This old draft from 2014 on knowledge translation rings a bell after a couple of weeks helping out a colleague working with a large international development consulting group grappling with the funder demands of scaling and “localization.” All which sound good in theory, and very messy and complicated in practice. I love Melanie’s focus on practice too. Right up my lane!
Melanie Barwick, in a guest post on the CRFR blog, speaks sooth:
In a nutshell, this is what I now know.
Knowledge translation and implementation are complimentary but different constructs. Knowledge translation involves helping others to understand the evidence; implementation involves supporting them to make the changes needed to apply the evidence. Impact means capturing that people knew what to do with the knowledge you shared.
Practice change is not one-off. It’s a complex process that has many moving parts, some of which are likely universal but some that are unique to the particular context, and we are still learning what those are. There is alchemy in the practice change recipe. Every context calls for different amounts of the more universal ingredients, and a dash or two or other key elements that are necessary for that particular context. The practice change recipe for child and youth mental health, for health, or education will (I hypothesize) look different from one another.
Practice change calls for structure and an approach that is both adaptive and incremental. There is a method to the madness, and the application of good project management combined with the application of implementation teams, stages, drivers, and cycles will lead to more effective implementation, whatever the context.
The road to practice change – the implementation journey – has far better signage and lighting than it did 14 years ago. As implementation frameworks and theories become more refined, we are digging below the surface of categorical frameworks to identify the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of changing practice. It is no longer sufficient to direct implementers to identify barriers and facilitators, tailor interventions to populations, facilitate the change endeavor, and measure outcomes without specifying how they are to accomplish these things. We are beginning to identify key factors that are implicated in effective implementation of evidence in practice across different sectors, and we are focusing on how to measure these key elements in a standardized way so that a common story can be told across case studies and contexts. Lastly, there is a growing library of openly accessible resources to help practitioners map their own implementation journey. Researchers are endeavoring to produce both scientific outputs whilst also developing resources and tools that can be of real and practical use in the field. It has never been a more fascinating and illuminating time, and the journey continues.
It is encouraging to see this article from 2013 is still online, and is still relevant examining how young people from conflict areas can be connected with each other. And the risks involved. . With the current conflicts continuing in Armenia and Azerbaijan and with the emergent issues in Russia and the Ukraine. It also reminds me of the amazing work I was invited into in the Caucasus with Project Harmony, with the highs, lows and learnings. I was hopeful and naïve – I’ll own that! (Morehere.)
Note: My threat/promise to blog weekly has suffered a bit. I’ll try harder! What do you want me to blog about? Tell me in the comments.
A few weeks ago I wrote a provocation on Peer Assistance and Mutual Support in preparation for a KM4Dev Knowledge Cafe. I really enjoyed thinking more deeply about the power dynamics of peer assistance. Thanks to the great KM4Dev team here are the artifacts from the event. ‘
Note: Last September I co-led a Liberating Structures Immersion in Atlanta and met Dr. Mari Dumbaugh, BA MSc PhD, Founder & Lead Consultant, Insight Impact Consulting, Adjunct Instructor & Research Associate, University of Illinois-Chicago. I was so enlivened by her follow up comments, I asked to interview her. It took us a while, but enjoy what she has made possible in bringing LS to her international development work!
What happens when you discover something that simply resonates for you? Mari Dumbaugh, qualitative program evaluator, training facilitator and professor of Global Health, had that experience by the end of the first day of a two day Liberating Structures immersion workshop in Atlanta last year. The moment of clarity came towards the end of the day when she was sitting with two others in a Troika Consulting exercise. Troika allows each person to get help on a challenge – no matter who they are sitting with. In the span of twenty minutes, Mari received significant feedback and ideas. “In just a day I discovered how accessible the structures are, and with the immersion – even one day – I could walk away with concrete things I can do across settings and cultures.” She also discovered things she had in common with two people who were before perfect strangers– both were also independent female consultants, looking to engage their clients in innovative, interactive ways. These two strangers-turned-colleagues inspired Mari to shift her entire approach to her facilitation and training work.
Mari realized she could make radical changes in how she was going to deliver her next training of qualitative research teams two weeks after the immersion. In the span of a few days she redesigned her training program from a primarily content delivery mode to an “unleash and engage everyone” mode using Liberating Structures.
Mari shared, “Often I’m facilitating training in settings where participants are coming from didactic education systems with few experiences of real engaged, classroom interactions. They are used to just taking notes of what the professor says. So their starting expectations were different. They were used to sitting around tables and expecting to be filled with knowledge!” One thing her Troika group suggested was to get rid of slides. Mari was very open to the idea – she was not a huge fan of PowerPoint. As a university lecturer at a public university in Illinois, she found slides a convenience. There was some hesitation to dump the PPT all together because like so many of us, it had become a crutch. A safety tool.
And then she left for a remote part of the Central African Republic to run a Qualitative Research training workshop for a group of individuals with varying degrees of research experience. For some workshop participants this would be the first time they heard the term qualitative research. The training and subsequent program evaluation would take place in an area where there was often no power (no PowerPoint), a ton of material to cover, and on top of it all, she would be working in French! Did she regret missing day 2 of the immersion? I don’t think so. Mari was on FIRE!
Civil society and education systems in the Central African Republic have been rocked from general lack of funding and the most recent civil conflict that began in 2014. Education systems have been completely interrupted, and Mari was working with people with varying levels of literacy. It was clear to her that having participants write down notes, word for word from slides, was not an efficient way to learn.
The transition was not always easy. “When I tried interactive activities on Day 1 of the training, it was hard to pull people out of the structured classroom expectations.” But by ditching most of her slides, she also ditched the stress of not knowing when the power (and thus PPT) might go off. So she got rid of it entirely! She delivered a full 5 days of training with her newly created workbooks she printed in Chicago and carried with her on the 7,000 mile journey to Berberati, Central African Republic..
The workbooks featured all of the qualitative training content and content Mari used in previous trainings, but now with Liberating Structures as the vehicle for a more participant-engaged delivery. Some of the foundational qualitative content came straight from her previous slides, and other parts were left open to build on the participants’ knowledge, perceptions, questions and experience. A number of Liberating Structures lend themselves seamlessly to teaching qualitative research techniques, so participants had the chance to experience some structures and think about how to use them in their field research work.
Here are some of the structures (both established and emerging) Mari used and how she used them. I felt the detail was worth the longer reading time. 🙂
Spiral Journal – To emphasize the centering of participant voices from the very beginning of the workshop, Mari began the workshop asking participants to reflect and journal on their previous relevant experiences and why the group was lucky to have them as part of the research team. Journaling sessions served as the foundation for a number of LS strings throughout the workshop, includingImpromptu Networkingand1-2-4-All.
1-2-4-All – From creating a Community Collaboration Agreement to establish agreed upon ground rules and parameters for our workshop together (i.e. mutual respect…and turn off those cell phones!) to reflecting on what participants took away from the Celebrity Interview, 1-2-4-All was an excellent way to get participants reflecting, sharing, benefiting from all of our diverse perspectives and previous work and co-creating the workshop experience. Mari strung 1-2-4-All after a Celebrity Interview, a Spiral Journal session or as a way for participants to generate questions about the material being covered. Mari reflected that this structure was especially helpful in moving away from PowerPoint-centric teaching and facilitation. After participants shared their own perspectives, Mari was able to expand upon, gently redirect and/or insert new information around what participants already knew or shared.
Celebrity Interview – To introduce the foundational concepts and associated skills of qualitative research Mari had great success using an expert “Celebrity Interview.” “I served as the ‘expert’ and gave my colleague questions to use in the ‘interview’ so that I could introduce the basic concepts of qualitative research…while also modeling in real time how to conduct a quality interview!”
Mari followed the Celebrity Interview with 1-2-4-All. First, participants individually reflected on what they learned and observed during the interview, then shared with a partner, and finally merged into a group of four. By the end of the activity the group had collaboratively formulated a list of key concepts and competencies and Mari filled in any gaps with anecdotes from her own field experience – even acting some of the anecdotes out! The entire activity was so personal and rooted in the lived experiences in the room. The key was that the participants had ownership over the process. In reflecting back on the experience, Mari shared “It felt liberating for me as an instructor. I know this stuff, of course. I have a PhD. But with PPT slides you feel you can’t break away from them. All the knowledge in the slides is IN me and I can deliver without slides.”
Mari also learned some other things from the Atlanta workshop. “We had someone illustrating the entire session, an artist who put a visual to every activity we were doing. I thought about how to do this to give my qualitative researchers some context about their work. I had to explain this complex intervention we were evaluating. I decided to do it as a visual. I practiced ahead of time with a colleague. I visually drew out each of the stages of a relatively complex intervention. I know this sounds simple, but it flips our way we have traditionally developed teaching and learning. That has been dry, and not multisensory. This flips it on its head and is shockingly different ways of looking at the world. In 15 minutes I clearly shared, and they saw where they fit into the picture.”
In the end, Mari felt they had accomplished something huge. “It felt like a collaboration, instead of me just delivering information and being in hierarchical power and knowledge relationship. We were collaborating together as a team. We asked much more and more engaging questions.”
Of course, some form of didactic information transfer is necessary, especially when introducing concepts or skills to a group. Mari wanted to make sure participants left the workshop with consistent information in print. Yet she worried that by printing workbooks of what was in her previous training slides people would just fall back into “receiving mode.” Her solution was to print text that conveyed foundational concepts, but bring along highlighters for each participant. “There was an exercise to highlight key concepts and words as we went through the stages. This played well into the Liberating Structures. Then they discussed between and amongst themselves. In the end, I avoided having participants writing out information or having an extreme amount of reading. There was just enough of both to engage them.”
When I talked to Mari, I asked her to think about the moment when she was able to say “yes” to shifting how she did this work. “I was feeling the support and enthusiasm at the immersion, and it buoyed me a lot. I participated and went through the activities, and not just a superficial way, but in a way that gave me concrete, applicable strategies. I saw the structures worked.”
“Troika Consulting was especially helpful. By the grace of universe to be paired with two women from different fields but both consultants, we were able to communicate similar challenges across our fields where we need to communicate information that isn’t always so exciting. They gave suggestions with confidence,” recounted Mari.
Liberating Structures constantly talks about engaging and unleashing everyone. I asked Mari if her workshop participants in Central African Republic started to have access to their own expertise? “Yes, [after 3 days of classroom training] we started with a pilot study to test the research tools and give the workshop participants experience before the “real” data collection phase. Comparing this experience to a previous (successful) ppt based training, the reactions were very different. The team from CAR came back from the field more animated and excited about their roles as researchers. It got them excited about their role, to apply the role to themselves and built confidence for conducting the research. They too can do this, even just having been introduced to qualitative research. After three days built using LS, they came back with huge smiles on their faces. And they were motivated to continue.” During the training session immediately following the participants’ pilot field experience Mari used Spiral Journaling and 1-2-4-All to encourage personal and group reflection. Participants shared challenges they encountered during the pilot study and the group generated ways to address the solutions during upcoming data collection together.
We talked about what happened after Mari left, what she did to support her CAR colleagues’ new skills and confidence. “I left them with something… the workbook that they actively contributed to creating and added along the way. They have a resource to go back to should they confront challenges and opportunities (even in different contexts).” Mari also added that a number of participants expressed a palpable enthusiasm and deep understanding of the importance of qualitative research. Mari believes the collaborative and experiential approach to the workshop played a huge role in communicating the power of qualitative research to workshop participants in a profoundly personal way that is not always possible with a more traditional, didactic approach.
Mari sees the power and applicability of Liberating Structures. “ LS needs to be introduced to more NGOs in general, especially in contexts like Sub Saharan Africa where many systems are still scripted, where the leftovers of colonial approaches remain. As far as engaging individuals, NGOS could really benefit from having these trainings brought to local levels.
What is Mari’s next step? “Attend more immersions! Experience more of the structures myself. My next step is looking at my next semester of teaching. I get mostly great reviews, but the class could benefit from more engagement and less straight lecture. I want to learn how to integrate more structures into my classroom teaching.”
From training, to university teaching, to consulting – Mari doesn’t stop. “I want to refine and develop my LS skills for my consulting as well.” Mari is interested in how immersions can help spread LS. “The immersions and the ways you apply them into your setting depends on your group. I love that creativity – react to the group you are with. It keeps me on my toes. While I can plan, I can also leave space for creativity to emerge. Of course, vulnerability is required. The structures allow it.”
Note: After this interview Mari went on to facilitate a training of qualitative researchers from both Malawi and Ethiopia in Addis Ababa. Liberating Structures – and the lessons she learned from her workshop Central African Republic – formed her approach to training a group of experienced researchers, many of whom were university professors themselves! The workshop and subsequent data collection were great successes, proving yet again that these approaches are flexible and translatable across context and levels of experience.
Mari has also maintained a personal and professional relationship with one of the Atlanta Immersion participants who was in her Troika group – they exchange on their experiences using LS in different workshops and hope to collaborate in future to bring LS Immersions to more of their circles.
This is 5th in a series of posts about the tidal wave of moving online in the time of Covid-19. #1, #2, #3 and #4 …Slide deck and artifacts for the event.
It is being said around the globe: move a bad meeting online and you have a terrible meeting. People are already in “zoom fatigue” and are “Zoombie Zombies.” The signal is loud and clear: we need to figure out what to stop doing so that we can focus on what is truly important.
In talking to people desperate to figure out their next move with strings of critical upcoming face to face (F2F) events, it has become clear that one way forward is to first DEconstruct. Get clear on the deepest purpose of each meeting or event. Figure out what NOT to do or to STOP doing, and prioritize only those things that will move them towards their goals. That was the signal I was sensing when I wrote about Ecocyle to notice what is shifting a couple of weeks ago.
Now is not the time to simply tick the task box as done.
I decided I wanted to engage my communities of practice in figuring out how to help people DEconstruct and then REconstruct. Thus was born the DEConstruct/REConstruct episodes. The idea is to put together a string (sequence) of Liberating Structures that groups can use on their own or with a facilitator to focus on essentials, and then, and only then, move into design and facilitation considerations of what is born anew through the process.
I asked one of the people calling for help if they would help us “learn in public” by going through a rapid version of the deconstruct/reconstruct (D/E) process online in a Zoom meeting. I proposed we would do this in a “fishbowl” context with the team from the organization being the fish swimming through the process, and observers in the fishBOWL (fish bowlers) first listening, then breaking out into small groups to offer questions and suggestions to the fish team.
By using this learning in public approach, we could also facilitate a few other things. Potential facilitators and consultants in the bowl could reach out and offer support (getting me out of the matchmaking position). And the wise crowd in the bowl could give suggestions to improve the process.
My friend and colleague Eva Schiffer brought her team as the fish for Episode 1 yesterday. This group has the challenge of redesigning what was going to be a two week field based capacity building program in an African country. There were multiple levels of travel – of the consulting team to the country to work with their government partners, then out into the field with private sector wildlife conservation partners. Now none of these folks can travel. AND the pandemic is creating an new challenge for those using tourism as a way to preserve ecosystems.
In preparation for the fish bowl I shared the six questions I’d ask and we spend just 30 minutes on a call to walk through the process. Through some email back and forth there were just initial consideration of the questions because we wanted the conversation to be fresh and alive during the Zoom gathering. I also set up a Google Slides deck with the meeting agenda, process overview, a slide for each of the six questions for note taking, and then templates for note taking by the fish after their breakouts.
By start time we had 48 people on the call (out of 66 registered), six fish and the rest bowlers. After brief verbal introductions of the fish, and text introductions by the bowlers, we dove in with a story of their current challenge.
Next we launched into the deconstruct using the six questions from Strategic Knotworking. Here are the six questions.
What is the deepest purpose of our work through this gathering and why?
What is happening around us that demands change (in how we were planning this gathering –go deeper than social distancing if possible!)?
What challenges and wicked questions do we face in achieving our purpose?
Where are we starting, honestly?
Based on what we have learned, what is now possible?
What is our first step and how will we know we are making progress towards our purpose?
Over the course of the next 45 minutes we focused primarily on question 1, around purpose, really digging past the signposts of their contract deliverables. Then we spent a few minutes on questions 2-4 to set context, challenges and baseline. I mentioned that question 4, “where are we starting, honestly” really benefits from a deeper look and suggested the use of Ecocycle Planning both to map out their project activities AND relationships. The team consistently talked about the importance of relationship and trust which typically they develop and deepen in F2F moments.
Finally we got to the really juicy question, “based on what we have learned, what is possible now?” That is when I felt the shift from what was, to what is now possible. The team thoughtfully balanced both their responsibility to their client (contract, deliverables) and the unique opportunity afforded by the shift online. Instead of the human and financial constraints (we can send the four people who are willing to travel), they realized they could tap more widely into the talents of their own team beyond the four. They could potentially engage more of their government clients and their private sector partners at a time when those partners are most stressed and could use support, even if there was no immediate money or business deal to be had.
Next we did breakout groups of 4-6 with the bowlers where they formulated a sharp, insightful question(s) and their most salient advice for the fish. They put these in dedicated slides (one for each group). While the bowls were doing this, the fish went into their own breakout room to make sense of what was happening. This unplanned innovation proved really helpful for the fish. So I want to repeat that twist – maybe keeping the fish in the main room so the facilitation team can learn from them. We’ll find out tomorrow when we try Episode #2
Take a peek at the insights from the Bowlers in slides 20-30 .
Finally, we did a VERY FAST (too fast?) What? So What? Now What? process and captured the insights in chat. I feel we could have gotten more out of this, but it was also important to stick to the 90 minute window.
Debrief
When faced with new constraints, we are able to leap past our old habits, assumptions and ruts. Something new becomes possible. This is at the heart of the idea of creative destruction and DEconstruct before REconstructing.
Looking across the amazing notes of the 7 bowl groups and the overall chat, including the debrief for those who stayed on for an additional 10 minutes, I think there was a) enough value to repeat this experiment next week with another NGO, b) gather and share a bit more information for the bowl folks so everyone get dive in quickly, and c) run the experiment one more time to see which questions deserve what amount of time.
We rushed through some great stuff, probably missed some stuff and really filled the 90 minutes, but it would have been wonderful to get the bowl engaged sooner and more interaction between the fish and the bowl. It would have been really wonderful to let the fish debrief themselves before we finished. That is lot in 90 minutes.
I was surprised that some actionable ideas emerged even before we got to the action planning question #5 – particularly Liberating Structure ideas that could be used in the deconstruction and assessment elements that could pull out some of the more complex issues and help the team prioritize actionable next steps.
As I second guess myself, I need to remember that my goal was not that these experiment could be fully completed – the full deconstruct and reconstruct – in 90 minutes, but to start the process. To explore and test the process. To connect people around the process. I think many of us hungered to fully DO the process which tugs at us. We want good things for each other and results. So I need to frame that this is a starting point.
I’m not sure if anyone followed up with anyone for the matchmaking intention. We’ll see if that shows up. I plan to check back with my fishes over the coming weeks to see what happens and will invite them to write up their reflections if that is helpful.
If you would like to be the FISH in the DE/RE bowl, please leave a comment before. We have more facilitators stepping up to do more!
Check out the LS Slack Instance, #deconstructreconstruct channel Liberating Structures Slac.: Other channels of interest: #pandemicresponse #virtual #tools
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
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. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
