method used).

Other things identified for possible evaluation included:

• transfer of concepts to network partners
• individual transformation
• use in relation to gender equity, income diversification, environmental conditions, and basic human needs
• establishment of a monitoring and evaluation system
• transfer of skills within MYRADA
• sense of ownership/community involvement.

One of the key questions raised during this meeting was how indicators may be developed to assess the different evaluation criteria. For instance, what indicators would be used to assess the level of interaction within MYRADA? It was suggested that indirect measurements could be used, such as assessing personal attitude change through a third person, such as asking a colleague. It was also suggested that the indicators may be left to the evaluator to determine.

Part of the discussion within this meeting focused on the need to establish a continual monitoring process within the CBOs themselves, so that they can continue to undertake appreciative inquiry independent of the assistance of MYRADA. Means of facilitating this institutionalization of AI which were discussed included the possibility of training facilitators within each community who would ensure that an evaluation of successes of the organization in achieving its vision is completed every six months or so.

At the conclusion of this meeting, the conversation turned towards the field guide. It was noted that the case studies need to convey the excitement about what can happen in different situations when AI is used. To accomplish this, instead of focusing on what happened in one federation, for instance, it may be better to develop a profile on what can happen within federations in general. It was also suggested that anecdotes be included in the theory section to make it more interesting.

November 23rd

Visit to Manjunatha Watershed Development Association

Graham, Saleela and Jo-Ellen travelled with Vijaya Kumar to visit the Manjunatha Watershed Development Association. Members of the Association provided the team with a tour of the work they have been doing to reforest local hills, dig soak pits, and construct gully plugs and bunds.

Meeting with MYRADA Staff in Chitradurga

In Chitradurga, the team meet with Myrada Programme Officer Lathamala to discuss future plans. One of the key issues discussed was the need to work with some of DFID's partner NGOs to provide training in appreciative inquiry. Lathamala agreed to develop a training program for some of the KAWAD partners in appreciative inquiry sometime after March.

Field Guide Workshop in Huthur

November 26th

The team left Bangalore early on the 26th, and arrived in Huthur during the late afternoon following a side trip to one of Karnataka's most historic temples.

Workshop Planning Meeting

During the evening, the team met with Bella Gouda (Huthur Project Manager) and Rajachary (Huthur Training Officer) to discuss plans for the workshop scheduled to begin the next day. It was decided that during the first day of the workshop, following introductions and an overview of how the workshop would be organized, Graham would provide a refresher on appreciative inquiry to clarify any misconceptions about the method. Specific topics within this presentation would be:

• linking the 4Ds together, to ensure that appreciative inquiry is a continuous cycle rather than a single event;
• how to do the action planning;
• the potential need to divide the dream stage, or the type of vision developed, into three parts, namely (1) a challenge, (2) visions based on current goals, and (3) how to build on the strengths of the organization identified during the Discovery stage.
• individual versus group dreams;
• methods used in each of the stages; and
• limitations/practical implementation issues which need to be addressed when spreading AI to CBOs.

The afternoon of the first day would be dedicated to a presentation on the goals for the field guide, setting guidelines for the presentation of the case studies, a review of how far the MYRADA projects have gone so far in utilizing AI, and preparation for the field visits to take place the next day.

During the second day, plans were made for the workshop members to divide into two groups and visit different CBOs. Debriefings from these visits would follow. It was planned that other topics to be covered during this second day of workshop would include further work on the case studies, and planning for the upcoming final six months of the project.

November 27th

Morning

The workshop opened with singing and welcoming comments from Bella Gowda. The lamp was then lit.

Saleela provided an overview of the AI project, noting its original objectives (from the project proposal) and plan. She noted that while the project had originally intended to hold three training workshops, MYRADA has now held 11 training workshops involving 410 MYRADA staff members. Ten of these staff members have facilitated training of CBO members. Appreciative inquiry has been used in a variety of circumstances, including Grand Panchyats, Progressive Farmers Associations, budget planning with PLAN, and in a leverage study. Saleela noted that the next steps needs to be the training of network members within KAWAD, monitoring and evaluation, and the final workshop.

Following a discussion of the workshop design, Graham provided a review of appreciative inquiry. During this presentation, the workshop participants were joined by Mr. Fernandez, who provided considerable input into the direction of the workshop. Some of the main points which came out of the discussion which followed regarding the use of appreciative inquiry are listed below.

• Appreciative inquiry involves identifying the strengths and achievements of a person or organization as a way of locating the energy for change. While the process emphasizes the positive, it does not mean that anything negative should be ignored; there is value in constructive criticism.
• Based on findings from the field visits, there needs to be stronger linkages between the Discover phase and the Dream phase. Specifically, there is a need to ensure that the visions developed by an organization reinforce their identified strengths, and that the action plans developed ensure that the successes of the organizations occur more often by building on/reinforcing existing strengths.
• The strengths of the CBOs may be discovered using the following techniques:
• to reinforce the discovery of a particular strength such as leadership, stories specifically about successes related to that strength may be told and linked to other characteristics of the organization, such as accountability;
• stories which tell about overcoming an obstacle or problem may be used to identify strengths;
• CBOs have difficulty understanding what is meant by a 'strength;' to overcome this facilitators have used children as a model for identifying shared strengths.
• to identify strengths within the organization, it is sometimes useful to look into the past and discover how the organizations differs from what it was before and how these changes were made possible;
• stories are necessary as they provide proof of the strength (ensures that the strength really exists within the organization or person);
• sometimes the stories are difficult for the person to tell, even if they have a happy ending; telling the story can be a relief for the person to share their story and allow them to identify the strengths which enabled them to come through the situation.
• sharing stories within the federations creates a bond within the organization, as often the individuals are from different communities and do not know each other very well.
• Appreciative inquiry may be simple, or superficial, and it is not necessary to do all of the stages together. However, if all four stages are done at once, the sum is greater than the parts.
• Attitudinal change can be caused in participants, organizations, and the trainers. Within in community groups, as people stress the positive, even individuals who only see the negative side of life can become more cooperative (or the group sometimes turns on them).
• Appreciative inquiry can encourage people to become less dependent, as CBOs begin identifying sources of funding and make own plans which do not require support from MYRADA. In instances were groups identify the reason for their success as being MYRADA, it is possible for the facilitator to state that there are many communities which receive MYRADA support but are not as successful as this group - why?
• Means of discovering stories of achievement:
• have the stories of achievement told in advance to create background knowledge;
• the facilitator can tell a story of the strengths they see within the group to kick off the story-telling session; provides a good way of understanding the concepts being discussed and the strengths being sought;
• facilitator may tell a story from their own lives regarding their own achievements; this technique has been used successfully but sometimes the group members think they must tell a story along the same lines;
• can have group members introduce one of their colleagues and tell why that particular person is important to you personally and as a member of the CBO.
• can ask why a person was selected as a leader within the organization;
• sometimes it is necessary to start with simple questions like which fruits do you like, or what is your favourite colour;
• begin with stories of group successes as people are more comfortable discussing these than telling personal stories (which may be an unusual occurrence); participants may be able to identify goals for CBOs but not for individual lands.
• Some MYRADA facilitators begin by having group members identify stories of achievement within their own families as this is concept which is easier for them to understand. It also encourages people to share and enter into the positive perspective. Questions which are used in the process include:
• "Why do your family members like you, and what do you like about the members of your family?";
• "Why do you like your son?"
• "What does your family value about you?"

Facilitators ask participants to draw their house and their role within their house to stimulate questions regarding how the CBO members see others in their home and how they want to be perceived in the future. The SHG members see that if their role improves within the household, then the entire family will benefit as well. Group members find this exercise useful as they have never assessed their place within the family before.

The conversation on use of appreciative inquiry led into a discussion on whether the poor or oppressed can have vision. It was suggested that in a culture of karma/darma and a society which views negatively individuals who lift themselves up, the poor are challenged to have visions for the future. If the poor/oppressed cannot have individual vision, this creates problems for AI. In response, it was suggested that individual poor people are able to have and share visions when they are working within a group. Within a group, they may feel more secure and the risk of striving for a vision are reduced. As a consequence, the vision of an organization may be developed which reflects the goals of individuals members.

This discussion in turn led to one on the relationship between individual visions, visions of the SHGs, and the vision of a federation. Following some discussion, it was concluded that federations draw their strength from SHGs, who in turn draw strength from their individuals members. It is important to ensure that the vision of the SHGs and the federation are linked both forwards and backwards. The vision of federations should be based on those of its individual SHGs and should respond to immediate issues.

Regarding empowerment, it was noted that it is important that the group become empowered before the individuals become empowered to ensure that everyone moves in the same direction together. In situations where there are weak members unsure of their direction and strong leaders, organizational structures (and AI processes) need to be developed which neutralize the vision/domination of the leader and open up opportunities for weaker members to express their visions.

Returning to a discussion on the four stages of appreciative inquiry, the workshop members discussed the development of Visions. It was noted that these may be either quality based or activity based; each of these reinforce one another. Based on the current work of MYRADA with AI, though, there needs to be a focus on the depth of the visions which are being developed. This depth could be achieved through an examination of the qualities/strengths of the group which need to be reinforced.

The focus of the discussion then changed to how an organizations work with AI can be assessed. The dreams set by an institution will be assessed both internally and externally (eg. by banks and donors) as to whether they are challenging enough. To ensure that AI is found to be useful by donors, there needs to be an analysis to ensure that there is a linkage between the outcomes of the dream phase and the strengths identified during the Discovery phase. An internal monitoring process also needs to be established as organizations will need to go through a series of Discoveries to fully understand what has enabled their successes.

Out of this discussion, two objectives were set for MYRADA:

1. serve as a laboratory to go deeper into AI and ensure that it does not become just another development 'fad'. There is a need to assess how this will be done, and the strategies which will be used; and
2. spread appreciative inquiry to other organizations and agencies.

Afternoon

Based on the conversation from the morning, the following appreciative inquiry objectives were identified:

1. Vision Building - uses the first two Ds of AI to develop a vision for a CBO; this is something which can be done for all CBOs.
2. Vision Building and Attitudinal Change - identification of the strengths, attitudinal change, principles, visions, action planning… using the full 4D cycle and providing an understanding of how to do AI. Should be used with specific or targeted CBOs.
3. Training of CBOs/community facilitators to hold an on-going AI. This is the most ambitious process. It is not anticipated that the community facilitators will have the same degree of knowledge as MYRADA staff.

The MYRADA staff discussed the fact that their goals for AI over the next six months may focus on either spread or ensuring that each group takes ownership of the appreciative inquiry process.

1. Spread - MYRADA has already covered between 5% and 20% of the organizations it works with. The key question is how many organizations more should be covered?
2. Ownership - how can groups take control of the AI process? The workshop participants identified Kollegal, Kamasamudra, Holalkere and Huthur as projects in which fieldwork to find the answer to this question should be conducted.

The conversation then turn to a discussion of some of the limitations of AI. The participants noted that the success of an AI depends in large measure on the strength of the facilitation used and the facilitator's understanding of the methodology. They also recognized that AI takes time as a deep analysis is sought. A minimum of two days, for instance, is required if action planning is to be done well. The vision developed by an organization initially may be rather rough, but overtime it will become more refined.

The focus of the workshop now shifted to a discussion on the need to have clear criteria for measuring inputs, outputs and ownership, and the development of criteria for assessing the vision building process. Specifically, the group decided it needs to determine: (1) what are the indicators of quality?; (2) how can depth and ownership of an AI process be measured?; (3) outputs; and (4) revisioning (systematically revising the vision).

Small Group Work on Indicators of a Quality Appreciative Inquiry

A review of the indicators of a quality of appreciative inquiry was determined to be necessary as it was realized that if an organization or an outsider can assess what has allowed people to have good visions, then it will be possible to determine how to develop and reinforce these visions. To do this assessment, criteria for each stage need to be developed for each stage. The keys questions which need to be addressed through this discussion are:

1. What are the indicators of a good vision?
2. What are the inputs to developing a quality vision and action plan?
3. How can a vision be institutionalized in a CBO?

Participants then identified the following indicators for identifying a quality Vision:

• Challenging
• Achievable/realistic/adoptable
• Institutionalized
• Shared
• Based on strengths
• Internalized
• Evolving
• Reflects current priorities

The participants then broke into three small groups to address the question of how these indicators may be measured.

Note: From this point forward, more detail on the outcomes of the field guide workshop may be found in Annex C.

The three groups reconvened after discussing the issue for about three hours. In the discussion which followed, a key question which was raised was what is the distinction to be made between what is achievable and what is challenging? In response to this question, it was suggested that vision is challenging when an intervention needs to be made to that the group can move beyond its existing capacities in order to reach it.

Following the small group discussion, the workshop participants made plans to visit two CBOs the following morning: GM Doodi Watershed Development Association and Kere Doodi Self Help Group. Both of these institutions completed AI training in August 2000. The following question areas were identified for the group:

1. What is the quality of the vision of the institution? (examine whether it is challenging, achievable, institutionalized, internalized, evolving, or holistic. Have they achieved any part of their vision yet, or identified new strengths?)
2. What was our role during the training and expected in the follow-up?
3. What were the CBO participants' perceptions of the workshop? Was it useful? Was it complete? What is their level of comfort with the methodology used? Are they able to describe the AI process? Have they adopted the process? Has an attitudinal change taken place? Have they shared their experiences with others?
4. What is the CBO members' expectations from MYRADA and other outside agencies?

The workshop participants divided themselves up into two groups and develop the interview protocol for each group.

November 28th

Morning

The workshop participants left Huthur field station at about 7:30 am to visit the two CBOs, Gurumallappana Doddi Watershed Development Association and Kere Doddi men's SHG. After completing their interviews, each group returned to Huthur and developed a presentation of their findings. These findings were shared with the other workshop participants.

Some of the conclusions from the team which visited the Gurumallappana Doddi Watershed Development Association were as follows:

• it is difficult to do training in one day, as the facilitator is forced to shorten the process and important activities are excluded.
• the group members were unaware of their achievement because they had not consolidated their findings previously; there is a need for groups to maintain this information on a continuous basis.
• there is a need to review what was done in the training and why at the conclusion of the session; in this way the group understands why it has taken each step and how to link the Discovery and Dream stages.
• AI can be used to increase the level of affinity within the group through storytelling and the development of a vision and action plan (e.g., the WDA has decided that the first member to grow coffee would be the one who is the poorest). Individual storytelling is an important part of this activity.
• The current process is missing the quality assessment which would enable group members to analyse and discover the factor which led to their strengths and how these strengths may be reinforced.

Afternoon

Following lunch, the team which had visited the Mahadeswara Self Help Group in Kere Doddi village reported their findings. Some of the findings from this group were:

• the SHG does not expect financial support from MYRADA, but it will accept it. They do expect training and skills development support.
• The SHG is a strong group, which was reflected in the vision they developed.
• It may be necessary to do the Discovery stage again before the Design stage, to reinforce the strengths which were found.
• The team had a sense that they are rushing through the Discovery process, which is lowering the quality of the whole process. There is a need to focus more on individual and group storytelling, and on the identification of strengths.

Following this presentation, the workshop participants discussed a number of specific issues, as follows:

1. Mission Statements - identifies the purpose of an organization. Mission statements need to be provided for a variety of organizations, and this may be done within the context of AI.

Mission - guiding purpose which remains relatively constant;

Vision - is an ever-changing process which is guided by the Mission of an organization.

To develop a mission statement, facilitators may ask a group why they do their particular activities, and/or have the groups express why they have chosen their particular visions. Some groups may have difficulties identifying the values which underlie their mission, in which case facilitators should provide concrete examples to overcome this situation.

2. Age of the Groups - will influence the success or quality of the vision developed. Overtime this will change as the strengths of the group increase. Facilitators should not assume that that the vision developed by a group is not challenging enough, as it may be quite challenging for the group at their particular level of development.

3. AI as Homework - one way in which to facilitate the discovery of personal strengths is to ask group members prior to the workshop to think about their individual accomplishments and to either write or draw them so that they may be presented at the workshop. Guides for the type of accomplishments the facilitator is seeking should be set right from the start (e.g., that the accomplishment is verifiable).

Small Group Work on the Quality of the Discover, Dream, Design and Do Stages

The next step in the workshop was to break into small groups to determine what are the indicators which can be used to assess whether a quality discover, dream, design or do stage has been developed. Identification of these qualities was seen as being useful in determining what should be the outcomes of each stage of the training process.

The four small groups discussed their responses following the questions identified for the Dream stage the day before. Each group presented its findings to the rest of the workshop participants (see Workshop notes). With respect to the 'Design' Stage, it was noted that the focus should not be simply on the development of an Action Plan; there needs to be a strategy for the development of a design for ensuring that the AI process is institutionalized and for reinforcing the strengths of an organization.

In the 'Do' stage, the participants recognized that the activities which take place are no longer controlled by the facilitator. In the stage, it was agreed that MYRADA staff have a role largely in providing training and support and in documenting the CBOs experiences; their role is to prepare local institutions for 'doing'. Assessing success within this stage will be possible only after a large number of inquiries have been completed. It was suggested, though, that any evaluation system for the 'Do' stage consider (1) linkages and networks, (2) learning and evaluation, (3) VM, (4) OA, (5) OM, and (6) FM.

Discussion on the Fieldguide

The next focus of the workshop was the development of guidelines for the preparation of the field guide on appreciative inquiry, which is to be completed by the end of the project. The workshop participants first discussed the objective of the field guide. It was decided that the objective of the field guide should be to be:

• useful for MYRADA staff and encourage standardization of practices;
• a reference for ideas, methods, and applications; and
• a reference for outsiders regarding MYRADA's experiences with appreciative inquiry.

Participants agreed that the field guide should be simple, user-friendly, provide do's and don'ts, use simple English, contain information regarding monitoring and evaluation, and use visuals. The targeted audience should be all MYRADA staff, but particularly project implementers and extension officers.

The general outline for the field guide was set as:

1. Introduction

In this section, information will be provided regarding the origin of the AI approach and the theories behind its success. An overview of the process (the 4Ds) will be presented. It will also be made clear that the field guide is an internal working document which shares the experience of MYRADA so far and so is not a definitive statement on how to do AI at the community level.

2. General Module

A general guide to the implementation of AI, this module will begin with a discussion on how to prepare for an AI. It will then examine in detail each of the four stages. It will also provide a toolbox containing stories used, visuals, games and exercises, formats/frameworks, and sayings and slogans.

3. Case Studies

MYRADA has applied AI with self-help groups, self-help group federations, watershed development institutions, MYRADA staff, children's clubs, CDO preparation, a Village Education Committee, and with other NGOs. Given this experience, it was decided that the field guide should focus on MYRADA's experiences facilitating AI with CBOs and providing training to its own staff members as these experience are its areas of strength. In the case studies section, the experience of MYRADA in facilitating CBOs will be highlighted. The 5-day training program developed for MYRADA staff will be included as an Annex.

4. Annex
5. 1. Tips for Facilitators

A discussion of the skills facilitators should have before the try to use AI.

2. Training program for facilitators
3. List of resources
4. References

The workshop participants agreed that in order to ensure the quality of the field guide, it will be necessary to develop a structure for continuously revising it on a periodic basis.

The next step for the participants was to develop a framework for the each stage of the General Module. The following outline was developed:

general introduction

objectives for the module

description of the 'D' in question, and how it links to the previous and next 'Ds'

methodology: how to frame the question; games used etc.; materials; tips for the facilitator, some indication of time requirements.

evaluation of the steps/indicators for success

documentation (how to document each step)

Prior to the end of the second day of the workshop, the participants divided into two groups which would each begin working on the description of the Discovery stage for inclusion in the General Module the following morning.

November 29th

The day began with the participants working in two groups to develop guidelines for the Discovery stage which will be included in the field guide's General Module. While these groups worked, Graham and Saleela re-examined the 'Design' stage and the indictors which may be used to determine if a successful design stage has been completed. Jo-Ellen worked on developing an outline for the field guide based on the previous day's discussions.

Each of the groups reported back in a plenary session late in the morning. Through these presentations, it was realized that the outlines presented needed to be strengthened. Key missing elements were the absence of structures to ensure that the Discovery stage is institutionalized within the organization, concrete details on how to measure outcomes of the process, and details regarding content (such as opening activities, methods used, games played).

The participants then discussed tips for facilitators on what to do, and not do, when facilitating the Discover and Dream stages of AI. As the basis for discussion, the group used a list developed by Rajachary for doing appreciative inquiry with schools. An example of the tips shared is have high expectations for the groups and/or individuals.

The participants then discussed how facilitators can ensure that good, factual stories are shared and strengths are identified during the Discovery stage. Some of the ideas shared were:

• have each story verified by other group members;
• ensure each story has a who, what, where, when and how;
• ask participants to bring something associated with their story;
• have individuals bring something from nature and tell a story about why it is important to them;
• the facilitator can tell their own stories which are encouraging or inspiring;
• the stories should focus on the incident itself and not on unnecessary background information;
• ask the group members to identify the strengths of the facilitator;
• use a mock exercise between two facilitators who share stories and then identify the strengths revealed in each one;
• start with group members who have good stories to tell;
• assign homework in which workshop participants identify good stories before they come to the workshop;
• use encouragement/validation of people's stories and achievements; and
• remember that venue is important as people need to feel comfortable to get good stories.

The next event involved everyone going through the list of indicators for a quality Discovery stage and identifying how each could be measured or ensured. The ideas shared were:

• To ensure a sense of ownership, the stories must come from the individual or group's own experiences, and the facilitator must provide good eye contact and verbal and body language communication.
• Participation - everyone must tell at least one story, if only in a small group session (whether everyone shares their stories with the larger group is a decision which needs to be made by the facilitators and is one which will depend on the number of participants). Humourous stories can be used to breakdown fears between the facilitator and CBO members.
• Building sense of affinity - have the participants tell stories of when supported one of the members of the group, or of when they had a peak moment with other members of the group.
• Deepening the understanding - tell more stories about a particular strength (e.g., leadership, unity). This process can even be used to build understanding about strengths in an area in which the group is weak.
• • Can also ask if the group members have has a dream which came true, and ask them to share this story and discover the strengths behind its successes. This approach is a good lead for the second stage.
  • Can also ask people for stories around a particular area as a way of tailoring the appreciative inquiry to focus on a particular area.
• Institutionalizing storytelling - establish plans so that at every meeting, at least one person tells a story about an accomplishment and discovered strengths. May also have people tell stories about a different theme at each meeting (e.g., leadership, linkages).
• Replicable - the facilitator needs to share what took place in the AI (the steps) and why.
• Documentation - someone other than the facilitator should do this activity, which ensures a transfer of skills to the CBO level. The posters produced through the AI should be left with group itself, and written in the local language. Copies may be made for MYRADA.
• Depth of analysis/reveal new strengths - facilitators needs to keep probing so create a full list of strengths and discover strengths which were previously not known. Also needs to ensure that the analysis remains focused on the issue being examined, especially if the group begins to drift. Sometimes facilitators may need to ask leading questions.

Afternoon

The afternoon began with small group work in the Dream stage. While these groups were working, Graham, Saleela and Jo-Ellen discussed plans for the next six months and developed indicators for a quality 'Do' phase.

The small groups reported back in the early evening. During this process, a couple of different facilitator techniques were shared.

1. Using pictures to share the strengths identified. For instance, a drawing of a tree in which the roots are the strengths (thicker roots for greater strengths), fruits are visions (which may be ranked so that the lower fruit are the visions which are easier to reach), and watering cans are the inputs.
2. "Three wishes" for your organization or family.
3. Ball and basket with individuals tossing from different distances, or working together. This game may be used to demonstrate: need to develop skills; ability to work on more than one vision at a time; strategies needed for reaching a goal; identification of strengths; and visualizing where an organization is and where it wants to be.

Following these presentations, Saleela presented the work she and Graham had completed regarding the indicators for a quality Design and Do stage. The group then discussed MYRADA's plans for a training of trainers workshop and what should be included in the case studies (clear methodology and written by individuals well versed in AI).

To wrap up the workshop, plans were made for the final six months of the project. It was agreed that the following activities will take place during this time:

• Basic training in AI will take place in Holalkere, Huthur and with MYRADA staff;
• Training of trainers workshop during the second and third week of February;
• First draft of the field guide should be completed by the middle to the end of January, and will be evaluated a the training session in February;
• The following field applications will take place:
• • Germalam - federations and a few SHGs
  • Holalkere - federations and WDAs
  • Challakere - WDA
  • Dharmapuri - 1 federation, 2 SHGs and 2 kids clubs
  • Huthur - 4 SHGs, 1 WDA
  • Madakasina - 1 GMM, 2 SHGs
• Basic training with be provided to KAWAD staff.

The workshop ended at about 9:00 p.m.

Meetings in Bangalore

On December 1, the team met at the MYRADA offices to finalize plans for the final leg of the project. Specific issues discussed included:

Evaluation of the project - development of the terms of reference for the evaluator and schedule of events.

The types of experiments which should be done with appreciative inquiry over the next six months, such as linking the discover and dream stages on a single issue, back and forth.

The six month report, which may include all training activities, how AI is being used, the second round of staff appraisal, the second training in Myanmar, moderator training within MYRADA, PAPRO review of MYRADA capacity building, and current trip.

On December 2, the team met with Kaushik Mukherjee, Executive Director of the Karnataka Watershed Development (KAWAD) Society. The team has arranged the meeting in order to discuss future arrangements for the training of KAWAD staff members in appreciative inquiry by MYRADA. After an opening discussion on the activities of both IISD/MYRADA and KAWAD, and a description of AI, Mr. Mukherjee agreed that KAWAD staff will receive training sometime after March. Two of his staff members from the Bangalore office will also participate in this workshop.

Next Steps

Finalize the terms of reference for the project evaluator.

Conduct a training of trainers in February.

Complete the field guide.

Further applications of appreciative inquiry in the field with CBOs.

Basic training in appreciative inquiry for KAWAD staff.

Prepare for final workshop in Bangalore in May 2001.

Return to Top