591
them more personable and entertaining. Davey and Moulton (2019) echo this sentiment and add that the collaborative and participatory nature of (digital) storytelling
helps build trust and rapport between project partners. Project stories may include
telling about a sequence of events and also integrate aspects of conflict, such as
unsuccessful actions, broken promises, or wrongful interpretations (Munk-Madsen
and Andersen 2006; Ryan 1991). Before reviewing how the different stages of the
EPINAV could have benefited from PSF, let us look at the programme itself in
more detail.
3.2 Planning Process and the Programme Document
As noted earlier, the EPINAV programme was a continuation of the Norwegian
Government’s assistance to the Sokoine University of Agriculture. To understand
gaps in the planning, let us look at a few points from the programme reviews. The
end review mentioned a design gap related to missing linkages between the implemented EPINAV projects. Ideally, these projects should have been nested under the
programme, each showing a link to the overarching programme goal. While
acknowledging the successes of individual projects and interventions, the review
findings also highlighted the complexities around the many projects constituting the
EPINAV programme.
At the initial stage, the project team needed to develop and communicate the
project goal. This included fostering a shared understanding of the goal hierarchy,
and how the inputs fed into the activities could be connected to the outputs and
outcomes to bring about the intended impact (Merla 2009). For this purpose, storytelling could have helped by relating information from these projects as individual
narratives to a common link within the hierarchy. This initial stage could have
enabled the production of a base story.
The programme document was the final product of the planning, verified with the
signing of the agreement. For the EPINAV story, this would have been the same as
the base story. Project teams did consult with stakeholders but mostly for informing
about the planning and design. Teams were not required to document various views
from the beneficiaries regarding duration, budget, and geographical areas. In preparation, negotiation took place between the actors. Through storytelling, each ‘side’
could better understand the needs of the other, thereby creating a long-lasting relationship during implementation (Merla 2009).
Introducing PSF would suggest a story setting. When the programme proposal
was finally approved and the agreement signed, the head of the implementation
team (the subject) took responsibility for the programme goal (the object) being
implemented within 4 years, using an agreed budget, reaching mentioned beneficiaries, and in identified geographical areas. In the process, the subject had to
work with stakeholders with different functions and roles. This stage of the
planning process represented a suitable platform for an EPINAV story setting,
followed by stakeholders’ characterisation as pointed out by Akysheva (2017),
who discussed the potential of storytelling in project implementation.
Assessing the Role of Storytelling Presentation in Knowledge Transfer from Climate…
them more personable and entertaining. Davey and Moulton (2019) echo this sentiment and add that the collaborative and participatory nature of (digital) storytelling
helps build trust and rapport between project partners. Project stories may include
telling about a sequence of events and also integrate aspects of conflict, such as
unsuccessful actions, broken promises, or wrongful interpretations (Munk-Madsen
and Andersen 2006; Ryan 1991). Before reviewing how the different stages of the
EPINAV could have benefited from PSF, let us look at the programme itself in
more detail.
3.2 Planning Process and the Programme Document
As noted earlier, the EPINAV programme was a continuation of the Norwegian
Government’s assistance to the Sokoine University of Agriculture. To understand
gaps in the planning, let us look at a few points from the programme reviews. The
end review mentioned a design gap related to missing linkages between the implemented EPINAV projects. Ideally, these projects should have been nested under the
programme, each showing a link to the overarching programme goal. While
acknowledging the successes of individual projects and interventions, the review
findings also highlighted the complexities around the many projects constituting the
EPINAV programme.
At the initial stage, the project team needed to develop and communicate the
project goal. This included fostering a shared understanding of the goal hierarchy,
and how the inputs fed into the activities could be connected to the outputs and
outcomes to bring about the intended impact (Merla 2009). For this purpose, storytelling could have helped by relating information from these projects as individual
narratives to a common link within the hierarchy. This initial stage could have
enabled the production of a base story.
The programme document was the final product of the planning, verified with the
signing of the agreement. For the EPINAV story, this would have been the same as
the base story. Project teams did consult with stakeholders but mostly for informing
about the planning and design. Teams were not required to document various views
from the beneficiaries regarding duration, budget, and geographical areas. In preparation, negotiation took place between the actors. Through storytelling, each ‘side’
could better understand the needs of the other, thereby creating a long-lasting relationship during implementation (Merla 2009).
Introducing PSF would suggest a story setting. When the programme proposal
was finally approved and the agreement signed, the head of the implementation
team (the subject) took responsibility for the programme goal (the object) being
implemented within 4 years, using an agreed budget, reaching mentioned beneficiaries, and in identified geographical areas. In the process, the subject had to
work with stakeholders with different functions and roles. This stage of the
planning process represented a suitable platform for an EPINAV story setting,
followed by stakeholders’ characterisation as pointed out by Akysheva (2017),
who discussed the potential of storytelling in project implementation.
Assessing the Role of Storytelling Presentation in Knowledge Transfer from Climate…