Mapping systems and taking action

This learning and reflection brief includes two videos. First watch the CLARISSA video ‘Causal analysis and working children’. Then watch ‘Mapping systems and taking action’ where CLARISSA team members, local stakeholders, and children from Bangladesh and Nepal discuss how they mapped and took actions to address the system which drives and keeps children in the worst forms of child labour.

Before you watch the videos, note down three reasons why you think children might engage in the worst forms of child labour. Then, watch the videos and note down all the causal factors mentioned in the videos. How are the factors different or the same from the ones you identified? Is there anything which you did not expect?

You can download a low-resolution version of these videos to watch offline in this Google Drive folder.

Children and adults can undertake complex evidence generation and analysis for systems mapping. Mapping complex systems with children or untrained adults might seem like a daunting, and perhaps even an impossible task. However, CLARISSA was developed with the mindset that children and other adults are capable individuals with important expertise based on their lived experience, who can generate and analyse robust and rich evidence with the right support from facilitators. At the outset, there were team members within partner organisations who had reservations and doubts regarding the feasibility of this approach.

This was especially so given the scale that CLARISSA proposed to work at, with hundreds of life stories being collected in each country (approximately 350 stories in each country were collected by adult facilitators and about 50 in each country were collected by children). However, as the causal analysis process moved forward, partner team members began to see for themselves the level at which children (and business owners) could collectively gather and analyse life stories, identify causal dynamics, and build complex systems maps.

Indeed, the facilitated child-centred and -led process enabled the insider perspectives of children to provide additional and important collective insights based on the lived experiences of hundreds of children engaging in the worst forms of child labour. This process shed light on unexpected or overlooked causes and dynamics which contribute to the worst forms of child labour. 

“In the beginning, some facilitators were a bit hesitant, they weren't convinced that children could do this. And then as they went through the process, they really noticed their own mindset changing and shifting, especially after the children did the massive collective analysis of the hundreds of life stories.” IDS CLARISSA team member

Children and adults can develop their own Theories of Change based on participatory systems mapping and other evidence. Significantly, children in CLARISSA developed Theories of Change after the Action Research groups had undertaken extensive evidence gathering and personal reflection on the issue. The systemic ‘big picture’ view helped children identify which causal factors they wanted to focus on, or change, and what actions they could try in order to achieve this.

Very importantly, using a Theory of Change helped children to bring together the various pieces of evidence and gave them clarity on what they were going to do, why, and what they expected to happen. It also helped group members work as a collective towards a shared goal. For example, in one instance, children in Nepal identified a causal dynamic within the system, saying they felt they were not listened to, and that some parents chose to send their children to work without taking into account what the child in question wanted or needed.

Based on this, children agreed that “Parents/family give time to their children and listen to the children, understand them, and resolve their issues” should be the goal of their Theory of Change. The children then identified a number of actions: a workshop on positive parenting; sensitisation and awareness through street drama; informing parents about counselling services; and interaction among parents and religious leaders. The group also discussed the outcome, timeline and possible indicators of the action points. Children reported back positive changes, such as their parents talking to them in a kinder way, and a neighbour who allowed their daughter to go back to school.

“Even though the outcome of the actual action that they take might be similar (to one proposed by an external organisation or actor), the process of getting there and building that ownership over it, I believe, might then lead to stronger, preventative measures or interventions." - IDS CLARISSA team member

The children’s research brought a new level of understanding to children of some issues which had been normalised. Some of the action research groups worked on social norms that were deeply embedded and seen as ‘everyday experiences’ by the children, which are causal factors contributing to worst forms of child labour. Through the participatory process of mapping the system, doing their own research and reflecting on their personal experiences, children themselves made the connection between these social norms and worst forms of child labour, and it changed the way they thought about their issues and how they themselves could take action.

This new understanding was not the process of a sensitisation campaign by an organisation or agency, but was internally generated, and considered meaningful by the children. For example, one group of children started out with the attitude that child marriage is very common in their community and that it’s not really a problem – it's “just something that happens”. However, there was also a girl in this group who had married young, and she shared her experiences about how her life had changed after marriage.

The children also did more of their own evidence gathering by talking with neighbours and reflecting on their own experiences. This additional learning, combined with the big system map, showed how early marriage is linked to the worst forms of child labour, and the children began to see early marriage in a new light. They saw how a child who marries in their early teens will then have the responsibility of looking after their own family, which leads to dropping out of education to find work at a young age – work which often ends up being exploitative or harmful. 

BOX 4 
An example of children working in the leather industry in Dhaka, Bangladesh owning their Theory of Change

With the support of a facilitator, one Action Research group discussed at length the many issues their research had highlighted and debated what they wanted to tackle. The children eventually agreed that they wanted to address hazards in the workplace and they identified the kinds of outcomes they would like to see, which focused on children working less hours and reducing injuries in the work place. They then reflected on which actions could lead to these outcomes.

At first, they decided to prioritise raising awareness of work safety with their work colleagues (other children and adults) and promote the wearing of protective gear when working with leather chemicals. However, this strategy didn’t work out as planned, because their colleagues were uninterested in what the children had to say, didn’t believe them or feel it was important. The children then tried another strategy – to model the changes they were seeking, and to start wearing their own protective gear.

CLARISSA helped the children buy protective gear which they wore when undertaking hazardous tasks at work. The children wearing the gear started to notice that their skin problems were improving, and their health was better. After a few weeks, the children’s colleagues started to show interest, and were asking about the protective gear. This opened a new dialogue between the children and their colleagues about protective gear for hazardous work tasks, and how it was benefitting them. Eventually some of their colleagues also started to wear protective gear. One of the employers also decided to buy protective gear for their employees as result. 

What did we learn?
1) The children’s ownership of their own Theory of Change helped motivate them to try different approaches to reach their desired outcomes, even when their first strategy failed. Their shared identity also helped them to stay motivated and try different solutions. Additionally, as children were working in a context where unionising is not tolerated, supporting each other in a less visible way was important.

2) The children decided to make changes to their working environment, i.e. protecting themselves from work hazards, because they were given the space and support to research, reflect on, and decide their own priorities, and because they later experienced real benefits from wearing the gear. In the same way that other colleagues were uninterested in the children’s first attempts to raise awareness around wearing protective gear, it is likely that the children themselves may also have been resistant if this idea had been introduced by external actors.

3) The modified strategy the children later decided upon of ‘showing by doing’ facilitated a dialogue between the children and their colleagues which they couldn’t achieve using their first plan of awareness raising. 

4) While this process didn’t remove the children from the workplace altogether, it was a positive step towards reducing the hazardous nature of their work, with the potential to spread to other peers, colleagues and businesses.

Systemic Action Research can help build ownership of a problem and how it is addressed. CLARISSA highlighted how a people-centred process of Systemic Action Research, which included their own Theories of Change, helped build a sense of ownership of the problem; created a common platform to discuss issues; established a shared identity around issues; and helped children and business owners come up with solutions (See Box 2.4. above).

CLARISSA found that Systemic Action Research brought benefits at different levels. A core aspect of CLARISSA was the intentional creation of space: regular meet ups over an extended time frame whereby adults and children were brought together to learn, reflect, and plan. Most of the working children and business owners had extremely busy lives with limited time and space for them to meet with other children, for instance to chat with their friends about their problems or connect with each other in other ways. At work, children were also wary of interacting too much, lest they were suspected of unionising, amongst other things. In their neighbourhood, there was also a lack of appropriate spaces where they could socialise with their peers in an informal environment. 

Children benefitted as individuals as they reported feeling less alone – they had the support of their peers – and some were also experiencing less health issues as a result of wearing protective work gear in Bangladesh. Children also benefited in a collective way, for instance, in Bangladesh, children improved the working environment for themselves as a group and were also acknowledged by other colleagues as bringing something of value to the workplace. On a societal level in Nepal, the process of tackling social norms was observed, such as adults’ expectations of children and how they should behave, as a result of child-generated and -led actions around ‘family relations’.

The Systemic Action Research process intentionally created space where children could share stories and reflect. There were explicit relationship building activities within the formal group meetings such as playing games and sharing stories, also informal outings and trips, as well as evidence gathering and action taking. Children realised that they shared many similar challenges as a group, and that the problem was not “just my problem”. In this way, the process helped build a sense of the collective and, very importantly, that they could problem-solve together. 

Additionally, because CLARISSA also worked with business owners who were employing children, and took them through a similar process, these business owners also began to see themselves of part of a group – as opposed to being in competition with each other – and collectively tried to solve some of challenges relating to the worst forms of child labour. For instance, business owners decided to set up a health care centre (Bangladesh); develop better documentation systems for their business to check the age of workers (Nepal); and contract employees more formally (Nepal).

 “Individualism and everyone struggling in their own silos was really preventing a lot of the problem solving from happening. [...] With the business owners, there was a super interesting process, as when they started, everyone was in competition with each other. And then starting to work together and seeing “actually we are all struggling in the same way with the same things, and if we work together, we can actually solve our own problems together”. IDS CLARISSA team member

There are important roles for facilitators when facilitating a deeply participatory, child-centred and -led action research process. CLARISSA highlighted the key linking or bridging role that skilled facilitators can play when facilitating Systemic Action Research. Facilitators had to strike a balance between supporting the children when needed, but also allowing the process to be led by the children. For instance, the children from the ‘family relations’ Action Research group decided to organise workshops with their family members to initiate a dialogue between themselves and various key family members. The children wanted their family members to reflect on some of the ways they parented and to make some changes. However, the children also realised that they needed the help of the facilitators as they felt that their parents “did not take us seriously”. The children enlisted the facilitators to help the children to structure some of the sessions, negotiate the coming together of the parents and children, and invite the family members. Likewise, the informal business owners enlisted the support of CLARISSA facilitators to help them link with bigger formal factories. 
 

Programmes which are built around Systemic Action Research don’t necessarily have to cost more than a typical development programme. However, the allocation of resources and timeline will most likely look quite different. For instance, 

• Proportionately more resources and time might need to be allocated to research and learning activities and resources, which might include the hiring of relatively large teams of facilitators and documenters, for a reasonably long period of time.
• More time may possibly be spent training and supporting team members for their specific roles within the programme. 
• More time and resources may be required for everyone involved to get to know each other, and to develop strong relationships and build trust. The first few months, or even longer, might be spent holding meetings, doing activities together, meeting with key individuals or bodies, working with partners and partnership-building, and learning about the context through observation. Systemic Action Research approaches work in a ‘relational’ way, so ongoing relationship building activities are a central part of the work and require adequate budget.
• Using a systemic approach requires adequate time and suitable spaces for research groups to reflect and make decisions. This is not a process which can be rushed, and therefore time frames leading to action-taking might be relatively extended compared to a programme where actions have already been decided in advance, or where programme staff make the decisions.
• Flexible budgeting: The nature of Participatory Action Research means programmes can’t know beforehand exactly where a programme will go. Budgets can be planned for the process itself, for instance, for a certain number of meetings or staff salaries, but the interventions which will emerge from the programme process are unknown. Therefore, it is advisable to budget for and negotiate an unassigned ‘intervention pot’ which Action Research groups may use for their intervention. This is discussed in more detail in Learning and Reflection Brief 3. Using evidence and learning to adapt programmes in real time.

Although many funders are now showing interest in working differently, including shifting towards a systemic programme approach, the reality of their current funding structures and mechanisms limit the extent to which this always possible. Many current practices are built to support short-term projects with clear, measurable results rather than collaborative, evolving approaches to create lasting change.

There may also be certain restrictions and conditions as to how funding can be used. Taking all of this into account, it may seem as if the funder’s requirements actively discourage innovative approaches. Despite this, organisations should not be discouraged from looking for ways to use a systemic approach in their programming. Taking small steps one at a time can be more manageable for all involved and doesn’t necessarily have to disrupt a funding agreement. 

Suggestions on how teams could move towards a systemic approach:

• There might be space within an existing programme to deepen participation by giving more power to participants to undertake their own small pieces of research or activities, and to make their own decisions. 
• Perhaps a programme could deepen the collective understanding of a problem by intentionally including new or different groups into its learning processes and giving more space to those processes.
• Consider training staff on how to become skilled facilitators of a ‘bottom-up’ approach, where the emphasis is on supporting participants to make decisions and drive change, but not ‘teaching’. 
• Consider how to build more trust with the funder, for instance, by communicating clearly about the importance of using a systems lens, or a specific aspect of the approach. Use the information in this learning and reflection series to guide, but also think about how the approach may link to and support any common goals, commitments and agendas. 
• If a programme starts to diverge from the Theory of Change or log frame as a result of evidence generated by the programme, keep the channels of communication with the funder open and provide a clear rationale for why the programme is changing direction. Funders can gain confidence from seeing that the programme is using a robustly tested method to guide its evolution.