Learning by Inquiry: Sexual & Reproductive Health Field Experiences from CARE in Asia

According to the paper, reflective learning is an ongoing process in which participants in a situation - staff members implementing a project, for instance - take time to examine their experiences, to reflect on those experiences, to think how things might be different, to think through these possibilities and to try out what seems to be the best option. Participants start by identifying their own experience reflecting on what? why? when? where? and how. They think about how they could change the experience for the better. They respond to this reflection by making changes. With changes in place, participants re-examine the experience, reflecting again, changing, experiencing, reflecting, changing, etc. This process is often described as a reflective (or experiential) learning cycle, and should be an ongoing process.

This paper shares the experience of applying different approaches to learning by inquiry in case studies from Myanmar, India and Bangladesh. It also describes the use of a qualitative approach to monitoring and evaluation called Most Significant Changes (MSC). The method enables the selection of stories that capture changes in the lives of beneficiaries, their colleagues and in the character of their participation, as well as a range of other participants and stakeholders. The method also helps identify how change happens and why. According to the writers, though this work has been carried out in Sexual and Reproductive Health and HIV programmes, the lessons learned can be applied to other programme areas. In these three countries, the aim was to ask questions about what lies underneath – what is hidden from view. Staff members reflected on the reasons behind their work, questioned how that work was being done and, used the results of this exercise to deepen and develop current or future work.

Reflective learning can be incorporated into everyday work by the thoughtful use of qualitative methodologies such as Participatory Learning in Action (PLA), Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), gender analysis or social analysis. Increased reflective learning might also use bits of each methodology to make something new – to suit a local context, for example. It might even happen simply by asking different questions on project report forms or by developing logframes that leave room for change.

In Myanmar, staff participated in workshops that focused on (1) identifying what was happening in the field and (2) encouraging staff members to both reflect on what they thought were strengths and weaknesses of these activities and (3) thinking about how they could be improved. A conscious decision was made to focus on the project staff rather than project participants. Staff members attended two workshops, in which they broke into smaller groups. Using listing and ranking or other participatory techniques, they shared their work with entire group. The facilitator encouraged staff to examine issues from different angles including a more personal, and less technical, viewpoint. Throughout the workshops, the most common question – was "why?" In another workshop for peer educators, outreach workers split into male and female groups and came up with lists of questions they had found difficult to answer. With the help of the facilitator, they not only looked at the question itself, but he underlying issues attached to it. Taking a deeper look at these question allowed identification and discussion of other attached issues, such as gender inequity, and encouraged outreach workers to look honestly at their own values and assumptions.

The paper identifies the following benefits of reflective learning:

• Usually, staff members appreciated opportunities to reflect on their work, question their own assumptions and develop a deeper empathy with communities.
• Staff members realised they do not have to be experts, with an answer for every situation or inequity.
• Reflective practice was key to increasing solidarity and empathy with the community - gradually moving away from “them and us” (i.e., project clients passively
  receiving services from project staff) to “we.”
• Comparing stories with key objectives helped identify project gaps and high light opportunities for deepening the quality of the work.
• Donors were interested in qualitative changes in the field.
• Reflective practice enabled staff members to question the everyday realities of their work and to understand it better. It also helped them better understand their own position, particularly by thinking about their values and attitudes and how these may influence their work.

The following challenges were identified:

• Country offices must avoid being “terrorized by logframe”; traditionally, logframe designs have focused on quantitative indicators and clearly defined services, which can make developing more reflective, participatory work a real challenge.
• At both the country office and regional management unit level, CARE needs to step up advocacy efforts with donors to provide for more reflective, less formulaic ways of working.
• A more qualitative, questioning approach should not mean prying into the lives of project participants. Staff members need to ask themselves: Are their questions vital to the project or are they just curious? It is easy to become a voyeur.
• Learning by inquiry asks staff to head into largely uncharted territories by adopting a much more open approach to project design, implementation and M&E. Early on, it can be overwhelming.
• For reflective learning to take place, it needs to be integrated into all of CARE’s day-to-day work. Reflective learning is a highly useful process to use throughout the project cycle, from initial design to final evaluation.