Steps

There are no formulae or tricks or standard exercises and each question or activity has to be placed in the context of a particular on group. In this way there will be increased emphasis on the group’s own ability to work things out themselves. The process of this exercise followed six broad phases:

• Assessing whether all people benefit equally in the project activities
• Self-reflection as to whether the same inequalities of support or inclusion exist elsewhere in other societies
• Reflection with leaders, stakeholders and the groups concerned as to whether they perceive that certain individuals seem to be excluded or lack support
• Social exploration of differences to test hypotheses about whether there is general exclusion for a particular group or whether exclusion is based on individual characteristics or history.
• Measurement of differences for all to see, followed by assessment of relative importance and risk for different groups.
• Challenge, involving staff sharing feelings about what happens in different societies and whether stakeholders feel they want to improve the situation themselves.

Case Example

• A review of existing experience through discussion on what has been done, successes and difficulties.
• A review of staff ideas on why female genital cutting has not changed as a practice. At this stage, participants began to be challenged about their understanding of the situation and the value of the answers they had provided.
• To deepen the exploration of their own perceptions, staff were asked to explore notions of identity, dignity and respect within the community. The facilitator prompted the discussion by questioning;
  • Why do people do the things that they do?
  • Why do people do the things that they do, knowing that they will be harmful or they don’t like doing them?
• This discussion helped surface the fact that communities may do things that lead to pain if it serves higher group aspirations. Thus, CARE may see FGC as a problem, though others see it as something that is normal but painful.
• The next stage was to probe notions of respect and ‘empowerment’. Most people think of respect as something earned, not given. Therefore the focus needs to be as much on: a) people to change ways to achieve respect within a group, as on b) the society around them to give them the space to show their value as members of a group.
• This discussion led to a review of the different concepts of power that are held on the one hand by CARE staff, and, on the other, by the people they face.
• With this understanding that in three major areas there were entirely different perceptions of the situation, the exploration could begin of how perceptions could be reviewed between the parties, and the understanding that exploration without trust would be impossible. Staff then discussed what it meant to achieve trust.
• Staff then reviewed their initial answers about their experiences of the projects in the light of the discussion about perceptions. In each case, staff saw the failure to address differences in perception led to failure of projects.
• The final phase of the training was to help people see how they could use their existing skills to explore, negotiate and challenge. They were asked to think about:
  • “If you see someone having difficulties, which neighbors would you help and which would you not help?” Naturally the staff expressed the fact that because they didn’t like some people they would not help those people. This question prepared the way for the understanding that other people are often isolated for similar reasons. However, the main line of questioning was how they tackled situations in which they observed something happening that they thought to be wrong.
  • The first example was “If you see your son doing something in your household that you think to be wrong, how do you handle it?” This was followed by a question about the factors allowing them to approach a son in that way.
  • The question was then made a little harder by asking “If you see a woman neighbor beating a foster child and breaking the child’s bones, what do you do?” This naturally led to the whole sequence of understandings about past history, fear of counter-attack, fear of future relationships, the need to investigate the situation more thoroughly, the degree of friendship and trust already existing with the neighbor, the likelihood of change.
  • The final question was “If you see members of a community doing something that you think is horrible, what do you do”. Because the staff saw this in the context of their previous answers, they saw immediately that the processes of exploration of their own perceptions, of establishing trust, and of raising challenges would have to be used.
• The process was then made more specific by clarifying that in every community there would be a range of views concerning the importance of the practice. So part of the exploration with a group of people is trying to find out where this balance lies, and whether the majority are prepared to continue the practice in order to ensure the survival of the clan as an entity (or whatever objective is related to the practice in question).
  • Staff discussed length of time used for exploration, the numbers of people with whom issues are discussed and the organization of exploration (small groups, interviews; stakeholders from different social groups, ages, households that seem set apart in social terms). Staff began to see value of exploration as a parallel process to project activities. The exploration is something that can be done informally, bit by bit, at every opportunity for a visit to the area. Ideally exploration is done by local stakeholders, so part of the work would be stimulating exploration.
  • Further difficulties also need to be explored. Since cutting is related not only to sexuality but also to prevention of pregnancy, there was concern about what happens once FGC stops. So any FGC program must also be prepared to talk about fertility promotion and avoidance.
• The review of the training helped people see how projects can be established with their usual objectives, whilst providing an independent opportunity to explore issues with local leaders, stakeholders and institutions to see what improvements are desired and feasible. Methods of supervising, rewarding, monitoring and evaluating the process were also reviewed.