INASP newsletter 49.pdf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Practising DevelopmentAn interview with Clara RichardsClara Richards is a development professional who hasworked for CIPPEC and the Overseas Development Institute.She is the current coordinator of the Evidence-BasedPolicy in Development Network. Earlier this year, Clara andVanessa Weyrauch (from CIPPEC) carried out an evaluationof INASP’s programme to teach pedagogy skills to those whotrain African policy makers in the use of evidence. Followingthis evaluation, Clara took part as a participant in a similartraining programme in Kuala Lumpur — this time for trainersof Asian policy makers. To complete the cycle, she recentlytook on the role of co-facilitator at a further workshop —pedagogy for trainers of policy makers in Latin America.Since she has experienced this approach as an evaluator,a participant and an implementer, we thought it wouldbe interesting to find out Clara’s perspective on INASP’sapproach.Q1. Thanks very much to Clara for agreeing to take part inthis interview. Could you briefly describe the programmethat you and Vanessa were asked to evaluate?The programme we evaluated aimed to build the trainingabilities of a group of African trainers so that they wouldbe better able to train policy makers on the use of researchfor policy. It consisted of three phases: the pre-workshop,workshop and post-workshop.In the pre-workshop phase, participants were asked towrite a reflective essay focussing on teaching and learning.The participants were then brought together for a five-dayworkshop to build training skills. Throughout the workshop,the examples and practical activities concerned relevanttraining topics. Following the workshop, participants wereexpected to deliver training to policy makers in the skillsneeded to access and use research evidence and, wherepossible, to engage in peer mentoring relationships withother participants.The objective of carrying out an evaluation was todetermine the nature and magnitude of the impact of thistraining programme in order to help INASP and Institute ofDevelopment Studies (IDS) to understand whether this wasa cost-effective approach for building the capacity of policymakers to access and use research.Q2. Why did you decide to get involved in carrying out theevaluation? What about it interested you?What interested me the most was the approach of theprogramme. Training policymakers is a key aspect to helpthem improve different skills such as using evidence forpolicymaking and encourage the development of moreinformed policies, therefore trainers should be experts onthe topics they teach. However, there is also a great needto better engage with this (often challenging) audience.Although the expertise on different topics such asinformation literacy, writing skills, research communication,etc. is growing fast, trainers still feel they lack the skills toengage participants and they feel weak while making theirtraining interesting and appealing. Especially in Africa itwas discovered that the learning approach is usually very“lecturer centred” creating a large gap between trainer andparticipants which hinders learning.INASP and IDS have introduced a very different approachthat bridges this distance and makes training much moreeffective. Based on the constructivist theory, training takesfrom the idea that people learn best when they ‘co-construct’the knowledge. The constructivist trainer facilitates theacquisition of new knowledge by acknowledging the wealthof experience in the room, encouraging participants to reflecton previous experiences and through questioning elicits thegaps in their knowledge. The trainer co-constructs the ‘new’knowledge by filling in the gaps in participants’ knowledgeand asks them to consider how the new theory alters theirperception or approaches to their current life experiences.I think this approach should be used more often in capacitybuilding activities in general. This evaluation was an excellentopportunity to detect how this can be applied and the typeof results that it yields.Q3. What would you say were the main lessons from theevaluation? Are there lessons which are of relevance toothers working in this field?I think the main lesson was to realise that although immediateresults were very positive (in the sense that the participants’reaction to the programme was optimistic and they feltthey had acquired new skills and improved their trainingabilities), as an evaluator we need to understand that theseimmediate reactions are not enough to assess long-termchange. For example, although some participants said theyacquired new skills during the workshop and [as mentionedby trainers] they had performed very well during theteaching sessions, they performed less well when observedafter the workshop. This shows that knowing how to delivergood training may not be enough to effect behaviour changein real world settings. There is a need to keep supportingthem through diverse channels (for example an e-platformwhere they can share progress) and monitoring the longtermprogress (or regression) in order to address attitudinaland behavioural change.10 INASP Newsletter 49 December 2012
Therefore an important aspect to consider within suchprogrammes is the development of an explicit Theory ofChange that clearly represents an overall vision of success,including its preconditions and the link between differentinterventions that could strengthen evaluation and learning.However, this should not be an overly structured, preprogrammedapproach that would have been doomed tofailure in the dynamic and complex environments wheretraining usually takes place.Q4. After carrying out the evaluation, you took part in asimilar programme as a participant. Did your perspectiveof the programme change once you had experienced it foryourself?No, not really. After I carried out the evaluation I was veryintrigued and enthusiastic to participate as a trainee sinceall the African participants had been very excited about thetraining. It helped me to tie things together and completelyunderstand why the reaction of the interviewees was sopositive. To start by acknowledging what participants alreadyknew and brought to the workshop was a key element tomake the learning process more interesting, appealingand worthwhile. Furthermore, I have participated in othertraining and also delivered some but I learned on this onemany tactics to make the most of time, to use every singlesecond available and still keep participants engaged – whichis not easy in such an intense workshop.Another outstanding aspect was that the training wasexplanatory; the way it was delivered was a way of teachinghow we should deliver our own training. Consequently, itis not surprising that participants feel they have learnedand acquired new skills. However, I am concerned aboutthe sustainability of this knowledge and the achievementof behavioural change. One of the conclusions andrecommendations we arrived at in the evaluation was theimportance of having some kind of follow-up system withtrainees. Mentoring or continuous learning are neededin order to develop and ground this type of change.Notwithstanding, I am aware this is what people workingin capacity building usually struggle with, unfortunatelyresources are scarce!Q5. What (if anything!) did you learn by participating inthe programme? Do you think it will change how you willapproach training in the future?It is very common to believe that if someone dominatesa topic there is a high chance they will deliver trainingsuccessfully. In some way, I believed that before participatingin the training. However, I have to say that by the way theprogramme was designed it shows that INASP and IDS havethought of the many things that an “expert” has to dealwith while carrying out training and I completely changedmy opinion about expertise and training! Among the thingsthat can go wrong include facing questions trainers don’treally know how to answer and/or dealing with difficultparticipants. These specific examples made us realise that itdoesn’t matter how much we know about a topic, the waywe relate and communicate with our audience will bringdifferent outcomes.Another aspect I think was key, was the fact that when wetrain people it is fundamental to first acknowledge whatparticipants bring to the table, give them a chance to saywhat they already know and build up the training fromthere. If trainers working in capacity building are able toincorporate this last aspect in their programmes I believecapacity development would improve considerably! I thinkwe need to really invest in training our trainers in effective,learner-centred pedagogical approaches.Q6. Now that you have evaluated one programme andparticipated in another, do you have any particularconcerns or anxieties about delivering the sameprogramme in Latin America? What do you imagine will bethe biggest challenges?The importance of working directly with the “demandside” is growing enormously in Latin America but it is still achallenge. Up until now training has been delivered mainlyto members of organisations that wanted to influencepolicy. Consequently, there has been significant changein the way researchers approach their investigations andpublic policies, the consciousness of the use of evidence inpolicymaking has risen considerably. However, in the last fewyears the “demand side” has been targeted as an audiencethat should also receive training for better policymaking.Therefore, training on pedagogical skills comes at a perfecttime and it will be very much appreciated since dealing withpolicymakers in Latin America is a tussle and trainers needto improve their skills to deal with this type of audience.Moreover, we know context is fundamental, therefore aconstructivist approach will be key to implement this training,our challenge is to recognise what is the previous knowledgeparticipants have and incorporate it in the workshop. I think(and I hope!) this kind of workshop will boost local trainingand make engagement with policymakers a more commonpractice in the region.This interview was originally posted on our blog,Practising Development, on 20 July, 2012.http://bit.ly/VCM5uiINASP Newsletter 49 December 201211
Page 2: About INASPPutting research knowled
Page 6 and 7: An empowering exerciseTraining the
Page 8 and 9: Defining a research agendaBalancing
Page 12: News, events and publicationsOpen A

INASP newsletter 49.pdf

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?