- The teams should include people that have a sound knowledge of the overall orientation and content of government policies and in-depth understanding of the I-PRSP / CPRGS process, as well as people who have an understanding of local government policy applications and implementation on the ground; and

- The teams should consist of people with the required range of disciplinary backgrounds and in-depth knowledge of the social welfare, productive, financial, construction and other sectors as covered by the strategy.

Team building is also important to consider. The facilitation teams from each site were involved at an early stage in the formulation of the research framework and methodology, and group training for the teams and local counterparts was provided in each province at the beginning of the fieldwork period. In addition, there was a considerable amount of interaction between the teams during the fieldwork, with cross visits being made in some instances that helped imiprove coordination and sharing of experience as the consultations took place.

# **Linking policy actions to local realities**

The practical challenge for the facilitation teams was in how to link macro-level policies to local realities in such a way that would enable the participants to make constructive inputs to these policies. On the one hand, the consultations were rooted in real issues and concerns for the local participants (for instance, how to create better employment opportunities for the poor and how to improve the provision and performance of social services). On the other hand, the information being sought from them was on their viewpoints, ideas and opinions on an arena and level of decision-making that was in practice (or had been until now) far removed from them. The risk is that without highly experienced facilitation it is easy to loose the thread of the consultation process and the discussions can become too abstract and general. Alternatively, the discussions can become too involved in local detail, which is then very difficult to aggregate into policy messages.

One main difficulty arose out of the sheer volume and range of the policy actions and issues under discussion. In Ho Chi Minh City, for instance, the broad scope of the consultations initially made some of the facilitators anxious. This was because a majority of the team members had a practical social work background and they were more familiar with facilitating community development work rather than facilitating policy discussions. The heavy content also meant it was not always possible to use the participatory techniques effectively. This was because the facilitators were trying to get through a large number of topics and having to deal with huge amounts of information. In the first 3 days of the fieldwork in Ho Chi Minh City, all groups were attempting to cover all five research areas. However, this proved too much for both the facilitators and participants and was quickly adjusted so the topics were subsequently divided between the groups.

# **Getting to the underlying governance and institutional issues**

Another challenge in facilitating this type of consultation refers to the analysis of institutional issues and local governance. Institutional analysis is commonly a weak aspect of much participatory research. For instance, in the PPA studies carried out in 1999, this was consistently 53