# data[].attributes.headline
Aporte sobre técnicas para planificación de talleres participativos a partir de una experiencia concreta.

# data[].attributes.subject
Aporte sobre técnicas para planificación de talleres participativos a partir de una experiencia concreta.

# data[].attributes.body
En el documento, más allá de encontrar la sistematización de una experiencia de un proyecto de extensión universitaria, están las planificaciones y recursos que se utilizaron para implementar talleres participativos.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Praxis en Salud Social y Comunitaria en Chubut

# data[].attributes.body
Manual de herramientas y técnicas para facilitación de talleres y reuniones
https://seedsforchange.org.uk/tools.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
Manual - "Kit de herramientas para la facilitación" - Transgender Europe

# data[].attributes.subject
Manual - "Kit de herramientas para la facilitación" - Transgender Europe

# data[].attributes.body
https://tgeu.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/FacilitationToolkit_TGEU2018_SPA.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
Repositorio de métodos - Action Catalogue

# data[].attributes.subject
Repositorio de métodos - Action Catalogue

# data[].attributes.body
http://actioncatalogue.eu/search

# data[].attributes.headline
Guia para co-diseño - Proyecto Cos4Cloud

# data[].attributes.subject
Guia para co-diseño - Proyecto Cos4Cloud

# data[].attributes.body
https://zenodo.org/record/7472450#.Y_52Oa2ZOs-

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Guasch, Blanca; Amo, Alex; Hernández, Miguel; Arias, Rosa; Liñán, Sonia; Piera, Jaume; Justamante, Ángela; Fabó, Claudia; Soacha, Karen

This guide results from the experience and lessons learned in co-designing thirteen technological services within the Cos4Cloud project. The technological services were created from a bottom-up approach, following a co-design process connected to an agile software development methodology. The co-design team implemented the co-design process as a service within the Cos4Cloud consortium, as stated in task 5.2. The result of implementing the co-design framework and methodologies and the corresponding monitoring during the co-design of the services, were evaluated and adapted to be shared with the citizen science community as a methodological guide.

The present methodological guide includes an introduction to the world of co-design, where the main definitions and mindsets of co-design and design thinking are given, as well as some tools to start applying the creative methodologies within them. Secondly, it introduces the co-design methodology followed in Cos4Cloud, together with some important concepts, such as citizen science and citizen observatories. Then, a practical guide of implementation is given, including all the co-design methodologies used in Cos4Cloud. The most standard methods include a description and a work map template, while the customised ones incorporate a step-by-step guide to implement them. Finally, an explanation is given on how the co-design process was implemented in Cos4Cloud as a service for software developers, by using three interactive platforms that allowed us to perform all creative sessions. The document concludes with an invitation to implement co-design processes in other software development projects.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Co-design as a service: Methodological guide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This guide results from the experience and lessons learned in co-designing thirteen technological services within the Cos4Cloud project. The technological services were created from a bottom-up approach, following a co-design process connected to an agile software development methodology. The co-design team implemented the co-design process as a service within the Cos4Cloud consortium, as stated in task 5.2.

# data[].attributes.headline
Toolkit para Ciencia Ciudadana - Proyecto global CoAct

# data[].attributes.subject
Toolkit para Ciencia Ciudadana - Proyecto global CoAct

# data[].attributes.body
https://coactproject.eu/explore-the-toolkit/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website.

# data[].attributes.headline
Toolkit para Ciencia Ciudadana - Proyecto Cities Health

# data[].attributes.subject
Toolkit para Ciencia Ciudadana - Proyecto Cities Health

# data[].attributes.body
https://citizensciencetoolkit.eu/stories/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Stories - Putting citizens' concerns at the heart of citizen science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Science can help communities tackle problems that affect them

# data[].attributes.body
Repositorio de prácticas de participación

# data[].attributes.body
Aquí encontrarán un modelo de documento de planificación de talleres participativos. Pueden descargarlo y modificarlo a gusto

# data[].attributes.body
Pizarrón colaborativo para dibujar, diseñar, diagramar y jugar.

# data[].attributes.headline
Guía de Laboratorios de Transformación en el sistema Socioecológico de la Ciudad de México

# data[].attributes.subject
Guía de Laboratorios de Transformación en el sistema Socioecológico de la Ciudad de México

# data[].attributes.body
Este documento presenta la experiencia del LANCIS-IE-UNAM, IIMAS-UNAM y ASU en el desarrollo del “Laboratorio de Transformación en el sistema socio-ecológico de Xochimilco, Ciudad de México”.

Aquí se describe el proceso y la metodología que desarrollamos en el proyecto entre 2016 y 2019 y ofrecemos algunos recursos prácticos, como fichas descriptivas de las principales actividades que se implementaron, para facilitar procesos similares. Esperamos que esta guía provea recursos a colectivos de personas genuinamente comprometidos con la sostenibilidad de los sistemas socio-ecológicos en que habitan.

# data[].attributes.body
Herramienta colaborativa para diseñar procesos, interfaces y prototipos.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Figma: The Collaborative Interface Design Tool

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Figma is the leading collaborative design tool for building meaningful products. Seamlessly design, prototype, develop, and collect feedback in a single platform.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Taller para mapeo de actores y conjuntos de acción

# data[].attributes.body
Plataforma visual colaborativa

# data[].attributes.body
La metodología de la espiral vivo tiene como fin la reconstrucción colectiva de la historia de un proceso. Los objetivos son descubrir cómo y hasta qué punto, los procesos de aprendizaje personales y colectivos resultan en transformaciones hacia la sustentabilidad, y qué tipos de desafíos y tensiones se han experimentado a lo largo del proceso. Monitorear un proceso para encontrar sus indicadores de transformación, resultados inesperados y oportunidades, así como otros posibles cambios y casos (Macintyre et al., 2019)

# data[].attributes.body
El objetivo de este ejercicio es llegar a una definición común que sintetice una idea. A partir de una pregunta o frase inicial, les participantes “intervienen” en la frase escrita en un afiche tachando o agregando elementos sin justificar ni juzgar. Este ejercicio permite evaluar hasta qué punto existe una visión común y cuáles son los puntos de conflicto sobre una idea, pero además, potencia las capacidades del grupo al ejercitar el respeto, la capacidad de síntesis y la reflexión (Cremaschi y Charli-Joseph, 2020).

# data[].attributes.body
El árbol de problemas es una técnica ampliamente difundida, en la que se busca definir colectivamente cuáles son los problemas centrales de una comunidad, e identificar sus causas (raíces) y consecuencias (ramas). Les participantes escriben problemas en diferentes tarjetas (un problema por tarjeta) y luego de ponerlos en común, los conectan estableciendo relaciones de causa y efecto. Una vez completado el árbol de problemas, puede continuarse el ejercicio creando un árbol espejo: el árbol de soluciones. Éste consiste en la reformulación de los problemas como acciones de corto (ramas), mediano (tronco) y largo (raíces) plazo.

# data[].attributes.body
La técnica de los avatares tiene el fin de identificar características o capacidades (que los participantes pueden compartir con el grupo y otras personas y que pueden activar para lograr cambios específicos hacia la sustentabilidad. Para ello, cada participante reflexiona sobre las características (poderes) que tiene la persona en el contexto de promover el cambio hacia la sustentabilidad y elige cinco de poderes para describirse a sí mismo. Posteriormente, cada participante dibuja un ser o personaje arquetípico que lo representa, pensando en algo o alguien con quien se identifica, que lo describe, o que le gustaría ser. Cada participante asigna un nombre al avatar e incorpora los 5 poderes elegidos en el sorteo. Este ser será el símbolo que represente al participante en el grupo. Cada participante cuelga su avatar en la pared, y lo presenta al grupo, diciendo brevemente el nombre y los poderes que tiene.

La idea de avatar permite que se representen los poderes de la persona sin que ésta se inhiba, ya que, si bien el avatar representa a la persona, no es la persona. Asimismo, permite identificar las capacidades (poderes) que hay en un grupo, a partir de la complementariedad, contribuyendo al empoderamiento de les participantes, al reconocer su contribución al grupo, y también al comprender el valor de la organización. Además, cuando los avatares interactúan, pueden llegar a reconocer que poseen otros poderes que no sabían que tenían al principio del proceso (Charli-Joseph et al., 2022).

# data[].attributes.body
Implican tanto una reflexión sobre una historia de desafíos y oportunidades como una discusión sobre las preferencias por diferentes caminos de cambio futuro.

Una discusión participativa de escenarios ofrece una oportunidad para la identificación dirigida por los participantes de estructuras y mecanismos de vulnerabilidad y adaptación, al mismo tiempo que ofrece una plataforma para el intercambio de información, la deliberación y, posteriormente, la construcción de capacidad de adaptación. Kok et al. (2007) describen los escenarios como “un excelente vehículo para unir sistemas de conocimiento, mejorar el diálogo y educar a las partes interesadas” (p.13). Los escenarios participativos generalmente se desarrollan a través de talleres en los que una muestra representativa de una comunidad participa para compartir y deliberar sobre visiones para el futuro y pueden, por ejemplo, actuar como una metodología para la evaluación y gestión de riesgos, que puede o no basarse en información. , como las proyecciones de modelos climáticos y los avances científicos y tecnológicos, como contribuyentes al debate (Huber‐Sannwald, Maestre et al. 2006, Voinov y Bousquet 2010, Whitfield y Reed 2011). Un enfoque de este tipo tiene el potencial de proporcionar una evaluación de escenarios futuros que se base en las formas en que los actores locales podrían utilizar, experimentar y adaptarse, no sólo al ecosistema sino a las cambiantes estructuras sociales, económicas y políticas de las que forman parte. . Patt y col. (2005) han demostrado que, al combinar pronósticos climáticos con experiencias locales de climas históricos y cambiantes y utilizar descripciones semicuantitativas (como las probabilidades de precipitaciones 'por encima', 'aproximadamente' y 'por debajo' de lo normal), dentro de Mediante talleres participativos, es posible comunicar proyecciones climáticas detalladas y sus incertidumbres a los pequeños agricultores (en su caso, agricultores de subsistencia en Zimbabwe) e incluso entablar debates sobre conceptos complejos, como El Niño. Unos pocos ejemplos (por ejemplo, Robinson, Clouston et al. 2008) han demostrado que los valores ambientales de las partes interesadas se pueden cambiar como resultado del aprendizaje a través de talleres participativos; sin embargo, hay mucho más que aprender sobre las formas en que los diferentes sistemas de conocimiento son priorizados dentro de estos foros participativos.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
← BACK TO METHODS VIGNETTES

By Stephen Whitfield

Background

Participatory scenario workshops have been used and developed in research by Anthony Patt ( Patt, Suarez et al. 2005) in Southern Africa, Kasper Kok and colleagues ( Kok, Biggs et al. 2007), and the USAID funded Climate Change Collective Learning and Observatory Network in Ghana ( Tschakert and Dietrich 2010), and they involve both a reflection on a history of challenges and opportunities and a discussion of preferences for different pathways of future change. In the methodological framework for anticipatory learning presented by Tschakert and Dietrich (2010) they explain the importance of incorporating 'lessons learnt from the past' with 'monitoring and analysis of trends to anticipate future events':

'Memory, also referred to as 'experiential grounding', serves as the knowledge base underlying the capacity for anticipating and envisioning future uncertainty and surprise... identifying and monitoring slowly changing variables such as rainfall patterns and reflecting on and integrating new knowledge allows for a better understanding of processes that are already underway' ( Tschakert and Dietrich 2010: 12)

A participatory scenarios discussion and offers an opportunity for participant-led identification of structures and mechanisms of vulnerability and adaptation, whilst simultaneously offering a platform for information sharing, deliberation, and subsequently the building of adaptive capacity. Kok et al. (2007) describe scenarios as 'an excellent vehicle for bridging knowledge systems, enhancing dialogue, and educating stakeholders' (p.13). Participatory scenarios are usually developed through workshops in which a cross-section of a community participate in sharing and deliberating on visions for the future and can, for example, act as a methodology for risk assessment and management, which may or may not draw on information, such as climate model projections and science and technology developments, as contributors to the discussion ( Huber‐Sannwald, Maestre et al. 2006, Voinov and Bousquet 2010, Whitfield and Reed 2011). Such an approach has the potential to provide an assessment of future scenarios that is based on the ways in which local stakeholders might utilise, experience and adapt, not just to the ecosystem but to the changing social, economic and political structures of which they are part. Patt et al. ( 2005) have demonstrated that, by combining climate forecasts with local experiences of historic and changing climates and using semi-quantitative description (such as the probabilities of 'above-', 'about-' and 'below-' normal rainfall), within participatory workshops, it is possible to communicate detailed climate projections and their uncertainties to smallholder farmers (in their case subsistence farmers in Zimbabwe) and even engage in discussion about complex concepts, such as El Niño. A few examples ( e.g. Robinson, Clouston et al. 2008) have shown that the environmental values of stakeholders can be changed as a result of learning through participatory workshops, however, there is much more to be learnt about the ways in which different knowledge systems are prioritised within these participatory forums.

What's Involved?

Preparation on the part of facilitators is the key to generating discussion and this general framework needs to be adapted for the specific contexts, adaptation options and relevant social, economic, political, physical drivers of change. Prior analysis of survey or secondary data should be used to develop an understanding of local adaptations and drivers over a recent history. This will inform the initial stage of participatory scenarios development, which is a collective evaluation of the successes and failings of past adaptation strategies. Key prompt questions within this discussion include: 'why was the change implemented', 'was it a permanent change or short term fix?', 'what are the main constraints on implementing this change?', 'was it successful?', 'why was it successful/unsuccessful?'

A second stage involves presenting information about relevant drivers of future change. Again the facilitator should have a detailed prior understanding of this information or partner with experts from related disciplines. This information might be a series of climate change projections, economic forecasts, information about pipeline technologies, models of ecological degradation/change, long term national or international political strategies. It is important that participants understand this information, how it was put together, and levels of uncertainty within it, and they should be encouraged to ask questions along those lines.

A third stage is to offer three or four non-specific pathways of change that relate to actions on the part of participants and correspond which changes made in the recent history of the community. The details of these activities (and the need to add or remove pathways) are determined through participant discussion. In an agricultural context, these pathways might include: changing land management, adopting alternative varieties, introducing cash crops, diversified off-farm income sources, etc. In each case participants are asked to explain what specific activities each pathway might involve (e.g. the introduction of cash crops might involving converting one third of maize acreage to growing orange trees).

The final stage is a set of specific questions in which participants are asked to think forward, in light of the information and projections presented earlier, and identify the 'push' and 'pull' factors that might instigate the changes, identify the 'actors' (inclusive of individuals, officials, organisations, and non-human actors) responsible for these factors, and estimate the likelihood and timescales over which such factors might materialise.

Information can be recorded in a participatory and interactive manner, using large charts and post-it notes, and revisited (and triangulated) through a final open-ended comparative discussion of the relative merits of alternative pathways.

Broadening Out and Opening Up?

The semi-structured and deliberative nature of the participatory scenarios workshop is designed to allow creative thinking about, and deliberation over, alternative pathways of future change, in each case considering the constraints and drivers of change and the structures and institutions through which these are shaped. Information exchange and social learning within such a forum has the potential to be transformative, the beginning of a process by which participants act to instigate changes to these structures and institutions, where possible such that they become enabling of preferred pathways.

If a workshop has carefully facilitated to encourage broad participation and the input of multiple voices, it can be a forum for otherwise marginalised viewpoints to be heard, and for the structures that result in marginalisation to be identified and discussed. It is not necessary that a single consensual view must be established amongst participants and the recording and presentation of discussions should be done so as to reflect diversity and contestation, where it emerges from discussion.

Possible Limits?

This method has been used in a PhD project exploring alternative narratives of climate change adaptation in Kenyan maize farming and is particularly well suited to considering adaptations in response to climate change in a variety of sectors and contexts. It c also be used as a tool for comparative analysis of preferred pathways between different knowledge communities (e.g. farmers, crop breeders, policy makers) or even a forum for deliberation between representatives of these varied knowledge communities.

The logistics and time commitment involved in preparing for and hosting such workshops will likely limit its application, but it has potentially provide a rich data output (and one that requires careful and flexible analysis).

References

Huber‐Sannwald, E., F. T. Maestre, J. E. Herrick and J. F. Reynolds (2006). "Ecohydrological feedbacks and linkages associated with land degradation: a case study from Mexico." Hydrological Processes 20(15): 3395-3411.

Kok, K., R. Biggs and M. Zurek (2007). "Methods for developing multiscale participatory scenarios: insights from southern Africa and Europe." Ecology and Society 12(1): 8.

Patt, A., P. Suarez and C. Gwata (2005). "Effects of seasonal climate forecasts and participatory workshops among subsistence farmers in Zimbabwe." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102(35): 12623-12628.

Robinson, J., B. Clouston, J. Suh and M. Chaloupka (2008). "Are citizens' juries a useful tool for assessing environmental value?" Environmental Conservation 35(04): 351-360.

Tschakert, P. and K. A. Dietrich (2010). "Anticipatory learning for climate change adaptation and resilience." Ecology and Society 15(2): 11.

Voinov, A. and F. Bousquet (2010). "Modelling with stakeholders." Environmental Modelling & Software 25(11): 1268-1281.

Whitfield, S. and M. Reed (2011). "Participatory environmental assessment in drylands: Introducing a new approach." Journal of Arid Environments 77: 1-10.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Methods Vignettes: Participatory Scenarios - STEPS Centre

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
←BACK TO METHODS VIGNETTES By Stephen Whitfield Background Participatory scenario workshops have been used and developed in research by Anthony Patt (Patt, Suarez et al. 2005) in Southern Africa, Kasper...

# data[].attributes.body
Photovoice es un método para revelar experiencias de la vida real y empoderar a personas marginadas, en particular niñas y mujeres.

Como práctica basada en la producción de conocimiento, la fotovoz tiene tres objetivos principales: (1) permitir que las personas registren y reflejen las fortalezas y preocupaciones de su comunidad, (2) promover el diálogo crítico y el conocimiento sobre temas importantes a través de discusiones en grupos grandes y pequeños. de fotografías, y (3) llegar a los responsables políticos.

Construir relaciones sólidas y respetuosas entre todos los involucrados debería ser un punto de partida para la voz fotográfica. El siguiente paso será reclutar un equipo de liderazgo para el proyecto y elegir un facilitador (puede ser más de uno). El siguiente paso debe ser definir las metas/objetivos del proyecto y el tema de las fotografías con los líderes comunitarios. Este paso conduce a reclutar grupos de participantes que idealmente no deberían contener más de 8 a 10 miembros. Será necesario programar suficiente tiempo para un mínimo de dos rondas de toma de fotografías y discusión para capturar la profundidad de la percepción. Luego viene el paso más importante y emocionante: tomar fotografías.

El proyecto debería permitir al menos una semana para que los participantes salgan y tomen fotografías. Después de tomar las fotografías, las fotografías deben estar presentes en las reuniones comunitarias por parte de los participantes para su discusión. Las partes interesadas clave de la comunidad y el público serán el público objetivo de los eventos. El último paso será tomar medidas que dependerán de cuáles sean los objetivos del proyecto y de las áreas que los participantes identificaron como áreas a abordar. El resultado es un rico conjunto de información, representada como diagramas y texto, que documenta los detalles de las diferentes perspectivas y transforma las voces en acción.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
← BACK TO METHODS VIGNETTES

Background

Photovoice is a ground-breaking approach to participatory action research. The beauty of photovoice is its diversity; every photovoice project is different, and each project has a different focus. With photovoice, different stories are told, different photographs are captured and different outcomes are sought. Despite the many differences, common to each photovoice project is its effectiveness as a method to reveal real life experiences and empower marginalized individuals, particularly girls and women.

As a practice based in the production of knowledge, photovoice has three main goals: (1) to enable people to record and reflect their community's strengths and concerns, (2) to promote critical dialogue and knowledge about important issues through large and small group discussion of photographs, and (3) to reach policymakers.

First introduced as Photo novella by Wang & Burris in 1994, Photovoice has since become an empowering methodology that allows individuals to reflect upon the strengths and concerns of their community. Photovoice is an overlap of three theoretical frameworks: empowerment education, feminist theory and documentary photography. All three theoretical frameworks emphasise community participation for the purpose of social action. Social researchers recognise photovoice as a vital tool for Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) because of its accuracy in gathering information (Garziano, 2004). It not only does establish a partnership among the key stakeholders but also equitably involve them into all aspects of the research process.

What's Involved?

Photovoice does, in some ways, progress in a step-by-step fashion but, in some cases activities will overlap. Every photovoice project is different. How a group moves through the suggested steps will be influenced by differences in the projected timeline, budget, photovoice participant goals and objectives, community resources, and of course, community needs.

Building strong respectful relationships among all those involved should be a starting point for photo voice. The next step will be to recruit a leadership team for the project and choose a facilitator (can be more than one).The next step should be to define the goals/objectives of the project and subject matter for the photographs with the community leaders. This step leads to recruit groups of participants which ideally should not contain more than 8-10 members. The step of scheduling enough time for a minimum of two rounds of taking photos and discussion will be needed for capturing the depth of perception. Then the most important and exciting step comes in- taking pictures.

The project should allow at least a week for participants to get out and take pictures. After taking the pictures, photographs should be present in the community meetings by the participants for discussion. Key community stakeholders and the public will be the target audience to the events. The last step will be to take action which depends on what the project goals are and what the participants identified as areas to be addressed. The result is a rich body of information, represented both as diagrams and text, documenting the details of the different perspectives and changing the voices into action.

Broadening Out and Opening Up?

The project ' Uncertainty from Below' takes the opportunity of this photovoice mechanism for visualizing alternative pathways of indigenous adaptive strategies based on traditional knowledge and ground level perceptions. During the initial piloting among the people living precariously on the temporary embankments in Sundarbans, this method seems to supersede traditional methods of facilitated discussion to visually capture the needs assessments for a community. The Uncertainty project aims to employ the photovoice method to inform the dialogues with the 'above' and the 'middle' of the issues of climate change-related uncertainties and the its manifestations in life, livelihoods, health systems perceived by the 'below' in the remote and affected islands of the Sundarbans.

The visual depictions of uncertainty would be used as a pathway for need-based, locally acceptable solutions at the local policy level - panchayats, health care delivery system and general administration through the ground level stakeholder meets. The mutually agreed decisions of the 'below' and the 'middle' would be documented and examples showcased at the debates and dialogues at the state and the national level. It is a beauty of this qualitative technique where the participant is herself/himself the researcher and the creator of encapsulating the adaptive strategies towards climatic changes and their alternative pathways to be resilient. The photovoice would communicate implicit visual narratives (with an increased emphasis on the triggers and barriers in the adaptation process) of the islanders of Sundarbans with the explicit narrative of the Above.

Roles, Fit and Limits?

The STEPS Uncertainty project is using the photovoice method to emphasize the importance for community members to have a say and to take action to inform decision-makers about the reality of their lives which are ravaged by the uncertainty of nature on a daily basis. The intent of the method is to influence public policy on issues like erosion, breaching of embankments, loss of productivity due to salinity ingress, depleting natural resources erosion and the resulting migration. In this way photovoice is an empowering practice as it offers an alternative pathway for individuals to come together and reveal their concerns.

However, the time commitment may be taxing for the participants. Though the costs related to photography have come down in recent years, cost of equipment can be a concern. The loss of, or damage to, cameras is a possible risk. A wide range of skills is necessary to complete the photovoice research and project activities. Participants continuously make choices about what they select as subject matter for their photographs. They also make choices about what is not included in their photographs. These choices obviously influence the research findings. However, the project Uncertainty would try to provide a supportive monitoring to the whole process to minimize the research bias.

Key relevant references and weblinks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Methods Vignettes: Photovoice - STEPS Centre

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
←BACK TO METHODS VIGNETTES Background Photovoice is a ground-breaking approach to participatory action research. The beauty of photovoice is its diversity; every photovoice project is different, and each project has...

# data[].attributes.body
La historia de un sistema es el relato de las decisiones que los miembros de un sistema dado han tomado a lo largo del tiempo: cómo lo hacen, las influencias a las que responden y los objetivos que persiguen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
← BACK TO METHODS VIGNETTES
Background
This is a method used within the STEPS Centre's Responding to zoonotic and related diseases in intensifying livestock systems: diverse framings and pathways project. A system history is the manager's account of the choices they have made over time in what they do in their enterprise, how they do it, the influences they respond to and the objectives they pursue. That enterprise, with its flows inwards and outwards of information, material and energy, controlled to some extent by the manager's decisions, can be considered a system. The method has been developed in the Intensifications project in Yunnan China with livestock producers. The context is one of accelerating demand from urban consumers particularly for pig, which is being met by increases in the size of production units and greater reliance on new breeds, purchased feed and drugs. At the same time, there is growing concern, within China and internationally, regarding the health risks that may be associated with these changes, particularly zoonotic diseases that can pass between livestock and humans.

The system history seeks to evidence the individual agency that is obscured by these larger narratives: it assumes that there is more than one history. It pays attention to the knowledge and experience of producers who are navigating rapidly changing social, economic and biotic landscapes, knowledge and experiences that are often ignored or denigrated.

What's involved?

System histories being time-consuming, a key decision is: whose histories to collect. We aimed to characterize and highlight the range of producers' experiences, including often marginalized perspectives, rather than to define some notional mean. Producers were selected across two dimensions that we hypothesized are important influences on management decisions: accessibility to a city, a focus of demand; and scale of production. Ethnic minorities also predominated in the less accessible areas.

We began with a focus group discussion in each village to better understand the major directions of change locally and to identify "time-marks" - public events over the past several decades which producers recounting their system histories could use to situate the changes they had made.

If the producer didn't mention it, we asked, trying not to break the flow, about changes over the past 15 or so years in their use of inputs, in the outputs sold or consumed, in how they dispose of waste and dead animals, in how they integrate pig production with other aspects of livelihood, in the disease and other risks they recognize and how these influence their decisions. Finally, where do they hope to be 5 years from now with their pig enterprise? Where do they expect to be? What is constraining or enabling them to reach what they envision?

Broadening Out and Opening Up

System histories can illuminate the diversity of interests and objectives that managers pursue, which typically find little place in the productivist framings of agricultural development and development more broadly. They can also bring out the possibly unrecognized constraints to and consequences of the change envisaged in dominant pathways. In Yunnan, the histories show that people are making use of the elements of intensification but in varied combinations. Risks of different kinds, beyond disease, shape their management decisions: volatility in output prices, increasing input costs, the threat of culling and failing to find affordable credit.

System histories might be brought into policy spaces where the issues are being debated. We are trying to open up that debate: feeding back what we have learned from the system histories in village meetings with producers, consumers, butchers, vets and other groups; bringing the gist of those meetings' discussions to meetings with concerned ministries, and convening multi-stakeholder meetings with all these groups at county and provincial levels.

The system history draws on two quite different methodological streams. One is oral history, which has often served to highlight the "view from below" of major events. To our knowledge, it has not previously been used to shed light on experiences of large technological change. The other stream involves the "farm system" which has been the object of much modelling in agricultural economics. Our use of "system" differs in recognizing the diverse objectives that farmers may pursue and the social, economic and political constraints to their innovation.

Fit and Limits

The system history can be very useful in engaging actors, including the most marginalized. In highlighting their stories and enabling comparison with others', the operation of power is brought out. Comparison across histories can also suggest where people's framings of 'system' and the interests they pursue are similar or diverge. A particular strength is in highlighting key decision points and how they relate to shocks, individually or collectively experienced.

The system history is more a method for scoping out perspectives and experiences than for focusing attention on alternatives. The trajectories that the histories lay out, with their near-future "tails", do not themselves describe pathways ("self-reinforcing narratives of change"): often what producers envisioned, or what they told us, was: the same but bigger if I can get a grant; stagnation if not. For many system managers in many contexts, imagining something qualitatively different is a waste of time and sometimes dangerous. Creating a space where such futures can be safely explored and debated is more than just a research method.

Skill is essential in handling the system history. Particularly sensitive aspects may not emerge if the person does not feel assured of confidentiality. In Yunnan, we found that such issues were more likely to come up in the focus groups where participants could refer to what others do.
Key references and links

A recent STEPS blog by Jim Sumberg and colleagues describes some of the intellectual pedigree of the farm system and related concepts. Tiffen et al (1994) used oral histories, with other methods, to understand the impact of demographic and technological changes in a heavily eroded area of Kenya.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Methods Vignettes: System histories - STEPS Centre

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
←BACK TO METHODS VIGNETTES Background This is a method used within the STEPS Centre's Responding to zoonotic and related diseases in intensifying livestock systems: diverse framings and pathways project. A system...

# data[].attributes.body
El método Rivers of Life se ideó originalmente como un ejercicio para “romper el hielo”, para su uso en talleres donde los participantes provenientes de diversos orígenes necesitan presentarse rápidamente entre sí y comenzar a establecer una relación con el grupo.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Methods Vignettes: Rivers of Life - STEPS Centre

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
←BACK TO METHODS VIGNETTES Background The Rivers of Life method was devised originally as an ‘ice breaker’ exercise, for use in workshops where participants coming from diverse backgrounds need to…

# data[].attributes.body
La Evaluación H se deriva del método de evaluación formulario H/‘formulario Rugby Post’ desarrollado por Andy Inglis en 1997 para ayudar a la población local en Somalia en el seguimiento y la evaluación (Guy e Inglis 1999, ver referencias a continuación).

Más allá de un método estándar de “continuo” o “línea” que permite a los participantes posicionarse (o posicionar sus perspectivas) en una línea de posibilidades, la Evaluación H tiene una dimensión adicional. Alienta a los participantes a identificar directa y específicamente los factores positivos o negativos que influyen en su posición en la línea. Se pueden agrupar y, mediante un proceso facilitado, utilizar como foco para discutir lo que debe suceder para aprovechar y fortalecer los factores positivos, o para superar o abordar los factores negativos, a fin de apoyar un objetivo general.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
← BACK TO METHODS VIGNETTES

Background

Evaluation H derives from the H-form/ 'Rugby Post form' Evaluation method developed by Andy Inglis in 1997 to assist local people in Somalia in monitoring and evaluation (Guy and Inglis 1999, see references below).

Beyond a standard 'continuum' or 'line' method that allows participants to position themselves (or their perspectives) on a line of possibilities, Evaluation H has an additional dimension. It encourages participants to directly and specifically identify the positive or negative factors that influence their position on the line. They can be clustered, and, through a facilitated process, used as a focus for discussing what needs to happen to build upon and strengthen positive factors, or to overcome or address negative factors, in order to support an overall objective.

A variant of the Evaluation H process has been used by STEPS Centre researchers investigating 'Transformative Pathways to Sustainable Food Systems in Brighton & Hove' in December 2016, which drew together producers, consumers, retailers/ restauranteurs and civil society organisations working in the area. The workshop was facilitated by Ben Messer of Food Matters. It was part of a multi-national transdisciplinary research project, the PATHWAYS Network, funded by the International Social Science Council.

What's involved?

The facilitator of the exercise poses a question to the group which is related to the issue being explored, with the question written at the top of a wall, table, or large sheet of paper (the work surface).

A horizontal line is drawn across the centre of the work surface, providing a continuum for opinions, for example, good to bad, easy to difficult, important to not important. Participants are each given sticky notes and pens, and asked to consider their response to the question posed by the facilitator and where on the continuum reflects/represents their response. Participants are also asked to write the factors (positive and negative) which influence why their response falls at the position on the continuum they have identified.

Once all participants have added their sticky notes to the work surface, each of the responses is discussed with every participant having the opportunity to explain their perspective. The factors identified can be positive or negative, and are usually attached to vertical lines at either end of the continuum (hence the 'H' or rugby post name). Ideally the factors are then clustered to identify any common themes that arise and then each distinct cluster can be analysed, i.e. what needs to happen to overcome or address this negative factor, or to build upon and strengthen this positive factor.

Broadening out and opening up

The Evaluation H method is useful for identifying different perspectives along a continuum. As long as a broad range of perspectives are present and feel free to contribute, this is effective at broadening out discussions around an issue. Ideally, the method brings plural perspectives on the issue to an equal status but can also highlight 'outliers' or more marginal views. The dialogue which explores participant's responses then opens up in an attempt to address the plurality of framings.

This method can be effective if participants represent different sectors, backgrounds, or types of involvement in the issue being explored, particularly if these different stakeholders do not interact often. The dialogue created through discussion of each participant's response can identify multiple diverse ideas, opportunities, strategies, or recommendations.

In our workshop in Brighton and Hove, policy-makers, retailers, farmers and producers, researchers, and caterers participated in the exercise ( see this blogpost for a reflection on the discussion).

Participants were asked: How easy is it to supply sustainably produced food to the city? The Evaluation H produced responses right across the continuum from 'easy' to 'not at all easy', including one respondent who provided multiple responses at different points along the continuum due to the complexity of the issue.

Fits and limits

The Evaluation H method will engage participants, including a potential range of stakeholders as participants. Discussion of each participant's responses allows each diverse perspective to be explored, bringing different framings of issues to the surface. Dialogue emerging from discussion can address dynamics between plural perspectives, including tensions, commonalities, gaps, or opportunities.

A strength of the Evaluation H method is that can engage a range of stakeholders, sectors, and backgrounds on an even plane, where each participant is held as equal and their responses given equal importance (although this is dependent on appropriate facilitation). This allows each participant to give their perspective in their response to the question without feeling judged or marginalised by other participants.

Conversely, a potential weakness of the method is that (especially if the exercise is poorly facilitated) participants may not feel comfortable, willing, or able to give their perspective or reflect on their response with others.

References and links
This vignette has been referenced on the td-net repository of Methods and tools for co-producing knowledge.
Guy, S., and Inglis, A.S. (1999) Tips for trainers: Introducing the 'H-form' - a method for monitoring and evaluation, In: Gujit, I., and Braden, S. (Eds) (1999) Learning from Analysis, Participatory Learning and Action Notes, Issue 34, International Institute for Environment and Development, London, pp84-87
Food Matters website

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Methods vignettes: Evaluation H - STEPS Centre

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
←BACK TO METHODS VIGNETTES Background Evaluation H derives from the H-form/ 'Rugby Post form' Evaluation method developed by Andy Inglis in 1997 to assist local people in Somalia in monitoring...

# data[].attributes.body
Un “juego serio” es un juego que se juega con fines educativos, exploratorios o de investigación para explorar la complejidad de un tema en particular. Estos son distintos de los juegos que se juegan únicamente por entretenimiento.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Methods ‘vignette’ on serious games, which are played for education, exploration or research to explore the complexity of a particular issue.

# data[].attributes.body
El método Mānoa Mash-up fue desarrollado por investigadores del Centro de Sistemas Complejos en Transición (CST) de la Universidad de Stellenbosch para construir visiones positivas y justas del futuro para contextos específicos determinados.

La metodología es una combinación del Método Mānoa y el Método de las 3 Transiciones e implica reunir a participantes que tienen diversas visiones de futuros posibles.

El método implica identificar una serie de iniciativas, ideas, proyectos, tecnologías o experimentos (semillas de cambio) que ofrecen muestras/ vislumbres de lo que podría ser el futuro. Los participantes consideran qué pasaría si estas iniciativas fueran las dominantes y no como son las cosas actualmente.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Methods ‘vignette’ on the Mānoa Mash-up method, which brings together people with diverse visions to imagine possible futures.

# data[].attributes.headline
EL TEATRO COMO METODOLOGÍA PARTICIPATIVA PARA LA INVESTIGACIÓN-ACCIÓN

# data[].attributes.subject
EL TEATRO COMO METODOLOGÍA PARTICIPATIVA PARA LA INVESTIGACIÓN-ACCIÓN

# data[].attributes.body
El teatro se puede utilizar, como parte de la investigación-acción, para permitir a los investigadores y participantes explorar, reflexionar y cocrear comprensión y conocimiento sobre un tema.

El teatro participativo puede abrir espacios para el diálogo y el entendimiento entre una variedad de participantes a través del desarrollo del guión, la configuración de la logística y la propia representación.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Theatre as a participatory methodology for action research - STEPS Centre

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Methods ‘vignette’ that explains how theatre can be used to opening up dialogue and explore knowledge as part of research.

# data[].attributes.body
Es un método cualitativo-cuantitativo de análisis de discurso que intenta identificar diferentes posicionamientos, perspectivas y subjetividades sobre una determinada temática. Se ha utilizado para estudiar controversias (Cairns, 2012). Aunque no suponga interacción sincrónica, puede resultar una metodología útil para construir diferentes narrativas y entender por qué y cómo piensan distintos actores durante la etapa 4 (ver por ejemplo Bioleft, Marin et al (2021).

# data[].attributes.body
El café del mundo consiste en una discusión una discusión en grupos sobre uno o más temas, que se dividen en preguntas disparadoras. Cada grupo discute sobre un tiempo determinado, entre quince minutos y media hora y luego pasa a otra mesa. En cada mesa, una persona va tomando notas que reconstruyan las discusiones, de modo de ir avanzando sobre lo que discutió el grupo anterior. El ejercicio termina cuando los participantes tuvieron la oportunidad de discutir en cada mesa.
(Fouché & Light, 2010; Pamphilon et al., 2006)

# data[].attributes.body
Es un método híbrido de investigación cualitativo-cuantitativo usado para obtener y explorar perspectivas divergentes sobre cuestiones complejas e inciertas (Coburn et al., 2019). Si bien las personas no necesariamente interactúan de forma sincrónica, puede ser una metodología útil para evaluar distintos senderos de transformación en la etapa 5.

# data[].attributes.body
En aquellos proyectos que buscan “incluir la mayor cantidad de participantes posibles en la recolección y análisis de datos (Bonney et al., 2014)” se utilizan herramientas digitales para facilitar la participación de voluntarios. Se ha utilizado fundamentalmente en las etapas de recolección (etapa 3) de datos (e.g. AppEAR, e-Bird Agentina, ver PNUD & MINCYT, 2021) y en algunos casos también para la etapa 4 de análisis (e.g. Galaxy Conqueror Argentina, ver Celasco et al., 2016).

# data[].attributes.body
Se nutre de la tradición y principios de la investigación acción participativa e incluye métodos de cartografía participativa como: mapeo colectivo basado en el arte, mapeo colaborativo o colectivo, mapeo comunitario y de multitudes (e.g. Anticipando la crecida, ver Briche et al., 2015).