Document Text (Pages 241-250) Back to Document

Community Capacity and Governance – New Approaches to Development and Evaluation

by Banyai, Cindy Lyn, PhD

Page 241

4. The promotion of market channels is another strategy that could be considered in
response to the overall low economic condition of and minimal amount of activities in the
community, as well as the contextual influence of distance from major markets.

5. In order to improve the effectiveness of the local governance, the mayor should make
steps toward correcting the local political instability. This could be accomplished
through continued leadrdship development efforts around the community combined with
better problem solving and reconciliation efforts between aggrieved parties.
These two examples are interventions that could be pursued by a local government official, such
as the mayor, in response to the A-A-A analysis of Pagudpud. These strategies are not an
exhaustive list of all the possible interventions that a mayor could take and they are not the same
responses that another type of stakeholder in the community might take; however, they provide
an example of the ways in which this assessment can be useful to a local stakeholder.

For the sake of argument, the position of a local NGO practitioner in Pagudpud could be
taken as well. In this case, the NGO practitioner would not necessarily be offering policy
interventions, but would rather use the information obtained from the assessment as a capacity
building exercise for his/her organization and make appropriate modifications to the projects and
practices to improve the impact and effectiveness of his/her organization. Therefore, in
accordance with the results, an NGO practitioner could take the following measures:

1. Forming and executing projects using local networks. As can be seen through the
narrative, local networks are strong and it would be both advantageous and necessary to
use local networks to facilitate the implementation of a project; or

2. Coordinating with, but not relying on, the local government for project facilitation. Due
to the cumbersome nature of the current political situation it would be prudent for an
independent organization to accomplish as much as it can outside of the official
administrative realm to avoid delays that may arise from political divisions within the
local administration.
Again, these examples are not all of the possible reactions to the A-A-A assessment, but rather a
mere illustration of some of the ways in which the results can be used.

Having an available method and procedure for the analysis and assessment of community
capacity will help community agents formulate policy that will fit and serve a community
appropriately. Simply by framing a community in terms of its attributes, assets, and abilities will
provide improved guidance in any sort of activity planning. The A-A-A conceptual framework
for community capacity seeks to provide this comprehensive look at a community along with an
appropriate structure to consider the important factors needed for rural development and poverty

5. Chapter Summary

Pagudpud shares much in common with places around the world that wish to see
improvement in their community. This beginning of this chapter outlines some ways in which
the local administration is working toward improving the lives of the people in Pagudpud, as
well as some community capacity building strategies that will help to facilitate the success of
local activities. The preliminary policy structure of Pagudpud, the 10-K Initiative, was analyzed
here using the logic framework and its community capacity was assessed through the A-A-A
framework. What can be seen is that there are many activities being undertaken in Pagudpud
and community capacity building is taken into consideration.


Page 242

By looking at the 10-K Initiative, it can be seen that community capacity building
considerations can be paired with product or activity focused plans. This is how community
capacity building strategies can be integrated into a policy framework.

This chapter also describes the community capacity of Pagudpud through an informal survey,
the FPQ, and interviews, IDIs. The data depicts Pagudpud as a community only beginning to
develop its community capacity while struggling with detrimental factors such as poverty and a
fierce political history. Pagudpud is forming a sense of community around its goal of becoming
a well renowned tourist destination. Reaching their collective objectives is hindered by lapses in
commitment, particularly in the desire for young people to leave the community and the OFWs
not viewing themselves as stakeholders. Objective in Pagudpud are mostly set and met by the
LGU, leaving the community overly reliant on government direction.

Some physical and human resources are recognized and tapped, but they are minimal and
uniform, precluding the revelation of latent resources. Pagudpud relies mostly on individual
agents and conducts a basic level of activities. This analysis demonstrates the need for greater
consideration of community capacity building strategies and participatory governance in policy

Community capacity in a developing and rural context takes on much the same form as it
would in an already developed or urban community. Chapter Eight looks more closely at how
the people in a developing community conceptualize community capacity and may offer more
insight into this issue.

The trial run of using the A-A-A framework for analysis of community capacity in Pagudpud
demonstrates that it can indeed be developed into an assessment tool. However, the results
presented in this chapter more aptly reflect the author’s definition and interpretation of
community capacity and were not participatory in nature, which leads to a rather generic and
external assessment and understanding in this case. Chapter Eight presents a practical,
participatory approach to understanding community capacity on the terms of the community


Page 243

8. Exploring the Community Capacity of Pagudpud

The last chapter provided an introduction to the Philippines and the situation in the
municipality of Pagudpud through an analysis of the local policy structure and a
formal assessment of community capacity. Although the information presented in
Chapter Seven helps to develop the picture of community capacity in Pagudpud, it still
does not represent the voice of the people. The methodology chosen for the A-A-A assessment
rendered descriptions of the situation and allowed some informants to discuss their opinions.
However, the assessment was not truly participatory because the stakeholders served as mere
information givers, not participants in the design and execution of the assessment (see the section
on participatory evaluation in Chapter Six).

To better understand the community capacity of Pagudpud, to provide a true outlet for the
voice of the community members, and to actually execute a participatory evaluation, a new
methodological approach to community capacity assessment has to be taken. This chapter
describes the reasoning and structure of a new kind of participatory evaluation of community
capacity combining non-traditional research methods, particularly action research and the use of
photography and video. The following questions are addressed here:
1. How can action research be used in evaluation?
2. How can photography be used in evaluation?
3. How can video be used in evaluation?
4. What are the benefits of participatory evaluation using non-traditional media?

These questions are answered through the conceptual development of participatory photo
evaluation (PPE) and participatory video evaluation (PVE). After the conceptual presentation of
the evaluation frameworks, the case trials in Pagudpud are presented, followed by a discussion
on the benefits of using the methods.

1. Conceptual Development of Non-traditional Participatory

Various forms of administration, from local to central governments of both developed and
developing countries, NGOs and donor agencies, have become increasingly interested in issues
of transparency and accountability. The word ‘evaluation’ often evokes images of statistics,
forms, and official judgments. These images often lead to a fear of evaluation, which ultimately
reduces its usefulness and can interfere with the collection of true and valuable information
(Weisman, 1998, p. 156). This atmosphere surrounding evaluation can be changed if evaluation
is seen as a tool for local practitioners and community actors to improve policies and projects
that affect them, which empowers the community and leads to more effective policies.

Many have reached the conclusion that evaluation is an effective tool to achieve goals,
improve administrative systems, reach targeted outputs and increase the likelihood of reaching
outcomes (Mohan & Sullivan, 2006; Rietbergen-McCracken & Narayan, 1998; UNDP, 1997;
Weiss, 1998). Evaluation can also serve to be a capacity building tool, in terms of human
resource skills for practitioners and in targeted groups when participatory methods are utilized
(Miyoshi & Stenning, 2008; Rietbergen-McCracken & Narayan, 1998; Vernooy et al., 2003).

Exactly what constitutes participatory evaluation has been discussed in major international
donor agencies such as the WB (see Rietbergen-McCracken & Narayan, 1998, p. 4) and the
UNDP (see UNDP, 1997), as well as by individual donor agencies (see JICA, 2004);


Page 244

practitioners (see Sharma, 2000) and academics (see Fujikake, 2008; Miyoshi & Tanaka, 2001).
Some consider merely consulting stakeholders as participatory15, as is often found in methods of
PRA (Razafindrakoto & Roubaud, 2002a, pp. 127-128), social impact assessments (Gariba,
1998. p. 64), and traditional project evaluation (Patton, 2002). However, this kind of
participation limits the ownership that can be taken by stakeholders and beneficiaries in related
projects, programs, and policies (Miyoshi & Stenning, 2008, p. 43; Cling et al., 2002a).
Contemporarily, more comprehensive approaches to participation are being embraced where
stakeholders play an active role in determining their contribution, as well as the nature of the
activity (Miyoshi & Tanaka, 2001; Vernooy et al., 2003).

Evaluation is being widely adopted to improve the accountability, transparency, effectiveness
and impact of policies, programs, and projects. While it is necessary to gather various kinds of
data to contribute to a comprehensive evaluation, participatory evaluation adds to management
effectiveness, the usefulness and relevance of the information gathered, improves future policies,
programs, or projects, as well as the accountability of all involved in the process (Vernooy et al.,
2003, p. 23; Small, 1995, p. 944; Patton, 2002, p. 269). Information that is gathered in
participatory evaluation and the knowledge gained is richer and can more accurately depict
specific circumstances than when an evaluation is implemented by external professionals (Dobbs
& Moore, 2002, p. 159; Jackson & Kassam, 1998, p. 1). Evaluation is necessary to improve
policies, programs, and projects and participatory evaluation increases the benefits of traditional,
external evaluation.

Traditional evaluation does not bring ownership to beneficiaries and is not adept enough at
creating flexible projects and programs that can meet changing demands, whereas participatory
evaluation meets both these needs. Since active participatory evaluation takes a bottom-up
approach, participants feel ownership over the process and findings (Dobbs & Moore, 2002, p.
169; Fujikake, 2008, p. 2; Jackson & Kassam, 1998, p. 4; Patton, 2002, p. 184; Razafindrakoto,
& Roubaud, 2002, p. 12). Ownership is related to empowerment. When people have the ability
to contribute to and control the factors affecting their life, their power and comfort increase.
Ownership over the process and the information contributes to the overall usefulness of the
evaluation by helping to compel those involved to act on the findings to improve the policy,
program, or project in question (Patton, 2002, p. 221; Small, 1995, p. 950).

Power and knowledge are intertwined (Gaventa & Cornwall, 2006, p. 71), and participatory
action research seeks to provide stakeholders with knowledge and information, so the
relationship between participatory evaluation and empowerment is further heightened (Small,
1995, p. 944). Furthermore, it is necessary to give voice to and grant ownership to those affected
by a policy structure in order to gain a better understanding of the economic, socio-political, and
institutional conditions in each situation (Cling et al., 2002a, p. 156). Therefore, giving voice to
stakeholders through participation is useful in policy-making at higher levels, in addition to
being effective at helping marginalized and otherwise silenced groups through the creation and
dissemination of knowledge through discussion, photography, or other non-traditional media
(Park, 2006, p. 83; Bleiker & Kay, 2007, p. 156).

The knowledge that is gained through participatory evaluation using non-traditional media is
not limited to only narratives, descriptions or visuals of a particular situation, but rather includes
learning on various levels. Participants benefit from the process of truly participatory evaluation


This can be seen in the broad definition of participation that is adopted by the WB and UNDP (see Rietbergen-
McCracken & Narayan, 1998, p. 4; UNDP, 1997)


Page 245

by predicting and setting their own goals (within the project itself), measuring outcomes (of the
project and the target of their evaluation), comparing the results with their predictions, and
recommending or pursuing a course of action in relation to their findings (Fults, 1993, p. 88;
Jackson & Kassam, 1998, p. 3; Rietbergen-McCracken & Narayan, 1998, p. 192). Furthermore,
the interaction that participants have allows for joint learning between them and an exchange of
ideas in the re-casting of shared situations and events (Lykes, 2006, p. 273; Mendis-Millard &
Reed, 2007, pp. 550-551; Vernooy et al., 2003, p. 24).

The learning that occurs at the individual and group level through participatory evaluation
using non-traditional media has the benefit of building community capacity. As noted earlier,
the main components of community capacity are SCOR: S – a sense of community, C -
commitment, O - the ability to set and achieve objectives, and R - the ability to recognize and
access resources.

Participatory evaluation has already been acknowledged as a development intervention
(Jackson & Kassam, 1998, p. 2; Vernooy et al., 2003, p. 23) that can help give voice to its
participants. Additionally the skills of critical analysis, the leadership roles that participants
must undertake, and the dialogue that occurs during the evaluation serve to develop the
leadership capabilities of those involved (Wituk, Ealey, Clark, Heiny, & Meissen, 2005, p. 91;
Millar & Kilpatrick, 2005, p. 21), which in turn builds community capacity (Millar & Kilpatrick,
2005, p. 28; Chaskin et al., 2001, p. 25).

Participatory evaluation through non-traditional media helps to develop the sense of
community in a group by providing a forum through which participants can express themselves,
share opinions, ideas, and discuss solutions to collective problems, as well as to further establish
their collective identity (Vernooy et al., 2003, p. 149). The process helps to build trust between
participants (Jackson & Kassam, 1998, p. 11; Vernooy et al., 2003, p. 149), an essential
component of the sense of community. Discussions on the issues and events that are shared by
the group members allow them to formulate a shared story (Lykes, 2006, p. 273), which further
facilitates the development of their sense of community.

Commitment is another component of community capacity that is improved through
participatory evaluation. The process of selecting desired outcomes and making
recommendations that occur in the evaluation helps increase the likelihood that those involved in
the decision process will be committed to their implementation (Rietbergen-McCracken &
Narayan, 1998, p. 192; Small, 1995, p. 944) and increases their accountability to do so (Vernooy
et al., 2003, p. 25). Related to commitment, evaluation that empowers people, such as nontraditional
participatory evaluation, encourages participants to become more active and
participate in other activities within their community (Fujikake, 2002, p. 2); thus demonstrating
the continuing affect that this method has.

The ability to set and achieve objectives is inherently increased through the implementation
of the non-traditional participatory evaluation. As discussed in the paragraph above, future
action plans are sometimes discussed in these meeting and this agenda setting is related to
community capacity. These action plans typically reflect the more specific needs and
expectations of the participants and the process of participatory evaluation facilitates the
development of their management skills and capacity to establish those objectives (Vernooy et
al., 2003, pp. 149-150). Furthermore, the task of taking photos or making a video that is
undertaken in an evaluation group serves as an exercise to develop the skills associated with
setting and achieving objectives and gives participants a sense of accomplishment.


Page 246

The final component of community capacity is the ability to recognize and access resources,
which is of key importance in order for a community to advance on their own terms. The
discussions and the involvement in the process of non-traditional participatory evaluation
provides a forum through which individual participants become aware of their own abilities and
resources (Small, 1995, p. 944), as well as those in the community at large.

1.1. Participatory Photo Evaluation and Participatory Video

Participatory photo evaluation and participatory video evaluation are qualitative approaches
to concept-driven participatory evaluation that utilize concepts from action research and
collaborative inquiry through the media of group work, taking photographs or making a video,
and public exhibition. Amongst these approaches a few themes can be found:

1. the need to recount actual details, experiences, and stories (all types of evaluation,

qualitative research, using photography or creating a video);
2. emphasis on the process not the outputs (evaluation, participatory evaluation, action

3. providing voice to stakeholders or other groups (participatory evaluation, qualitative

research, action research, using photography or making a video); and
4. practical utility of theories and information (evaluation, participatory evaluation, action


These themes provide common ground between the various approaches and lend themselves
to the creation of a hybrid methodological framework; thus PPE and PVE are being developed.
With respect to the underlying theoretical background, the definition of participatory photo
evaluation is the systematic collection and assessment of information related to the outcomes,
operation, or process of a policy structure, organization or relationship that incorporates
stakeholders in the entire process actively by coalescing around the task of taking photos. The
definition of participatory video evaluation is the systematic collection and assessment of
information related to the outcomes, operation, or process of a policy structure, organization or
relationship that incorporates stakeholders in the entire process actively through production of a

PPE and PVE advocate for the use of either quantitative or qualitative research, but
acknowledges that qualitative data provides rich information that can be used to accurately
describe a circumstance and that the photos and their related stories are inherently qualitative.

The stakeholders are the drivers of the evaluation, and the owners of the information that it
generates, with the evaluation practitioner serving a facilitative and supporting role. The rich
amount of information that can be gathered and shared in a PPE or PVE is beyond quantification
and runs counter to its purpose of providing contextual data that colors the background of easily
surveyable numerical indicators, thus facilitating decision-making processes. It is possible for
photos, video, or narratives to be coded and quantified; however the process of participatory
evaluation is as important, or even more important, than its physical outputs (Pavey et al., 2007,
p. 109).

By combining the concepts of action research, with participatory evaluation a useful
management tool in addition to a beneficial community intervention emerges (Jackson &
Kassam, 1998, p. 9; Small, 1995, p. 949). PPE and PVE incorporate ideas from participatory
evaluation and action research. Both action research and participatory evaluation: 1) gather data


Page 247

(Weisse, 1998); 2) focus on a specific task (Patton, 2002, p. 221; Friedman, 2006, p. 134;
Ladkin, 2006, p. 482; Small, 1995, p. 942); 3)involve discussion and consensus building for
outcomes (Friedmann, 2006, p. 135; Fults, 1993, p. 86; Small, 1995, p. 946); 4) promote learning
and knowledge sharing (Bogenschnieder, 1996, p. 130; Friedman, 2006, p. 132; Jackson &
Kassam, 1998, p. 2; Patton, 2002, p. 179; Thurston et al., 2004, p. 481); 5) promote ownership of
policy initiatives (Jackson & Kassam, 1998, p. 2), and 6) have the belief that local people have
valuable knowledge (Bogenschnieder, 1996, p. 132; Heron & Reason, 2006, p. 144;
Razafindrakoto & Roubaud, 2002a, pp. 127-128; Smith, 1999, pp. 12-14).

While these approaches have some common ground, they differ on their outcomes.
Participatory evaluation is a management tool that aims for policy improvement and has
community capacity building as an added benefit. While action research can be used to gather
data of any sort for any reason, as long as there is active participation and benefits for the
participants. Participatory evaluation can be considered a type of action research and PPE and
PVE types of participatory evaluation.

PPE and PVE have their roots in action research and participatory evaluation, but are
conducted with the purpose of providing information for policy-making, as well as to reach
target groups and provide them with voice, thus building community capacity. For this,
participants in a PPE or PVE need to select the indicators and their correspondent value in order
to differentiate these methods from mere action research. These new tools secure a practical
place for action research and participation because they link them to evaluation, which is
advocated to be performed as an integral and continuous part of the policy management cycle.

PPE and PVE are concept-driven evaluations, meaning that there is a broad theoretical
framework that guides the evaluation, rather than simply a ‘toolbox’ methodology. This is
accomplished through the organization of target groups to undertake the photo or video project
guided by the presentation of a concept (see Harper, 2001, p. 10). However, this does not
necessarily mean that participants of the evaluation are merely at the whim of the concept. The
ideology should be presented to them and reinterpreted through the group process (Mendis-
Millard & Reed, 2007, p. 543) to become more relevant and useful to the local stakeholders.

One of the key differentiating factors of the PPE and PVE versus other types of participatory
evaluation is the role of the facilitator. In traditional evaluation there is typically an evaluation
practitioner, an external expert that instructs and conducts the evaluation. However, in PPE and
PVE, the one who organizes the evaluation is known as a facilitator. The National Democratic
Institute describes a facilitator as “Someone who helps a group of people understand their
common objectives and assists them to plan and achieve them without taking a particular
position in the discussion (NDI, 2009, p. 22).” The facilitator can be an internal or external
stakeholder in the evaluation; the role is not superior to any of the other evaluation participants.

The job of the facilitator is to introduce the related concepts, to encourage discussion
between the participants, to guide the group to consensus on the evaluation design and
implementation, whilst generally following the cycles of action research (see also Heron &
Reason, 2006, p. 151). The facilitator helps to create openness in the group to ensure all voices
are heard (Gibson & Woolcock, 2008, p. 177), allows the participants to take the lead (Small,
1995, p. 944), and helps to empower local people through the process by not imposing
themselves as an external expert (Dobbs & Moore, p. 159; Park, 2006, p. 84; Weisman, 1998, p.
156). A leadership role is still taken by the facilitator; however, there needs to be awareness and
flexibility on his or her part (Ladkin, 2007, p. 485), particularly as co-creators of knowledge
(Mendis-Millard & Reed, 2007, p. 556).


Page 248

There is room within this framework for either internal or external facilitators. However,
external facilitators cannot be full participants of the group (Heron & Reason, 2006, p. 147).
External facilitators may also diminish the leadership development potential of a project because
an internal facilitator takes on a larger leadership role within the group and, perhaps, in the
community. On the other hand, it can be noted that outsiders may bring a unique perspective to
the evaluation and help guide participants through stimulating conversation (Pavey et al., 2007,
p. 91). Outside researchers that organize non-traditional participatory evaluations must realize
the value of relinquishing control of the evaluation process and outcomes to the participants
(Mendis-Millard & Reed, 2007, p. 551).

Evaluation groups of between six to twelve participants ensure that the size is manageable,
but a variety of characters and experiences are included (Heron & Reason, 2006, p, 151). PPE
and PVE follow general cycles of action research with the output of the group being photographs
or a video that are relevant to the important indicators that the group decides upon. Herron and
Reason (2006) suggest a possible first meeting agenda as follows:
1. welcome and introductions;
2. introduction by initiators, broad topic of inquiry to be considered;
3. people discuss what they have heard informally in pairs, followed by questions and

discussion, leading to possible modifications of the inquiry topic;
4. introduction to the process of cooperative inquiry (PPE and PVE);
5. discussion in pairs followed by questions, whole group discussion on topic;
6. clarification of criteria for joining the inquiry group;
7. practical discussion: number of cycles, dates, times, venues, financial and other

commitments (when, how, and of what photographs will be taken or the topic and
format of the video);
8. self-assessment exercise in pairs, individuals use the criteria to assess whether they

wish to include themselves in the group or not (pp. 151-152).
This agenda is then discussed and modified to guide each subsequent meeting of the project
group. This basic outline was used to guide the meetings of the photo and video groups in the
case trial in Pagudpud.

2. Pagudpud Case Trial

A case study can be defined as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary
phenomenon within its real-life context (Yin, 2003, p. 13).” The photo project at Pasaleng
National High School gathers data on the implementation and utilization of the method of
participatory photo evaluation, while the video project with a group of local leaders in Pagudpud
gathers data on the implementation and utilization of the method of participatory video
evaluation. These cases test the real-life applicability of the method design, as well as observe
the process of its implementation and the outcomes that it generates (see also Becker & Ragin,
1992; Ragin, 2000). These cases not only test the PPE and PVE methods, but seek to
contextualize and develop the concept of community capacity as presented in the A-A-A

Data was gathered during the case studies through participant observation (Harper, 2001), as
well as through unstructured interviews and group discussions (Patton, 2002, p. 342). A case
study approach was selected because the method under inquiry requires groups of people to


Page 249

reflect on ways of improving what they are doing or understand things in new ways (Patton,
2002, p. 179). This can be done best through a case study.

Participatory Photo Evaluation Trial

I decided to work with a group of students at Pasaleng

National High School for the evaluation. Pasaleng is the third largest in area of Pagudpud’s 16 Barangays,
although its population is low and sparse (SEP, 2006). The school is adjacent to Barangay Pancian, the
largest (SEP, 2006) and most mountainous barangay (Mariano, Aringay, & Garcia, 2000), where many
students from the high school reside.

I was able to gather the group of students at Pasaleng National High School through their
principal, Mr. Villamor Calventas, who is known to be a contentious figure within the
community. Since the bulk of data that I gathered already had been derived from the mayor’s
contacts, I felt that it was important to attempt to get the views and opinions of those outside of
his circle. This identifies this case selection as an information-oriented selection (Flyvbjerg,
2007, p. 396) because there was a predicted quality of information when selecting this group.
Furthermore, working with high school students seemed far less politicized, since it is difficult to
rebuke the opinions of the youth.

In accordance with the principles of non-traditional participatory evaluation as outlined
earlier in this chapter, it was my intention to utilize local facilitators for the PPE trial and the
PVE trial. I arranged to meet with two local facilitators upon my arrival in Pagudpud. However,
before we could start their training and coordinate a schedule, both local facilitators had fallen
through. Due to limited time and resources on my part, I had to proceed and facilitate the trials
myself. Although not an ideal circumstance, the process proved to be worthwhile and rendered
interesting and useable results.

2.1.1. Participatory Photo Evaluation Work Plan

For this case community capacity (the A-A-A cycle) is the driving concept of the evaluation,.
To review, community capacity is the ability of a community to produce outcomes through its
actors by utilizing the resources (human, social, physical, organizational, and financial) at its
disposal (based on Chaskin et al., 2001; Miyoshi & Stenning, 2008). The attributes of


Page 250

community capacity are the basic constructs of community capacity and can be used to design
indicators. The attributes are: S- sense of community, C- commitment, O- ability to set and
achieve objectives, and R- the ability to recognize and access resources (Chaskin et al., 2001, p.
12; Miyoshi & Stenning, 2008, p. 41).

The concept was introduced and discussed as a part of the PPE; thus providing the
framework that guided their evaluative works and discussions. It is important to evaluate these
components of community capacity because they are related to the ability of a community to
attain positive outcomes (Chaskin et al., 2001) and lead to economic development (Gobar, 1993,
p. 23) and successful local policies, including poverty alleviation.

The photo project was initially planned for October 3rd – 6th, 2008. The stated purpose of the
project was to learn how people in Pagudpud view their community, to introduce and
contextualize the concept of community capacity to people in Pagudpud, and to encourage
community members to think critically about the situation and events in Pagudpud. The overall
intention of this project was to generate information for my research and the development of the
new research methodology (the PPE) that sprang from that inquiry. These purposes and
intentions were conveyed to the project participants.

The initial schedule was designed to reflect the cycles of discussion as described by Heron &
Reason (2006), and included the initial concept discussion that is crucial for a concept-driven
evaluation (Miyoshi & Stenning, 2008) and the integration of photography (Harper, 2001, p. 10).
The concept guiding this evaluation is the A-A-A cycle (based on Chaskin et al., 2001; Miyoshi
& Stenning, 2008).

In Table 44 the sample first meeting agenda can be seen (based on Heron & Reason 2006, p.

Table - Proposed 1st Meeting Agenda

Welcome and introduction of facilitators and
potential participants
Introduction of broad concept of photo voice
Concept presentation
Discussion of concept in pairs
Group discussion and questions
Decide on themes for photos
Discussion in pairs on plan and desire to join
Wrap-up and good-byes

Source: Author, based on Heron & Reason, 2006

This agenda reflects the crucial introduction of the intended methods and the cycles of
discussion. By constantly asking the group for their reactions, questions, and opinions, the
facilitator can avoid totally dominating the discussion and can, instead, lead the group to
discussion. Asking the group to discuss possible themes and subjects for their photographs was
based on Lykes (2006). It is very important to allow the group dynamic to take precedence over
the course of the meeting with as little interjection by the facilitator as possible (Heron &
Reason, 2006).


© 2009 All Rights Reserved.