Participants
Recruiting, selecting, authorizing, and dismissing participants

Broadening Participation in Biological Monitoring:
Guidelines for Scientists and Managers

 David Pilz, Heidi L. Ballard, Eric T. Jones
©2005 Institute for Culture and Ecology

Project Homepage - Printer Version

 

ParticipantsParticipants are any stakeholders actively involved in a project.  Depending on the level of their involvement they might or might not have input into the project process, but lack decision-making authority.  Whoever the participants are, mutually beneficial outcomes are more probable if affected stakeholders are represented in a balanced and fair manner, and if they can all participate equitably regardless of their financial status, available resources, or social and political power.  Understanding each participant’s incentives early in the project’s development can help achieve these mutually beneficial outcomes (see Incentives module).  Similarly, honoring and rewarding participants for their work throughout the project can ensure that the project is enjoyable for all, as well as productive (see Celebrations module).

Stakeholder groups— “Stakeholders” are all individuals and organizations that have an interest in the project, its outcome, and its products, regardless of whether they become directly involved in the actually monitoring process or not.  There are numerous types of individuals, groups, or organizations that might be interested in joining a participatory monitoring project.  Examples include:


·         Non-affiliated volunteers.
·        
Land managers.
·        
Forest workers.
·        
Landowners.
·        
City, county, state, and federal government agencies.
·        
Native American tribes.
·        
Community groups.
·        
Schools.
·        
Educational organizations.
·        
Rehabilitation organizations.
·        
Religious groups.
·        
Businesses.
·        
Corporations.
·        
Economic development organizations.
·        
Trade associations.
·        
Researchers.
·        
Colleges and universities.
·        
Clubs.
·        
Recreational groups.
·        
Hunting or sporting associations.
·        
Park associations.
·        
Environmental or conservation organizations.
·        
Habitat restoration groups.
·        
Other non-government organizations or special interest groups.

Representatives—Individuals will often be selected, or select themselves, to represent a stakeholder group or organization in a participatory project.  Several considerations apply to representatives.  In collaborative processes, an individual might need to distinguish between representing themselves and others.  For instance, a government agency representative might need to be very clear about when they are expressing personal opinions and when they speak for government policy.  The same is true for representatives of other groups.  Conflicts and misunderstandings can also arise when collaborators assume that an individual’s opinion, word, or agreement represents the consensus of the stakeholder group they represent, when in actuality the group’s members are in disagreement or the representative does not have conferred authority to speak for the group as a whole.  In fact, some stakeholders might not even be aware that a particular individual is claiming to represent them, so it can be useful to check.  Additionally, individual representatives come and go, such as when agency personnel are transferred, thus creating the need to form new relationships and renegotiate agreements.  Clear understanding of how and to what extent an individual represents others can prevent troublesome misunderstanding and disputes.  When participants representing a group continually keep their members informed of the progress of the monitoring project they enhance two-way communication and avert potential misunderstandings; for instance, by distributing notes from project meetings or making sure members have access to planning documents the stakeholder group might refrain from complaining publicly about agency decisions and ask their representative to convey concerns.

Individuals—Individuals can also participate on their own behalf.  Volunteerism is a long and honored tradition in the United States.  When individuals are participating on their own behalf rather than representing an organization, they are most like employees.  For instance, managers who plan to work with volunteers often find such individuals appreciative of recognition in the form of position statements that detail job title, purpose, responsibilities, qualifications, time frame, location of work, evaluation of work, benefits, and other factors.  Individuals also have some motivations for participating that differ from those of representatives or stakeholder groups.  These are discussed in the Incentives module that follows.

Recruitment—Although stakeholders often express their own interest in participatory projects, active recruitment is sometimes necessary to acquire enough help or ensure equitable representation.  Sometimes an announcement in the newspaper, a brainstorming session, or calls to selected organizations will meet the need.  In other circumstances, formal scoping processes might be necessary to identify public concerns and willingness to participate.  This process can include activities such as broadly advertising in appropriate media and venues, or hosting outreach activities for minorities or traditionally underrepresented groups.  Some stakeholders might be harder to reach than others and are therefore often excluded from agency or community-based projects.  Yet these people might have an interest in the goals of the monitoring project and extensive applicable knowledge.  For example, organizations such as Wallowa Resources in rural eastern Oregon have made efforts to involve hard-to-reach people and skeptical citizens in local monitoring projects.  They were rewarded with greater acceptance of the monitoring results and broader public education.

Selection—Individuals can make or break a collaborative effort, hence thoughtful selection of participants is important.  To avoid hard feelings and disagreements, however, the selection process should be carefully designed, objective, fair, transparent, and agreed-upon by all collaborating organizations.  For instance, determining minimum skill requirements for particular duties or physical fitness standards for fieldwork can be appropriate criteria if they are not misused to discriminate.  Usually the knowledge, skills, abilities, as well as the available time and motivation of each volunteer, can be matched to some important task.  Willingness to help, or to make long-term commitments to a project, are important criteria regardless of personal qualifications or impediments.  It thus behooves organizers to match skills with needed work in inventive ways, and provide training as needed.  Some individuals who could otherwise bring needed competencies to a collaborative effort might need support if they are to participate.  Examples include financial help; transportation; care for children, pets, or other dependants; permission or leave from job supervisors; translation services; or accommodations for physical disabilities.

Roles, responsibilities, and authorization—Participants can play a variety of roles in a project.  In addition to the typical contributions of data collection and field work, their contributions can include voting on decisions made during the monitoring project, providing expertise, convening and leading meetings, facilitating processes or interactions, acting as an observer, or taking notes.  Rotating roles and responsibilities is a good way of sharing perspectives, broadening collective competencies, and providing for back-up skills within the group.  If individuals who are selected to represent the project, or who are assigned specific responsibilities, are conferred official authorization, certification, or credentials by the project, then they can verify such authority when questioned by individuals who are unfamiliar with the arrangement.  For instance, if field personnel are confronted about their activities by landowners, leaseholders, or law enforcement officials, they should have documentation to show their authorization to be where they are and do what they are doing.  Background checks and photo identification might be a good idea if participants will have access to sensitive properties or proprietary records, or will be working with minors.  Certification or credentials can also confer a sense of self worth and of being valued by the group.

Leaders—One of the most important roles that any participant can assume is that of a leader or champion for the project.  Such an individual might be the hired president or chief executive officer of a nonprofit organization coordinating the participatory monitoring project, or it might be a manager with the vision to try new ideas.  Whatever the case, such individuals will be more effective if they are capable, competent, well-rounded, responsible, respectful, tactful, active, and well-motivated.  Certainly other descriptors are applicable, but a good leader can play a key role in the efficacy and success of a participatory project, so such individuals should be encouraged and supported.  Project managers might wish to consider enticing participants to assume leadership roles by providing rewards such as compensation, letters of recommendation for work well done, school credit for students, access to resources for forest workers, or other benefits within their means.  Empowering individuals to take on leadership should not result in disempowering other participants or making them feel less valued.  Participants that recognize the opportunities of assuming a leadership role can feel empowered to undertake a variety of project tasks, such as:


·         Recruiting, training, and mentoring new participants.
·        
Coordinating participant schedules or logistics such as travel to the field and lodging.
·        
Facilitating group discussions.
·        
Helping to assure quality control in data collection and management.
·        
Helping to maintain continuity in long-term projects.
·        
Documentation.


Disruptors—
On the flip side of leadership, individuals with assertive personalities who habitually engage in disruptive, obstructive, distracting, self-aggrandizing, or disrespectful behavior can greatly hinder or doom a collaborative effort.  In some cases, such individuals can become a useful participant in the collaborative process if there is adequate facilitation, training in communications skills, agreement about appropriate norms of behavior, time to develop trust, and support from others.  Fostering a supportive environment with open communication will likely take care of most disruptive behavior.  In extreme cases, the group might need to dispassionately examine the trade-offs between continuing to include such individuals and finding a means of dismissing or excluding them.  Such actions can of course have negative unforeseen consequences, so groups might wish to develop guidelines for respectful behavior that each new participant must affirm before they join the project.  With such clear frameworks for personal behavior and group norms, dismissing uncooperative participants becomes less about personal likes or dislikes and more focused on making the group function effectively.


Checklist—
 

¨      Which stakeholder groups will be involved in the project, how will this decision be made, and how will it be documented?

¨      Will outside experts in the fields of facilitation, community organizing, or communication and outreach be sought to help the project?  If so, which organizations or individuals are possible options?

¨      What outreach or recruitment activities are needed to ensure equitable and balanced representation of all parties with an interest in the project?

¨      What opportunities exist to involve other types of organizations in the project?

¨      How will clear and explicit understanding about the role of individuals who represent other groups or organizations be documented, especially if they contribute both personally and as a representative?

¨      How will representatives verify their authority to speak on behalf of those they represent?

¨      How will agreements and understandings with organizations and their representatives be evaluated and revised in the event that new representatives replace departing ones?

¨      If participants are individuals acting on their own behalf, what will be the mechanisms that ensure they are valued as a part of the participatory project or sponsoring organization?

¨      If recruitment is necessary to ensure adequate help or balanced representation, what rationale and criteria will guide the selection process?

¨      What support or incentives might be needed to involve reluctant or disenfranchised participants?

¨      What criteria will be used for selecting participants?  How will these be documented?

¨      What knowledge, skills, or abilities does each participant possess that pertain to the project?

¨      How will individuals be matched to project tasks?

¨      How can roles and responsibilities be rotated or shared in order to spread competency and create back-up skills?

¨      How will natural leaders be supported and encouraged?

¨      Do norms of personal behavior need to be developed in advance of selecting participants?  If so, how and by whom will they be developed so that they are widely acceptable?

References—Ballard 2004; Behar 1996; Bliss and others 2001; Bramson 1981; Brinkman 2002; Collaborative Forest Restoration Program 2003, 2004a; Canadian Information System for the Environment 2001; Coughlin and others 1999; Daly n.d.a; Dukes and Firehock 2001; Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network Coordinating Office and the Canadian Nature Federation 2003; Everett 2001; Godfrey 1994; Kaner and others 1996; Krishnaswamy 2004; Kusel and others 2000; Lengeler n.d.; Lynch and others 2004; McNamara n.d.; Moote and Loucks 2003; North-South Environmental, Inc. 2004; Natural Resources Conservation Service n.d.; Resolve n.d.; Sirmon and others 2002b; Sithole 2002; Stockdale and Corbet 1999; University of Maine Cooperative Extension and Sea Grant Program, Maine Coastal Program of the Maine State Planning Office n.d.; United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 2004; Voluntary Sector Initiative 2001; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000.


©2005 Institute for Culture and Ecology


Home  |  Copyright Privacy Policy  |  Equal Opportunity