Module 3.3. Participatory Methods

Participatory approaches to solution identification can highlight possible interventions that might not be immediately apparent to instigating organisations or donors.

Module 3.3 provides facilitators with suggestions for convening community members to produce:

This module will help users:

• engage diverse community members in collaborative analysis
• reflect on which tools will be most effective in a particular context
• brainstorm and decide on a meaningful solution through a multi-method, participatory approach

Building on solution tree analysis, discussion and/or the session agenda should identify a shared goal (‘trunk’), then give time for everyone do their own tree – only to bring it back together and show just how many more roots and branches exist than any one individual might have been aware of.

Pre-cut paper ‘leaves’ and ‘roots’ can be passed around to participants, who can write directly on them and then come to the front of a room to tape/paste their aspects on a shared tree – this collective work can feel more engaged than simply discussing and/or having a facilitator do all the writing, and it creates a workshop artefact that can be a useful ‘regrounding’ tool throughout the project’s lifespan.

Similar to the multi-perspective conflict timeline, a focus group can work to create multiple narratives of a central timeline, considering which aspects of cooperation and which previous ‘solutions’ have helped (and harmed) various groups.

A multi-perspective cooperation timeline can be especially helpful for conflict sensitivity, as it can shed light on previously unconsidered concerns or alternative viewpoints on what many communities members might have seen as productive or positive.

A focus group can gather around an existing linkage chart and take turns ‘cutting’ one of the linkages – this could even be done by physically cutting a copy of the chart. The group can collectively brainstorm what types of intervention would serve to sever that linkage, and which other parts of the nexus would be impacted.

Participants can complete a feasibility matrix independently, and then compare their results. Facilitators should be sure to highlight any divergences, and discuss those as a full group until consensus is reached.

Participants can complete a prioritisation matrix independently, and then compare their results. Facilitators should be sure to highlight any divergences, and discuss those as a full group until consensus is reached.

Robust scenario forecasting involves specialised expertise and complex mathematical models capable of predicting climate change effects and other conditions; however, even a vastly simplified version of scenario forecasting which can be helpful as a thought exercise when evaluating possible solutions. Asking individuals and/or small groups to imagine what their ‘best case’ and ‘worst case’ future look like, and then discussing what a variety of potential interventions look like in those different scenarios, can help ‘test’ (and refine) solutions to find the most robust.