Outline. Write. Rewrite. Re-rewrite. Pre-test. Scrap. Start again. Re-outline. Write.
…If only this process referred to my paper, instead of the questionnaire(s)!
Five months into my practicum now, I feel only slightly more productive then a rat running itself insane of those little exercise wheels, its motions oddly similar to those involved in the operation of a treadle pump.
Please forgive the implicit bitterness of this post. It is the venting of many researchers, I am guessing, that the expected results do not come soon enough, if at all. To expect otherwise would be naïve. This letting off of steam is, most likely, not much more than one of the growing pains of a young grad student.
But still. We really do not need five whole months of writing, discussing, and editing. I understand that current delays are a result of the mid-term meeting, the purpose of which was indeed to re-group, re-focus, and obviate any potentially fatal mishaps. And I agree we need to improve communication between countries. It is important that we all be on the same page. But it shouldn’t have taken everyone a year and a half to recognize this! ‘Streamlining’ should have been an organized process that happened at the beginning of the project. Even if not much was known about exactly what technologies were being used and should be included, or what key issues were surrounded their use, their should have been a clear process established for communicating such findings and moving forward.
Without this, communication has been relatively hap-hazard. One person sends around a survey or suggestion, others comment, the debate goes on. This seems simple enough, but with a bunch of detail-oriented Ph.Ds, there is always something. We cannot be exhaustive in a single survey. Throughout the ‘lifetime’ of the survey we’ve inevitably had to admit that we simply cannot include everything. If we did we would take a full day, or week even, to complete one interview.
Perhaps this back and forth is simply an unfortunate necessity of large-scale research projects, an accepted concession of participatory planning, or of any such widely collaborative process. The more opinions involved, the more issues to be dealt with, the longer it takes. This messiness is a staple mark of any participatory planning or other process.
At this point, however, I am tempted toss participation out the window (defenestrate it, if you will).
A year ago, I would have tried my darnedest to defend participation, especially in plannin. Sure, it’s messy. And it’s long, and tedious, and sometimes painful. But in the end, it is better to have everyone involved for at least three reasons. First, ownership: if everyone has contributed, then everyone has a stake in the final plan of action, and is more likely to follow-through on her/his part. Second, agreement: once the battles are all fought out (ideally), everyone can accept the plan and work towards it eagerly, without bitterness or frustration or resentment. Finally, effectiveness: inclusion means more voices are heard, more debates had, more errors noted in advance. It suggests the creation of a more thorough, finely tuned product, a more grounded and comprehensible blueprint for action.
But now, with two months to go, I am starting to question that there might be a better way. Choose a benevolent dictator, or at least limit decision-making power to a lucky few. Not that full responsibility for the entire planning phase should fall on one individual – certainly, with all of these different countries and contexts that would result in inevitable mishaps. But, like most apparent dichotomies in life, this doesn’t have to be an all or nothing choice between fully equitable participation and complete dictatorial rule. After all, most participation is led in some way, and even dictators delegate. What I would like to see is a more structured, better-led process. The importance of facilitation cannot be overstated. Someone at the top should have grabbed the reigns a long time ago and said “this is what we need to do”, gathered input, distilled the important points, and made some decisions.
Without this, we get the seemingly endless round-robin of e-mailed feedback, in which I now feel stuck like quicksand, trying hopelessly to find my way back to solid ground.
Until next time…
