INTRAC’s Analytical Skills Training Programme in Central Asia23
Shaped by the recent Soviet past and influenced by traditions of hierarchy and conservative attitudes, Central Asia is a region prone to conformist thinking. The formal education system provides little encouragement for critical thinking and, during Soviet times, scientists were expected to produce positive research results in support of the official political discourse. The same word is used in Russian for research and analysis and the prevailing understanding of research emphasizes the use of statistics and quantitative data.
Within this context civil society is still in its infancy. This has meant that CSO leaders have limited recognition or influence in society and are often sidelined by government officials, despite the fact that the majority of these leaders have previously served the Soviet government system in managerial positions. Furthermore, few CSOs have emerged from a genuine constituency and most of them therefore struggle to relate to the community groups which their missions suggest they support. In the light of these circumstances, strengthening the skills of staff to understand, analyse and influence policy was identified within INTRAC’s Central Asia Civil Society Strengthening Programme as a key issue for the organizational effectiveness of CSOs in the region.
From 2002–2004, INTRAC conducted an Analytical Skills Training Programme (ASTP) in three countries: Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan. The programme aimed to help local CSOs engage more effectively in policy influencing by building their capacity to conduct socio-economic analysis. The original focus of the training was to build research skills, but this evolved based on the recognition that many CSOs needed analytical skills and the capacity to think critically. Participants attended five modules over nine months which were structured as follows:
INTRAC Analytical Skills Training Programme: Course Outline
Module 1 presented an overview of development theories, and used the Six Thinking Hats exercise to illustrate that there are different ways of analyzing issues. Guidance was given on developing research questions to rigorously describe (‘what?’, ‘how?’, ‘why?’) and propose hypotheses for examination (‘what if?’).
Module 2 presented different interpretations of the concept of poverty, explored the emergence and practice of social development and social impact assessment as a method of inquiry, and provided the opportunity to practice participatory tools of data collection.
Module 3 examined participatory methods and supported individuals in the development of their own research questions and methodologies. Participants were to carry out the majority of their research before module 4.
Module 4 examined the value of monitoring, evaluation and learning systems. It explored approaches to analyzing data (including ways of combining qualitative and quantitative techniques) and supported individuals in their own analysis. In addition, methods of disseminating findings were introduced.
Module 5 took the form of a mini-conference. Participants presented the results of their individual research projects to representatives from the CSO sector, media, academic institutions, and local and national government bodies who participated in feedback discussions on research findings and methods.
In 2005, interviews were conducted with selected ASTP training participants and trainers to obtain an understanding of the perceived and experienced impact of the training. While the primary purpose of the training was to build individual capacity to influence policy, it seems that the knowledge and skills gained can also lead to strengthened organisational capacity if participants are able to share their acquired competencies with colleagues and influence the ways of working in their organisations. INTRAC has also reflected internally on the lessons learnt from implementing the ASTP. The combined areas of learning identified by these reflections are summarised below:
Key Areas of Learning from ASTP
Impacts identified by participants:
• The notion of research was demystified and participants gained the skills to adopt qualitative and participatory approaches to research using a triangulation of different methods.
• The capacity to observe the interaction between organizations and their environment, and to capture complex situations in simple/accessible ways was strengthened.
• Programming and project design became informed by more relevant data collection and stronger data analysis.
• Long-term strategic thinking was enhanced, based on a more intuitive and analytical assessment prior to strategy development and the recognition that there are alternative ways of viewing and addressing challenges.
• Programme delivery integrated needs assessment, problem identification and project planning in consultation with community groups.
• The design of local training programmes was influenced by INTRAC’s modular and analytical training approach.
• The ability to monitor, evaluate, and measure the impact of development work on the quality of life in communities was enhanced.
• Organizations gained more credibility for being well-informed and capable of critical analysis. This was recognized by donor agencies and government, leading to more opportunities for funding and collaboration.
• The quality of information disseminated to the media improved and media exposure increased.
• CSO networks were established for evidence-based policy influencing.
Reflections on implementing ASTP:
• In Central Asia some stakeholders were expecting ASTP to focus more on statistics and quantitative research. To avoid these confusions, the purpose of ASTP and the distinctions between research, critical thinking and analysis need to be communicated and clarified at the beginning, especially where the translation of these terms into other languages can carry different meanings.
• The modular approach of the ASTP made it possible for participants to increase their analytical capacity gradually, from one module to the next, as they learned from their experiences. Between the five modules, they carried out tasks related to their research projects, and were able to apply the ASTP methodology in practice through their own work. This allowed them to raise questions that were discussed collectively during the next module.
• Providing follow-up to the ASTP is key to the success of the programme. While mentoring support by INTRAC in Kyrgyzstan was mentioned as valuable, it is clear that the closure of INTRAC’s office in Kazakhstan had a negative impact on the extent to which participants felt they had been able to continue developing their analytical skills.
Shaped by the recent Soviet past and influenced by traditions of hierarchy and conservative attitudes, Central Asia is a region prone to conformist thinking. The formal education system provides little encouragement for critical thinking and, during Soviet times, scientists were expected to produce positive research results in support of the official political discourse. The same word is used in Russian for research and analysis and the prevailing understanding of research emphasizes the use of statistics and quantitative data.
Within this context civil society is still in its infancy. This has meant that CSO leaders have limited recognition or influence in society and are often sidelined by government officials, despite the fact that the majority of these leaders have previously served the Soviet government system in managerial positions. Furthermore, few CSOs have emerged from a genuine constituency and most of them therefore struggle to relate to the community groups which their missions suggest they support. In the light of these circumstances, strengthening the skills of staff to understand, analyse and influence policy was identified within INTRAC’s Central Asia Civil Society Strengthening Programme as a key issue for the organizational effectiveness of CSOs in the region.
From 2002–2004, INTRAC conducted an Analytical Skills Training Programme (ASTP) in three countries: Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan. The programme aimed to help local CSOs engage more effectively in policy influencing by building their capacity to conduct socio-economic analysis. The original focus of the training was to build research skills, but this evolved based on the recognition that many CSOs needed analytical skills and the capacity to think critically. Participants attended five modules over nine months which were structured as follows:
INTRAC Analytical Skills Training Programme: Course Outline
Module 1 presented an overview of development theories, and used the Six Thinking Hats exercise to illustrate that there are different ways of analyzing issues. Guidance was given on developing research questions to rigorously describe (‘what?’, ‘how?’, ‘why?’) and propose hypotheses for examination (‘what if?’).
Module 2 presented different interpretations of the concept of poverty, explored the emergence and practice of social development and social impact assessment as a method of inquiry, and provided the opportunity to practice participatory tools of data collection.
Module 3 examined participatory methods and supported individuals in the development of their own research questions and methodologies. Participants were to carry out the majority of their research before module 4.
Module 4 examined the value of monitoring, evaluation and learning systems. It explored approaches to analyzing data (including ways of combining qualitative and quantitative techniques) and supported individuals in their own analysis. In addition, methods of disseminating findings were introduced.
Module 5 took the form of a mini-conference. Participants presented the results of their individual research projects to representatives from the CSO sector, media, academic institutions, and local and national government bodies who participated in feedback discussions on research findings and methods.
In 2005, interviews were conducted with selected ASTP training participants and trainers to obtain an understanding of the perceived and experienced impact of the training. While the primary purpose of the training was to build individual capacity to influence policy, it seems that the knowledge and skills gained can also lead to strengthened organisational capacity if participants are able to share their acquired competencies with colleagues and influence the ways of working in their organisations. INTRAC has also reflected internally on the lessons learnt from implementing the ASTP. The combined areas of learning identified by these reflections are summarised below:
Key Areas of Learning from ASTP
Impacts identified by participants:
• The notion of research was demystified and participants gained the skills to adopt qualitative and participatory approaches to research using a triangulation of different methods.
• The capacity to observe the interaction between organizations and their environment, and to capture complex situations in simple/accessible ways was strengthened.
• Programming and project design became informed by more relevant data collection and stronger data analysis.
• Long-term strategic thinking was enhanced, based on a more intuitive and analytical assessment prior to strategy development and the recognition that there are alternative ways of viewing and addressing challenges.
• Programme delivery integrated needs assessment, problem identification and project planning in consultation with community groups.
• The design of local training programmes was influenced by INTRAC’s modular and analytical training approach.
• The ability to monitor, evaluate, and measure the impact of development work on the quality of life in communities was enhanced.
• Organizations gained more credibility for being well-informed and capable of critical analysis. This was recognized by donor agencies and government, leading to more opportunities for funding and collaboration.
• The quality of information disseminated to the media improved and media exposure increased.
• CSO networks were established for evidence-based policy influencing.
Reflections on implementing ASTP:
• In Central Asia some stakeholders were expecting ASTP to focus more on statistics and quantitative research. To avoid these confusions, the purpose of ASTP and the distinctions between research, critical thinking and analysis need to be communicated and clarified at the beginning, especially where the translation of these terms into other languages can carry different meanings.
• The modular approach of the ASTP made it possible for participants to increase their analytical capacity gradually, from one module to the next, as they learned from their experiences. Between the five modules, they carried out tasks related to their research projects, and were able to apply the ASTP methodology in practice through their own work. This allowed them to raise questions that were discussed collectively during the next module.
• Providing follow-up to the ASTP is key to the success of the programme. While mentoring support by INTRAC in Kyrgyzstan was mentioned as valuable, it is clear that the closure of INTRAC’s office in Kazakhstan had a negative impact on the extent to which participants felt they had been able to continue developing their analytical skills.
No comments:
Post a Comment