Trust in Facilitation Methods: The Invisibile Pillar of Local Participation

Trust in Facilitation Methods: The Invisible Pillar of Local Participation

A fellow facilitator once shared with me his frustration after returning from a village. He had visited five times and held several meetings, yet he still felt a wall between him and the community. He mentioned that at the end of the last session, he saw a few local group members standing in a corner, whispering to each other. He took this as a sign of distrust and felt like an outsider. He felt as though all his efforts to build trust had hit a dead end.

I told him that maybe his expectations for trust were too high. In the real world, especially in local communities that have often heard empty promises before, you cannot expect people to place full, absolute trust in an outsider right from the start. But is it really necessary for them to trust us as individuals? The most important step is for them to trust our tools and our participatory methods—the very methods that open up space for them to speak, to be heard, and to make decisions.

I asked him what happened when he laid out his tools on the ground and asked the people to prioritize the village’s problems using the cards. He confirmed that they had carefully moved the cards, discussed issues like water and access roads, and finally reached a collective agreement. Those whispered conversations at the end of the meeting weren't necessarily a sign of rejection; they were a sign that his methods were working and had engaged the villagers in talking about their real issues.

I told him not to worry; he had done his job correctly. He didn't need to stress about why the deep, total trust he imagined hadn't formed yet. The fact that the group members had accepted his methods and participated in the exercise meant he had already earned enough trust. Trusting the process is the first and most crucial step; the rest of the path is built bit by bit, over time, under the shadow of these transparent methods.

Finally, I reminded him that facilitation is not a popularity contest. The mere fact that they accepted his tools and used them to speak up means he succeeded in opening a path for them to address their own problems. Let this trust in his methods grow gradually and become the foundation for deeper cooperation. He should lift the heavy burden of "absolute trust" off his shoulders, because this level of trust in the process is enough—and even vital—to begin a great change.

The Facilitator’s Toolkit: When (and When Not) to Use Trial and Error

"Trial and Error" is one of the most fundamental yet widely applied problem-solving methods. It is a staple technique I teach in my workshops on problem analysis and resolution. The method is simple: an individual or group tests various solutions one by one, evaluates the results, and, if unsuccessful, moves on to the next option until they reach the desired outcome. It requires no deep prior knowledge or complex analysis; it is grounded entirely in "learning through experience." In my own local-level fieldwork, I have often used—or witnessed the use of—this method (for instance, the experimental plots used in the Hyrcanian Forest multi-purpose management project).

However, what prompted me to reflect deeply on the trial-and-error method is the realization that it cannot be applied in every situation. I have often heard locals say, "Are we lab rats?" Their frustration isn't necessarily directed at the facilitator or project manager; it stems from a valid concern: even for the sake of experimentation, local communities feel that constant testing isn't always the right approach. Therefore, we must understand the specific conditions under which this method is effective:

When to Use Trial and Error

1.  Lack of Available Information: When facing a completely new problem without prior knowledge or sufficient data for logical analysis. In such cases, trial and error allows the local group or community leaders to gather necessary information through step-by-step experimentation. An example: Learning how a new app works by tapping on various options.

2.  Simple and Low-Risk Problems: The cost of failure is low, and mistakes carry no serious consequences. An example: Finding the right key to open a simple lock—if the wrong key is tried, the lock just doesn't open, with no further damage.

3.  Limited Number of Options: The smaller the search space for solutions, the more efficient trial and error becomes. An example: Choosing the right path at a junction with only two or three turn-offs.

4.  Speed Over Precision: When a quick response is needed and there isn't enough time for deep analysis or modeling. An example: When the lights suddenly go out, quickly flipping a few switches to see if the problem is the fuse or the lightbulb.

5.  Lack of Established Patterns: For new or emerging problems that have no historical precedent. An example: Cooking with new ingredients and experimenting with unfamiliar flavor combinations.

Essential Conditions: The "Must-Checks"

In my local experience, there are two vital conditions that must be evaluated before deciding to use trial and error:

Condition 1: No Human Harm (Zero Negative Side Effects; No Human Collateral Damage): This is non-negotiable. Trial and error should never be used where a mistake could lead to loss of life, physical injury, or psychological trauma. This is why we don't use this method in medicine, structural engineering, or aviation—a single error can be fatal. A surgeon cannot learn by trial and error which artery to tie off, nor can a building engineer say, "Let’s remove this pillar and see what happens!"

Condition 2: Low Cost of Failure: The cost of an error must be minimal, not substantial. If we stand to "lose a lot" in the event of a failure, trial and error is not an appropriate option. A positive example: Testing a new recipe by starting with a small batch—if it fails, you've only lost a few eggs and some flour. A negative example: Trying to understand the effects of a new medication through trial and error; the risk to the patient's health or life is far too high.

How to Facilitate the Process

Before jumping into trial and error, consider these steps:

1.  Check for Existing Knowledge: Can we use analytical methods or past knowledge? The facilitator should work patiently with community members to explore this.

2.  Seek Expert Advice: If that's not enough, can we get help from experts or credible resources?

3.  Evaluate Context: If neither of the above is possible, and the conditions (low cost, no human harm) are met, then trial and error is a suitable path.

Remember, while trial and error is a simple, intuitive tool for complex problems, it does not guarantee finding the "optimal" solution. It is fast for small issues but unsuitable for high-stakes scenarios. It encourages creativity and exploration, but it can also lead to hasty decision-making.

Why Trial and Error Works in Community Facilitation

In community-based facilitation, this method can be highly effective if the principles above are respected:

1.  Unique Contexts: Every neighborhood and village is unique. A solution that worked in one place might fail in another. Facilitators and local leaders must find solutions tailored to their specific culture and context through trial and error.

2.  Ownership: When people test, fail, and correct solutions themselves, they gain "ownership" of both the problem and the solution. This active participation ensures the sustainability of the results.

3.  Manageable Costs: Community projects usually start with small, scalable experiments. A pilot project in a neighborhood can often be carried out without significant human or financial risk.

Practical Examples

A Local Loan Fund: A facilitator and a group of village women decide to set up a credit fund. They set initial rules via trial and error: for example, they start with a 50,000 Toman monthly contribution. After two months, they realize it's too low, so they increase it to 100,000. They also find that a one-month repayment period isn't enough and adjust it to two.

Improving Waste Collection: People suggest various solutions: large bins in a few spots, specific bags in front of every house, or a fixed collection day. They try each option for one week, review the results, and eventually choose a hybrid solution.

Launching a Neighborhood Library: A group of youth tries placing books in the local mosque, but participation is low. They move the location to the park, then experiment with changing opening hours and adding children’s storytelling sessions. Through continuous trial and error, they eventually find a successful model.

Final Thoughts: Key Best Practices

Start Small: Always begin with a small pilot to minimize the cost of failure.

Maximize Participation: Ensure all stakeholders are involved in decision-making and evaluation.

Document Everything: Results must be recorded by the involved parties so lessons learned can be applied later.

Collective Evaluation: After each cycle, evaluate results as a group and reach a consensus on the next step.

Transparency: Do not hide failures. In community work, mistakes are learning opportunities, and transparency builds collective trust.

Trial and error is a simple yet powerful tool, provided it is used in the right conditions—where there is no risk of human harm, the cost of failure is low, and no more effective analytical method is available. In community-based facilitation, due to its flexible, participatory, and experiential nature, it remains one of the most effective ways to empower people and solve local problems. When people experiment, make mistakes, and correct them on their own, their learning runs deeper, and the results are far more sustainable.

Days before the New Year: not a good time for a meeting

New Iranian year starts with the “spring”. That is a good sign for a country of four seasons like Iran where “spring” as a season is a time for flowers to flourish, for trees to boast of their attractive and colorful blossoms, and for the sky to rain on mountains, deserts and plains (we call it "spring rain" or "baran bahari"). For families, the days ending to the New Year is a time for a full-fledged cleaning as we call it in Iran “khaneh tekani”. All family members have to participate in such a tedious work. Families may rush to bazaars to buy new clothes and shoes, suits or other new things; With the new year to start, everything can become new and fresh (I hope people do not fall into a culture of consumerism and try to use and reuse those things are still usable). The municipality cleans towns and cities (not every year, of course). In certain communities, people come together to clean the community too. Also it is the time for planting young saplings. Many environmental NGOs plan sapling-planting programmes starting from two weeks before the New Year when the cold weather gradually finishes.

With all these events and ceremonies, there is always another expectation: this is a time for evaluation. This is a good idea and I really welcome that. However, in practice, the story is different. Why? Because, nobody has enough time for a group meeting. People in villages are busy with their own local activities for the New Year; some people are thinking to have trips to other places; and as I explained many people are involved in pre-Norouz activities; therefore it could be an over-expectation from the members of a group to have meeting before the New Year. As a facilitator, even me, I have always been busy before the New Year and then I could not be in a community or in a village to facilitate a meeting. There is not even a good time for evaluation workshops. Therefore, my suggestion, based on my experience, is to forget all about a meeting before the New Year.

Norouz creates a time of refreshing, and while we take distance from all our group activities, it can be an appropriate time to think about new things, creative ideas and effective changes in the group. All group members may be requested to think about these issues, and the first meeting after the new year, could be a meeting of brain storming about such ideas.

However, when a “year” ends, there is a tendency to produce “annual reports” or "evaluation meetings" and as I told, such reports or meetings are really necessary. This will help to the scale-up of the community empowerment. But they should not be done during the days of “Norouz-busy-time”. The framework could be designed months before, and the information and data to be collected beforehand. Even an evaluation meeting is necessary to be held by the group one month before the year ends. 

In certain cases, where it seems required to have a meeting before the new year, then "facilitating a diachronic meeting" could be a good choice. The facilitator has to dedicate much time for contacting the group members without holding a meeting. The feedback and comments are transferred to the members of the group while it seems a dialogue is on-going. The facilitator has to be much talented to go through this time-consuming process. However, the output may be existing. This is exactly like discussions under a message or an image in the facebook. Those online put their message while others may become online afterwards and read the discussion and give their comments. There might be some synchronized inputs but mostly people contact each other in a diachronic way. In a diachronic process, there is no need for a meeting, while the facilitator tries to manage the interaction.

At the end of this short comment, I would like to say: Happy New Iranian Year 1392.

A life style far from the real environment

I had a chance to visit a village near Nahavand (in Hamedan Province in Iran) called Tavaneh. To my surprise, it was a village of people who give more considerations to their life inside the house. There were not so many trees outside the houses, while the village was located in a very special place (enough water, good weather especially for walnut trees). I was really astonished. Why? Most of the villagers, I was told, were construction workers in Tehran where they have possibly learnt to have good houses. In one house, I saw that the yard was from cement, and I said to myself: why shouldn't there be a green space inside the house. When I asked the householder whether you have a hen and rooster, I was told that these animals are not clean ones. "We have to put time to clean the house". A teacher from the local school told me that people are forgetting their local games and children do not play local games; Most of the students take nap in the school, since they sit awake to watch TV. Cement, TV, and sleeping are taking the place of green trees, hens and roosters, and local games.

I talked to some people and warned them that the life style they are following here in nature contradicts the environment they are living in. They have to come together and think more about their future. Personally I do not like such life. I know that there are people in that village that agree with me and they do not love that too.

For such a village, where poverty is not the real risk, but the life style is threatening the collective life, the best would be village gatherings every now and then. The best would be a series of gatherings by the village council. I am sure that the council can take the initiative and hold constructive meetings with people. They can build a green village, if they would like.

I met an old lady from that village with high potentials in weaving. I was astonished why such old lady cannot act as a teacher for younger women to train them on how they can weave beautiful gelims. I am sure they can  do it, if such training can be organized.

And the last thing is the tourists, especially eco-tourists who can come to the village (which somehow will help to the economy of the village too) and find certain attractions. I think such attractions can be defined. When you look at the village from a further distance, you can easily find out that this village is located in a very special place - then why don't the village residents focus on their attractions! 

Community Dialogue, a book review

Some months ago, Parvin Pakzadmanesh and Mostafa Pakdelnejad and me (Saeid Nouri Neshat) edited a book in Farsi entitled: "Hamandishi Mahlehee va Jayegah aan dar modiriat mahaleh" (or Community Dialogue and its role in Community Management). The book was published in Tehran by Jameeshensasan publication.

The book has four chapters. The first chapter starts with the concept of dialogue in Iranian culture and continues with the concept of mahaleh (or community) with an aim to show how important is the role that "dialogue" can play in a community. It also studies, in brief, local management in communities that was prevalent in the past in Iran. From there, it reviews how the new structure of communities works in Tehran and suggests that "dialogue" has to be revived in communities. It also defines other necessary concepts such as "facilitator", "community researcher" and "community dialogue". The chapter moves further and tries to show that a dialogue can result in actions and therefore, defines "action plan" as a major result of such interactions at local level.

The second chapter is a conceptual framework. It uses an approach of local development based on "the symbolic interaction" and tries to show that citizens in a city could be neighbors that are responsible for their communities.

The third chapter studies the process of "community dialogue" project implemented by the Tehran Municipality (Research Center) in Tehran. It analyzes the data collected from the dialogues facilitated in 1388 (2009-2010) and 1389 (2010-2011) and proves how effective community dialogues have been organized in Tehran.

The fourth chapter is like a suggested framework for an effective dialogue within a community. Any facilitator or community member needs this part, if they are going to be engaged in a dialogue with certain positive results.  It has many useful points regarding facilitation, training and empowerment, participation, sincerity, trust, decision-making, citizenship, community management, neighborhood councils, differences among communities, special groups in need, special issues in communities, women's participation and involvement, practicality, monitoring and evaluation.

The book has been published in Farsi, and I am thinking to translate the book in English, since I think any community worker needs to read the book.