595
perform their duties. Setting a story scenario with a possibility for members of this
group to fall under AA characters would increase the likelihood of capturing different views. As a result, the team would be more aware of the realities that unfolded
from the project at its various stages, thereby increasing the prospects of achieving
project goals.
3.4 Results Framework and Building a Conflict
Based on a standard log frame with indicators prepared at the design stage, the
EPINAV programme used the outcomes and impacts of its projects to report on
results. This results framework is what the EPINAV story would apply to stage a
‘building conflict’. The AA opinions and views would differ with the PIT, based on
what antagonists from small farmer beneficiaries (AFB) consider to be lacking
about the proposed activities versus the benefits they will get. These assumptions
present a platform for building a conflict-setting scenario, along with the expectation that the activities and outputs would be connected to the findings and effects,
and deliver the expected results to the beneficiaries.
It is in the interest of the beneficiaries falling under AAs to challenge the PIT as
part of PAs so that activities are conducted in a manner that will create a connection
to the results that benefit them. As a result, the AAs would have pressured the PIT
to observe the criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability when implementing project activities. The role of the EPINAV story in using AAs to challenge
PAs to see these criteria would be useful in the reviews and final reporting. Both
quantitative and qualitative baseline information would be viewed differently by
PAs and AAs. The EPINAV story would employ digital storytelling of prospective
beneficiaries as a supporting baseline to be updated during progress reporting. The
targets could also provide a common focus for characters when measuring progress.
The EPINAV story would suggest a common approach and a means to assure the
beneficiaries under AAs and PAs that they will reap the benefits ‘promised’ by the
programme.
Setting up a ‘building conflict’ from a results framework relates to Munk-Madsen
and Andersen’s (2006) suggestion of applying characterisation to create actors who
define the sphere of actions in a project. The PIT was striving for the programme
goal, standing as a protagonist, while other members fall under either the supporting
or the opposing category.
The low-level indicators used to measure progress in the implementation of
activities and delivered outputs were well-utilised in the progress reporting, reviews,
and evaluation, as well as in the final reporting by the PIT. The amount of training
provided at the community level is an example of an indicator used and training
reports as a means of verification. The percentage increase in crop productivity and
income levels were used as high-level indicators to measure the outcomes and
impact, while monitoring reports were means of verification. In order to ensure the
authenticity of confirmation, digital storytelling would be used in the building of the
EPINAV story.
Assessing the Role of Storytelling Presentation in Knowledge Transfer from Climate…
perform their duties. Setting a story scenario with a possibility for members of this
group to fall under AA characters would increase the likelihood of capturing different views. As a result, the team would be more aware of the realities that unfolded
from the project at its various stages, thereby increasing the prospects of achieving
project goals.
3.4 Results Framework and Building a Conflict
Based on a standard log frame with indicators prepared at the design stage, the
EPINAV programme used the outcomes and impacts of its projects to report on
results. This results framework is what the EPINAV story would apply to stage a
‘building conflict’. The AA opinions and views would differ with the PIT, based on
what antagonists from small farmer beneficiaries (AFB) consider to be lacking
about the proposed activities versus the benefits they will get. These assumptions
present a platform for building a conflict-setting scenario, along with the expectation that the activities and outputs would be connected to the findings and effects,
and deliver the expected results to the beneficiaries.
It is in the interest of the beneficiaries falling under AAs to challenge the PIT as
part of PAs so that activities are conducted in a manner that will create a connection
to the results that benefit them. As a result, the AAs would have pressured the PIT
to observe the criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability when implementing project activities. The role of the EPINAV story in using AAs to challenge
PAs to see these criteria would be useful in the reviews and final reporting. Both
quantitative and qualitative baseline information would be viewed differently by
PAs and AAs. The EPINAV story would employ digital storytelling of prospective
beneficiaries as a supporting baseline to be updated during progress reporting. The
targets could also provide a common focus for characters when measuring progress.
The EPINAV story would suggest a common approach and a means to assure the
beneficiaries under AAs and PAs that they will reap the benefits ‘promised’ by the
programme.
Setting up a ‘building conflict’ from a results framework relates to Munk-Madsen
and Andersen’s (2006) suggestion of applying characterisation to create actors who
define the sphere of actions in a project. The PIT was striving for the programme
goal, standing as a protagonist, while other members fall under either the supporting
or the opposing category.
The low-level indicators used to measure progress in the implementation of
activities and delivered outputs were well-utilised in the progress reporting, reviews,
and evaluation, as well as in the final reporting by the PIT. The amount of training
provided at the community level is an example of an indicator used and training
reports as a means of verification. The percentage increase in crop productivity and
income levels were used as high-level indicators to measure the outcomes and
impact, while monitoring reports were means of verification. In order to ensure the
authenticity of confirmation, digital storytelling would be used in the building of the
EPINAV story.
Assessing the Role of Storytelling Presentation in Knowledge Transfer from Climate…