Rivera
Click to enlarge.
Our action research project started out in a “sea of sustainability” (even though rivers technically start in mountains... ours started at the sea. It just shows you how mixed up and crazy things were at the beginning!). There were so many options and issues that could have been the subject of our action research project, that it was difficult for us to narrow down our focus. At the beginning of the project, we very much felt like we were being pulled in all directions and every time we’d start to discuss one area, another would sidetrack us. We used discussions within the group and with the organization, initial studies of various sustainability frameworks, and, finally, a survey completed by staff and board members of the organization to navigate through all the options and decided on Community Outreach.
After we determined Community Outreach as our focus, the next potential pitfall we had to navigate was our role working with the Rivera organization. As graduate students, most of us are familiar with the role of intern and comfortable with the expectations that go along with that sort of position. Approaching an organization as a consultant, however, was challenging. It was easy to fall into the “intern” mindset and just do what the organization requested, forgetting that it was our job to dig into the issues at hand and help formulate better questions that will then dictate solutions, not just address the surface problems and produce easy deliverables. We had a couple group meetings where we had to closely examine what we were doing and why, but finally came out with a better understanding of our task and what we could provide as consultants to Rivera.
The creation of our second rich picture was a source of motivation and energy for our project. Despite the progress we’d made deciding on an element of sustainability and coming to terms within the group of the purpose of our work with Rivera, Rivera’s inner workings and dynamics were still somewhat tenuous in our minds. After the first meeting with the organization, we put together another version of the rich picture we had done as initial brainstorming in class. The first rich picture was based on assumptions, but this one was based much more on seeing the organization first hand. The second rich picture gave us a more concrete way of visualizing where the problems were and how we could help.
Deciding on our methodologies was another influx of energy and productivity. We felt like we had a good handle on the challenges and the steps we wanted to take to come to a conclusion or recommendations on what could be done.
Then we hit the waterfall. We went to do the community mapping component of our project with the Rivera participants and met with a very different environment than we had seen the previous two trips to the organization. Instead of the calm of before, the center was in chaos. We had expected it to be somewhat different because we knew there would be a lot of students and all the programs would be in session, but what was most shocking was the change in attitudes of most of the staff, in particular the executive director. Whereas before she was open to ideas and supportive of the process, this time she was cold and very pushy. She led us to believe that we would have difficulty communicating with participants and instructors because of a language barrier. This changed the way we interacted with participants initially because we were afraid they wouldn’t understand what we were asking of them. It immediately became clear, however, that there was no problem with a language barrier and the divisions we’d perceived between the students and ourselves were imaginary. They loved the community mapping activity and even asked if we could come back so they could do it again. Instead of going over the falls, we ended up with a much better understanding and connection with the students.
There was a danger of falling off track after the community mapping and getting bogged down in all the information we got out of our time with participants. So far, we’ve managed to avoid falling into that trap, but it is still looming.
There were a couple more influxes of ideas into our project in the second group of class sessions. The discussions surrounding marketing, branding, and presenting an organization to the public helped us solidify the kinds of recommendations we could make to the organization regarding building their relationship with the community. As of right now, the organization does not seem to fully stand behind their brand or to have a clear idea of how they want to present themselves to the community. The discussion of marketing helped us think about linking a tangible presence with an intangible identity.
The major challenge facing us now is getting the board together with a meeting. We have been trying to find a convenient time when the majority of the board members can be present for a community mapping session, but scheduling has been proving difficult. We would like to do community mapping with the board and go through the participant maps with them as well. We then need to give them our findings and recommendations. The final meeting, combined with the time crunch as we get closer to the end of the semester, is creating one final block in the river.
In terms of the organizations trajectory, we feel that they are headed towards a productive and obtainable goal of creating stronger connections with the community. We have considered ways to make Rivera more visible in the community and garner more support. Most importantly, however, we have rethought how we talk about the relationship between Rivera and the community and feel that they need to reexamine their perceptions of what community is. If they continue to look at the surrounding community and the participants as a passive or victimized group, they will never build the kind of productive relationship they hope to have (and are hopefully on the path towards). It is the major tangent that could get them into trouble at this point in the river.
After we determined Community Outreach as our focus, the next potential pitfall we had to navigate was our role working with the Rivera organization. As graduate students, most of us are familiar with the role of intern and comfortable with the expectations that go along with that sort of position. Approaching an organization as a consultant, however, was challenging. It was easy to fall into the “intern” mindset and just do what the organization requested, forgetting that it was our job to dig into the issues at hand and help formulate better questions that will then dictate solutions, not just address the surface problems and produce easy deliverables. We had a couple group meetings where we had to closely examine what we were doing and why, but finally came out with a better understanding of our task and what we could provide as consultants to Rivera.
The creation of our second rich picture was a source of motivation and energy for our project. Despite the progress we’d made deciding on an element of sustainability and coming to terms within the group of the purpose of our work with Rivera, Rivera’s inner workings and dynamics were still somewhat tenuous in our minds. After the first meeting with the organization, we put together another version of the rich picture we had done as initial brainstorming in class. The first rich picture was based on assumptions, but this one was based much more on seeing the organization first hand. The second rich picture gave us a more concrete way of visualizing where the problems were and how we could help.
Deciding on our methodologies was another influx of energy and productivity. We felt like we had a good handle on the challenges and the steps we wanted to take to come to a conclusion or recommendations on what could be done.
Then we hit the waterfall. We went to do the community mapping component of our project with the Rivera participants and met with a very different environment than we had seen the previous two trips to the organization. Instead of the calm of before, the center was in chaos. We had expected it to be somewhat different because we knew there would be a lot of students and all the programs would be in session, but what was most shocking was the change in attitudes of most of the staff, in particular the executive director. Whereas before she was open to ideas and supportive of the process, this time she was cold and very pushy. She led us to believe that we would have difficulty communicating with participants and instructors because of a language barrier. This changed the way we interacted with participants initially because we were afraid they wouldn’t understand what we were asking of them. It immediately became clear, however, that there was no problem with a language barrier and the divisions we’d perceived between the students and ourselves were imaginary. They loved the community mapping activity and even asked if we could come back so they could do it again. Instead of going over the falls, we ended up with a much better understanding and connection with the students.
There was a danger of falling off track after the community mapping and getting bogged down in all the information we got out of our time with participants. So far, we’ve managed to avoid falling into that trap, but it is still looming.
There were a couple more influxes of ideas into our project in the second group of class sessions. The discussions surrounding marketing, branding, and presenting an organization to the public helped us solidify the kinds of recommendations we could make to the organization regarding building their relationship with the community. As of right now, the organization does not seem to fully stand behind their brand or to have a clear idea of how they want to present themselves to the community. The discussion of marketing helped us think about linking a tangible presence with an intangible identity.
The major challenge facing us now is getting the board together with a meeting. We have been trying to find a convenient time when the majority of the board members can be present for a community mapping session, but scheduling has been proving difficult. We would like to do community mapping with the board and go through the participant maps with them as well. We then need to give them our findings and recommendations. The final meeting, combined with the time crunch as we get closer to the end of the semester, is creating one final block in the river.
In terms of the organizations trajectory, we feel that they are headed towards a productive and obtainable goal of creating stronger connections with the community. We have considered ways to make Rivera more visible in the community and garner more support. Most importantly, however, we have rethought how we talk about the relationship between Rivera and the community and feel that they need to reexamine their perceptions of what community is. If they continue to look at the surrounding community and the participants as a passive or victimized group, they will never build the kind of productive relationship they hope to have (and are hopefully on the path towards). It is the major tangent that could get them into trouble at this point in the river.
Picasso
Our river of life began in a mountain range, which symbolized our existing understanding of sustainability (that we brought to the project). Once we began our project with Organization Picasso our rivulet of knowledge quickly grew into a broadening stream of information, activity, and complexity.
The stream gained speed very quickly as we held our initial meetings with Picasso and began working to identify the area of concern for our project. Not only were the waters of our project moving quickly, but this period of time was also a bit cloudy because it was difficult to coordinate meeting times due to conflicting schedules. Through the meeting process, we discovered that Picasso already had extensive experience and a sophisticated understanding of sustainability, which added to our body of knowledge and activity. At this point we felt as though the river was flooding a bit out of our control and we were uncertain of what direction our research might take.
This initial flooding ultimately culminated in a logjam in the river where we felt as though Picasso's extensive sustainability considerations didn’t leave us with many meaningful areas of concern that had not already been addressed. However, we soon realized that Picasso's well-developed understanding of sustainability was actually an asset to the purpose of our project. By focusing on the long-term issue of developing an active alumni community within Picasso, we found a way to get around the logjam of ideas and pursue a creative and exciting course.
Once we identified our area of concern for the project, our river began to flow more smoothly and consistently. During this time, we were able to reflect on our learnings from class and meaningfully define the creation of an alumni network in terms of sustainability. Our first concrete output was our action research proposal, which really helped our project set sail. With our plan established, we experienced a period of relative calm during which we began to solidify our methodological approach. During this time we were also able to attend a board meeting where we gained support and information that demonstrated the real contribution of our proposal.
This point in our project also led some of our group members to contemplate more deeply the process of action research itself. Specifically, questions of ‘how much engagement is too much?’ began to surface. While every member of our group was interested in and inspired by Picasso's work, Nate became particularly invested in YAC and had the opportunity to work with them beyond the scope of our project. As we considered our action research roles however, we had to question if interacting with the ‘research subject’ in this capacity might have some effect on our research. These thoughts ultimately did not affect our project but generated a side pool of contemplation about the nature of action research and the effects of "swimming with the [research] fish."
As we continued to refine our methodology after the board meeting, we came up against another sticking point: a boulder in the middle of our river. The boulder represents the limitations on our methodology presented by the underdeveloped alumni network. Without a formal means of communicating with past Picasso students we struggled with how to best map the situation and take into account the perspectives of as many stakeholders as possible. Although we would have preferred a more participatory methodological approach, in the end we had to resort to online surveys and limited in-person interviews.
Once the information-gathering stage of our project was underway our project encountered several unexpected bends in the river. The sandy outsides of the curves explain the actual events that transpired after implementing our methodology while the deep insides explain the deeper understanding that was gained from that event. Among these revelations, we learned that the founders of Picasso may create a bottle-neck in alumni access to the organization and we gained a clearer appreciation for the different approaches needed for intermediate versus long term sustainability.
Having unearthed these realizations in our research, we are now ready to make recommendations to Picasso with the hope that our suggestions will make their river of life
smoother moving forward.
The stream gained speed very quickly as we held our initial meetings with Picasso and began working to identify the area of concern for our project. Not only were the waters of our project moving quickly, but this period of time was also a bit cloudy because it was difficult to coordinate meeting times due to conflicting schedules. Through the meeting process, we discovered that Picasso already had extensive experience and a sophisticated understanding of sustainability, which added to our body of knowledge and activity. At this point we felt as though the river was flooding a bit out of our control and we were uncertain of what direction our research might take.
This initial flooding ultimately culminated in a logjam in the river where we felt as though Picasso's extensive sustainability considerations didn’t leave us with many meaningful areas of concern that had not already been addressed. However, we soon realized that Picasso's well-developed understanding of sustainability was actually an asset to the purpose of our project. By focusing on the long-term issue of developing an active alumni community within Picasso, we found a way to get around the logjam of ideas and pursue a creative and exciting course.
Once we identified our area of concern for the project, our river began to flow more smoothly and consistently. During this time, we were able to reflect on our learnings from class and meaningfully define the creation of an alumni network in terms of sustainability. Our first concrete output was our action research proposal, which really helped our project set sail. With our plan established, we experienced a period of relative calm during which we began to solidify our methodological approach. During this time we were also able to attend a board meeting where we gained support and information that demonstrated the real contribution of our proposal.
This point in our project also led some of our group members to contemplate more deeply the process of action research itself. Specifically, questions of ‘how much engagement is too much?’ began to surface. While every member of our group was interested in and inspired by Picasso's work, Nate became particularly invested in YAC and had the opportunity to work with them beyond the scope of our project. As we considered our action research roles however, we had to question if interacting with the ‘research subject’ in this capacity might have some effect on our research. These thoughts ultimately did not affect our project but generated a side pool of contemplation about the nature of action research and the effects of "swimming with the [research] fish."
As we continued to refine our methodology after the board meeting, we came up against another sticking point: a boulder in the middle of our river. The boulder represents the limitations on our methodology presented by the underdeveloped alumni network. Without a formal means of communicating with past Picasso students we struggled with how to best map the situation and take into account the perspectives of as many stakeholders as possible. Although we would have preferred a more participatory methodological approach, in the end we had to resort to online surveys and limited in-person interviews.
Once the information-gathering stage of our project was underway our project encountered several unexpected bends in the river. The sandy outsides of the curves explain the actual events that transpired after implementing our methodology while the deep insides explain the deeper understanding that was gained from that event. Among these revelations, we learned that the founders of Picasso may create a bottle-neck in alumni access to the organization and we gained a clearer appreciation for the different approaches needed for intermediate versus long term sustainability.
Having unearthed these realizations in our research, we are now ready to make recommendations to Picasso with the hope that our suggestions will make their river of life
smoother moving forward.