2.1 Introduction to PRA and Poverty Analysis
2.2 Knotty Problem Game
2.3 Attitudes and Behaviour
2.4 Semi-Structured Interviewing
2.5 Participatory mapping
2.6 Matrix scoring
2.7 Diagramming: Seasonal calendar and daily routine gender analysis
2.8 SWOT Analysis
2.9 Summary and Participants' Evaluation of the Workshop
The initial session was an introduction to participation and PRA, covering the history, main features, principles and methods, and the use of PRA in Mongolia to date, i.e., by the PALD research team and CSD.
The first activity was a poverty analysis exercise, where participants were divided into two groups to analyse the causes of poverty using a cause-and-effect chain of symptoms, primary causes and secondary causes. Each person was asked to write (in one or two words) on separate pieces of paper (post-its) what they thought the main symptoms of poverty were, i.e., they were asked “How do you recognise poverty in your area?”. A poster was prepared with 'poverty' written in a circle in the middle of the page. Around this was drawn another larger circle representing the symptoms of poverty. Participants placed their papers within this and another circle was drawn around these. They were then asked to identify the causes of these symptoms and their papers were placed within the next outer circle. Finally, they were asked to identify what they believed to be the root causes related to these, and hence, the root causes of the symptoms identified. In this way they were able to analyse the main causes of poverty in Chuluut. A summary of their analyses is given below:
Summary of causes of poverty in Chuluut sum
|
Symptoms |
Secondary Causes |
Root Causes |
|
Unemployment |
lack of job |
shortage of capital |
|
|
bad organising |
laziness |
|
|
lack of basic capital |
dependency thinking |
|
|
|
lack of assets |
|
|
|
lack of qualifications |
|
|
|
low education |
|
|
|
lack of electricity |
|
|
|
|
|
Begging |
lack of assets |
lack of hereditary assets |
|
Bad clothes |
lack of cash |
low initiative |
|
Lack of assets |
bad habits |
bad behaviour |
|
Very passive |
fir away from market |
lack of participation |
|
|
|
lack of livestock |
|
|
|
lack of cash |
|
|
|
|
|
Malnutrition |
lack of food |
dependency thinking |
|
Bad state of khot ail |
bad habits |
lack of life skills |
|
|
lack of cash |
|
|
|
laziness |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dirty children |
lack of finance |
big sized family |
|
|
laziness |
bad care of children |
|
|
lack of livestock |
mentally disabled |
|
|
lack of life experiences |
bad discipline |
|
|
|
low education |
|
|
|
lack of innovation |
“If you give them 10 sheep they know how to eat them, but not how to increase the herd”,another commented,
“Even if you don't have livestock, people with good brains can survive using available natural resources”.However, this impression that all poor are lazy was challenged by the one representative present of the sum poor, stating that
“Not all poor people are the same”.She then went on to tell her story; a very sad account of how she and her husband had moved to the area with no possessions or a home, after losing their jobs in Dornod. Both were well educated and willing to work but unable to find employment. They had 4 children and lived in 2 rooms provided by the government, but these were in need of repair before the onset of winter. The children were unable to attend kindergarten because of the cost. She had begun a vegetable garden but had to wait another year for the crop. Her life was extremely difficult:
“I think that we are the poorest people in the sum. When we don't have flour and meat we have to beg, I don't think anyone else is doing this like us.”This clearly demonstrated the point that the poor are not a homogeneous group and lack of education, motivation and laziness are not universal causes of being poor.
To break the rather intense atmosphere created by the previous discussion the knotty problem game was played. The purpose, in addition to being a fun ice-breaker, is to demonstrate the value of group problem solving. This involved a circle of people holding hands and tying themselves into a knot whilst one person was sent out of the room. He was then called back and asked to try and untie them, using instructions only, and without breaking their hands. He was unsuccessful and was then invited to join in the circle and another knot was made. This time the group were asked to untie themselves and they succeeded in doing so very quickly, thus demonstrating in a practical way the value of working together.
The following session concentrated on the importance of attitudes and behaviour in participation and PRA. It began with an exercise on individuals' attitudes to involvement of the poor in development, whereby 4 statements were put in different comers of the room and participants were asked to stand under the statement they agreed with most. Each group of people was then asked to justify the statement they had chosen, and this allowed the trainers to assess the attitudes of different participants. No statement was intended to be the 'right' one, each had its own validity, the intention was simply to stimulate discussion on the subject.
1. Poor people need formal education in order to make the best decisions.The majority stood by statement 1 and all were well educated people, i.e., government officials and doctor. They argued that everyone, not only the poor, needed to be educated in order to have a 'good' life. “Education is the petrol of life”, was one person's comment.
2. Poor people make the best decisions when not intimidated by outside professionals.
3. Poor people make the best decisions when guided by professionals.
4. Poor people make the best decisions when working together in a group.
The next largest group was at statement 4, and this comprised of herders, 2 bag governors and the representative of poor in the sum. They argued that education did not prevent them from becoming poor and that they needed to work together using the skills they had, since they understood their problems better than others.
The final group supporting statement 3 included the sum governor and 3 others. They argued that if the poor are to start some form of enterprise they will need specialist support to help them and gave the example that, “you can't build a bridge without an expert who knows how to do it”.
No-one stood by statement 2.
The 4 statements exercise was a good opening for the session. It was interesting that the herders and representative of the sum poor went together to statement 1 and that all officials were in the other two groups. This demonstrated a clear difference in their attitudes towards the role of education in furthering their opportunities and a priority amongst rural people to continue to work in a co-operative way.
This was followed by a short presentation on the importance of people's attitudes and behaviour and then small group role plays to demonstrate different non-verbal gestures, i.e., dominant, participatory and respectful These were analysed by the other groups to identify the different types of gesture and the characteristic behaviour.
The role plays on attitude and behaviour were very enjoyable and as the evaluations showed, considered to be important by many people:
“We have realised how behaviour, attitudes and participation are important”, sum governor.“We have learnt how behaviour and attitudes are important for implementation of poverty alleviation”, social insurance officer.
This session demonstrated the importance of attitude and behaviour in interviewing and how to conduct good interviews which encourage a free exchange of information. The basic principles of semi-structured interviewing were introduced and then participants were divided into 2 groups to perform role plays of interviews on different subjects:
1. Possible ways of improving the conditions of a poor household in the sum centre.These were observed and commented on by the other group, identifying how well they had observed the basic principles.
2. Possible ways of improving the conditions of a poor household in a khot ail.
The main points identified from the two role plays were as follows:
Positive points:
· opened well, not too officialNegative points:
· obtained detailed information
· led up to sensitive questions
· made conclusions and asked interviewees their opinions
· used key question check list
· continued for long timeThe participants clearly enjoyed the role plays, however, trainers felt that they were allowed to go on too long and therefore become boring and have less learning impact. It was also felt that participants concentrated more on the subject of the interview than the techniques and that therefore the value of the session was not as great as it could have been. However, in the feedback and evaluation of the workshop, participants ranked the session as the most useful, thus demonstrating how the perceptions of trainers and participants can be quite different! It was, however, felt by the trainers that the session could be improved by changing the interview role plays from simply performing an interview on a particular subject, to demonstrating techniques, i.e., a 'good' and a 'bad' interview, on different subjects.
· asked sensitive questions too directly
· talked with only one person
· interviewers interrupted each other
· used dominating gestures, e.g. pointing a finger and waving a pen
· everybody took notes even though they had a notetaker, causing distraction
· repeated questions
· asked leading questions
· allowed people to dominate the discussion
· questions need to be more focused
This completed the first day of training.
The first session of the second day was on mapping techniques and their use in poverty analysis. Participants were divided into 3 groups and asked to draw maps indicating different things:
Group 1. Service and opportunities map of the Sum. This map was created by the deputy sum governor, accountant, nature protection inspector and tax inspector. The map was made outside on the ground using stones, sticks, flowers, etc., and was a very detailed and impressive effort. They presented the map, describing the current situation of the entire sum and indicating opportunities for future development using natural resources. These included: 2 springs, one of which is a hot sulphur spring (96 degree Celsius) and the other a cold spring, both with therapeutic qualities; a place to build a tourist centre near the start of Ulziit river and a centre for fishing at the start of the river Chuluut; many kinds of animals, such as wild goats, wild cats, and a rare mountain bird whose flesh is used to treat certain illnesses; a wind power station and a gold mine. They concluded that there were abundant natural resources in the area to be exploited.
Group 2. Poverty and resource map of one bag. This map was created by bag governors and herders, on bag 3 (see appendix 3). They identified 174 households in 18 khot ails, 42 households of which were indicated to be under the poverty line. The identification of poor was based on the official bag statistics, known by the bag governor in the group. Only two of the khot ails had no poor households in them. This indicated an overall conclusion drawn from the training and the previous days' research, that the poor live largely in the countryside, supported within the khot ail unit. They also indicated the availability of natural resources in the area. They said they had used maps before for livestock accounting but never in this way or for this reason.
Group 3. Social map of sum centre. This map was created by the head of the governor's office, doctor, social insurance inspector, and herder. It was drawn on paper and showed in great detail the different services in the sum and the location of poor households. They also indicated households with large families and the sick, and those which were female-headed. Discussion arose out of this about the location of the poor and the provision of government housing for the homeless, and the seasonal variation in the number of poor households in the centre - during the winter numbers increase with people (particularly the elderly) moving due to the adverse weather and to bring children in to school The residential patterns of the poor in the sum centre are therefore variable.
It was felt by the trainers that a more detailed explanation of the benefits of participatory mapping was necessary and also that the groups should have been encouraged more to work outside, since the one map drawn on the ground was extremely good, allowed greater participation and gathered interest from passers by. The weather of course, is somewhat restrictive in Mongolia, and the group was rather cold by the end!
This session took the whole morning, allowing for presentations and discussion, and again, was very much enjoyed by the participants:
“The thing I liked best and understood well was the exercise on mapping”, bag 1 governor.
After lunch matrix scoring was introduced using the example of a matrix on supplementary income activities (see appendix 4), drawn by a poor herding household in the area during a previous interview. Participants were then divided into three groups and asked to make a matrix on different subjects related to poverty in the area. The groups were mixed-up from the previous session:
1. Best institutions for supporting poor in Chuluut sumThe exercise took a long time to do as the subjects, particularly 1 and 3, were quite difficult and required significant discussions within the groups. The results were extremely interesting and the group presentations caused considerable controversial debate. Since these discussions gave valuable insight into differing perceptions on the roles of local institutions, they were allowed to continue much longer than planned and the last session of the day (seasonal calendars) had to be postponed.
2. Sources of income generating in Chuluut sum
3. Best institutions for restocking in Chuluut sum
Group 1 consisted of the head of the governor's office, population inspector, doctor and bag herders.
Best institution for supporting the poor in Chuluut sum
|
Criteria |
Institution |
|||||||
|
Relatives |
Social assistance fund |
Collective of poor |
Company |
International agency |
Khot ail |
Bank |
Red cross |
|
|
Good understanding of poor |
5 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
|
High trust |
5 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
|
Financial capacity |
1 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
|
High capacity to provide needs |
5 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
|
Capacity for long-term support |
5 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
|
Total |
21 |
16 |
10 |
6 |
12 |
16 |
9 |
12 |
A heated discussion arose from the issue of groups, with some participants arguing that the poor were unable to form their own groups without direction from outsiders, because they lacked the motivation and knowledge on how to do this, and also the conditions were not right to enable them to do this. However, this was challenged by the deputy governor, who argued that the poor should organise themselves. The representative of the sum poor also argued that such groups could be formed and would be advantageous because there was more trust amongst the poor. The main problem she identified with this was financial.
Group 2 consisted of the governor, deputy governor, accountant, tax inspector and herders.
Source of income generating in Chuluut sum
|
|
Livestock husbandry |
Natural resources |
Hunting |
Growing vegetables |
Carpentry blacksmith |
Small factory |
Trade |
Tourism |
Using scrap materials |
|
Availability of required resources |
5 |
5 |
5 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
2 |
|
Less expenditure |
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
|
Less demand of labour force |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
|
Less need for technical inputs |
5 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
|
Capacity of income all year |
5 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
|
Capacity of reliable income |
5 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
Less demand of qualification |
2 |
5 |
5 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
5 |
|
High level of consumption |
5 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
5 |
1 |
|
Total |
35 |
35 |
31 |
17 |
15 |
16 |
22 |
24 |
16 |
Group 3 consisted of 3 bag governors and 3 herders.
What institution can best facilitate restocking
|
Criteria |
Item |
|||||||
|
Bag |
Company |
Rich people |
Bank |
Sum |
Foreign organisation |
Relatives |
Khot ail |
|
|
Access to credit |
8 |
2 |
1 |
9 |
10 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
Effective use of credit |
7 |
3 |
8 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
5 |
6 |
|
Better co-operation |
9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
10 |
|
Who can get the cheap livestock |
9 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
10 |
|
Who can get the more productive livestock |
9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
10 |
|
Whom can the poor trust |
10 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
8 |
|
Who can best manage a restocking programme |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Who can best monitor the implementation |
10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
|
Who knows best the poor |
10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
0 |
8 |
7 |
|
Total |
80 |
5 |
18 |
14 |
35 |
0 |
36 |
59 |
The trainers felt that the session had been successful and the technique had proved to be very useful, as many opinions were heard and valuable analyses made. However, in the final evaluation of the different PRA techniques by the participants (see 2.9), matrix ranking did not receive any votes as one of the most useful - very much to the surprise of the trainers!
The final morning's session was an introduction to diagramming and the use of seasonal calendars and daily routine analysis. This was planned as a group exercise but due to its postponement from the previous afternoon, there was only sufficient time for a presentation. This was based on examples of seasonal calendars drawn during interviews with local herders, on 1) supplementary income generating activities and 2) income levels and the related daily analysis of gender activities in the household, showing the much greater workload of women. The presentation was followed by a discussion on how the findings from these can be related to the data obtained using other techniques and their potential use by the participants.
1) Seasonal calendar on supplementary income generating activities in a poor herder household in Chuluut sum
|
Activities |
Months |
|||||||||||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
|
|
Rope making |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Broom making |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Selling butter |
|
|
|
|
|
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Selling dairy products |
|
|
|
|
|
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Selling cashmere |
|
|
|
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sewing |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Making Mongolian boots |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling skins |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Selling berries |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
Activities |
Months |
|||||||||||
|
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
|
|
Milking |
xxx |
xx |
xx |
x |
x |
x |
|
|
|
x |
x |
xx |
|
Killing sheep |
xxx |
xxx |
xxx |
xxx |
xxx |
|
|
|
|
|
|
xx |
|
Sale of sheep |
xxx |
xxx |
xxx |
xxx |
xxx |
|
|
|
|
|
|
xxx |
|
Sale of skins |
xxx |
xxx |
xxx |
xxx |
xxx |
|
|
|
|
|
|
xxx |
|
Sale of animals for idish |
|
|
xxx |
xxx |
xxx |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sale of dairy products |
xxx |
xx |
xx |
xxx |
xxx |
|
|
|
x |
|
|
|
|
Sale of cashmere |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xxx |
|
|
|
|
Selling cow hair |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xxx |
|
|
Sale of sheeps wool |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sale of meat to state factory |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xxx |
|
|
|
Total |
15 |
13 |
16 |
16 |
16 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
|
|
Men |
Women |
|
- find horses |
- make tea |
|
- send sheep to pasture |
- make yoghurt |
|
- send cattle to pasture |
- boil aaruul |
|
- chum mare airag |
- milk cows |
|
|
- boil milk |
|
|
- make archi |
|
|
- sew |
|
|
- clean |
|
|
- feed children |
|
|
- make aaruul |
|
|
- milk cows |
|
|
- cook dinner |
|
|
- chum cow airag |
The penultimate session on SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) was designed to bring the training to a focused end with a simple analysis and planning tool (for an explanation of SWOT see the Social Development Training Curriculum). It was felt that this was important in order to give the participants a practical means of using the results of PRA, to design and plan feasible projects or actions. After a short presentation small groups were given exercises to conduct SWOT analysis on a subject related to poverty alleviation and then present their results to others. The exercise was as follows:
Do a situational analysis and make an implementation plan for the following subject/project:
Group 1: Group formationThe SWOT analyses done by each group are shown in appendix 5.
Group 2: Dairy milk production
Group 3: Potato growing
It was felt that the session was beneficial but that due to the time constraints, was too short, and thus was only able to cover the subject briefly, and give limited time for practice. As a result, the participants did not grasp a full understanding of the different steps needed to be taken to move from the situational analysis, through activity planning, to implementation planning and this was reflected in their presentations. Despite this, it was felt that they had gained a basic understanding of the principles and were able to relate the utility of the technique to the local context of poverty alleviation. In future, trainers will ensure greater time is given to this session, as it was felt to be very important by the participants in their evaluation.
The closing session was a review, emphasising again the main principles and techniques of participation and their context within development work and development planning. Finally, participants were asked to evaluate the different PRA techniques they had learnt, by voting for the two most useful and most enjoyable. As the results in the table below show, interviewing was considered the most useful, followed by the SWOT analysis - the two sessions felt to be least 'polished' and in need of improvement by the trainers! All said that they found the whole training enjoyable and therefore did not want to vote on any particular things.
Participants' Evaluation Scoring of methods by participants
|
Sessions |
Most useful |
Most enjoyable |
|
Interviewing |
13 |
|
|
Poverty analysis exercise |
3 |
|
|
Mapping |
4 |
|
|
Matrix |
0 |
|
|
Diagramming |
1 |
|
|
SWOT |
7 |
|
|
|
28 |
EVERYTHING |
1. What is the main thing you have learnt from the workshop?Some of their comments were as follows:
2. What did you like best about the workshop? Why?
3. What did you like least? Why?
4. How could the workshop be improved?
5. Any other comments?
1. What is the main thing you have learnt from the workshop?
“The most important things were SWOT analysis method, the analysis of poverty and behaviour and attitudes”, Machgalsuren, bag I governor.
“ Mobilising participant's initiative during the exercises”, Tsetsegmaa, sum doctor.
“I realised that we have some possibilities in Chuluut to improve our life. If we can mobilise poor people they have some abilities to improve their own lives. They have the necessary skills and labour force”, Khandsuren, herder.
“We have learned that we should be more active and involve more people in our work to succeed and to improve our life”, Selenge, representative of sum poor.
2. What did you like best about the workshop? Why?
“ I most liked SWOT method, the exercises on poverty analysis and matrix method,” Makhgalsuren, bag I governor.
“ Learning to listen to others in order to get answers you are interested in and to find out new ideas. I liked your behaviour,” Tsetsegmaa, sum doctor.
“The training was excellent. We were impressed,” Khandsuren, herder
“We learned how to exchange ideas, how to participate, how to behave,” Selenge, representative of sum poor.
“Using exercises which help people understand very easily”, Dashzeveg, sum governor.
3. What did you like least? Why?
“There was nothing I disliked”, Mijiddorj, bag III governor.
“I liked very much your training and learned lots of new things”, Selenge, representative of sum poor.
“Nothing”, anon.
4. How could the workshop be improved?
“We should be trained more in the future”, Mijiddorj, bag III governor.
“If you meet with herders they win give you very important information”, Khandsuren, herder.
“Increase your training as much as possible and involve everybody”, Dashzeveg, sum governor.
“You should involve more people in your training”, Byambasuren, social insurance inspector.
5. Any other comments?
“Thanks a lot for training in our place. You should exchange your ideas with rural people”, Makhgalsuren, bag III governor.
“Thank you very much for organising this training and teaching us lots of useful things”, Ganbaatar, bag 4 governor.
“We would like you to organise group training here”, Dashzeveg, sum governor.
