on the other, with curiosity about what was going to happen.
I showed understanding for the sociotherapists’ surprise and reminded them of my visits to the local authorities prior to the training. And I recalled their first day of training, when they asked if they could count on assistance if and when the training was going to be implemented and used in practice. And who better to create a programme than the sociotherapists, I asked them defiantly.
In a few groups I left it to the sociotherapists to devise a structure for the pro- gramme. Looking back over this approach, I helped out subsequent groups with an example, and drew a table for any activities they wished to schedule, together with columns in which could be noted: number of minutes, execu- tor of a part of the programme, method used and materials needed for each activity.
I sometimes suggested that the group create a seven-day (later a six-day) pro- gramme. For actual practice showed that if a few mornings or afternoons are left open, this creates room for answering newly arisen questions or, if nec- essary, for revising a theme. The eighth (last) day are particularly useful for a plenary meeting of the pairs giving the training and their trained groups. Organising this last day became a co-production, with input from the socio- therapists, the coordinating staff and the trainer.
Box XXVIII Assignment to draft a training programme
The assignment is to be done and completed in the fourth week of training Step 1 Each pair drafts an eight-day training programme on the basis
of the subjects dealt with in the training
Step 2 Consult with other pairs about the progress of the draft pro- gramme
Step 3 Present the draft programme in a plenary meeting (10 minutes per programme)
Step 4 Follow the steps and procedures that you used in the rule-mak- ing activity when you discuss and make decisions on the pro- grammes (20 minutes per programme)
Step 5 Establish what resources are required to implement the pro- gramme
531236-L-bw-ASC 531236-L-bw-ASC 531236-L-bw-ASC 531236-L-bw-ASC Processed on: 8-5-2019 Processed on: 8-5-2019 Processed on: 8-5-2019
Processed on: 8-5-2019 PDF page: 192PDF page: 192PDF page: 192PDF page: 192
192
Introducing the assignment to draft a manual
Sociotherapists in the groups in Kakata in Liberia were given the task to de- velop, in pairs, a manual for fifteen three-hour sociotherapy sessions (cf. box XXIX). The difference in assignments was due to a much smaller available budget, which also called for the trained team to start coaching and super- vising sociotherapy groups directly after the training.
Box XXIX Assignment to develop a manual on supervising sociotherapy groups
The assignment is to be done and completed in the fourth week
Step 1 In pairs, draw up a programme of fifteen mornings and/or afternoons of three hours’ sociotherapy each (use your notes) Step 2 Consult with other pairs about the progress of your programme Step 3 Present your programme in a plenary meeting
Step 4 The programmes presented in the plenary meeting are dis- cussed and questioned one by one by the other group members (follow the steps and procedures that you used when making rules for your own group)
Step 6 The other group members decide on each separate programme Step 7 The pairs process all the advice and corrections given
Execution of the creative process
The surprise that the assignment elicited did not, however, stop the pairs from making a start with their training programmes. The Happy Families game was still displayed on the walls in some groups, and sociotherapists there started the extensive assignment with a smile on their face. They real- ised there was little time left. Pairs in all groups asked me, as I passed their work tables, to repeat the instructions. Now, the floor was all the sociothera- pists’, and some reiterated how strange this experience was.
The sociotherapists now leafed through their updated notebooks, consulted the texts collected on the flip-over and drew a summary table. They coordi- nated and aligned, gave arguments, weighed and moved the selected meth- ods around a number of times until they were happy with it. They used these questions:
531236-L-bw-ASC 531236-L-bw-ASC 531236-L-bw-ASC 531236-L-bw-ASC Processed on: 8-5-2019 Processed on: 8-5-2019 Processed on: 8-5-2019
Processed on: 8-5-2019 PDF page: 193PDF page: 193PDF page: 193PDF page: 193
193
• Which subjects are best for a first day?
• And which for the subsequent days?
• Which subjects do we find the most appealing and which will we include in the draft?
• Which subjects can be left for a later moment?
• Which of us two will introduce which subject?
• Which subjects don’t we quite master yet and which would we like to re- vise?
Next, it was jointly established on the basis of questions how the training was to be organised. Questions directed at me included:
• Which days of the week are we going to train?
• Where are we going to train?
• Who is going to negotiate a training room? (Facilitating the groups would, where possible, be done outside the training room).
• How much can we budget for the rent of a training room?
• When is the last day of training?
• On which day of the week do we plan the refresher day for ourselves?10
• Do the authorities know that we are coming to their villages?
At the end of the day, the contours of a sociotherapy training programme had emerged, including: rules, games, the group phases and principles, prayer, morning and afternoon assemblies with everybody sitting in a circle, various assignments, homework, a discussion about the meaning of playing games, role-play, dialogue, types of family organisation, reflection, the exercise de- scribing pictures, the exercise about emotions and behaviour, a focus on so- cialisation, on social systems and identity, and a visit to a gacaca court. When doing the assignment some pairs had difficulty dividing tasks equally. This demonstrated that understanding and appreciating new concepts does not ‘automatically’ lead to their implementation. I saw how, as the pairs con- sulted each other, various academically trained sociotherapists on their own initiatives emerged as patient questioners and advisors. And there were pairs who wanted the trainer’s reassurance when they had finished a part of the training programme: ‘Is this right, as it should be?’ It was only once or twice that a pair needed more than average assistance. In one group the co-trainer
10 Each pair (occasionally foursome) facilitates the new colleagues to be recruited in 4 weeks, 2 days a week. In each of these 4 weeks, 1 day is reserved as a refresher day . During these 4 re- fresher days, the whole group of 32 or 24 or 20 sociotherapists looks back on training the new colleagues, with the aim of learning from each other’s experiences, and discussing and settling any organisational issues.
531236-L-bw-ASC 531236-L-bw-ASC 531236-L-bw-ASC 531236-L-bw-ASC Processed on: 8-5-2019 Processed on: 8-5-2019 Processed on: 8-5-2019
Processed on: 8-5-2019 PDF page: 194PDF page: 194PDF page: 194PDF page: 194
194
interrupted work on the exciting assignment with the question if sociother- apists wished to carry on or wanted to do a game first. They chose to have something of a break. The sociotherapists made a memory game and voiced their surprise at their own creativity.
The training programmes were drafted with great focus, concentration and commitment. Again, the sociotherapists did not want to take time out for a short break. I wrote down the organisational issues: these helped me prepare the agenda for the refresher days.
Execution: the process of decision-making about the drafted training pro- grammes
The six pairs in each group were given ten minutes to present their draft to the group. Then there were ten minutes for asking and answering questions. In those groups where the male sociotherapists ‘obviously’ were the ones to speak out first, I asked everybody questions about this kind of behaviour. Then, the men would make way, usually with a smile, for the women who then took the floor as well. The many questions that the sociotherapists asked each other were welcomed and received with approval. I inferred from this that, in contrast to the first training days, they now understood the reinforc- ing effect of these questions. The sociotherapists demonstrated visibly and audibly what they had learnt. The questions asked were:
• Haven’t you got a rather packed agenda?
• What is your goal for the second day?
• Wouldn’t you have to add some time indications?
• What do you mean by ‘psychology’, did we discuss this subject in our training?
• Do you start at varying times?
• How do you think you could use the ‘trust’ phase at the same time as the Johari window?
• Don’t you think you might need more time for the phases?
• What are you going to do with the principles?
• Are we correct in thinking that your days do not always end at the same time?
• Could you explain your goal of striving for collectivity?
• Are you going to make rules?
• Shouldn’t you limit your morning break to ten minutes?
531236-L-bw-ASC 531236-L-bw-ASC 531236-L-bw-ASC 531236-L-bw-ASC Processed on: 8-5-2019 Processed on: 8-5-2019 Processed on: 8-5-2019
Processed on: 8-5-2019 PDF page: 195PDF page: 195PDF page: 195PDF page: 195
195
• Are you going to specify the assignments? These were the pairs’ replies:
• This is what we feel in general that the programme should include. We still have to work out the details.
• Yes, our programme is a bit full but we expect to get the full participation of the new colleagues.
• Don’t worry about the word ‘psychology’: what we mean here is the exer- cise about the difference between emotions and behaviour.
• We’ll have a look at the times, and equalise them. We think we can start the day at 09.00 a.m.
• Our aim here is to work on trust-building, and the Johari window is the tool for training this.
• We want the programme to be flexible and we will find a time when we can ask our new colleagues to make the rules that we need.
• We’re going to add the principles in the programme after all.
The co-trainer of one group asked each pair to present one of their fifteen days of their draft due to a lack of time. The ten twenty-minute presentations were given in four hours, after which the sociotherapists discussed what they had learnt from each other.
I was asked some general questions about what would certainly need to be incorporated into the pro- grammes, and about the role of the trainer in the follow-up programmes. I explained that the trainer’s support- ive role also hinges on the donor, who every year decides whether or not to continue their donation. And that a donor makes a decision on the basis of the sociotherapists’ commitment and the results achieved with the so- ciotherapy groups.
I reiterated that the content of the programmes depended on what each pair had created themselves because every sociotherapist gains a sense of certain- ty when s/he works from choices they have made themselves and therefore understand best. I reassured sociotherapists by stressing that every subject in
Photo 11
Author’s own collection. Working on deci- sion-making. 2016
531236-L-bw-ASC 531236-L-bw-ASC 531236-L-bw-ASC 531236-L-bw-ASC Processed on: 8-5-2019 Processed on: 8-5-2019 Processed on: 8-5-2019
Processed on: 8-5-2019 PDF page: 196PDF page: 196PDF page: 196PDF page: 196
196
every draft matters. A sense of certainty also ensues from the knowledge that one’s colleagues have looked over each programme critically.
Execution: making a decision about the training programmes
After all the deliberations and discussions each pair knew where they could still make improvements. On that condition, they knew themselves assured of their colleagues’ approval, gained in a democratic process. The sociother- apists took pride in the fact that their programmes were clear and beautifully worked out in great detail. Where necessary, they also worked at home at their draft.
10.4 The sociotherapists’ reflections
The sociotherapists made no secret of their pride in their self-created pro- grammes. They reiterated that this training was very different from all previ- ous training programmes.
With respect to the assignment to draft a programme, various sociotherapists said they had found it difficult to put the training subjects in the right places. One person had had a restless night over it, but added that she felt well-pre- pared. She knew herself assured of her colleagues’ support. Another woman said that the group had become like family. She had participated in many a training, but never in such a one. A young man recounted that he had been won over in the second week of training, and had embraced sociotherapy as a method after his own heart. He had talked with his father, who approved of his decision to give up his job of primary school teacher in order to become a sociotherapist. His view was that sociotherapy could be of great importance for East Congo. A modest, proud-looking woman related how she had been made to think deeply. She was married to the chief of a village where there was a great deal of fear. She hoped that she and her colleagues would be able to persuade the chief to participate in one of the sociotherapy groups so that the knowledge gained from the programme would help them restore unity in the village. Someone else said that he had not known you could also learn things outside a school. A woman claimed that there was love in the training group, and that this was a great feeling.
Reflecting helped the sociotherapists to discuss in greater depth what was at play in their living environment. Somebody said she was happy: following a
531236-L-bw-ASC 531236-L-bw-ASC 531236-L-bw-ASC 531236-L-bw-ASC Processed on: 8-5-2019 Processed on: 8-5-2019 Processed on: 8-5-2019
Processed on: 8-5-2019 PDF page: 197PDF page: 197PDF page: 197PDF page: 197