594
The EPINAV base story would then end by having the sceptical group joining the
AAs and remaining active to track their doubts during implementation. This would
enhance active participation, and as Merla (2009) argues, storytelling enables customisation of the process and real engagement. Stories will depict conflicting views
between the differing opinions on the initiative, as well as between the stakeholders
and the implementers of the programme.
Researchers
As characters, researchers would work together with farmers to undertake the
planned research activities. During the implementation period, they could reveal
weaknesses overlooked at the design stage. Researchers who decided to join the
AAs at the beginning could select research questions that challenged the proposed
results framework at the base story. That was to be an example of conflict from the
research perspective, existing internally in the team and eventually revealed
between one researcher and another in a story (Munk-Madsen and Andersen
2006). The antagonising research role could have changed based on the findings
from the field or may contribute objectively in giving both PAs and AAs additional
information. Characterising researchers in PAs and AAs brings an essential attribute to other characters regarding the importance of owning different views and
presenting concerns about the programme framework. As pointed by Merla (2009),
differing opinions communicated through stories can, in turn, help to create a
common objective and understanding.
Equally important are researchers who select research questions to hypothesise
the success of programme interventions in delivering the results. Their participation
as part of the PAs would add to a need to increase the documentation of success
stories from the field, especially using digital storytelling.
Appraisal, Review, and Audit Teams
The appraisal, review, evaluation, and audit groups were neutral. Their mandate was
to review and assess the implementation of planned activities and the realisation of
expected results. Findings from their work could, therefore, be used by the supporting groups, thus joining the PAs, or the opposing group, thus joining AAs. As a
result, the EPINAV story would help to uncover the issues and realities of the beneficiaries and to understand their concerns, thereby increasing the chances of successful project outcomes (Merla 2009).
Programme Implementation Team
This team, led by the coordinator, provided secretariat functions for the project.
Ideally, all members of this team would be part of the PAs. However, some members
may possess AA elements, either intentionally or unintentionally, thereby failing to
Y. B. Mkwizu et al.
The EPINAV base story would then end by having the sceptical group joining the
AAs and remaining active to track their doubts during implementation. This would
enhance active participation, and as Merla (2009) argues, storytelling enables customisation of the process and real engagement. Stories will depict conflicting views
between the differing opinions on the initiative, as well as between the stakeholders
and the implementers of the programme.
Researchers
As characters, researchers would work together with farmers to undertake the
planned research activities. During the implementation period, they could reveal
weaknesses overlooked at the design stage. Researchers who decided to join the
AAs at the beginning could select research questions that challenged the proposed
results framework at the base story. That was to be an example of conflict from the
research perspective, existing internally in the team and eventually revealed
between one researcher and another in a story (Munk-Madsen and Andersen
2006). The antagonising research role could have changed based on the findings
from the field or may contribute objectively in giving both PAs and AAs additional
information. Characterising researchers in PAs and AAs brings an essential attribute to other characters regarding the importance of owning different views and
presenting concerns about the programme framework. As pointed by Merla (2009),
differing opinions communicated through stories can, in turn, help to create a
common objective and understanding.
Equally important are researchers who select research questions to hypothesise
the success of programme interventions in delivering the results. Their participation
as part of the PAs would add to a need to increase the documentation of success
stories from the field, especially using digital storytelling.
Appraisal, Review, and Audit Teams
The appraisal, review, evaluation, and audit groups were neutral. Their mandate was
to review and assess the implementation of planned activities and the realisation of
expected results. Findings from their work could, therefore, be used by the supporting groups, thus joining the PAs, or the opposing group, thus joining AAs. As a
result, the EPINAV story would help to uncover the issues and realities of the beneficiaries and to understand their concerns, thereby increasing the chances of successful project outcomes (Merla 2009).
Programme Implementation Team
This team, led by the coordinator, provided secretariat functions for the project.
Ideally, all members of this team would be part of the PAs. However, some members
may possess AA elements, either intentionally or unintentionally, thereby failing to
Y. B. Mkwizu et al.