20 Participatory Action Research and Co-Development
Cat Kutay
We aim to improve our engineering practice by localising project to the needs of the community from design stage, to engaging community in their enactment. When designing and implementing projects, what are the sort of communication issues might you experience and how can you prepare for them? More importantly how can you learn from your mistakes, reflect and improve?
When you travel to another community, to another culture, you will find you cannot explain matters as clearly as you would like, nor can you hear clearly. Most importantly, this will affect how you think and your ability to solve technical problems in a complex environment. Be careful not to blame others for your confusion in the new environment.
A non-First Nations person explained once that after many years, their understanding was finally changed by consultations. They had been hired to review the situation in the town camps of Kempsey years ago. They said they had worked a long time in Aboriginal Affairs and had previously found the community people very frustrating, as they could not make a clear decision and the outcomes of any consultation did not get implemented within the community, it must come from outside. Until, when on this Kempsey project, they sat and talked to the community and could then clearly see the reason behind each decision and outcome.
Reflection
Why was this not easy to understand before people sat and listened?
Was the lack of clarity only from the community? Aboriginal communities regularly raise the following experiences:
- Lack of clarity among government agencies about roles and responsibilities in the partnership arrangements and failure to follow agreed processes;
- Lack of clarity and transparency about government processes for the Indigenous community.
Both of these issues caused confusion and frustration within the community trying to enact programs put on them.
Issues that Arise
Some specific aspects of cultural difference are common across projects and these give rise to issues that need to be considered to improve our consultation processes.
Authority
Often governments have little relationship to a specific community and work through individual champions, who they set up as leaders or managers. Setting up authority for individuals or family over a whole group creates issues over avoidance. Some people cannot attend an office run by people who are in-laws they must avoid, or if a centre is run by one family with whom they do not get on. People from different areas and historical experiences of colonisation may not wish to engage with each other. It’s like Parramatta Road in Sydney – it divides the Italian and Greek communities.
This comes from the history of putting many people into the one ‘hub’ or camp without considering if they have much in common. People from different language, cultures and with knowledge of different landforms and ways of living are forced to work together. Maybe one group are the traditional owners or custodians, so others are usurpers to them.
Those originally from the area will have the stories, the others will feel cut out or assume there are no stories to know. That is how the First Nations women who were responsible for Hindmarsh Island had their case for preservation of this site opposed in court, many local First Nations women did not have the stories and denied they existed.
Communication
Merely doing all communication in English, which is second, third or fifth language to many Aboriginal people, can be an issue. There are ways we express ideas in English that do not match any way of thinking in First Nations languages. Using Plain English is often a way to help community understand, so the engineer needs to know how to talk this language.
For instance if an engineer or IT consultant visiting the community says: ‘If I come out Monday I will drive you to town’ and they do not come back Monday, they are seen as dishonest. There are consequences of mis-communication.
This example is a way of speaking that is too vague to translate into Aboriginal languages, where often honesty is paramount. To understand someone speaking English, any listener who is from another culture needs the concepts in their own language or their own experience to translate to. Even if the listener now think in English, if they were not brought up to think this way they may not be famiiar with, as in this case, the use of the conditional ‘if’ to describe future possible plans.
Relationship
With a strong kinship system, constantly reinforced when people meet together (a common question is who is your mother?) we find Aboriginal people tend to know each other and where everyone fits in. Or if not they find out. This means people from outside the community do not fit into the community network.
While people are friendly and welcoming to outsiders, it is hard for community to relate in a ‘normal way’ to those who come in. The presence of someone outside the relationship network is quite stressful for people used to negotiating with people as a relationship in a community, not as individuals.
Consider when introducing Aboriginal people to each other through a project, they usually know each other already, holding a lot of unspoken history that you will not know. There are the frictions, the hidden knowledge, the rules that describe what they can and cannot share with you or each other.
Shared knowledge
First Nations may deny knowledge of something if it is not their role to know or tell this. So it will seem that the community all have different experiences of events and of the local structure and organisation in the community. A typical example is when engineering consultants work with schools. The non-Indigenous project officer may introduce the consultant to the non-Indigenous teacher. The community may introduce them to the Aboriginal “teacher’s aide”. Both see a different person as the real teacher for the community.
Humour
The lack of humour in non-Aboriginal society causes much confusion and angst. Aboriginal people will engage in humour whenever possible, because to laugh in the face of hardship is good for well-being. For example in the Western Desert a special name Jukari is used for a dead person to avoid their real name and not raise their memory for a year or two. Hence for a time in Punmu, a homeland community in the Western Desert, the word for Keith, or even Key as it sounds close to Keith, was Jukari. The word for Allen was also Jukari.
So as engineers working there we were told ‘pass me the allen key’ was ‘pass me the Jukari Jukari’. We suspected community people were taking the mickey out of us! But that did not stop us following these protocols.
Appropriate Technology
The approach to technology is very different for community. Having the latest gadget is no use if it cannot be maintained. Learning to set up an expensive system for one person is not as motivating as setting up something the whole community will use, or learning how to maintain a simple technology that can be shared. Low technology solutions are what is needed in humanitarian work.
People will often make do, and by-pass new resources and technology if they do not like the culture that is assumed in that technology. They will not want to adapt their life to accommodate something that is against their cultural values. So we design with culture in mind. This allows us to design for the “whole picture”.
Scenario
We provide here a small scenario as an example of a process for community projects. Achieving participation in a technical project is often idealistic due to the amount of preparation work needed to bring community up to speed on the technology. However it is important that in each project we at least bring people on part of the journey that interests them, to enable longer term engagement.
Context
A team of engineers is tasked with designing a water management system for a remote Indigenous community located in a coastal region. The community has expressed concerns about water scarcity during the dry season and pollution of their water sources.
Western Perspective
One sub-team begins by conducting a thorough hydrological analysis of the area, collecting quantitative data on rainfall patterns, water usage rates, and pollutant concentrations.
They proposed a centralised water treatment plant and distribution network, emphasising technological solutions like desalination and chemical filtration to address water quality issues. The team focuses on optimising efficiency and minimising costs to ensure the project’s financial viability.
Community engagement is limited to informational sessions where experts present their findings and proposed solutions to community leaders.
First Nations Perspective
The other sub-team organises discussions and workshops to talk to the community about seasonal water cycles, sacred water sources and traditional methods of conservation passed down through generations. The engineering team listens respectfully, recognising the importance of integrating Indigenous perspectives into their design process.
Instead of imposing centralised infrastructure, they explore decentralised solutions that align with the values of self-sufficiency and environmental stewardship. This includes rainwater harvesting systems, community-led watershed protection initiatives and culturally appropriate education programs on water conservation.
The team collaborates closely with community members, fostering trust and mutual respect throughout the project.
Reflection
The Value of D Card Game
Card Game
We provide an example of an exercise to encourage people to see that there is more to an exercise than the imediate task, to look beyond that. This is also a good exercise to consider team communication.
It is a simple card game that highlights communication gaps and mis-understandings. It also helps students to learn about how groups work when they have a task where information is in segments and there are no clear links among all the pieces.
Described below.
This is a simple card game that highlights communication gaps and mis-understandings. it also helps students to learn about how groups work when they have a task where information is in segments and there are no clearly links among all the pieces.
Audience
Anyone wanting to learn about how to work effectively in a team of any kind
Materials
Sets of cards – 1 set for each group of 4 players. The following information is printed on separate cards
For 4 people
A + B = 15
B x C = 84
C = 12
D = C – A + B
C=12 B=7 A=8 D=11
The answer – which is not revealed until the game is finished – is 11
Introduction to group behaviour and to problem solving.
- The basic assumption in this game is that humans are decision-makers, who explore ways in which decisions may be effectively linked to other decision-makers.
- It is really helpful to have an observer watching each group of 4 so that an objective description of their actions can be shared with everyone.
- Discussion begins once all groups have declared a value for D.
Duration
Some teams may only take two or three minutes however some may take longer. So have a plan for how and when you will end the action and begin the discussion. With preliminary briefing and subsequent discussion, at least one hour is necessary.
Rules
- The written formula on the card must be kept face down.
- They must play by writing messages to each other, there is no talking.
- Play proceeds by written communication amongst the group and stops when the value of D is discovered (even if the answer is not correct) or the time limit is reached
Setting the scene
- A group of four people sit around a table.
- Each player has a card on which is written part of a formula as in the list above. It must be kept face down.
- The teams are told their task is to ‘find the value of D’
- They can work in any way they want as long as follow rules.
- Each player has 4 or more small pieces of paper on which to write messages to pass to others, and a pen or pencil. If more paper is needed the managers will need to have more paper ready to distribute.
Observer points
- Time taken
- Data collected (i.e. what information does each player possess at end of game?)
- Note any individual frustrations
- Pattern of interactions
- Primary focus of attention of group/individuals
Leading the post-Discussion
- What is the value of D?
- Who agrees? Disagrees?
- What strategy was adopted by each group?
- Who devised the strategy?
- Did it change during the action?
For instance consider if a team member shared their original information directly with the whole team, or just one other? Did others follow suit? What did they think of that first person’s actions? Were they breaking the rules. Did they write more on the paper than they had on the card, how verbose were their messages?
Discussion points
- How problem solving relies upon shared information. This is especially clear if some members of the group did not possess all the information by the end of the game. At this stage of the discussion each member of the group will normally see himself as a problem solver faced with the problem of data collection.
- Relationship between Data, Problem and Solution. It is sometimes found that the nature of the problem is interpreted in different ways by people with differing pieces of starting information. The person with D = C – A + B (or similar) will realises that it is a problem in substitution. A player with A + B = 15 has been known to think in terms of equations, and players with C = 12 will sometimes think in terms of progressions and try to work it out alone without reference to other information.
- Communications patterns and techniques. Did the one adopted lead to any frustrations or errors?
- Draw attention to the two separate problems:
- organisation of the group
- finding the value of D.
- Role playing. Emergence of leader, or decision maker (any conflicts between players, and do personality conflicts affect decisions in real life. Emergence of specialist (did everyone try to work out the answer, or did the group concentrate on assembling all information and then hand it over to one person to calculate). Unless the members of the group, are already well known to each other it is unlikely that a specialist will emerge in the first game. Also each member of the group tends to play a competitive game.
- Instrumental and expressive aspects of groups. Because they are being timed, groups tend to compete against other groups. This can help the group members to see that a contribution to group efficiency can be as important a strategy as one based upon a desire to compete with all other players.
