https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6208-2011
![Sample our Geography journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5937/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Geography.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Capacity strengthening activities – be that in the form of courses, workshops, seminars – have become embedded in research projects as a requirement for funding and as a means for researchers to demonstrate positive societal impacts. We apply qualitative research techniques including interviews, questionnaires and observations to scrutinise and document an international capacity strengthening course aimed at informing and supporting environmental management practice and policy in the Philippines. We appraise power gradients and dynamics between course instructors and participants from different cultures and geographical locations in the design and delivery of this course. We identify five key factors that course instructors should consider as part of their pedagogy: (i) active learning, (ii) knowledge scaffolding and consolidation, and (iii) situated learning, as well as being attuned to (iv) the language dynamics and (v) expertise and networking within the room when teaching the course. Practical efforts to address these issues require that instructors work with participants to co-produce knowledge, rather than assuming epistemic authority and imposing knowledge. This entails reflexive and adaptable practices before, during and after the course. It is recommended that such practices should be central to projects that include capacity strengthening activities, whether delivered locally or internationally.
Acknowledgements
Ethical approval was granted via by the University of Glasgow [Ethics number:D1580980260099]. All participant names have been changed in the quotation references used in this article. We thank: Rich Boothroyd for producing ; Rich Boothroyd, Esma Guardian and Joed Perez for preparing course materials and organising course logistics; the Municipality of Vintar for hosting the course in their museum; Hon. Mayor Larisa Foronda, Robbie Benigno and Almond Leano of the Municipality of Vintar; and all participants of the course for engaging with our research.
Disclosure statement
Brierley and Fryirs are co-developers of the River Styles Framework. River Styles foundation research has been supported through competitive grant schemes and university grants. Consultancy-based River Styles short courses taught by Fryirs and Brierley are administered by Macquarie University. River Styles contract research is administered by Macquarie University and University of Auckland. River Styles as a trade mark expired in May 2020.
The researchers were highly sensitive to their own positionality throughout this work, and its subsequent write up. The Short Course, taught by Brierley and Fryirs, ran as a capacity strengthening exercise associated with a NERC-PCIEERD funded project (Principal Investigator (PI) Williams, and Senior Scientist and course participant Tolentino), but funded through a standalone SFC-GCRF Capacity Strengthening grant (also PI Williams). The qualitative research design and analysis were conducted by Mitchell and Laurie, working only on this SFC-GCRF grant, and not connected to either River Styles or the broader NERC-PCIEERD project. This distinction was explained to the participants by email before the course and in-person on the first day, thereby ensuring transparency and encouraging less circumspect opinions to be voiced. Although not involved in the initial qualitative research design, data collection, or analysis, Brierley and Fryirs were supportive of the evaluation and contributed their insights on running courses internationally. Likewise, Tolentino was integral to course coordination and provided valuable input to, and reflection on, the findings of the observation. The authorship of this paper, therefore, reflects this collaborative endeavour and an intentional integration of all parties in this activity.
CRediT – contributor role
Conceptualisation (DM, EL, RW, GB, KF), Data curation (DM, EL), Formal Analysis (DM, EL), Funding Acquisition (EL, RW, PT), Investigation (DM, EL), Methodology (all authors), Project administration (EL, RW, PT), Resources (DM, GB, KF, PT), Visualisation (EM, EL, KF), Writing – Original Draft (DM, EL, RW, KF), Writing – Review & Editing (all authors).
Notes
1. Of interesting note for this paper, Tagalog is derived from “tagailog” translating to “river dweller” or “citizen of the river” demonstrating the central importance of rivers to many in the Philippines.
2. As detailed in text, the complex history of naming the Philippine language is reflected in the coming and going in terminology between Filipino and Tagalog. Many participants referred to Tagalog but used Filipino which may itself be an act of self-translation done on behalf of English speaking researchers.
3. Of the 20 Filipino participants who answered the pre-course survey, 15 considered Filipino ;(which was the language term used in the survey form) their first language, with a further four favouring other Philippine languages (Ilocanoloco, Visayan and Kapampangan). Only one said that English was their favoured language.
4. 13 used English, six used Filipino, and one a mixture of both.
5. Across the four groups, the language profile was as follows: one group was entirely Filipino; two contained an English-only participant; and one group contained a participant whose first language was neither English nor Filipino, but who spoke English as a second language. This latter group was also joined by the participant with English and some Filipino.
6. Thanks to anonymous reviewer for encouraging us to think around this. One author was involved in a delivery of international capacity building training which had to pivot to online during Covid – the shift in mode of delivery increased the role of our in-country research collaborators and decreased our role as out-country research collaborators in ultimately positive ways. This remains anecdotal at this point, but we would encourage further analysis on this.