Analytical Capacity: Experience from Practice

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:

Understanding Analytical Capacity

Part 3
Reflecting Critically
Once a rigorous description of the various realities has been institutionalized or given value, the next stage in analysis is to critically reflect on the information and descriptions that have been collected. This can involve questioning the evidence, for example by asking:
• How accurate is the information?
• Which methods were used to collect the information?
• Are there gaps or additional information which would be useful to have?
• Whose knowledge has been included or excluded?
• Whose perspective does the information represent?
• Might the information be biased towards particular perspectives?
In addition, the underlying assumptions and values of those involved need to be recognized and articulated before conclusions are made. Assumptions are the unstated ideas that we accept to be true or take for granted without necessarily having evidence to support them. Values can be described as the ideas or beliefs that people see as worthwhile, meaning those that provide standards of conduct by which we measure the quality of human behavior.18 Both assumption and values can be very influential in guiding people through a process of reflecting on and interpreting information. However, they can also be potentially deceptive because people may not be aware of the way in which their values and assumptions are directing their reasoning and, consequently, their conclusions.
Since the development sector focuses on processes of social transformation across many different cultures and contexts, the implicit values and assumptions of the different actors involved may vary considerably. If these values and assumptions are not discussed openly and made explicit, it may result in a conflict of values, one value being treated preferentially over another or, ultimately, the wrong conclusion
being drawn. There are many common, but often unproven, assumptions which some of those involved in development make – such as the preconceived idea that agricultural development will lead to increased incomes or that literacy makes for a more liberal society.
These assumptions and values can lead to inappropriate and/or ineffective development initiatives. For example, after 10 years of civil war on the island of Bougainvillea in Papua New Guinea a programme was established to support village development committees to set up income-generating projects. Traditional councils of elders were exclusively male so it was assumed that the only way to ensure the inclusion of women was for them to have their own committees and projects. However, many of the projects that were established, such as poultry production, were later vandalized as a result of jealousies between husbands and their wives. On reflection it was recognized that as the local culture was matrilineal, although women were not formally involved in village councils, they did have many informal ways of influencing decisions. Separating men and women had therefore inadvertently emphasized their exclusion rather than promoting their inclusion.
A lack of understanding of the local culture and context can lead to inappropriate conclusions being drawn from a process of critical reflection.

Understanding Analytical Capacity

Part 1
In the previous section we explained why we are focusing on analytical and adaptive capacities and suggested a process of organizational analysis and adaptation. In this section we begin to develop an understanding of analytical capacity and suggest that the purpose of being analytical needs to be linked more explicitly to improved actions or policies. Analytical capacities should include, but extend beyond, the ability to reflect on practice and analyses data. They should also involve the ability to look at issues from new perspectives, to think ‘outside the box’ and to develop new paradigms if needed. The process of investigation, of being analytical about our work, therefore requires a continuous process of conceptualizing and re-conceptualizing. This is not merely about gathering information according to per-determined frameworks and views of the world. It is also about detecting signs that these frameworks have become inadequate or less relevant, and searching for new ways of articulating or conceptualizing the world in order to resolve issues.
Developing analytical capacity involves encouraging organizations to observe their reality and to question received models, modifying them or changing them where necessary.
Organizations, like individuals, observe and interpret reality according to previous experiences which may then be fitted into received/accepted ways of viewing the world. There may be certain areas of work where organizations primarily build their knowledge base from their cumulative experience of carrying out regular activities – such as delivering services. However, in identifying new areas of work or reviewing strategic directions, the tendency may be for an organization to base their analysis on predominant models or ways of seeing things rather than thinking afresh. In the aid sector, social development work is complex and very context specific, and those who drive the agenda (e.g. donors) – however well meaning – may find that their current paradigms or models are too often accepted uncritically by development organizations/actors.
Developing analytical capacity therefore involves encouraging organizations to observe their reality and to question the received models, modifying them or changing them where necessary. This implies an evolving interaction between theory and practice, as is described in following sections, through:
Developing analytical capacity involves encouraging organizations to observe their reality and to question received models, modifying them or changing them where necessary.
• Observing reality by articulating the view of the world that we hold, and understanding this from different perspectives (concepts).
• Creating meaning by selecting ways of collecting, reflecting on and interpreting information in relation to specific situations or issues (data collection and analysis). This new knowledge can then be fed back into the views we hold about the world (back to the concepts again).
Observing Reality
This first step in the analytical process is an exercise in imaginative description – that is describing a specific situation in detail and as accurately as possible, before proceeding to creating meaning from the information gathered. It involves standing back from reality to see things with fresh eyes and not getting too stuck in habitual ways of perceiving the world. Due to the complex nature of social development, and the dynamic interrelationships involved, developing a view of the world can involve starting to see the world as a ‘whole’. 
Understanding the Whole
Organizations, and the people within them, should be seen not just as passive observers of the world but as active participants which are intricately interconnected with the wider system in which they operate11. Conventional analysis has tended towards simplifying complexity by reducing the whole into a series of constituent parts. This reductionist analysis can be a logical way of thinking about machines, which operate as a whole when all the parts are assembled, but is less useful for the dynamic human systems which characterize organizations because of its limited ability to capture:
• the dynamics and interrelationships within an organization as a ‘living’ system which is constantly growing and evolving
• the relationships and interactions between the organization and the complex social, political, economic, cultural and physical environment in which it operates.

Analytical Capacity

Analysis can be described as the detailed examination of an object, organization or system in order to interpret or explain it8. While cognitive sciences can sometimes
give the impression that analysis focuses solely on breaking the whole down into its constituent parts, for the purpose of this paper we argue that it should also include the process of understanding the whole. In this way the analytical capacity of an organisation relates to its ability to examine and understand its internal and external environment and the interactions within and between them. This can be about establishing cause and effect but also about understanding patterns of behaviour and evolution. Analytical capacity can be defined as:
                Analytical Capacity (Understanding)
The capacity to observe the whole, identify patterns, reflect critically and understand dynamics and interactions, while remaining open to new ideas and perspectives

Analytical capacity includes the ability to:
• Stand back to observe and reflect on the internal and external context
• Understand larger patterns, dynamics and interrelationships
• Look at issues from many angles and viewpoints
• See beyond established ways of thinking
• Attribute meaning to information
• Identify root causes of success and failure
• Construct simple models to conceptualise understanding