Methodology

In terms of developing and planning the methodology for our project, we decided the best and most suitable approach was to only create a plan of options for our first week on-site in Langrug. This grounded, short-term perspective for planning our project was adopted for a few reasons. First off, our project is heavily reliant on connections made with the co-researchers, community, DIHS, CORC and other unforeseen stakeholders within the Langrug communication network. Connections need to be created with all of these groups in order to understand their intricate relationships as well as their individual communication needs. Once these lines of communication are opened between our team and these important groups, we will have more of a foundation of knowledge of the current situation on which to base our plan of action. By not detailing a specific plan, we leave our project open to being shaped by Shared Action Learning, or the sharing of ideas and mutual learning between the co-researchers and our team.

Secondly, there is no way to develop a specific methodology that can be applied to all of the various projects of the co-researchers, since we don’t know specifics about their individual work, as well as to the needs of the DIHS, CORC, etc. As a strategy for initially gaging the co-researcher’s communication abilities as well as for our own learning, we are planning to ask the co-researchers to explain their projects to us once we’re in Langrug. This simple activity is just one example of how we would like to apply the integral concept of Shared Action Learning to our project. It is essential for the co-researchers to be able to effectively explain their projects to us as well as to others in their community. Though reporting their work may not be a skill they initially possess, it’s crucial to help the co-researchers develop this ability. The act of sharing our knowledge of project progress reports that we’ve acquired over this preparatory term at WPI will also improve our own reporting skills. It’s crucial that the co-researchers and our team learn and grow together to nurture our relationship, develop our individual communication skills and expand our general knowledge to develop as people.

Thirdly, this planning technique is much more effective in an environment like the CTPC, a centre infamous for its ever-changing projects. Since the issue being addressed in our project is quite vague and open-ended, the strategy we’ve adopted is to enter Langrug with lots of background research and a mental arsenal of communication tools, such as participatory photography, poster use, community network mapping and other techniques, that can be implemented in different situations to help alleviate communication issues. Once these problems are brought up or discovered during our time in Langrug, possible communication solutions will be suggested, discussed and planned alongside the co-researchers with the input of the community. This will ensure our work is tailored to the needs of the co-researchers as well as the community, which will most likely ensure sustainability of the skills, processes or solutions implemented. Composing a seven-week methodology would  undoubtedly prove to be quite futile since our plans will constantly be changing based on input from the co-researchers, the DIHS, CORC, the community, our advisors and our own observations of the effectiveness of our actions.

It is for these reasons that we have not developed a chronological methodology for our project beyond the first week. By not creating a specific plan, we allow ourselves to enter Langrug with an open mind and the ability to learn as much as possible together with the co-researchers. In Week 1, we plan to focus on gaining as much knowledge into the community’s current communication problems as possible, building our relationships with the co-researchers and sharing our expectations for the project as well as learning about the expectations and work of our co-researchers.

Week One Plan

Beyond Week One