Hue and Ratankiri Workshop Report - IDRC Digital Library

Report of the Isang Bagsak Workshop, Hue, Vietnam. March 11-23, 2002 �

��

Guy Bessette

Moses Buregyeya

John Graham

Lun Kimhy

Le Thi Thuy Hang

Touch Lakhena

Enoch Lwabulanga

Nhem Sovanna

Chhum Sovanny

Wilberforce Kateera Tushemereirwe

Chin Saik Yoon

��

Manon Hogue

��

Wilberforce Kateera Tushemereirwe

Isang Bagsak!��

��

�� !�"��#� ��

Hosted by$��% ��&�� !�'��

(��$� ��$��

Hue, Vietnam. March 11-23 2002

Report of the Isang Bagsak Workshop, Hue, Vietnam. March 11-23, 2002 �

�)��

$��!�� !

��!�� !�� *��+

$��!�� +

$�� ,��

��*�� !��

�� !��+

$��!��

�� !�� +

$��!�� ,��

!�� +

$��!�� ,��

�� -�+

These were some of the questions posed andaddressed during the two week workshop onParticipatory Development Communication (PDC)held in Hue, Vietnam in March, 2002.

�� .��

This is what the participants felt about theworkshop, as expressed through the evaluation(See Appendix “C” page 37 for the full report)designed and conducted by the participantsthemselves:

/��

0� ��

��!��1��!2�345�� 6

� !�1��!2�37�� 6�,�

�� !�!8�"��,�!�

�� !��,��8

Seventy-six percent of the participants ratedthe workshop as “extremely useful” to their workand the remaining 14% as “useful”.

All participants rated the workshop objectivesfully achieved.

Participants felt the following were strengthsof the workshop:9 �� !

��!��

“Small number of participants allowed easylearning.”

“Full participation of all members.”“Ideas sharing.”“Inter-team interaction high.”“Confidence building among teams.”“Rich experiences on how to use different

tools in PDC and to apply it in ourrespective team projects.”

��

“Topics were related to the workshopobjectives.”

“Diversity of content learnt.”“Hands-on work (practicals).”“Quality of communication tools and

activities.”“Use of camera and other audio-visual tools.”“Capacity building of the participants.”

��:�� ;��

“Good organization (activities, facilities,venue, agenda, face-to-face contact).”

“Silent [quiet] venue was selected.” “ [Warm] hospitality.”

��<��%�� !��(��<

��!� �� 8

Report of the Isang Bagsak Workshop, Hue, Vietnam. March 11-23, 2002 =

�� .

9 �� :��

“Language problem.” (12%)“Some people kept silent during the

workshop.” ( 8%).“Most of the inter-personal skills, games, role-

play could not be shared among groups.” (4%).

��

“Lack of enough equipment for practicing.”(32%).

“Few hand-outs were given to participants.”(20%).

“Workshop did not discuss in detail aboutfacilitation skills in CBRM research.” (8%).

“Less time for practicing communicationtools.” (8%).

“Much time spent on theory and less onpractical.” (8%).

“Sometimes teams tended to be behind theschedule (not cover the assignment given ontime).” 4%.

“Less discussion on participation skills.” (4%).

>�� ;�� !��

“Field trip was allocated a short time.” (8%)“Limited time for a discussion.” (12%)“Workshop duration was too long.” (20%)

�� ,��!��

�� ,��

��

“More equipment to be provided for eachteam.”

“Preparation of hand-outs to cover allpresentations.”

“More time for practicing communicationskills.”

“Training time should be allocated such that80% covers practical and 20% theory.”

“Reduce on the content.”“Allow the participants to use local language

for easy understanding.”“More time for clarifying a discussion.”

��This workshop provided the first opportunity

for the three teams from Cambodia, Vietnam andUganda, and the resource persons to meet,network and exchange experiences on PDC andcommunity-based nature resources management(CBNRM). The team members and resourcepersons had been interacting via an e-line forumfor the four months prior to the workshop.The e-line forum is hosted at the websitehttp://www.isangbagsak.org.

The workshop was also an opportunity for theteams to discuss as a group Part 3 of the e-forumwhich deals with: “Communication during theimplementation and monitoring of participatoryresearch”. The first two themes of Part 3 were thefocus of the first week of the workshop:“Developing communication strategies” and“Using communication tools”.

��,*��

* Enable members of the three participatingteams of Isang Bagsak to share experiences andideas face-to-face.

* Practise the application of a systematicmethodology in developing communicationstrategies.

* Learn to make effective use of audiovisualcommunication tools (photography, audio andvideo recording) in the context of participatorydevelopment communication.

* Consider and practise the use of inter-personal communication techniques as PDC tools

* Evaluate the progress of the Isang Bagsakprogramme.

�� 0�� !�?��

��

Report of the Isang Bagsak Workshop, Hue, Vietnam. March 11-23, 2002 4

��The workshop was planned in two parts. The

first week focused on the following:* Discussion and evaluation of Isang Bagsak

activities.* Training and practise in a systematic

methodology in developing communicationstrategies.

* Introduction to games and other inter-personal communication tools.

The second week concentrated on the use ofaudiovisual communication tools. It focusedspecifically on video and photographic camerasas tools for facilitating community participationin CBNRM initiatives.

��A variety of participatory workshop methods

were adopted to maintain congruence with theoverall objectives of the workshop. The sessionswere facilitated and rapporteured byrepresentatives from all the teams and theresource persons. In addition to this there were:

* Team work involving project teams.* Team work involving mixed teams.* Pleanary sessions and games involving

all the participants.* Buzz groupsGroup work was facilitated by a mix of PDC

techniques:

* Card collection.* Collective flip-chart preparation.* Group presentation.* Participatory video.* Photo-novella/album.

#� !��#��<��

>�� The day began with words of welcome from at

the formal opening of the workshop presided bythe Rector, Hue University of Agriculture andForestry and Guy Bessette.

�� Esther Lwanga Semakula and Drake Mubiru

Nagulumbya of the Uganda Team presented theirproposal for how the workshop will be evaluatedat the end of two weeks using a questionnairethey had designed. Copies of the questionnairewere later circulated for the comments of all theparticipants. The completed questionnaire was tobe processed in a participatory fashion via aninnovative group tabulation exercise wherequestionnaires were to be randomly exchanged,and each participant of the workshop were to actas the proxy of the anonymous writer of thequestionnaire in an open session to tabulate theresults. This innovative method was appreciatedby the group. It had unfortunately to be droppedfrom the last day of the workshop due to ashortage of time.

The questionnaire focused evaluation on thefollowing areas:

* Realization of workshop objectives.* Strengths and weaknesses of the workshop.* Organization and management of the

workshop.* Quality of presentations and training

activities.* Suggestions for follow-up to the workshop.

The participants agreed to the appointment ofthree members to act as the EvaluationCommittee to oversee the finalization,distribution, collection and processing of thecompleted questionnaire at the end of the twoweeks. The committee comprised:


* Wilberforce Kateera Tushemereirwe,Uganda Team

* Touch Lakhena, Cambodia Team* Ngo Huu Toan, Vietnam TeamThe results of the workshop evaluation is

attached as Appendix “C” on page 37

��9� �� This session was aimed at just flagging the

issues related to the project and its e-forum whichwas to be discussed in-depth on Friday March 15,Week 1, Day 5. Participants were invited by ChinSaik Yoon, who is also the moderator for the e-forum, to consider the following in preparationfor the in-depth discussions:

* What do you like the most about the e-forum?

* What can we do to improve the e-forum?* What should be evaluated for the overall

Isang Bagsak Project?* How should the work of each project team

be evaluated?The participants were divided into four teams

(using the simple method of calling out thenumbers 1 to 4 consecutively by everyparticipant) for this exercise. Each team focusedtheir discussions on one of the above questions.The teams each carried out a card collection onthe topic they were discussing, before sorting andclustering the cards on flip charts for presentationto the workshop when it met in plenary. The

results of the session were displayed on one wallof the venue to serve as “food for thought” on theissues over the next three days leading-up to thein-depth discussions.

Presentation of research projects by the teams.The afternoon was devoted to the presentation

of each team’s project. The Powerpointpresentations used by the three teams areavailable for reference, please contact GuyBessette. The following are salient points whichwere raised during the discussions whichfollowed each presentation:

&,��@�� (��

The team did not have prior knowledge aboutthe PDC methodology. The team adopted themethod to promote an even greater bottom-upapproach after learning about PDC. The mainchallenge faced so far in implementing PDC istrying to convince the agencies which the teamcollaborates with to use the same methodology.The other challenge is trying to reach the poorestin the community. They lack all types ofresources: land, people to work on the land, etc.

&,��,�!��(��

The project was broadened in scope afterjoining the Isang Bagsak programme. It nowincludes a communication approach. The teamtries to strike a balance between policy-advocacyand promotion of bottom-up communication. ThePDC methodology has been very useful to theteam in launching new initiatives in Ratanakiriprovince. The Cambodian Team reported that theteam itself has benefited from the programme inthe following ways: Team-building, confidencebuilding, new knowledge on communication, andimproving their fluency in the English language.All of this was achieved through the activeparticipation of team members in weeklymeetings to discuss postings from the e-forumand to prepare their postings to the forum. Whenasked to provide an example of a PDC methodthey have used they gave the example of theircurrent efforts to train villagers to do the annualreview for their project, this review was done bystaff of government departments in the past.

(�� !��

�� A�� 8

Report of the Isang Bagsak Workshop, Hue, Vietnam. March 11-23, 2002 B

&,��%�� !��(��

The team in Uganda is multi-disciplinary incomposition. It aims to promote not onlycommunication among the farmers and people,but also between the people and policy-makers.The team hopes to use PDC to build mutualunderstanding and collaboration among thepeople they work with.

(�!��#��<��

�� !�� 9� �� *��

The day began with a short discussion of someof the points which were raised the previous dayabout the project review. The following weresome points of agreement which emerged:

9��

* Teams should schedule quality time fordiscussions and posting to the e-forum.

* Information exchange among the teamsshould be maximized.

* Intervals before postings made to the variousthemes should be spaced out, and the process ofinteraction slowed down.

* The Cambodia team faced frequentproblems with their e-mail connections. It was aproblem without ready solutions.

��

�,��

* Sharing of experiences among the teams.* Learning from each other.* Sharing of a new methodology.

��!�,��!��

��*��+

* Knowledge acquired by members of eachteam.

* Level of participation by team members.

��!�,��!��

�� +

* The amount of information is exchangedwithin the group.

* The effect of the information exchanged onlocal capacities.

(��%�� !�� 8

Report of the Isang Bagsak Workshop, Hue, Vietnam. March 11-23, 2002 C

Introduction to themethodology ofcommunicationplanning

This was the main theme for the days work.The theme was addressed in two smallercomponents:

'�� !� �� ,*��

The Uganda and Vietnam Teams were invitedto present their projects’ experiences in makingapproaches to the communities they work with,and identifying their communication objectives.

The Vietnam Team presentationwas made by Hoang Thi Sen.The following are the main points shared by

Sen:How to approach community* Study before hand existing data on the

community.* Identify the people you want to work with.* Meet with the local authorities.The way to approach the community* Meet with community leaders.* Call-on the local authorities.* Meet with key members of the community

during discussions with various interest groups.* “Eating, drinking and sleeping with the

farmers.”Kind of information to be gathered* Local political system and “power”

distribution.* Local regulationsChallenges faced* It is difficult to reach out to the poor people.* Negotiations and reaching agreements with

people (For example: Finding out from farmershow they do certain activities, and their ideas onissues affecting them).

* Language barrier, the people at the projectsite speak a different language.

Involving community in CBNRM* It is important to pay attention to all the

different groups in a community.Decision-making* It empowers people in the community.* It also helps to build the people’s

confidence.

The Uganda Team presentationwas made by Esther Lwanga Semakula.Approaching the community* The team focuses on banana cultivators and

aims to identify different groups of farmers withconcerns about soil infertility and soil erosion.

* Many of the farmers shifted their farms on tohigher slopes which are prone to soil erosion,information acquisition.

* A good way to obtain information about thecommunities prior to visiting them is by askingstaff of NGOs who know the farmers, or duringmarket days when the farmers are gathered at onespot, and sometimes from agricultural extensionstaff working in the area.

Constraints faced by the team* Most of the young people have moved away

from the farms to the cities, leaving only oldpeople to tend the farms.

Information interests of the community* Knowledge on modern farming practices and

availability of credit facilities.* Market conditions and opportunities.* Information sharing on common problems.

�� <�� !��

This session covered the following threetopics:

��

�� !��

!�� !

��!��:9!� ��

��

This topic was addressed in the form of apresentation of ideas by Guy Bessette withdiscussions afterwards.

Three very main types of channels wereidentified : interpersonal channels, institutional


channels and mass media channels.Guy noted that communication theory has

changed in recent years but many practitionershave not updated their ideas. Some people stillfollow the sender-receiver model ofcommunication. With this model there is somefeedback from the receiver to the sender. Amessage is sent via a channel from the sender tothe receiver. Many agricultural extensionists stillbelong to the old school. It is a very top-downapproach which seldom seldom works well.

The PDC method stresses the use ofinterpersonal and institutional channels tofacilitate bottom-up communication in order topromote sustainable development.

/�� !

��

Each of the three teams presented their ideason “tools” and approaches they had begun to usein their work with communities. All presentationswere made in Powerpoint (contact Guy Bessettefor soft copies of the presentation).

The Vietnam team noted in their work thatthey “ate together, lived together and workedtogether” with their farming communities andthis has allowed them to begin to understand thedevelopment needs of their partners. They usedcommunication tools to help them build thisunderstanding.

The Uganda team was a little more formal intheir approach. Different “criteria” for selectingtools had been identified, then different types ofaudience were considered and then depending onthe needs of the audience, differentcommunication options were considered for use.

The Ratanakiri team spoke more about theiroverall strategy and how this related to thedevelopment objectives they needed to meet.Taking forests as an example, they started with avisioning strategy with the community. Peoplestated that forests are essential to their livelihoodsand hence the formal recognition of communityforests for them is important. They thenbrainstormed with communities about how to

achieve this objective and following thatbrainstorming a communication strategy isdeveloped that would help them achieve thisgoal. They recognized that they would need tocommunicate with different groups of people indifferent settings and hence, differentcommunication strategies are needed dependingon the situation and need.

In discussions on the presentations, Chinnoted the processes being used is most important.We need to support people in their developmentobjectives. The communication process istherefore more important than the media product.People need to be in control of the process andthe tools used. On the other hand in the top-downmass media approach, the product is always mostimportant, and the people’s role in thecommunication process is often reduced to that ofpassive consumers of these media products.

�� <�� <��

� !�!��

Again, each of the three teams were asked tomake a presentation on this topic.

The Vietnam team, based their presentation onexperiences gained in the Philippines, presented aframework that is often used: Why PM&E, Forwhom, Who to Involve, How to ensure fullparticipation, and then What to monitor. Methodsand tools to be used follow and thendocumentation of the processes and resultsfollows that.

(��@�� (��!��

��!�� 8

Report of the Isang Bagsak Workshop, Hue, Vietnam. March 11-23, 2002 D

The Uganda team noted top-down approachesbring poor results and PM&E is used to empowerpeople. It allows for a faster adoption oradaptation rate for any technologies that they maybe testing with farmers, thus enhancing theeffectiveness of one’s work.

The Cambodian team returned to the ideasintroduced in the previous session regarding howto ensure people do not lose their forests tooutsiders. They prefer to work with people to“protect” their forests. Part of their strategy is toform a community forestry network. They alsoaim to work with local policy makers on forestryissues. Basically, for all, it is an Interest, Attitude,Practice Framework. How to create interest andawareness, how to change attitudes and then howto change management practices for forests(which stop all illegal activities). The team willbe developing a communication strategy, testingthat with groups of people, evaluating if they aremaking progress and then documenting theprocesses.

Guy, as a discussant suggested evaluationplans need to be simple. One can pick two orthree communication activities and evaluatethem. In the documentation of the processesbeing studied one can also consider using suchsimple methods.

��! �!��#��=��<��=

Inter-team work onPDC strategies

The day was devoted to group work on thePDC plans of the three teams. In order tofacilitate the sharing of ideas between membersof the three teams, each group comprisedmembers drawn from all the three project teams.The task for each group was to work on the PDCplan of a particular team.

The PDC plans produced by the three inter-team groups are available for reference over thenext three pages. It should be noted that theseplans are work-in-progress. The limited timeavailable at the workshop did not allow for fullplans to be prepared. The draft plans whichfollow are incomplete and require furtherdevelopment and refinement.

(��

�� ,�!��*��8

Report of the Isang Bagsak Workshop, Hue, Vietnam. March 11-23, 2002 �E

��+

Com

mun

ity

grou

ps*

Fir

e w

ood

coll

ecto

r*

NR

FR

, col

lect

or*

Non

-for

mal

edu

cati

ongr

oup

* F

arm

ers

* W

omen

gro

ups

* L

ogge

rs*

Tra

diti

onal

lead

ers

* V

illa

ge v

olun

teer

agri

cult

ure/

vill

age

vet

Pol

icy

mak

er*

Dep

artm

ents

* C

DC

/CC

/VD

C*

Loc

al a

utho

riti

es*

Eld

ers

* C

NE

M c

omm

itte

e*

PE

DC

Oth

er s

take

hold

ers

* O

ther

vil

lage

s*

Tim

ber

com

pani

es*

NG

Os

��

* B

rain

-sto

rmin

g*

Map

ping

* V

isit

s*

Pos

ters

/bro

chur

e*

Pho

togr

aphs

* V

ideo

s*

Aud

io-c

asse

ttes

��

��

* C

ondu

ct m

eeti

ng w

ith

CT

Yto

dis

cuss

impa

ct a

nd r

esou

rces

avai

labl

e to

for

est d

wel

lers

.*

Con

duct

CT

Y e

xcha

nge

visi

t.*

Est

abli

sh n

etw

orki

ng w

ith

othe

r vi

llag

es.

* P

rodu

ce a

war

enes

s ra

isin

gm

ater

ials

.*

Dis

cuss

ion

wit

h C

TY

toid

enti

fy a

ppro

pria

te lo

cal

know

ledg

e.*

Sha

ring

suc

cess

sto

ries

.

��

�,*��

* A

war

enes

s ra

isin

g on

cons

eque

nces

if f

ores

t is

not

man

aged

pro

perl

y.*

Mot

ivat

e C

TY

by

faci

lita

teC

TY

to s

hare

kno

wle

dge,

expe

rien

ces,

suc

cess

sto

ries

.*

Em

pow

er w

omen

thro

ugh

thei

r pa

rtic

ipat

ion

in d

ecis

ion-

mak

ing

in N

RM

.*

Enc

oura

ge C

TY

toex

peri

men

t wit

h di

ffer

ent

man

agem

ent o

ptio

ns.

�� !

* S

ensi

tiza

tion

in s

usta

inab

leus

e of

tim

ber

and

NT

FP

s*

Cap

acit

y bu

ildi

ngin

appr

opri

ate

fore

stm

anag

emen

t.

��+

* C

omm

unit

y as

a w

hole

* F

ire-

woo

d co

llec

tor

* F

arm

ers

* L

logg

ers

* W

omen

gro

ups

* C

omm

une

coun

cils

* N

RM

com

mit

tee

* P

RD

C/d

epar

tmen

ts*

Eld

ers

* N

GO

s*

Oth

er v

illa

ges

�� ,�!��(��

Report of the Isang Bagsak Workshop, Hue, Vietnam. March 11-23, 2002 ��

��+

* C

omm

unit

y gr

oups

: Sm

all-

scal

e ba

nana

gro

wer

s in

Ddw

anir

o su

b-co

unty

, Rak

aidi

stri

ct.

* P

olic

y-m

aker

s: L

ocal

and

dist

rict

lead

ers.

* O

ther

sta

keho

lder

s: N

GO

sw

orki

ng in

the

area

, tra

ders

,cr

edit

ins

titu

tion

s, e

xten

sion

depa

rtm

ent.

��

* M

eeti

ngs,

dis

cuss

ions

,ga

mes

.*

Rad

io, v

ideo

, bro

chur

e,po

ster

, car

toon

, rol

e-pl

ay,

song

s.*

Mee

ting

s, d

iscu

ssio

ns, f

ield

-vi

sits

.*

Tra

inin

g, v

ideo

, rad

io.

* F

arm

er d

ay c

eleb

rati

on.

* O

bser

vati

on,

expe

rim

enta

tion

, eva

luat

ion,

docu

men

tati

on, w

orks

hop.

* D

emon

stra

tion

, dis

cuss

ion,

eval

uati

on.

��

��

* In

volv

e th

e fa

rmer

s in

the

prod

ucti

on o

f le

arni

ngm

ater

ials

.*

Dev

elop

men

t of

lear

ning

mat

eria

ls e

.g.:

Bro

chur

es, r

adio

prog

ram

s, v

ideo

pro

gram

s, e

tc.

* P

re-t

esti

ng le

arni

ng m

ater

ials

deve

lope

d.*

Usi

ng th

e m

ater

ials

intr

aini

ng a

nd in

form

atio

ndi

ssem

inat

ion.

* F

acil

itat

ing

farm

ing

cont

ests

to e

ncou

rage

far

mer

s to

obt

ain

and

appl

y sk

ills

in s

oil

man

agem

ent.

* F

acil

itat

e ex

chan

ge v

isit

sbe

twee

n fa

rmer

s to

sha

reex

peri

ence

s.

��

�,*��

* D

evel

opin

g le

arni

ngm

ater

ials

to f

acil

itat

epa

rtic

ipat

ory

lear

ning

of

impr

oved

soi

l man

agem

ent

prac

tice

s.*

Bui

ld c

apac

itie

s in

soi

lm

anag

emen

t pra

ctic

es.

* F

acil

itat

e sh

arin

g of

loca

lkn

owle

dge

in s

oil m

anag

emen

tpr

acti

ces.

* C

onti

nue

part

icip

ator

y ac

tion

rese

arch

.

��

��!

* In

form

atio

n on

soi

lm

anag

emen

t*

Sha

ring

of

know

ledg

e on

soi

lm

anag

emen

t pra

ctic

es.

* A

war

enes

s ra

isin

g th

at th

eyar

e re

spon

sibl

e fo

r ca

rryi

ng o

utso

il m

anag

emen

t pra

ctic

es.

* T

rain

ing/

skil

ls in

soi

lm

anag

emen

t pra

ctic

es.

* B

ehav

iour

cha

nge

to d

evel

opa

team

str

ateg

ies

for

impl

emen

ting

the

tech

nolo

gies

.*

Und

erst

andi

ng th

e C

BN

RM

prob

lem

s fa

cing

the

loca

lco

mm

unit

y.*

Aw

aren

ess

abou

t pos

sibl

eso

luti

ons.

* In

form

atio

n on

how

toac

cess

, use

and

rep

ay c

redi

t.*

Soi

l man

agem

ent t

echn

ique

s.*

Und

erst

and

the

wor

k of

NG

Os

to a

void

con

flic

ting

appr

oach

es in

the

fiel

d.

��+

* S

oil f

erti

lity

man

agem

ent

grou

ps.

* M

oist

ure

cons

erva

tion

man

agem

ent g

roup

.*

Soi

l ero

sion

man

agem

ent

grou

p.

* D

istr

ict c

hair

pers

on a

ndco

mm

itte

e.*

Sub

-cou

nty

chai

rman

.*

Sub

-cou

nty

chie

f

* C

redi

t ins

titu

tion

s.*

Agr

o-ba

sed

NG

Os.

* A

gric

ultu

re e

xten

sion

sta

ff.

�� %�� !��(��

Dev

elop

men

t act

ion:

To

impr

ove

bana

na p

rodu

ctio

n th

roug

h im

prov

ed s

oil m

anag

emen

t tec

hnol

ogie

s.


��+

Com

mun

ity

grou

ps*

Wom

en a

ssoc

iati

on*

Poo

r fa

rmer

gro

up*

Ani

mal

pro

duct

ion

grou

p

* C

rop

prod

ucti

on g

roup

* C

redi

t gro

up*

For

est p

lant

ing

grou

p

* C

omm

unit

y le

ader

gro

up

* N

ew s

ettl

er g

roup

��

* M

eeti

ngs

of f

arm

ers

* U

se o

f lo

cal l

angu

ages

* P

ictu

res

* O

n-fa

rm w

orks

hop

* B

rain

-sto

rmin

g se

ssio

ns*

Vid

eo*

Doc

umen

tati

on

��

��

* F

arm

er-t

o-fa

rmer

vis

it*

Stu

dy-t

our

* O

n-fa

rm e

xper

imen

ts*

Per

iodi

cal m

eeti

ngs

for

shar

ing

info

rmat

ion

* D

evel

opin

g tr

aini

ng m

ater

ials

��

�,*��

* To

mot

ivat

e th

e fa

rmer

s to

impr

ove

pig

prod

ucti

on

��

��!

* W

here

to b

uy g

ood

bree

d?. H

ow &

whe

re to

mar

ket?

. How

to c

ontr

ol th

e di

seas

es?

. How

to u

se m

anur

e?. H

ow to

bet

ter

loca

l fee

dso

urce

s?. H

ow to

kee

p pi

gs e

ffec

tive

ly?

. Can

you

impr

ove

pig

man

agem

ent s

yste

m?

. Sha

ring

wor

kloa

d be

twee

nm

en a

nd w

omen

. Per

suad

ing

men

to s

hare

wor

kloa

d w

ith

wom

en.

��+

* P

oor

wom

en*

Far

mer

s w

ith

less

oppo

rtun

itie

s (C

apit

al, l

and,

labo

ur, k

now

ledg

e)*

Fis

h pr

oduc

tion

gro

up

* P

ig p

rodu

ctio

n gr

oup

* C

assa

va c

ulti

vati

on g

roup

* H

amle

t lea

ders

* P

eopl

e co

mm

itte

e

* L

and

less

* R

ice

prod

ucti

on

�� @�� (��

Impr

ovin

g liv

elih

ood

of u

plan

d pe

ople

Report of the Isang Bagsak Workshop, Hue, Vietnam. March 11-23, 2002 �=

(��!��#��4��<��4

Field trip toHong Ha Commune

The entire day was set aside for a visit to HongHa Commune, the project site of the VietnamTeam. The commune is located in the mountainseast of Hue. It is reached after crossing theFragrant River and driving continuously after-hillfor about two hours. The access to Hong Ha isnow vastly improved with the building of a newroad, compared to a couple of years ago when theVietnam Team first started working in thecommune.

>,*��!��A discussion the previous day identified the

following objectives for the visit:* To know the Vietnam team CBNRM

experience in Hong Ha.* For the villagers to meet with foreigners

from Cambodia, Uganda, Canada and Malaysia.* To request the villagers their own views on

how to reach the poorest.* To share aspects of the Vietnam team

communication plan with the villagers.

'�� In the first part of the visit, after the

introductory and welcome comments, the visitorsand the villagers participating in the meetingintroduced themselves. Some20 villagers werepresent at the beginning of the meeting. Theparticipants from Hong Ha were mostly leadersof their community: Chairman of the village,head of the party, representatives of variousassociations, representatives from the womenassociation, leaders of ethnic group, medicalresource person, etc. Some villagers were alsopresent.

Participants were then presented with folk

music and dance. After the presentation, thechairman made a presentation to the meetingabout the history of the commune and theCBNRM project in which they have worked withthe Vietnam Team since 1998.

Discussions followed the presentation, themembers of the commune and participants fromthe of the workshop were invited to ask questionsand share their experiences.

The village chairman asked first question ofthe workshop participants. He wanted to obtainexperiences from the countries of the workshopparticipants on ways of reaching poor farmersand some experiences were shared.

Questions were also posed in relation withfacilitating the learning of technologiesparticularly related to rice and cassavaproduction, gardening, pig raising, fish farms).

A question was then asked to understand themain difficulties faced by the villagers in therealization of this project. Some participant soffered that the understanding of technologies byvillagers is limited and that the results ofapplying the technologies was not fullysatisfactory. Usually people perform well the firstyear, with the support of the project but in thesecond year, results are less encouraging.

Someone else explained that the problem wasa problem of money as the people did not havethe means to invest in their new production. Asdiscussion was slow and difficult, one farmersaid that most villagers were to shy to expresstheir views in a big meeting. A decision was thentaken to break the group in two and to pursuesuch discussions more informally.

(��$� ��$��

�� !��8

Report of the Isang Bagsak Workshop, Hue, Vietnam. March 11-23, 2002 �4

0��!��

0��> ��

It was explained to this group that one problemfaced by some villagers is that they don’t know howto use their money productively. Some of them whoborrow from the development bank, at a very goodrate (0.5%), use all the money form their loanswithout making any improvement to their farmproduction. They then face difficulties in repayingtheir loans. The net result of the loan being a lossrather than a gain.

In answer to a question asking why there wereso few women in the discussion, it was offeredthat if workshop participants would probablymeet more women when they visited the villages.

0��(��

The second group spent most of the timediscussing the question: “Why did the trainingworkshops on the new farming methods notproduce satisfactory results?” A villager, who isalso a member of the local veterans groups, saidthat the farmers could not remember all that wastaught to them (most of the trainees are illiterateand therefore cannot make their own notes). Hesuggested that the solution was to conductrefresher training on the farms. The on-farmapproach suggested seems to relate to thedifficulties in calculating inputs, such as

fertilizer, to the farms. By doing on-farm trainingthe farmer hopes the trainer can work out theinputs for him. The farmers also suggested thatthe training be conducted in smaller groups, andthat the content of the training be simplified. Itwas also suggested that demonstration plots beestablished after the training.

The farmers also identified some of their otherneeds. They include: An interest-free creditscheme, more land for the cultivation of wetlandrice, the conduct of more study-tours for thefarmers to visit with other farmers to learn newagricultural methods, and the poor quality of soilin parts of the commune.

Discussion was then stopped for lunch. Thediscussions had to be translated in full fromVietnamese and the local language to English,and back. This limited the scope of thediscussions.

(��$� ��$��

�� !�!� ��8

/�� 8

�� 8


@��After sharing lunch with the villagers,

participants went in two groups to visit thecommune and some households.

/�� Participants were impressed with the good

working relationship which the Vietnam Teamhas built-up with the village leadership during theshort time they had been working there.

Participants were also impressed with thecultural and social dynamism of the village asdemonstrated in the cultural and musicalpresentations made during the the field-visit.

It was also evident from the farm visits thatthe work of the Vietnam Team has succeeded infacilitating improvements in the livelihood of

many members of the community in Hong Ha.With regards to the meeting with the

commune leadership, it was noted that formalcommunity meetings may not be the best way ofconducting in-depth discussions with villagers.The setting must be comfortable for the people tospeak. A formal meeting should terminate afterthe introductory discourses and presentations togive way to informal discussion with smallgroups.

The formula of a community meeting may beall right for meeting with association leaders andcommune leaders, but not very suitable forvillagers. It would be better to visit villagers ontheir farms or at their homes than to ask them tocome to the commune office to attend a meeting.

The timing of a visit is also an importantconsideration. Evenings, for example, are moresuitable for meeting with farmers as they wouldhave finished their work on their farms by thenand can spare the time for discussions.

It would also be useful to prepare discussionguides when conducting small group discussionsand forming specific groups with homogeneousparticipants (groups of women, leaders, farmers,etc.).

With regards to content, certain reflectionsfrom the discussion should be taken inconsideration, like including a course on how touse money soundly, giving longer term support tothe villagers, choosing specific meeting places toinclude specific groups, etc.

The following day, the discussions on theevaluation raised most of these comments. Oneparticipant also suggested that there should alsobe a better preparation for introducing theworkshop participants when visiting households.

(�� .�A��

�� 8

#�� !��

,� � �� !�� 8

Report of the Isang Bagsak Workshop, Hue, Vietnam. March 11-23, 2002 �B

'��!��#��7��<��7

The day began with a discussion about thefield trip the previous day. The participantsthanked the Vietnam Team for their hospitalityand kindness in arranging the very interesting andfruitful visit. Most of the points discussed arerecorded in the notes above about the field trip.

�� 9� �� The main thrust of the day was group work on

the evaluation of Isang Bagsak, and generatingsuggestions on how to improve the on-goingprogramme, of which the e-forum is a part.

The workshop participants were randomlyassigned to four working groups. Each of thegroups focused their discussions on one of thefollowing topics: Team organization, E-forum,Reference materials, Follow-up work for IsangBagsak.

The groups worked using a combination ofgroup discussion and card collection. The teamsthen presented their work and recommendationsat a plenary session. The main points of theworking groups are summarised briefly below:

��

Weaknesses:* Inadequate time for reading.* Language problem for most of the

Cambodian and Vietnamese participants who arenot fluent in English.

* Reference materials exchanged is sometimesnot comprehensive.

Recommendations:* Distribute the reference materials in smaller

installments or packages.* Information exchanged should be related

directly to the topics being discussed.

'��9� ��

Strengths of the programme:* Two training workshops were held (one in

each country, and an international workshop inHue).

* On-going group discussions.* Reference material and documentation.* Exchange of information using the e-forum.* Face-to-face meeting in Hue.

Recommendations:* PDC approaches and methodology could be

applied to other research projects.* The e-forum should be continued.* All team members should be involved in

posting so as to acquire the experience and shillof doing it.

>�� *��

Weaknesses:* Only core-team members benefit from the

project.* The e-forum schedule often conflicts with

regular work plans.

Recommendations:* Extend benefits to all Isang Bagsak

members.* Revised e-forum posting and discussion

schedule for sharing with all the three teams.* Convene meetings regularly.* Iang Bagsak teams should be multi-

disciplinary in composition and limited to amaximum of 10 to 15 members per team.

��

Weaknesses:* Internet connection is usually slow and

difficult, particularly for the Cambodia Team.* Limited time is allocated to the reading of

contributions posted on the forum.* Some project team members are not familiar

with using the project website.

Report of the Isang Bagsak Workshop, Hue, Vietnam. March 11-23, 2002 �C

Recommendations:* Make sure several members of each team

know how to post message to the website.* Try and improve local Internet connections.* Increase time allocated for reading the

postings, especially the introduction to eachtheme of discussion.

* Conduct training on how to use the Internet.

��

The results and recommendations of the fourworking groups reported above, formed the basisof the concluding discussions for the workshopwhich was held on Saturday May 23. The threeteams agreed to the following:

��

* The pace of e-forum should be sloweddown. It will now iterate at the rate of two weeksfor the introductory posting to each theme, oneweek for the second posting, and one week forthe wrap-up by facilitators. The revised scheduleis available for reference at Appendix “A”, page36

* To increase the participation of the threeteams in the facilitation of the e-forum, each teamwill take turns in being the time-keeper for onetheme. The line-up of time-keepers is alsoavailable at Appendix “A”, page 36

* A description of the role and responsibilitiesof the time-keeper is available at Appendix “B”,page 36

'�� !��

9� ��

* Guy Bessette shared with the participants hisplans to identify a regional organization to takeover the coordination of the programme. He is inthe process of making contact with such potentialorganizations and would like to involve onerepresentative from each of the teams toeventually join him in meeting such anorganization and planning for the hand-over ofcoordination responsibilities to the selectedorganization.

* Guy Bessette also echoed the concerns ofparticipants on the importance of communicationin the national languages. With regard to thisconcern, the Vietnam Team will be piloting anational version of the Isang Bagsak initiativewithin Vietnam, involving interested nationalorganizations, and using the Vietnamese languagefor communication.

The participants passed a vote of thanks toMr. C.V. Rajasunderam for his much appreciatedhelp in conducting the literature review on PDC,and gathering all the references for the project.

��)�� An energetic evening of traditional song and

dance was held on March 15 to permit all theparticipants to appreciate each others culturalforms, which are also powerful PDC tools. Theteam from Hong Ha Commune made a specialvisit to Hue to take part in the exchange. Theypresented the best peroformances for the eveningranging from moving romantic duets to stirringhunting songs and dances. The Cambodian Teamhad everyone’s feet tapping to their ram-vongmusic and dance. Our Vietnamese friends didtheir country proud with stirring renditions of acouple of national hymns. And the Uganda Teamborrowed the Hong Ha drums to roll out thebeautiful rythmns of Africa. It was a wonderfulevening to mark the completion of Week 1.

(��$� ��$��

�� !� �� 8


&�� ,��% ��$��

��@�� (��8

&�� !��

��,�!�� 8

��

�� %�� !�� !� ��8

��

��

��

��

��

Report of the Isang Bagsak Workshop, Hue, Vietnam. March 11-23, 2002 �D

#� !��#��5��<��

This part of the report focuses on the secondweek of the Isang Bagsak workshop.

The stated objective of the workshop’s secondweek was to learn how to use effectively audio-visual communication tools (photography, audioand video recording) in the context ofparticipatory development communication.

��9 ��!��

��

The facilitator briefly introduced herself andexplained that she doesn’t pretend to be an“expert”, but rather a practitioner in PDC whohas had the opportunity to experiment andwitness how PDC is used in different parts of theworld. The facilitator also mentioned that shebelieves people in developing countries cangreatly learn from one another’s experiences, thatIsang Bagsak is a vivid example of it, and thatthroughout the workshop, she would make apoint of illustrating concepts with concreteexamples drawn from experiences in otherdeveloping countries.

Finally, the facilitator mentioned thatparticipants were not asked to introducethemselves at this particular moment, becausethey would be asked to do so a little later, as partof a practical exercise.

�� !��

The methodology to be used was described asa three-step combination of theory, techniquesand hands-on exercises/assignments. Morepecifically, each time a new technique or skill isintroduced, participants will have the opportunityto practice through hands-on exercises. Finally,through group discussions and assignments, aneffort will be made to relate the newly acquiredskills and techniques to the reality thatparticipants work in.

It was mentioned at this point that thetechnical aspects of the workshop would focus onthe aspects that are needed in order forcommunication to be efficient, as opposed to anin-depth knowledge and mastering of the tools.

1��

��.��.��,��2�30��6

The second step in this first day was a gameentitled “Communication without knowing whatit’s about”. The idea underlying the use of thisgame at this particular moment was to first«break the ice” by having people play and laughtogether, while triggering a reflection on theimportance of two-way communication. Thegame unfolds as follows :

Two participants are asked to volunteer andrequired to leave the room. On the flip chart, thefacilitator draws a picture at the bottom of thesheet. Th drawing is then hidden with largepieces of paper, with just its upper part remainingvisible.

The first volunteer is asked to come in andcomplete the drawing, starting with the fewremaining lines of the previous drawing thatremain visible. This second drawing is alsohidden with pieces of paper leaving a fewremaining lines at the top.

The second volunteer is asked to come it andto complete the drawing as s/he sees fit. Thepaper hiding the first two drawings is thenremoved, revealing a very awkward picture withthree drawings on top of each other without anyreal connection between them.

The game produced a lot of laughing, and ashort discussion followed, as to “what it tells usabout communication”. Participants rapidly

#� � �� 8

Report of the Isang Bagsak Workshop, Hue, Vietnam. March 11-23, 2002 �E

identified how the lack of communication whenperforming a common task can lead to theoutcome being completely different from whatwas expected at the onset. They also discussedhow communication can be incomplete, and howtrying to make sense out of partialcommunication can lead to a wrong interpretationof what’s meant.

�� .�� !��

Thirdly, participants were requested tointroduce themselves using a very specialtechnique : among an array of objects lying onthe table, they were to pick one that symbolicallyrepresent them. The objects ranged from a canopener to a bottle of liquid paper, paper clips, etc.Participants were also requested to take turnsfilming one another with their video camera asthey were explaining why they picked thatparticular object to introduce themselves. Eachpresentation was not to last more than30 seconds.

This exercise pursued various objectivessimultaneously, such as :

- improving the cohesion of the group;- helping people lose fear of using their video

camera;- helping people lose fear of talking «on

camera» and of seeing themselves on screen;- starting to “de-monopolise” the use of the

camera (most teams had one person consideredthe “camera expert”)

- having people experiment the use ofsymbols in communication, i.e. how symbols canbe a powerful way to express oneself and howsymbols can be interpreted differently bydifferent people.

The presentations were then played back onthe TV screen. Each person therefore had theopportunity to introduce themselves in a way thatwas more insightful and more personal thantraditional ways, while also having theopportunity to see themselves on screen.

On a technical level, the exercise was alsoused for participants to learn how to connect thedigital camera to the TV screen by using theRCA cable provided with the camera. Theexercise also revealed the limitations of thecameras’ built-in microphones, since an

important part was inaudible. This led the groupto reflect on the need to purchase an externalmicrophone for their cameras, while revealing theimportance of sound, on how it is oftenoverlooked and considered second to the image.Also, participants noticed that the image wasmost of the time very unstable and asked howthey could resolve this problem. The facilitatorshared some tips on how to hold and handle thecamera for more stability. The exercise alsohelped participants acknowledge the need todevelop better technical skills in order forcommunication to be efficient. One participantpointed at the fact that “even if we ultimatelywould like people at the grass-roots level to havethe communication tools in their own hands, thiscannot happen unless we first acquire thetechnical skills ourselves”.

$�� )��

Even if the workshop planning process hadallowed for all three teams to have a major inputin the workshop design, the facilitator still felt itnecessary to conduct an activity to make sure thatthe content of the workshop was in tune withparticipants’ expectations and needs.Furthermore, the need to harmonise expectationshad become clearer in the course of the previousexercise, as the difference between the twotechnical aspects of communication (how to usethe tool itself and how to use it in a process) didnot seem very clear in people’s mind.

Participants were therefore asked to breakdown in “country teams” for a 20-minutediscussion, during which they were to agree on aset of expectations to be presented to the groupthereafter.

Following their group discussion, the threeteams came up with the following expectations :

1. How to produce audio-visual materials forPDC

2. How to use the audio-visual materialseffectively

3. How to reflect for evaluation andimprovement

4. The technical instructions in audio-visualtools

5. How to get information effectively andmeaningfully by using audio-visual tools


6. Systematising and presenting informationcollected

7. To know which tools are appropriate forspecific communication activities and how toprepare them

8. To acquire skills of using differentcommunication tools

9. To learn techniques of doing on-the-spotinterviews

The next step was for participants themselvesto try to figure out if, among the expectationsexpressed by each team, some were similar inmeaning while different in wording. Underlyingthis exercise was also the objective that peoplerealise, through experience, that the same ideacan be expressed differently. In other words, theprocess was an exercise in consensus-building.

Once the expectations similar in meaning weregrouped together, the result was as follows :

Learn technical aspects of communicationtools (# 1, 4, 8);

Learn how to use our tools in acommunication process (# 2, 5, part of 7);

2.1 Learn how to systematise and presentinformation collected

2.2 Learn techniques for “on-the-spot”interviews

Learn how to evaluate and improve our work(technical skills and what we do with them)

The facilitator drew participants’ attention tothe fact that the first set of expectations could besummed up in the question “how does it work ?”,relating to the tool itself, while the second set ofexpectations could be summed up by the question“what can we do with it ?”, relating to theprocesses that can be initiated or reinforcedthrough the use of the tools. One expectation,«how to conduct on-the-spot interviews», wasnot considered as part of any of the abovecategories. Nevertheless, all three teams agreedon the need to include this topic in the workshop.

��(��!��

(�� <�� !��!�

��!��

After making sure that everyone could insert a

cassette in their camera and perform basicoperations such as play, fast forward and rewind,the facilitator made a short presentation on thelanguage, rules and codes of video.

Each medium uses different symbols or“codes”. The use of those codes is governed by aset of rules, just as in the case of spokenlanguage. To illustrate further, the facilitatordescribed how “letters” are the basic unit ofspoken language, how they combine to produce a“word”, how the words combine to create asentence and finally, how a set of sentencesbecomes a conversation, a speech, a chapter, etc.Furthermore, the use of those “codes” aregoverned by a set or rules called grammar. It isthe combination of those units in a way thatrespects the rules that allows for the language tomake sense.

The same is true with audio-visual language.The basic unit is called a “shot”. Shots can becombined to make a scene, scenes can becombined to make a sequence, and sequences puttogether become a film or a video. In order touse the camera tool properly, one has to learnhow its language is structured, just as when onelearns a new language, with new words and newways of combining the words into sentences.

Shots can be classified in different ways :· according to their scale;· according to the camera movement;· according to the angle;· according to what they are going to be used

for;A demonstration of shot scales and camera

movements followed this explanation. To thateffect, a video camera was connected to the TVscreen. As the facilitator described the shots, twopeople came in the middle and demonstrated it,so that participants could immediately see theresult on the screen.

/��

The following scales of shots were explainedand demonstrated :

· Long shot (LS, entire subject);· Medium shot (MS, waist up);· Close-up (C-U, shoulders up);· Medium long shot (MLS, knee upward);· Extreme close-up or big close-up (chin to

forehead);


��

The following camera movements wereexplained and demonstrated :

· Zoom-in, zoom-out (getting closer/further);· Panoramic (camera moves horizontally,

cameraman remains in the same spot);· Travelling (camera moving horizontally,

cameraman also moves)· Tilt (camera moving vertically)

��

The next step was to introduce the issue ofphoto composition. The following aspects wereaddressed :

· Rule of thirds and dynamic points of animage

· Diagonals and other sources of movement· Focus/off-focus, foreground/background· Head room;· Eye level;· Eye direction;It was mentioned that the same basic visual

rules apply to still photography, and that wewould have an opportunity to re-discuss it later.

$� !�� )��:&��

Following this series of explanations anddemonstrations, participants were asked to breakdown in country teams and to go outside theclassroom to experiment each shot scale andcamera movement. It was specifically asked thateach team member has an opportunity to handlethe camera. The teams were to share theirfootage with the other teams on the next day.

(�!��#��D��<��

��(��!��3�� !6

At the beginning of Day 2, some moretechnical information on the use of the videocamera was presented by the facilitator. Theissues addressed were :

��

· Angles· Rule of 180 ºAs was the case previously, a demonstration

was performed and simultaneously shown onscreen. In this case, participants were able to seefor themselves how the choice of an angle(upward or downward) can create a sense ofdomination and how the violation of the rule of180 º can create great confusion in the viewer’smind.

%��

- Tilt : can be used to build anticipation andexpectation;

- Zoom in : can be used to create interest bymaking the subject closer or the impression thatthe subject is moving towards the camera;

- Zoom out : can be used to create surprise- Pan : to show subjects, such as landscapes

and long buildings, or many people, which arenot possible to show in a single shot because oftheir size;

- Pan : indicating a connection or arelationship between two separate objects orsubjects

- Ex. : shot of a woman’s face as she strainsto see something in the distance and then panningto the object of her attention, her child.

�� !� ��

��!��

- Establishing shots (LS or Pan)- Introductory shots (LS or MS or C-U)- Cutaways- Inserts

��

- Visual- Audio- Space- Time

��=�� !��

Following participants’ request on the first dayof the workshop, a section on «conducting aninterview» was added to the initial program. In

Report of the Isang Bagsak Workshop, Hue, Vietnam. March 11-23, 2002 �=

order to put participants in the mood of «askingquestions», a game was introduced.

(��1F�� 2�3��6�

The idea underlying this game is that peoplerealise the importance of asking precise questionsand to get them to reflect on the questions theyneed to ask to obtain a particular type of answer.The game unfolds as follows :

A volunteer is asked to leave the room. One s/he’s left participants select one individual, who isto be the “Lost Person”. The game consists in thevolunteer trying to guess who is the “LostPerson” by asking questions that otherparticipants can only answer by “yes” or “no”.

In this case, the volunteer was finally able todetect the lost person after asking 8 to 10questions, and a lot of laughter.

9 �� A��

Establishing trustThe theory part of “the art of asking

questions” started with the importance ofdeveloping a good relationship between theinterviewer and the interviewee prior to theinterview. The key is for the interviewee to feelat ease and to trust the interviewer. Such arelationship can be established through informalconversation prior to the interview, although it isrecommended not to discuss the topic of theinterview before the camera is rolling, as theinterviewee might later get a false sense ofrepetition and unconsciously omit importantinformation. Other team members should try notto interfere with the interviewer, who shouldpreferably be the only one discussing directlywith the interviewee as a first step.

Demystifying technologyIn cases where people have never or seldom

seen a video camera, technology can beintimidating and even inhibiting. Its is always agood idea to allow people to become morefamiliar with the equipment before actuallystarting to record. Letting them view themselveson the side screen, looking into the viewer andeven film the interviewer are good ways ofdemystifying technical tools.

What to askDuring the interview, the interviewer should

always keep in mind that there might be a needfor information relating to the following aspects,called the “5 Ws”.

- Who ?- What ?- Where ?- When ?- Why ?Depending on the situation, the emphasis

might need to be put on one or the other of theseaspects. Nevertheless, it should be kept in mindthat to get a complete picture of a situation, allfive of them are relevant.

Types of questions and types of interviewsThere are basically two types of questions :

closed and open-ended. A closed questioninvariably calls for a “yes” or “no” answer. Anopen-ended question is one that triggers therelease of information and knowledge on theinterviewee’s part, in a non-directive manner.

The two main types of interviews are “on-screen” and “shadow”. In an on-screen interview,both the interviewer and the interviewee appearon the screen. The interviewer is usually in adominant position, and can make use of bothclosed and open-ended questions. The controlremains in the interviewer’s hands.

In a “shadow” interview, the interviewer is notseen on screen. This type of interview requiresopen-ended questions that can be editedsubsequently. Questions have to be formulated ina way that leads the interviewee to providecomplete answers as opposed to partial sentences.

In interviewing, listening is of primaryimportance, as the interviewee’s answer mightlead to sub-questions or re-direct the interview inan unexpected but relevant direction.

Photo compositionThe basic rules of photo composition that

were discussed earlier also apply to an interviewsituation. The location of the interviewer and ofthe interviewee should respect the rule of thirds,the framing should allow for sufficient head roomand appropriate eye level. This will help keep theinterest of viewers, as will alternating shot scalesduring the interview.


TITLE OF PROJECT

Theme : _______________

Date of shoot ______________

Location of shoot_______________

Cassette no. Time code in Time code out Description Remarks

Type of shot Content

1 00:02:00 00:02:15 Pan Outside campus A bit unstable

1 00:02:20 00:05:10 C-U Interview with Chin Good shot, excellent content

$� !�� )��:&��

The exercise assigned to participants aimed athaving them both their camera skills andexperiment interview techniques. To that end,they were requested to break down in countryteams and to interview each other, based on thefollowing questions :

1. How is PDC useful to your work ?2. What is Esther telling us with her photos ?(referring to the photographs taken by the

Ugandan team as part of an exercise the previousweek).

��4��>�� !��

After completing the previous exercise, allthree teams had in their hands enough footage tostart feeling the need to organise it. As a firststep, they were shown how to organise theirfootage on a log sheet, in view of futureselection. To that effect, their attention wasdrawn to the existence of “time codes” on eachimage recorded. They were then given a model oflog sheet, while being reminded that the headingson that log sheet are basic ones and that eachperson/team might want to log in other relevantinformation. The idea is that the log sheet helpsorganise, store and retrieve filmed material easily.The log sheet model was as follows:$� !�� )��:&��

Participants were asked to break down incountry teams and were requested to undertakethe following tasks :

1. Create a log sheet2. Select segments of the interviews that you

would like to share with the group; indicate onthe log sheet t.c. in, t.c. out;

3. Select the best sample of each cameramovement and discuss why; indicate on logsheet;

4. Select a sample of each camera movementthat didn’t go well and discuss why; indicate onlog sheet;

5. Select one person that will present theresults to the group.

Following the log-in of their footage, eachteam was asked to present to the rest of the groupthe shots they had selected, while explaining thereasons for their choice. Once again, the cameraswere connected to the TV screen but this timeparticipants did it themselves.

This exercise allowed participants to view firsthand their own shots and to critically discussthem in a team. Most of the camera movementsthat were identified as being the worst were eithertoo fast or unstable. Upon participants’ request,the facilitator shared the following tips toimprove image stability :

- Take a big breath and count to five beforestarting your movement and to five after.

- Keep your elbows close to your body andyour legs apart for more stability

- Rest your elbows on something stable suchas a table, a large rock, etc.

In some cases, digital video cameras have abuilt-in image stabiliser. Participants wereinvited to explore their cameras and theaccompanying instruction booklet to find out iftheir camera is equipped with such a device.


��! �!��#��E��<��=

��7��%� ��!��

Day 3 marked the beginning of a new aspectof the learning process, aiming to helpparticipants develop ways to use communicationtools in participatory processes. In order to drawparticipants’ attention to the fact that individualperception is an important component ofcommunication, and on the factors that caninfluence perception, a game was introduced.

(��1#��>,*��2�3��6�

The game unfolds as follows :Three volunteers are asked to leave the room.

Outside the classroom, the facilitator explainswhat was is expected of them : the aim of thegame is for them to describe part of a mysteriousobject to other participants, who have to guesswhat object is being described without actuallyseeing it. (In this case, the object was a book.One volunteer described the cover page, anotherdescribed the side, and the third one described theback of the book). Each volunteer starts theirdescription with : «the way I see it» and proceedswith the description, providing information suchas colour, length, width, thickness, etc. After theeach volunteer has given his own description ofthe mysterious object, participants are asked tosay what they thought the object is; they areallowed to discuss aloud.

It took participants roughly 10 minutes tofigure out what the mystery object was, withoutguessing completely. Before they agreed that themystery object was a book, a number of otherpotential objects had been named, such as a videocassette, a cigarette pack, etc.

With this game, participants were able toexperiment for themselves that the same objectcan be seen and perceived differently by differentpeople depending on the viewpoint, thusinfluencing how each person describes it andwhat s/he communicates about it.

(��F��?�,��

For the following activity, participants werehanded a magazine article entitled “Dust, veilsand videotapes : A true story on how video wasused to create dialogues in a desert”.

The article describes a participatory videoexperiment that took place in a small village inWestern Rajasthan, North India. In this case, anorganisation called Lok Jumbish, whose workfocuses on primary education using an integratedparticipatory approach, used video to create adialogue between men and women, and betweenadults and children. After acquiring basic skillsin the use of video equipment, people were askedhow they could apply their newly gained skills inways which would improve their work towardseducation for all. The field workers and the film-makers decided to try out two video experimentsin order to answer these questions. One groupwanted to create a debate between parents andchildren in one village. The other group wanted,through the use of video, to raise a debate inanother village on why so few women wereactively involved in the Lok Jumbish programme.

The first dialogue took place betweenchildren, parents and Lok Jumbish workers onthe question of why children, particularly girls,were not going to school, even though a school ateacher, books and material were available. Theplan was to interview some children on the firstday, edit the interviews during the evening andthe following day, and then screen the interviewsthe following evening, filming parents’ responsesand discussion.

The second experiment was to create adialogue between men and women in the village,as to why so few women take part in LokJumbish activities, such as village educationcommittees. To do so, they filmed women’sdiscussion and showed it to the men, then filmedtheir response and showed it to women.

&��

Participants were asked to break down incountry teams and discuss the Lok Jumbish story,starting with the following questions :

1. What strikes you the most about this story ?2. Can you find a situation in your project

where there is a need for dialogue ? How can

Report of the Isang Bagsak Workshop, Hue, Vietnam. March 11-23, 2002 �B

video be helpful in creating that dialogue ? Howwould you go about doing it ?

Question 1 yielded the following answers :

Vietnamese Team:- Video attracts community : new, modern

equipment; using simply, easily, demonstratingreal images;

- It’s useful in involving villages inparticipating in dialogue;

- Creating familiar, realistic dialogues by thefiled worker;

- Video could break out the old-age ways ofthinking, out-of-date thoughts.

Ugandan Team:- Video helped remove the communication

barrier that existed between couples;- The power of the video broke a tradition of

men not mixing with women at public meetingswhen men sneaked in to watch with women;

- The power of video helped in makingpeople open up to discuss frankly;

Cambodian Team:- Simple process to organise video

workshop;- Sensitive topics or issues can be raised;- Usefulness equipment/tool to encourage

participatory dialogue- The lessons learnt from the workshop;As for question 2, the following answers were

provided :

Vietnamese Team:Situation in Hông Ha : Poor women were

rarely involved in NRM projects’ activities.· Creating dialogues with poor women on

their participation : select a group of fieldworkers and guiding them how to use the camerarecording the villagers’ daily lives;

- together with field workers, organise adebate between men and women on the topicof… / recording;

- play the video(s) recorder to the wholecommunity.

· Policy-makers vs the minority villagersVideo is helpful in :- recording the reality of shift cultivating

(consequence)

- recording the dialogue betweenpolicymakers and villagers

- convincing to live a settlement life.

Ugandan Team:Need for dialogue :· Between credit institutions and local

farmers;There is a distance between credit institutions

management and the farmers; the institutions areusing a top-down approach;.

· Between husband and wife, for equitablecontrol of family income; use peer pressure tocause a change in attitude.

Video could be used in the following ways:- Dialogue on credit:- Record a discussion by farmers of the credit

problems, the present this to the creditinstitutions management to view and discuss;

- Record the reaction of management topresent to farmers as feedback;

Dialogue on family income distribution:- Record a discussion by women about the

income management problem in their homes;- Present the recording to men and record

their reaction as feedback to women;

Cambodian Team:· Indigenous women left school before men;· Traditional forest management;- Express the real and sensitive issues;- Interest and pay attention from participants;- Encourage/motivate dialogue;- Documentation;

Video could be used in:- Recording discussions on above issues with

elders and women;- Display the issues during meetings and

workshops.

��B��(��

The initial plan was for this part of theworkshop to focus first on technical aspects suchas shutter speed and exposure. After a brief

Report of the Isang Bagsak Workshop, Hue, Vietnam. March 11-23, 2002 �C

inquiry, it appeared that none of the participantshad cameras that allowed for manual settings.With all-automatic cameras, it is not possible tomodify the shutter speed or the exposure withoutgoing first into the menu to reprogram thecamera. Despite its limited usefulness,participants still felt they wanted to find out moreabout manual settings.

/��!<�� !��

The key element in photography is the amountof light that is allowed onto the unexposed film,which is defined by the shutter speed and theaperture. The connection between these twofunctions was explained. Optimal shutter speedfor a human hand is 1/60th of second. Averageaperture is 5.6.

Secondly, the notion of field depth wasexplained, as well as the inverse relationshipbetween the digits on the aperture ring, the size ofthe aperture, and its impact on the imageforeground and background. For example, a 1.2aperture, the largest possible aperture on a 35 mmcamera, while 22 usually is the smallest.Accordingly, the smaller the aperture, the greaterthe field depth, and the larger the aperture, theshallower the field depth.

'��

One participant raised the issue of ASA,which refers to film sensitivity. A higher ASAindicates higher sensitivity, with 100 and 200ASA considered normal sensitivity for theoutdoors. Even though 400 ASA and above canstill be used outdoors, the side effect will bemuch larger «image grain» (pixel in digitalcameras). Upon enlarging a photograph, too largea grain can cause the picture to appear blurred,with many details disappearing. Nevertheless,high sensitivity films such as 1200 pr 1600 canprove very useful in special circumstances, atnight or in poorly lit conditions. In the case of anemergency where a higher ASA film would beneeded and is not available, it is always possibleto use a lower ASA film and «boosting» it bysetting the ASA at the desired sensitivity. In sucha case, special procedures will have to befollowed at the film development stage.

��

The same rules of photo composition as invideo apply to still photography. The rule ofthirds, eye level, head room, etc. are all importantfactors to take into consideration, for an optimaluse of photography. The only exception that isworth mentioning is that in still photography,positioning the subject in the middle of the frameis appropriate in the case of portrait. To avoid theimage to be too static, the use of diagonals andother conducting lines aiming towards the subjectcan be helpful.

(��

Both photographic and video camera- Develop the habit of keeping the lens cap

on when camera is not in use;- Keep finger prints and dirt off the lens. If

fingerprints or dirt on it, use lens cleansing paper.Start in centre of the lens, going towards theoutside. Use an air pear if necessary.

- If stained, use leans cleansing fluid, notwater;

- Check batteries, keep a spare batterycharged.

@�!��

- Do not have the lens or the viewer directlypointing to the sun

- Do not hold it vertically- Use cleaning cassette once in a while to

clean heads- Keep away from devices that produce

magnetic fields (transmitting radio or television,antennas, top of VCR or TV, etc.)

- Try to avoid using in extreme heat. If youreally need to, put in shade or cool in betweenshots

� ��

- Heat- Water- Dust- Grease- Magnetic fields

� �� !��

- Magnetic fields are also a problem forcassettes.


- Heat ! Avoid leaving cassettes in extremeheat. Ideal storage temperature is between 12-24degrees. If tape has been in heat, let it rest 24hours before using it

- Humidity ! Tips : keep film and cassettesin their box, store in a plastic bag with rice. Therice will absorb humidity. Ideal is 40-80 degreesof relative humidity.

- Film for still photography are to be storedat a lower temperature, ideally in the fridge.

(��,��

� !��

- Never touch the film nor the inside of acassette directly

- Always rewind cassettes- Always store upright, in their cases.

$� !�� )��:�&��

The assignment consisted in going to the Huemarket, in the late afternoon. This time,participants didn’t break down into countryteams, since for the exercise to be effective, itwas preferable to have people from differentcultural backgrounds mingle within each group.The assignment was two-fold, one based oncollective photographs, the other one based onindividual photographs. (Initially, a third partrelating to audio was also planned, but it was notpossible to pursue it because of limited time).

1. Collective photographsThis part of the assignment aimed for

participants to experiment the use of photographyfor reconstructing a process, and as a tool forconsensus-building.

As a group, people were requested to tell thestory of their trip to market in no more than 8photographs. A larger number of photos could betaken, but only eight of them could appear in thefinal display.

2. Individual photographsThese individual photographs aimed at people

to experiment using an image as a symbol, whileexperimenting how differences in perception canbe expressed through an image.

Participants were requested to take twopictures on an individual basis. The first

photograph was to depict what they see as mostsimilar to a market place in their home country,while the second photograph was to show whatthey consider most dissimilar. In the case ofVietnamese participants, they were asked to takea photograph of what they consider most andleast representative of a Vietnamese market.

(��!��#��<��4

��B��(��3�� !6

The use of still photography continued intoDay 4, which was organised around three mainexercises :

�)��>�� !

!��

The first part of the morning was used forpeople to select and organise their photographson large pieces of cardboard. As per theassignment, the first set of photographs was todepict in a sequence of no more than 8 picturesthe story of «going to the Hue market». As thegroups were working on the selection of imagesthat best described their field trip, a consensusstarted to emerge within each group. After anhour of animated discussion, all three teams hadreached a consensus and were ready to presenttheir work to the larger group. It appeared that,while each team had respected the guidelines, oneteam had focused on team members as subjectsof the story, while another team had focused onwhat they saw. While both interpretations wereconsidered appropriate, it was a perfectopportunity to start addressing the issue ofperspective and perception, and the role they playin communication.

The discussion around these issues was furthermade possible in view of the results of the secondpart of the assignment, which focused on the useof images as symbols. As expected due to thedifferent cultural backgrounds of participants, the

Report of the Isang Bagsak Workshop, Hue, Vietnam. March 11-23, 2002 �D

photographs varied greatly in content, and evenmore so in meaning. Furthermore, what wasconsidered most representative of a market placein someone’s home country occurred to be theleast representative for someone else.Acknowledging this difference led to a shortdiscussion on how still photography can be usefulin conflict resolution, which each partypresenting their viewpoint through a photograph.

$��!��

��+

The following exercise aimed at triggeringpeople’s creativity as to how still photographycan be useful in their projects. They were askedto find one way in which photographs can beused in a descriptive manner, and one way inwhich they can be used symbolically.

All three teams came up with ideas on how touse photography as a way to reconstruct aprocess, i.e. in a descriptive manner. One teamexplained how they would use photography todocument the implementation the various phasesof a project, another team talked about how ruralwomen could be given small cameras todocument the many domestic tasks they performin a day, as a way to raise men’s awareness ofwomen’s workload, trigger discussions on thattopic and find solutions to alleviate women’sburden. Another team mentioned thatphotography would be very useful to contrast a«before» situation with an “after” situation.

��!��!��

� !�!��!��

The final exercise of this section aimed atsharpening participants’ capacity to choose anappropriate tool for a specific situation, by listingthe advantages and disadvantages of each one.The idea underlying this exercise also was forpeople to develop their capacity of abstraction byapplying their newly acquired skills to concreteworking conditions. The summary of all threeteams’ appraisal of each tool is listed in thefollowing table. Following the display of theteams’ conclusions, a discussion took place.

Photo advantages:- Un-movement- Cheap- More available- Easy to operate- Easy to transport- Delivering to others easily- Using easily- Cheap- Easy to use (anywhere, anytime)- Keep and maintain easily

Photo disadvantages:- Difficult to keep continuity- No sound- Static images- No real action- No sound- No continuity- No sound- Needs more explanation- Takes time for developing- Few activities could be taken

Video advantages:- Attracts more attention- Attractive- Animated action- Continuity- Sound- Continuity- Drawing more attention- Sound- Describes real action

&�� !��

�� !��$��8

Report of the Isang Bagsak Workshop, Hue, Vietnam. March 11-23, 2002 =E

- Lively image- Seeing images immediately- Usefulness for workshop- Take all activities- Recording sound - easy to understand

Video disadvantages:- Difficult to carry- Expensive- Storage- Less available- Difficult to transport- Requires tools to play; power- Requires skills- Having three conditions: electricity

(power), time, place- Needs more equipment to show- Needs skills to use video- Expensive- High cost- Takes much time for performing

��C��(��!�� !��

The afternoon was dedicated to addressingremaining issues that the tight schedule did notallow to review in-depth. Among them, thedesign and production of a poster. It was firstexplained that the same basic rules of photocomposition apply to poster design. Besides therule of thirds, the use of diagonals, and thenotions of head room and eye direction, the needto limit the number of elements in the picture wasalso discussed. An overcrowded picture caneasily get the eye confused as to what the mainmessage is and means. The same applies to thechoice of colours. Ideally, a poster should nothave more than three colours, with a clearlydominant one. If the poster includes a writtenmessage, it should be brief and clear. Thelettering should be the right size and well-positioned, as to not overshadow the picturewhile still attracting attention. The importance ofan appropriate choice of locations was brieflydiscussed. The choice of location depends on thecharacteristics of the target group. All agreed

that as in all aspects of PDC, consulting withpeople is the best way to ensure an appropriatechoice. The example of a campaign on children’srights performed in Central America wasdiscussed. In this case, posters had been selectedas a way to sensitise fathers, who had beendescribed by children as being the prime violatorsof their rights, mostly through domestic violencewhen coming home drunk. When consulted,children hinted that the entrance of bars would bethe most appropriate location for posters to behung. An impact assessment conducted after theproject indicated that indeed, a great number ofmen had noticed the posters while on the bar’sdoorstep, and that in many cases, it had had adeterring effect.

Subsequently, through the example of a groupof women who, at the end of a workshop cycle onwomen’s self-esteem and organising, gathered todesign a poster depicting their achievements, theuse of poster designing as a collective processwas discussed. After long hours of discussion,the women had agreed that the illustration on theposter should depict their multi-task reality andtheir overwhelming domestic work burden, butthat the woman illustrated should also hold abook in one hand, to show their commitment anddesire to learn and progress. In this particularcase, the poster designing process was used as anevaluation tool to measure the degree to whichwomen had improved their self-esteem, throughself-representation.

��5��(��

The second issue addressed was theimportance of pre-testing material. In continuitywith the previous discussion, the pre-testing ofposters was used as a first example. Issues suchas the meaning of colours in a particular culturewere discussed : for example, while the colourblack is related to death and mourning in Westerncultures, it symbolises strength in other cultures.Pre-testing allows to figure out how the messageconveyed by an image, a colour or a sentence isinterpreted according to people’s cultural, socialor economic background. Other features such asthe size of lettering or the length of the message

Report of the Isang Bagsak Workshop, Hue, Vietnam. March 11-23, 2002 =�

can also be important according to othercharacteristics such as the level of literacy andfluency in reading.

The main parameters of pre-testing were statedand briefly explained :

- Content- Format- Material- Usefulness for feedback

��D��(��!�� !�� !��

As time limitations didn’t allow for exercisesin using audio material, the issue was addressedtaking as a starting point the Ugandan team’sexperience in that regard as well as their ideas forfurther use of audio cassettes. The idea was torecord songs addressing the issues at stake, in away that is both entertaining and culturallyrelevant to the banana growers participating inthe project. From that point on, a discussion onpossible collaboration with local and communityradios ensued. After briefly discussing thedifferences in access to the airwaves in Africaand in Asia (where most radios are still State-operated), the facilitator explained the basicconditions that need to be considered for a radioto be interested in collaborating with a project ora group. One such condition is that the format ofthe material to be broadcast fits into a particulartime slot. The topics to be covered should alsofit into the radio’s priorities. For those reasons, itis very important to monitor local radios beforeproposing some kind of collaboration. Theproposed material should be as close as possibleto the existing programming structure, so that thebroadcaster does not have to re-organise hisschedule to fit the proposed material. As anexample, if a call-in program already exists, itmight be better to propose a topic to be discussedas part of that program rather than proposing acompletely new program, which would requirethe broadcaster to make too many changes to itsprogramming.

The existence of listeners’ clubs in some partsof Africa was also discussed. The experience ofZambia and Malawi, where listeners’ clubs havebecome in recent years a space where people canvoice and channel their opinion back to thebroadcaster, was considered innovative inestablishing two-way communication. Thisexperience shows that even in countries wheretelephone lines are not accessible to all, micro-channels can be created to provide feedback andestablish dialogue.

'��!��#��<��7

9 �� A��!�� !�� !��

The last day of the workshop was dedicated tointegrating and synthesising the new skills andknowledge acquired in the course of the week,through two main exercises/assignments.

�)��

The first exercise aimed at identifying thevarious uses of each tool. For that purpose, thegroup broke down in country teams. Each teamwas handed a pile of labels. Possiblecommunication needs that PDC can help fulfiland/or objectives that can be pursued throughPDC had been written on each label. Theexercise consisted in each team discussing whichmedium of still photography, video and audiocould be most useful in answering the need orattaining the stated objective.

The list of communication needs and/orobjectives handed to participants was made out ofthree different sources : expectations expressedby participants at the beginning of the workshop;uses of PDC that were discovered andexperimented during the workshop; and uses thatthe facilitator had witnessed in other parts of theworld. Combining these three elements, the listof labels resulted as follows :

Report of the Isang Bagsak Workshop, Hue, Vietnam. March 11-23, 2002 =�

· Improve a group’s dynamics/cohesion· Improve people’s self-esteem· Consensus-building· Conflict resolution· Improve capacity of synthesis· PRA· Improve people’s ability to understand

complex/abstract concepts· Document/reconstruct a process· Evaluation· Collective problem solving· Gender analysis· Improve mutual understanding between

research team and communities· AdvocacyAfter discussing each label, all three teams

were requested to post the labels under thecolumn corresponding to the tool they deemedmost appropriate.

�)��

The second exercise of the day, which was toclose the workshop, aimed to integrate both thetechnical skills and the conceptual notions learntthroughout the week. For that purpose, peoplewere asked to produce a short video which was todepict two major things they had learnt during theworkshop. The video had to be filmed in a waythat integrated the different camera movements,shot scales and audio-visual rules they hadlearned. Any medium could be used to explainthe lessons learnt. In other words, people coulddecide to use drawings, photographs, interviews,sounds, songs, etc., as long as they were filmedon video in a way that integrated the technicalskills and conceptual notions.

As a first step, before the group split intocountry teams, the facilitator explained the natureand the use of a storyboard, as each team was toproduce a storyboard of their video beforeactually filming it. An example of a storyboardincluding the drawings and the shot annotationswas handed to participants, together with anumber of blank storyboard sheets.

Each team came up with different ideas bothin terms of content and of how to plan theirstoryboard.

Vietnamese Team:The Vietnamese team divided their first topic

in two :1a. Video recording of an interview1b. Transferring planting techniques to other

farmersTheir second topic was also divided in two:2a. How to improve pig production2b. Deforestation and solutionsAccording to the storyboard, in both topics,

different means of communication were used toestablish two-way communication channelsbetween the researchers and the farmers. Thestoryboard, which can be found in the followingpages, showed a very good understanding ofaudio-visual language, with an appropriatecombination of shot scales and cameramovements.

Cambodian Team:The Cambodian team, on its part, chose to

produce a storyboard describing their reflectionprocess on what they had learnt about PDCduring the week rather than a specific applicationin a project. In their case, the characters depictedin the storyboard were themselves, as opposed tothe Vietnamese team who depicted the farmersthey work with.

As was the case of the Vietnamese team, thestoryboard showed a very good understanding ofboth the technical aspects of the tools and theiruse within communication processes. The use ofaudio-visual language, the combination of shotscales, the indicated camera movements, and therespect of photo composition rules are just aboutperfect.

Ugandan Team:Unfortunately, the Ugandan team did not hand

in its storyboard. Nevertheless, earlierobservation during the work session revealed thatthey chose to depict a communication strategyusing audio cassettes as a main tool. As far ascan be remembered, their of audiovisual languagewas also in line with the notions learntthroughout the week.

Report of the Isang Bagsak Workshop, Hue, Vietnam. March 11-23, 2002 ==

/��!��#��=��<��B

��

All three teams presented their final work in aplenary session on Saturday morning. Despitesome technical limitations affecting the soundlevel, it was a moment of great pride for allparticipants, who seemed to be ending theworkshop with a fairly large set of newly-acquired skills to be experimented and exercisedback home, as well as with a huge dose ofoptimism as to the potential contribution of PDCtowards achieving their development objectives.

�� !��

Based on empirical observation, it appears thatthe methodology was appropriate and effective,in view of the objectives of the workshop. Thecombination of hands-on exercises andassignments with theoritical and technicalexplanations, added to the reflection process onfield applications, seems to have allowed forparticipants to have acquired the know-how andgained the confidence needed for an effective useof PDC tools.

Nevertheless, due to the experimental natureof the workshop that was implemented for the

first time, a number of improvements could bemade to enhance the learning process :

1. There could be a more direct connection toother aspects of the learning process (i.e. the firstweek of the workshop and the e-forum). Thisconnection could be made through the use of«case studies» drawn from participants’experiences as a starting point. As a first step,participants would review the situation,identifying the development problem and thecommunication objectives. The workshop on thechoice and use of communication tools woulddirectly relate to the case studies, allowing formore concrete application possibilities from theonset, and for a common thread to be followedthroughout the workshop. For this process to befeasible and efficient, the case studies would haveto be chosen very carefully, as to allow for a largevariety of tools to be explored and experimented.

2. The contribution of a second facilitator isan extremely valuable asset in this type ofworkshop, given the level of difficulty of thelearning process, which simultaneously takesplace in different levels : cognitive, manual,technical, creative, etc. A reflection process onhow to «tighten» the links between those differentlevels is nevertheless needed. In that regard, therole of the second facilitator could be greatlyenhanced and could prove even more valuable tofacilitate those connections to take place.Besides a strong reflection process, this requires,of course, better planning of the results soughtthrough the use of certain exercises, moreabstract in nature. This improved planning, inreturn, should lead to greater sharing between thetwo facilitators, prior to the workshop.

3. Participants mentioned that the use of printmaterials (hand-outs) could have improved theirunderstanding and their retention capacity,particularly in view of the need forsimultaneously translation. In our opinion, thissuggestion could even be taken one step furtherthrough the use of audio-visual aids. In effect,even though the use of simultaneous on-screendemonstrations proved very useful for learningtechnical skills such as camera movements andshot scales, the use of audio-visual material toshow concrete experiences using the techniques

(��,�!�� !��

�� 8

Report of the Isang Bagsak Workshop, Hue, Vietnam. March 11-23, 2002 =4

being experimented could greatly help transferthe know-how to real-life situations. As anexample, participants’ exposure to the LokJumbish story from India was by all means aturning point in the workshop, where participantsstarted making the transition from technical skills(how does this tool work ?) to practicalapplications (what can we do with this tool ?).Similarly, examples drawn from other developingcountries that were provided by the facilitators ina verbal way seem to have awaken great interest.Therefore, it would be very interesting to compileimages taken from those experiences on a videocassette. Many of these images are indeedreadily available or would require minimalresearch.

4. In view to the limited time devoted to theworkshop as a whole, the use of audio material(cassettes and/or community radio) was onlysuperficially touched. Nevertheless, audio toolsstill remain the most prevailing medium in manydeveloping countries, given the strength of oraltradition, and the low cost and accessibility ofaudio tools, even though this reality has beentempered in recent years by the development oflow-cost, small-format digital video cameras.

For methodological reasons, this workshopstarted from the most complex tool (video) andmoved towards the least complex (audiocassettes). This led to the importance andusefulness of sound to be somewhatovershadowed by the attractiveness of images.One has to wonder if the reverse process (startingwith least complex tool) would have allowed formore attention to be paid to the potential ofaudio. Although there is no set answer to thisquestion, it still deserves to be reflected upon.

5. From a strictly technical viewpoint, itwould be very useful for participants to haveaccess to more equipment for the duration of theworkshop, so as to give all participants equalopportunities to handle the tools directly.Furthermore, numerous exercises throughout theworkshop were hindered by the low quality ofsound provided by the video cameras’ built-inmicrophones. If the program can afford it, thepurchase of a unidirectional hand microphone for

each team could greatly improve the quality oftheir work. Similarly, the use of a small tripodcould greatly improve image stability.

��1��2��!��

� ��<�� !�#�� 8


��

��,�!��(��Nhem SovannaLun KimhyChhum SovannyNut SamanTouch LakhenaKlot SaremLy Nut

%�� !��(��Esther Lwanga SemakulaDrake Mubiru NagulumbyaMoses BuregyeyaEnoch LwabulangaWilberforce Kateera Tushemereirwe

@�� (��Le Van AnLe Duc Ngoan.Nguyen Xuan HongNguyen Minh HieuNguyen Thi ThanhNgo Huu ToanLe Quang MinhHoang Thi SenHoang Huu HoaTran Minh TriLe Thi Thuy HangNguyen Phi NamTon Nu Tien SaTran Ngoc LiemTran Duy An

��The People of Hong Ha CommuneGuy BessetteJohn GrahamManon HogueChin Saik Yoon

�G��)�� 1�� !

��2�� 8

Report of the Isang Bagsak Workshop, Hue, Vietnam. March 11-23, 2002 =B

&�� !�)�1&2

��!��!��9� ��

�&�(�=��1�>##%"9�&(9>"��%�9"0

9#�F�#�"(&(9>"�&"��#>"9(>�9"0

>'��&�(9�9�&(>�H��/�&��$2

THEME 1: “Developing communication strategies”(Time-keeper: Chin)• Second Posting by all teams: 22-28 April

THEME 2: “Using communication tools”(Time-keeper: VIETNAM TEAM)• Introduction and First Posting by all teams: 29April-12 May• Second Posting by all teams: 13-19 May• Closing comments by Guy and summary by Chin:20-26 May

THEME 3. “Evaluating communication activities”(Time-keeper: CAMBODIA TEAM)• Introduction and First Posting by all teams: 27May-09 June• Second Posting by all teams: 10-16 June• Closing comments by Guy and summary by Chin:17-23 June

�&�(�4��>##%"9�&(9>"�&"��($�

/$&�9"0�>'�G">�F��0�

THEME 1. “Facilitating the identification andsharing of local knowledge”(Time-keeper: UGANDA TEAM)• Introduction and First Posting by all teams: 24June-07 July• Second Posting by all teams: 08-14 July• Closing comments by Guy and summary by Chin:15-21 July

THEME 2. “Planning dissemination of researchresults to different stakeholders”(Time-keeper: VIETNAM TEAM)• Introduction and First Posting by all teams: 22July-04 August• Second Posting by all teams: 05-11 August• Closing comments by Guy and summary by Chin:12-18 August

THEME 3. “Facilitating extension to othercommunities”(Time-keeper: CAMBODIA TEAM)• Introduction and First Posting by all teams: 19August-01 September• Second Posting by all teams: 02-08 September• Closing comments by Guy and summary byChin: 09-15 September

�>"�F%/9>"��@&F%&(9>"�>'�($�

�9F>(��>0�&#�&"�

��>##�"�&(9>"/

• Arrangements to be finalised.

&�� !�)�1 2

��

1. A week before the start of the Theme thatyou are responsible for leading, send an e-mail toGuy and myself to confirm that the e-forum isready to start the new Theme, and invite Guy topost his Introduction to the Theme.

2. On the Monday when the new Themebegins, send a posting or e-mail to all the threeteams announcing that the Theme is now openand remind everyone to post their contributionsby the date stated in the e-forum schedule.

3. On the day when all the First Postings aresupposed to be made, check that all the teamshave made their postings. The time-keeper will e-mail those teams who have not made theirpostings to remind them to do so.

4. Once all the postings have been made,request everyone to make their Second Posting bythe date stated on the schedule.

5. On the day when all the Second Postings aresupposed to be made, check that all the teamshave made their postings. The time-keeper will e-mail those teams who have not made theirpostings to remind them to do so.

6. Guy and Chin will then take over after allthe Second Postings have been made withconcluding remarks and a summary of thediscussions for the Theme.

Report of the Isang Bagsak Workshop, Hue, Vietnam. March 11-23, 2002 =C

&�� !�)�1�2

Evaluation Report forthe PDC Workshop,Hue, Vietnam.March 11-23, 2002

��,��G��

(��

>��,��

��

"��$�(��

(��F��

The purpose of this evaluation was to find outwhether the objectives of the workshop wereachieved at the end of the workshop. Also theinformation gathered will help in planning futureworkshops/similar events.

�8�0� ��&��

1.1 Generally the workshop was evaluated asgood (52 percent) and very good (48 percent) byparticipants who attended. No body ranked itbelow these levels.

1.2 The highest percentage (76%) of theparticipants rated the workshop as extremelyuseful to their work and the remaining 14% asuseful.

1.3 All participants rated the workshopobjectives fully achieved.

�8��>,*��

The individual objectives were rated asfollows:

2.1 “To enable the three participating teams ofIsang Bagsak to share experiences and ideas inface to face context”. Seventy six percent (76%)rated it very well achieved, 20% well achievedand none below these levels.

2.2 “To apply a systematic methodology indeveloping communication strategies”. Fortypercent (40%) rated it very well achieved,56%well achieved, 4% rated as averagely

achieved and non ranked it below this level.2.3 “To use effectively light audio visual

communication tools (photography, audio, andvideo recording). Forty four percent (44%) of theparticipants rated the objective as very wellachieved, the remaining 56% rated it as wellachieved and nobody ranked below this level.

2.4 “ To use interpersonal communicationtools. Twenty eight percent (28%) very wellachieved this, 60% rated well achieved and 12%averagely achieved.

2.5 “To evaluate the progress of the IsangBagsak program. Sixty percent of the workshop

participants rated the objective as very wellachieved, 32% well achieved and 8% neverresponded but nobody rated it below these levels.

.=8�/�� !��

3.1 Strengths:

3.1.1 Interpersonal relationshipsand good rapport• Small number of participants allowedeasy learning.• Full participation of all members.• Idea sharing.• Inter-team interaction high.• Confidence building among teams• Rich experiences on how to usedifferent tools in PDC and to apply it (PDC)in our respective team projects.

(�� !

�� ,�� A��

�� 8


3.1.2 Workshop content• Topics were related to theworkshop objectives• Diversity of content learnt• Hands-on work (practicals)• Quality of communication toolsand activities• Use of camera and other audio visual tools• Capacity building of the participants.

3.1.3 Workshop set-up/organization• Good organization (activities, facilities,venue, agenda, face to face contact) • Silent [quiet] venue was selected • [Warm] Hospitality

3.2 Weaknesses:.3.2.1 Interpersonal relationships/rapport• Language problem (12%)• Some people kept silent during theworkshop ( 8%).• Most of the inter-personal skills, games,role-play could not be shared amonggroups (4%).-3.2.2 Subject content• Lack of enough equipment forpracticing (32%).• Few hand-outs were given toparticipants (20%).• Workshop did not discuss in detail aboutfacilitation skills in CBRM research (8%).• Less time for practicing communicationtools (8%).• Much time spent on theory and lesson practical (8%).• Sometimes teams tended to be behindthe schedule (not cover the assignmentgiven on time) 4%.• Less discussion on participation skills (4%).

3.2.3 Organization and set-up• Field trip was allocated a short time (8%)• Limited time for a discussion (12%)• Workshop duration was too long (20%)

3.3 Participants contributed thefollowing suggestions to overcome theabove weaknesses:

• More equipment to be provided foreach team• Preparation of hand-outs to coverall presentations• More time for practicingcommunication skills• Training time should be allocated such that80% covers practical and 20% theory• Reduce on the content• Allow the participants to use local languagefor easy understanding• More time for clarifying a discussion

48�>�� ;�� !�#� ��

��

The different items were rated as Poor, Fair,Good and Very Good as shown in the tablebelow. The figure given under each score in eachitem is the percentage of the participants thatrated it.

Poor Fair Good V.Good4.1 Pre-workshop arrangement and communication 0% 4% 48% 48%4.2 Travel arrangements 0% 0% 60% 40%4.3 Accommodation 0% 4% 40% 25%4.4 Meals 0% 4% 32% 36%4.5 Workshop structure 0% 0% 64% 36%4.6 Workshop duration 4% 32% 44% 20%4.7 After work –hour activities 8% 8% 44% 40%4.8 Venue(workshop facilities) 0% 4% 52% 44%4.9 Audio-visual aid equipment 0% 4% 48% 48%

4.10 Inter-cultural exchange 0% 8% 48% 44%

Note: For some items where the percentagesdo not add to 100% (Such as: meals, andaccommodation) means some participants did notrate these items.

The majority of participants ranked theworkshop organization as very good. However, asignificant number expressed dissatisfaction withthe workshop duration.

Report of the Isang Bagsak Workshop, Hue, Vietnam. March 11-23, 2002 =D

78�� !�(��

The rating scale of Poor, Fair, Good , and VeryGood and percentages were used for thefollowing items:

Poor Fair Good V.Good5.1 Clarity of presentation 0% 0% 84% 16%5.2 Quality of visual aids 0% 12% 64% 24%5.3 Time for the discussion 0% 8% 68% 24%5.4 Quantity and content of hand-outs &training materials 0% 32% 56% 12%5.5 Hand-on training 0% 20% 64% 16%5.6 Level of participation 0% 16% 60% 24%5.7 Field activities 0% 16% 68% 12%5.8 Games 4% 20% 60% 16%5.9 Team Preparedness 0% 16% 64% 24%5.10 Team participation 0% 4% 56% 40%

5.11 Time keeping 0% 24% 52% 24%

The majority of participants were happy withthe presentations and training. However, thefollowing areas could benefit from improvementsat the next such workshop: Handouts and trainingmaterials, hands-on training, games, level ofparticipation, field activities and teampreparedness.

B8�&!!�� (��

Participants suggested the following to be theadditional communication topics they would haveliked to be included in the training:

• Up-loading and down-loading ofinformation at the Isang Bagsak website.• Prepare publications for non-scientists.• How to to produce documentaries.• Training on adult learning skills.• Facilitation skills.

C8��

Evaluation results showed that 36% of theparticipants were not affected by the use ofEnglish language in their understanding andparticipation, 24% less affected and then 12% forless-less and much affected.

The suggestions for improvement given bythose who were affected are:

• Hand-outs can be helpful in reading andunderstanding better, in cases ofdifferent accents.• Presenters/ participants should speakmore slowly and should be precise tothe point.• Should allow sometime for interpretation.

58�&!!��

� !�/��

A number of additional suggestions weregiven regarding the following:

8.1 E-forum• Scaling up of the e-forum, the more teamsparticipating the better results.• Encourage all participants to take part inthe e-forum.• Need to improve facilities for accessing thee-forum for each country.• Continuing to exchange experiences among

the three teams on the e-forumWith regards to applying a communication

strategy, each team should share lessons learntand discuss through e-forum.

8.2 Workshops/training• Need for a second/other face-to-faceworkshop(s) to follow up and reflect theresults after the first workshop.• Increase on the practical work than theoryduring training.• Incorporate adult learning in Isang Bagsaktraining’s.• All participants should contact each formore information sharing.• Through such workshops, the participatingteams exchange their own cultural features for the other teams to know.• Need for more time to learnaudio-visual tools.• Need for more time to share experiencesbetween the three teams and practice thecommunication plan.• Reduce the workshop workshop duration(10 days at most).• Next training should avail more equipmentfor each participant.• All participants should be encouraged toparticipate actively in the workshop.• Need for hand-out for each presentation tohelp easy understanding and digestingpoints.• The respective teams should use realexamples of their achievements or challenges.

Documents

Hue and Ratankiri Workshop Report - IDRC Digital Library