INTRAC’s analytical skills programme in Central Asia 2002–2015: an analysis of its aims, methodology, and results

ABSTRACT

The article describes the genesis and application of a training programme for analytical and research skills for NGOs in the ex-soviet republics of Central Asia. This modular course was used in different programme contexts (civil society support, poverty reduction, conflict resolution) in a fast changing external environment. The article presents the aims, methodology, types of participants, and local research studies produced. It discusses the challenges in encouraging open-ended analysis while at the same time focusing on realistic action research studies, and how the programme supported a community of practice and small advocacy projects to lobby and disseminate results.

KEYWORDS:

• Capacity development
• NGOs
• participation
• gender and diversity
• governance and public policy
• labour and livelihoods
• poverty reduction

Acknowledgements

The initial idea of ASTP was developed by Peter Oakley and Brian Pratt, and the first programme owed much to INTRAC’s Central Asia manager Anne Garbutt; our secondee from the World Bank David Marsden who was assisted by Janice Giffen to develop the initial course material; and a mixed UK-Central Asia training team including Simon Heap, Janice Giffen, and Simon Forrester, later Rod Macleod. The second phase was coordinated by Konstantin Kovtunets and the third phase by Charles Buxton. Key local trainers over the three programmes included Marifat Abdullaeva, Kiomiddin Davlatov, Kalia Moldogazieva, Aida Jamangulova, Chynara Irisova, and Anara Moldosheva. In the final phase, the directors of three partner NGOs, Gulgaky Mamasalieva, Chinara Yusupova, and Marina Safarova played a major organising role and the training was supported by John Beauclerk. This was a major collective enterprise and many thanks go to all concerned in the different stages of its development and implementation.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan – all of which achieved independence in 1991.

2 Chambers (1997) visited Central Asia and conducted a number of workshops in participatory rural assessment, laying the foundations for many a community development programme thereafter. Pratt (2003), INTRAC’s director, worked with UNV in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, and initiated NGO mapping studies and training workshops across the whole region.

3 At the height of its programme, INTRAC had offices in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan.

4 For an early assessment of organisational potential, see the article “Learning from NGOs in Central Asia” by INTRAC’s regional manager Anne Garbutt, in the collection edited by James (2001). Other key analyses of NGO potential in development used in the programme were provided by Fowler (1997) and Bebbington (2008).

5 ASTP was often described in INTRAC as the brainchild of Mawdsley and Oakley (2002) and drew on his critique of knowledge and power relations in the development sector. Inspiration was also drawn from the work of Freire (1976).

6 A summary of action research methodologies in the NGO and development sectors is provided in an article by Popplewell and Hayman (2014) on the INTRAC website www.intrac.org. For other sources, see the references for example Lewin (1946), Cornwall and Gaventa (2001), and Reason and Bradbury (2001).

7 The objectives were defined by David Marsden, seconded to INTRAC from the World Bank, who also collaborated in a pioneering study of NGOs in Tajikistan. For references to all other staff and experts involved in ASTP, see Acknowledgements at the end of this paper.

8 For example, the work of Ashley and Carney (1999) on sustainable livelihoods.

9 The World Bank developed the method of Participatory Poverty Assessment (PPA) in 1992 to supplement the traditional household survey methodology. By 1998, 43 PPAs had been conducted, mainly in Africa but also in other parts of the world, including Eastern Europe. In the late 1990s the “second generation” of PPAs appeared, which put more focus on enabling the poor to influence policy decisions. See Norton et al. (2001).

10 A “What” type question is about describing a situation which is poorly understood or where there is inadequate data; a “How” type question is about understanding mechanisms that produce the problem identified; a “Why” type question understands there is a problem – there are some data available, but the reasons for the situation are not clear; and a “What-if” question explores the likely results of specific interventions.

11 A simple quantitative scale for comparing democratisation and civil society development in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union was provided up to 2015 in USAID’s Civil Society Sustainability Index. The results of INTRAC’s own analysis of the external environment were summarised in the book by Giffen (2005). Shorter papers on the experience of community development and participatory monitoring and evaluation in the region complemented this and contributed importantly to ASTP.

12 ASTPs were held in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan. A handful of participants from Uzbekistan attended the Tajikistan programme.

13 For an account of the 2005 and 2010 revolutions in Kyrgyzstan and their reception in neighbouring countries, see works by Buxton (2010) and Ziegler (2015).

14 The Ecumenical Consortium for Central Asia (ECCA) was an alliance of three European donors (the Dutch Agency ICCO, Dan Church Aid, and UK-based Christian Aid). Their programme was already 10 years old and focused on three main areas: fair economic development, access to basic services, and democratisation. Working through long-term partnerships with local NGOs, during 2008–2010 it included around 20 NGOs in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan, supporting them to work with self-help groups as a way of tackling rural poverty. For self-help group methodology as applied in Central Asia, see the account by Sydykova (2004).

15 The FCO’s Conflict Pool programme was delivered through British Embassies in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. FCO funding was enhanced by support from the Friedrich Ebert Foundation.

16 The programme was organised in cooperation with two Kyrgyz NGOs and one Tajik NGO: Centre Interbilim in Osh city, the Centre for Support to Civil Society (CSCS) in Jalalabad city, and EHIO Farkhang va Tarakkiyet, based in Khojend, Tajikistan. These were NGO support organisations well-known throughout their region. The former had a special advocacy and human rights expertise, while the latter two focused more on training, community development, and research. 

17 For a detailed account of the challenges in developing accountability in the unstable environment of Tajikistan at this time, see Zharkevich (2010).

18 In 2011–2012, ASTP included some participants from the government sector – reflecting the programme’s heightened stress on social partnership. However, experience showed that public officials found it difficult to make a practical commitment to training and research over such a long period, so this experiment was not continued in later courses.

19 “The consultative council (in Khojend) acted as a bridge between the NGO network and the state authorities. Its representatives took part in almost all the national and regional activities of the ASTP programme”, the evaluators noted.

20 While ASTP remained unique as a multi-module programme for local development NGOs, there were other programmes that had similar aims: for example, the work of the Soros Foundation in several countries of Central Asia in public policy development. While focusing on civil society, their participants were significantly different – often aiming at recent graduates at the start of their professional career. The topics of good governance and budget transparency were always important in the work of the Soros Foundation. The focus was more on the national than the local level.

21 Following the death of President Karimov in late 2016, his successor President Mirzoyoyev has opened up government policy to new ideas and approaches, with liberalisation measures benefiting both private enterprise and – gradually – the civil sector.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Charles Buxton

Charles Buxton joined INTRAC in 2001, based in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan as its Central Asia programme manager, working across the region as a trainer and consultant with local and international NGOs. He previously worked as a regional programme manager for VSO in Russia and Eastern Europe, and before that, for 15 years in voluntary sector and community development in East London. With a first degree in Russian and earlier experience of work in the USSR, Charles has specialised in developing a regional view of neoliberal development policies and has published three books on this topic, as well as articles and discussion pieces for INTRAC.

Janice Giffen

Janice Giffen spent time conducting research into the debates around economic planning in the Soviet Union, before focusing on development economics. She worked in academia and multilateral donor organisations before moving to the NGO sector, working in various parts of Africa. She joined INTRAC in 1998 where she continued to work on issues of poverty reduction with a variety of stakeholders including NGOs in lower and middle income countries. Her understanding of the recent history of the newly independent countries of the former Soviet Union meant she was actively involved in the development of INTRAC's Central Asian Programme.

Anara Moldosheva

Anara Moldosheva is a gender and civil society trainer and consultant based in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. She began working with womens' groups on civil society and human rights issues in the mid-1990s and has been an independent expert with international agencies like UNDP, ADB, SIDA, UN Women, and DFID. Anara carried out several research projects with INTRAC on civil society issues and for four years was a lead trainer in INTRAC's Analytical Skills Training Programme (2011–15). She has a particular interest in human rights, domestic violence, women's political participation.