the interviews. It also allowed the interviews to focus on issues that were not
published or available elsewhere, thus using the short time of the interviews more
efficiently.
Governance analysts translating themselves—When translation was needed
between the English language questions of the governance team members and the
representatives of stakeholders that were not comfortable in that language, it proved
to be good to have one of the governance team members to fulfil the “translator”
role. This way the relation between interviewers and interviewees did not get
disrupted and the knowledge of the tool by the governance team member ensured
good interpretations and summaries of what was said by the stakeholders.
Furthermore it proved to be particularly useful to be able to adapt the questions to
the case by using terms of local institutions.
Local institution contacting stakeholders—The inclusion of a local institution as
a cooperative partner for the interviews was very useful for contacting relevant
stakeholders. The local partner possessed a well-established network and could
more easily convince stakeholders to participate in interviews. Additionally, the
local partner was central in compiling and screening the most relevant stakeholders
and actors, including less obvious groups, to interview for achieving the widest
scope possible. The assessment team made sure that also potential critics were
involved among the stakeholders interviewed. A problem occurs if a major stakeholder group cannot be reached, because then the point of view of this group cannot
be involved in the discussions. During the second visits, the governance team tried
to make up for such situations, in some cases by visiting those stakeholders at their
own offices or even homes. Like with all evaluations, selected outcomes of the
governance analysis can also be used by actors as a tool in power relations. While
the use of the GAT requires mutual trust between the interviewed actors and the
governance team, a neutral position is required, as well as a capability to understand
and integrate various positions.
The interviews had a variety of settings—Some were individual interviews and
some group interviews to test the efficiency of each approach. The analysis is very
much dependent on open discussions between the interviewees and the interviewers. It is necessary to gather critical issues, therefore individual interviews or
small groups of interviewees seemed more suitable for the establishment of trust,
and the open discussion of sometimes critical or difficult issues. Another experience
was that the presence of a representative of the practice partner (water authority) at
the interviews was sometimes useful to get a good introduction of the governance
assessment exercise to the interviewees, but should also be dealt with carefully in
order to make sure that the interviewees feel they can talk freely.
Generally the GAT should not be used as a battery of questions to put forward
during each interview, but used as a checklist to make sure that all issues were dealt
with in the course of the conversation while keeping the flow of the conversation as
much as possible. The questions from the GAT should be adapted to the local
contours of each case, such that the questions targeted the specific local context,
including appropriate strategies and instruments, local actors, and level of analysis.
3 The Governance Assessment Tool and Its Use
61
published or available elsewhere, thus using the short time of the interviews more
efficiently.
Governance analysts translating themselves—When translation was needed
between the English language questions of the governance team members and the
representatives of stakeholders that were not comfortable in that language, it proved
to be good to have one of the governance team members to fulfil the “translator”
role. This way the relation between interviewers and interviewees did not get
disrupted and the knowledge of the tool by the governance team member ensured
good interpretations and summaries of what was said by the stakeholders.
Furthermore it proved to be particularly useful to be able to adapt the questions to
the case by using terms of local institutions.
Local institution contacting stakeholders—The inclusion of a local institution as
a cooperative partner for the interviews was very useful for contacting relevant
stakeholders. The local partner possessed a well-established network and could
more easily convince stakeholders to participate in interviews. Additionally, the
local partner was central in compiling and screening the most relevant stakeholders
and actors, including less obvious groups, to interview for achieving the widest
scope possible. The assessment team made sure that also potential critics were
involved among the stakeholders interviewed. A problem occurs if a major stakeholder group cannot be reached, because then the point of view of this group cannot
be involved in the discussions. During the second visits, the governance team tried
to make up for such situations, in some cases by visiting those stakeholders at their
own offices or even homes. Like with all evaluations, selected outcomes of the
governance analysis can also be used by actors as a tool in power relations. While
the use of the GAT requires mutual trust between the interviewed actors and the
governance team, a neutral position is required, as well as a capability to understand
and integrate various positions.
The interviews had a variety of settings—Some were individual interviews and
some group interviews to test the efficiency of each approach. The analysis is very
much dependent on open discussions between the interviewees and the interviewers. It is necessary to gather critical issues, therefore individual interviews or
small groups of interviewees seemed more suitable for the establishment of trust,
and the open discussion of sometimes critical or difficult issues. Another experience
was that the presence of a representative of the practice partner (water authority) at
the interviews was sometimes useful to get a good introduction of the governance
assessment exercise to the interviewees, but should also be dealt with carefully in
order to make sure that the interviewees feel they can talk freely.
Generally the GAT should not be used as a battery of questions to put forward
during each interview, but used as a checklist to make sure that all issues were dealt
with in the course of the conversation while keeping the flow of the conversation as
much as possible. The questions from the GAT should be adapted to the local
contours of each case, such that the questions targeted the specific local context,
including appropriate strategies and instruments, local actors, and level of analysis.
3 The Governance Assessment Tool and Its Use
61