Participatory tools are increasingly valued in the field of evaluation whether for analysing reality, facilitating communication, constructing collective perspectives, stimulating creativity and facilitating decision-making, or even for quietening dominant voices to give space for shyer ones. A quick search in the EvalParticipativa tools section is enough to demonstrate that we have a rich supply of techniques and activity ideas. Yet, even though we have a vast array of tools, we do not always know how to use them well. Whilst there seems to be an instrument for every possible situation or goal, there is also the need to constantly modify them and design new customised tools to suit specific situations.
Everyone who has facilitated participatory processes has asked themselves at some point how to achieve maximum possible involvement from as many stakeholders as possible in the activities that we organise. And of course we have not always managed to achieve this! We believe that one of the challenges of participatory evaluation is to create spaces where real participation takes place and multiple stakeholders are the real protagonists in the evaluation agenda.
It is not enough to have a deep understanding of participatory evaluation. It is necessary to identify and use appropriate tools in each social and cultural context where the evaluation is held. These thoughts are a response to this challenge and we are going to share some ideas whilst hoping to provide a pathway for others which will emerge from this community of practice regarding the challenging task of selecting or creating the right tools to facilitate the evaluative process.
As we have expressed on the forum and on other sharing spaces, we could say that participatory evaluation in our region is inherited from our rich tradition which includes Popular Education, the Systematisation of Experiences and Participatory Action-Research. They share various points in common in addition to having their particular nuances and differences. These approaches share an important common core: they adhere to a liberating and transformative perspective of reality. This strong and deep foundation sustains and legitimises these initiatives at their core. One of the unique qualities inherent in these tools is that they emphasise the leading role of the most socially excluded stakeholders.
In our context, value is increasingly given to using participatory methodologies in educational processes and in the management and evaluation of programmes and projects. However, in many cases, the participatory games and techniques are used for little more than to motivate the group, ‘break the ice’, introduce ourselves to each other or include relaxing breaks between work sessions etc. We believe that participatory tools, and especially the games, should go beyond their recreational aim. In other words, participatory games and tools should not be seen as a form of entertainment or a way of “using up time” and should be used for more than purely motivational purposes. In turn, neither should they be turned into a mechanism that makes every participant assume a role that is far from their real one, taking them out of their reality to submerge them into a fantasy world.
If by using techniques and tools we are simply looking for “fun” ways to impart content and if by conducting the evaluation we are simply pretending to take on board the perspective of local actors, we are demeaning their use. In these cases, it is deplorable to think that these techniques are used in a manipulative fashion to make people endure processes imposed by external needs in entertaining ways. In this case, the distribution of power which participation should encourage is devalued.
Whilst the techniques and games are not the essence and heart of participatory evaluation in and of themselves, it is true that they are key and very relevant in participatory processes as they allow us to ‘build together’.
In the participation context, this includes throwing your whole self into the didactic activity (not just your thoughts), creating exchanges which deepen individual and group knowledge, facilitating trust and fun ways of learning; all of which reflect and will have repercussions on the desired transformational direction.
Therefore, in order to understand participatory tools in a different way, we should ask ourselves how to deal with a complex term in an ‘evaluative’ way or ‘with content’. This requires previous knowledge obtained from professional participation and personal opinions and options in a participatory, horizontal and non-imposing way.
Most of the participatory tools that we use require participants to ‘throw their whole selves in’. In other words, they have to act, discuss, argue and defend a posture regarding an intervention or situation that affects them.
For this, the participatory tools that we use, and especially those linked to evaluation, should try to reproduce as faithfully as possible the conditions where each situation unfolds.
The tools should deal with situations as diverse as the daily life of a family, group or community: the work of an advisor, professional or leader of a grassroots organisation; the way the market works; and the fight for different sector interests within society. In other words, the tools that we design should incorporate elements which have real affects on people’s lives. Thus, the participants go beyond simply representing their own role to ‘live the game’, ‘play their life’ or ‘play seriously’.
The tools should deal with situations as diverse as the daily life of a family, group or community: the work of an advisor, professional or leader of a grassroots organisation; the way the market works; and the fight for different sector interests within society. In other words, the tools that we design should incorporate elements which have real affects on people’s lives. Thus, the participants go beyond simply representing their own role to ‘live the game’, ‘play their life’ or ‘play seriously’.
We also believe that the games or tools that we use have to be able to create conditions with horizontal structures for us to communicate; express our feelings, experiences and knowledge; share our ideas and expectations; and learn about different topics and situations.
By doing this, we can revisit situations from our lives, our work and organisations. In this way, the game’s rules facilitate exchange and create space to talk about complex topics which would not usually be discussed. The fact it is a game encourages the participants to join in and deal with difficult topics in such a way that everyone present actively participates.
Finally, it is important to reflect on what makes a process more dynamic in order to shape the ‘key’ which will open up space for communication and collective construction. In this example, we are referring to some kind of plot or healthy scheming which is inherent in all good games. This is simply a way to make the tool exactly that, an instrument which can be used in a participatory and democratic way to deal with topics which would otherwise be very difficult to address.
It is worthwhile pointing out that many of the games that we invent or adapt use the logic of ‘competition’ (horse race, lottery/bingo, card games, dice games etc.) This should be seen as a motivational factor and never the end goal. The games must stimulate ‘cooperation’ more than ‘competition’ and the idea that ‘we all win’ must be upheld.
As a final note, we believe that those who select, design and use participatory tools have a great responsibility. The most important factor in the role of someone who facilitates these processes is having an open and receptive attitude. Without this, no technique or game will work. Furthermore, we have to recognise that regardless of which tool we choose, we must get to know it well and know how to use it. This means being aware of its potential as well as its limits as not all tools are suitable for all situations, topics or contexts.
It is also important that the facilitator is prepared to manage multiple situations which can arise from using an experiential tool. By ‘putting our whole selves in’, people are investing part of their lives in the collective process.
For this reason, we must be respectful and careful not to generate situations beyond our scope especially if we do not have the professional means and resources to manage and contain difficult situations.
We would like to invite you to think about the tools that you have used and share your opinions in this post’s comments. How have you used them? What experiences have you had? Did you attempt to create customised tools? What was the result?
During the first gathering of participatory evaluation experiences to be held in Quito in mid-November, we will dedicate a day to sharing tools and talking about their use in participatory evaluation processes. All contributions are more than welcome!
Esteban Tapella and Pablo Rodriguez Bilella | Directors of the Social and Environmental Labour Studies Programme (PETAS), National University of San Juan, Argentina
