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.

A glance at the definition of "group" from a facilitator's point of view

To have a clear definition of "group" is a necessary part of work for any professional facilitator. Before starting to think about the definition, let's see why such definition is important. Any facilitator works with groups of people; a mentor may be with one mentee (Wikipedia definition: mentorship is a personal developmental relationship in which a more experienced or more knowledgeable person helps to guide a less experienced or less knowledgeable person), but a coach, a facilitator or even a social worker work with groups of people. If a facilitator can have a clear definition of group, then this will help him/her a great deal in "group-building", since he or she knows what part of the group has to be strengthened to help the group to shape. For instance, if we say that a group "is a two or more people who have one common goal", during facilitating the work of a group, our mind automatically or even consciously goes towards "defining a common goal" since based on the definition, this is the common goal which is the most important element of the definition. One may ask whether there are other definitions or not ?

In my workshops on facilitation, this is always among the starters. I always begin the training workshop with the definitions and request the participants to think about these four major concepts: "human being", "group", "community" and "participation"; sometimes, I divide the participants into three groups and I request each group to think about the definitions of "group", "community" and "participation" (the definition of "human being" will be done later in a public discussion). I would like to say that participants always emphasize on this element that a group should have a common goal. But for a facilitator this is not important.

I always ask the participants, whether those standing in a bus stop are a "group" or not. If you think that a group should have an aim, then these people who are in bus stop and all of them would like to take the bus, should be a group, since there is a goal, a common goal. But we know that this is not a group. By the time there is not 'interaction" among them, it is not a group. Interaction means that they have to talk to each other, they have to listen to each other, there should be some kind of interconnection among them.

There are so many examples that clarify why "interaction" is a necessary element. To my point of view, this is the way to create the group. Participants in a group talk to each other; they try to find common ground, they try to search for those things that can be used as resources; they listen to each other; and they can know and understand. This has to be done in a respectful environment. A facilitator can play a major role in creating such environment.

People come together, shape a group through interaction, and create an identify for the group; such identity or group identity helps them to be more connected to each other; a relationship based on "trust" shapes among them. They define certain values and regulations. Gradually they find their way and define their goal. They use their own resources and recognize their own differences. In this way, they experience a process of empowerment within the group. All these happen because of "interaction".

See the following slide on "power"; There are only ten slides, but it is going to connect the concept of "power" and "empowerment" based on a definition of group with an emphasis on "interaction".

http://www.slideshare.net/saeidnourineshat/power-saeid-nourineshat

All techniques, the process, and all a facilitator does, have to contribute to "interaction".

See also this presentation (updated on first of September 2013):

http://www.slideshare.net/saeidnourineshat/how-does-a-facilitator-look-at-group

Go in search of your people, Love them; Learn from them...

Today, I was surfing in the Internet trying to find more about the notion of "neighborhood", I found this famous Chinese proverb. I have seen it in many places - in the newsletters, in offices of NGOs, and in trainers' training slides on community-building:

Old Chinese Verse:

Go in search of your people,

Love Them; Learn from Them;

Plan with Them; Serve Them.

Begin with what they have;

Build on what They know.

But of the best leaders,

when their task is accomplished,

and their work is done,

The people all remark:

"We have done it ourselves."

A leader is not the owner of the whole work, but these are the community members who own the input, the process, and the output. It's their right to decide, and it is with them to say: okay we know what to do; and when they do it, they are the real owners. 

I searched the web to find out who has said these Chinese words : I found it: Lao Tse, but I am not sure. However, when I went after Lao Tse, I found this wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laozi; it seems he is an inspiring philosopher. Also I found the following picture : 

Photo：Lao Tzu's "Go in search of your people" drawn by David Werner
courtesy of "http://blog.livedoor.jp/share_jp/archives/51265344.html"

I was trying to see if Lao Tse has been a leader of his own time or not. The only thing I found was from Wiki on his life (taken from Morgan, Diane (2001). The best guide to eastern philosophy and religion (1st ed. ed.). Los Angeles, Calif.: Renaissance Books): 

Lao Tzu was born in the village of Chu Jen in the Kingdom of Ch'u. (He may have been born sometime in the sixth century B.C.E. [Before the Common Era]. Traditionally, he is said to have lived at the same time as Confucius, but recent scholars place him about two centuries later.) Lao Tzu spent most of his life as an archivist in the library of the Zhou Dynasty court, a boring job that gave him lots of time to think. He quit when he saw things were getting corrupt, and then went into exile. Lao Tzu became disturbed by the corruption he saw everywhere around him and decided to take the easy way out- literally, and leave the country. He traveled west on a water buffalo to reach the great desert. At the westernmost gate, a guard who recognized him, demanded that he write down his teachings, unrecorded until this point. The collected teachings became the Tao Te Ching.

 If this is from Lao Tse, he had to have experiences in empowerment of people, something that has been ignored in his life. Maybe he had been in search of his people when he left the country... 

Just a report: traditional knowledge

I lost the first lecture of the second day of the forum at PICC by the Malaysia Science Academy and it was a loss. I was late and could not listen to Dr Martin Abraham, a knowledgeable leader in the field of community-based empowerment. The second talk was about Orang Asli's traditional knowledge by Dr Colin Nicholas, who is the founder and the coordinator of the Center for Orang Asli Concerns (COAC) based in Subang Jaya in Malaysia. He said that the knowledge they are using, is related to their subsistence, well-being, culture and identity, especially when it comes to medical plants, living in nature and artistic works (Orang Asli heritage). The whole knowledge is collectively owned, transmitted orally, mixed with rituals and cultural values. There are plenty of evidence to prove that "it is the knowledge" that can be considered sustainable. Reference to many books published; also reference to the Semai way of conflict resolution and the ancient wisdom (how they understand environment) transmitted orally through story-telling (reference to a book of Orang Asli animal story). What is not working is the imposition of western paradigms on their culture and power structure. As the lecturer mentioned, there seems to be a great difference between the way Orang Asli looks at the forest and the way the Western-supported attitude towards the forest. For Orang Asli, the forest is the center of the world. Also there is a challenge of the state's rights to the forests versus Orang Asli's ownership of the forest. If their habitat is touched or they are moved to another place or their life is negatively influence, depression would govern on their life. The lecturer referred to a series of threats such as policies of development and globalization.

The third lecture was presented by Margarita Naming from Sarawak Biodiversity Center about the role of local communities in conservation of useful plants. She explained about the traditional knowledge and as an activity to preserve the knowledge, she referred to community gardens, as an interesting and useful method to empower communities in Sarawak in conservation of biodiversity. The first stage is to talk about the traditional knowledge and its importance. The second is a workshop in the village to set the vision and mission. The third would be to choose methods to document the traditional knowledge. Also, people in the community are trained how to create a community garden (where they can learn more about the plants) - through in-situ conservation (there was a show case in the powerpoint slides about a garden in Long Iman in Mulu) - this creates additional income for community too through tourists visiting the community garden. However, there are challenges: traditional knowledge is fast disappearing; it is mostly orally transmitted; people in communities are highly protective of their knowledge and not willing to give it to others or next generation; at the same time, the younger generation is not interested to continue with the traditional knowledge; there is a low priority in documenting, with no monetary benefits, decreased community livelihood, and more important plant resources are depleting. In total, the programme seems to be effective, since communities under this programme, become more aware of the importance of documenting and conserving their traditional knowledge as their heritage before it is lost with the passing of the older generation.

In the Panel, there was a discussion about an action plan. Following are the points raised that I thought they were important:

Dr Colin Nicholas:
mindsets of the policy-makers have to change; words are beautiful but not understood by the people; the key to maintaining traditional knowledge is to recognize the right of the local people to their own knowledge; they do not want to be moved to another place, since it is their own traditional land;

Dr Martin Abraham:
Policies are important: Once it has been done for oil (nationalizing) why not for trees;
Mainstreaming TK is necessary; students in schools have to learn about TK;
In communities, there is no "I", there is only "we", everything is collective; they have collective rights too;

Dr Rita Manurung:
Political environment is very important in this regard (since the policies come from there)
Sarawak Biodiversity Center has been established by a government ordinance. The government feels that the communities should maintain their own traditional knowledge and that's what we have been doing during the past decade. We have encouraged communities to do so; a very recent activity, has been establishing community gardens; A data base has been set up under SBC's Traditional Knowledge Documentation Programme (the only systematic collection of traditional knowledge).

NGOs
- Mainstream the biodiversity in all sectors (more important than traditional knowledge) (it has been mentioned in action plans)
- Pressure of modernizing is tempting for communities
- Why we don't have one law for all states in Malaysia? Malaysia should guarantee indigenous people's right

Participants:

• Our local communities have more things than only traditional knowledge; do not commercialize them; it is a culture that has to be preserved. 
• Young generation is not interested; it seems that they do not care even to go to school; what would be an appropriate attitude regarding such reluctance.
• A personal experience: children do not talk in the language; they do not practice the traditional knowledge; new religion aspects; good spirits have become bad spirits; 
• Funding much needed 

There were some other discussions at the end that I am not adding here. Sorry for late publication. This report should be read with the first part of the report (that is about the first day of the seminar) and has been posted before this one.

Traditional Knowledge and Local Communities in favor of Biodiversity

Today (22 Nov. 2012), I attended a very exciting forum on "Conservation of Fauna and Flora" - the role of traditional knowledge and local communities" which was held by the Malaysian Academy of Science in PICC (Putrajaya). There were many presentations, but there were only three papers presented in the event that I liked very much. That's why I tried to give a very short report of these three papers in my blog. I do not know whether they can be found in the internet, but I am sure there exists certain clues for those who are interested to find out more about the role of traditional knowledge and local communities in protection of the environment.

The first paper that was presented by Professor Indraneil Das from the Institute of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation (UMS) was really informative, trying to picture how people in local communities have been involved in protection of environment through mythologies, belief systems and religion. An example is Pulong Tau National Park, Gunung Murud in Sarawak. He emphasized that the participation of the people has to be incorporated in the management plans. However, he concluded that "pragmatic conservation policies" are highly required to be considered and scientific data and regulations are needed too. Neither top-bottom nor bottom-up, linkages are more important.

Another lecturer from Penang, Dr Zulfigar Yasin, talked about the role of traditional knowledge and local communities in the conservation of coral reefs in Malaysia. He showed one slide which showed a Google satellite picture taken in the night from Malaysia that people mostly lived near the sea, and he added that most of the traditions in Malaysia are somehow related to sea. He also referred to the point that the names given to the reefs - are not new for people, since people know the reefs since years ago. He also mentioned that the people do not "compartize" the knowledge of the sea - it is a practical knowledge they use in their own life. Then he analyzed the threats to coral reefs.

The third contribution was presented by Dr Chang Yu Shyun who talked about the macrofungi used by Orang Asli for food, medicine, charms or other uses. This is important to remind that the Orang Asli communities in Malaysia use the natural resources in the forests for various purposes. She said the knowledge on mushrooms, while invaluable, are transmitted orally. She said that the researchers used a pictorial guide in visiting the villages of Orang Asli (only five tribes) - and the people told them about the mushrooms. The collected data have been categorized and studied. She showed pictures of the mushrooms and beliefs of the tribes regarding the mushrooms and their related uses. To my point of view, the research was highly important since it studies in details the local traditional knowledge on mushrooms. As it was included in the recommendations of the research, it has to be extended to other sub-tribes, especially in Sabah and Sarawak. Among the conclusions, there were issues which are important to look into, such as: "urbanization", "lack of interest of younger generation", "no replacement of knowledgeable elders", "loss of forest areas", "migration to urban areas", and "increased use of modern medicine". The researcher concludes that such use of mushrooms facilitates conservation. The results have been published in the book: Common Edible Mushrooms of Orang Asli Communities in Peninsular Malaysia written by Lee Su See, Chang Yu Shyun and Noraswati Mohd. Nor Rashid, published by Forestry Research Institute Malaysia, Kepong in 2006.

Diversity in Mahaleh (Community)

The level or better to say the "intensity" of diversity in communities or in local groups, is not the same as the diversity in bigger organizations, especially those organized from different communities. Does it mean that a local group shaped in a community has to be very week since they are only from the community and the members are not diverse. Is that true ?
When I look back at my experience in working with different communities and local groups in Iran, I can imagine how week the groups were. In some cases, some female villagers, with not enough knowledge, came together, while they were trying hard to create a change in their own community; they were not enough empowered since, at least, for one reason, they were not diverse. What has to be done ?
I think that we have to create diversity and contribute to it, as much as we can. If the group are only men, we have to encourage them to include women too, and the reverse is also true. Age diversity is another fact. Is there possible to invite various individuals from different age groups ? The third is to create diversity through involving various people from different perspectives.
In one village, I remember, I suggested students (university students) to join the group. The students were not in the village (they were students in other cities), but they came back the village when there was a holiday. That would be good, since these students could act as a bridge between the community and the resources available outside the community.
There are many other ways to guarantee the diversity within the local group, but, as facilitators, we have to ask the local people how they can add to their own diversity or to the diversity of their own group. Of course, the people attending the meetings have to be trained on diversity, so that they can understand the concept better. They have to understand diversity as "source of knowledge" which may be much helpful.

Community acts in an environment

I remember, once in a local community, people were invited to attend a planning programme. I started to facilitate the meeting based on the process that had been designed. During the meeting, one of the local authorities thought that he should intervene, and when necessary, he started to continue the meeting without me. I let him continue, since I was really tired on that day (and of course I had no other choice); but then I found that he was just trying to end the meeting, since somehow, he might have thought that the people might demand something more than the capacity they had as local authorities of the municipality (as a governmental ). That was one of the worse memories of my facilitation activities.
Community empowerment will not happen without a general change within the system. The whole administrative system has to accept that such empowerment activities are a part of the general policy. In fact, the community acts within an environment and receives so many inputs from the environment. An enabling environment can help a community to move forward while a disabling environment impedes a community to progress.
However, a facilitator who is involved in community empowerment cannot wait until the system accepts the general idea of community empowerment. He or she has to start her work, even if there are problems. It means people have to experience participatory decision-making. That can start with very small projects in community. Such small activities will affect the environment.