1 of 9

TRUST

Meena Arivananthan

KM Proponent / Facilitator

Believer since 2008 ☺

Bridging the research-practice gap

Good afternoon! Thank you for joining us today.
I am Meena Arivananthan, a KM4Dev member since 2008/ 2009.
Thank the organizers for the opportunity to present – really appreciate the massive program that they envisioned has come to fruition.
First started as KM Manager at the WorldFish Center – part of the CGIAR consortia – 2007/8.
Since then, I have had the privilege of maintaining a career in KM in various roles in some of the best development organizations that make a difference on the ground, including most recently, the Knowledge SUCCESS project from JHU-CCP.
If there is one common theme over the years, as I got roped into KM teams and departments at various stages- either at the beginning or in between as an ad-hoc person – the one component that stood out in whether a KM program will work –is in the level of Trust within the team and also how the team is perceived among their stakeholders.

Meena Arivananthan is an experienced practitioner in knowledge exchange and facilitation, with a strong focus on participatory methods and collaborative learning. She is the principal author of several KM manuals including the Knowledge Exchange Toolkit developed by UNICEF. With an academic background in Microbiology research, she is passionate about science communications, and supports researchers and scientists in meeting their communications goals. Her work focuses on participatory methods and creating inclusive spaces for collaboration, reflection, and learning. She is particularly interested in the role of facilitation in balancing structure with openness, ensuring that processes are both empowering and results-oriented.

�

2 of 9

Why is Trust Important?

Baseline: No trust established between parties

Willingness to share (tacit) knowledge?

Willingness to use knowledge being shared?

Photo credit: WorldFish Strategy Update 2005 - 2008

One of the hardest things in research is in its application – convincing people of its benefit – and why they should adopt a behaviour or activity. Science has its rigorous ways to move from concept to adoption – with appropriate policy in place, it may even be smoother. After all nothing better than endorsement from the local government. Yet on the ground, there are many unknowns that can sometimes disrupt even the best plans. It is hard to transfer research into practice.
At the WorldFish Center in the 2000s, we advocated for simple innovations to help fishers and farmers globally – with specific, localised research that required K exchange between the fishing community and the scientists – 2 distinct groups that needed to find a middle ground – to work towards a solution.
This was not always easy – baseline is – no trust. So how do we get to a stage where people are willing to share knowledge (important tacit local knowledge that could be crucial to our research). At the same time, how willing would the fishers be to trust and use the knowledge we share? In the case of WorldFish - it was important to speak to community leaders who shared the trust of their communities – people who already had an established relationship with the community
Even then, it was important to speak to the right people within the community – mens’ groups who worked in the city or went fishing in the sea discussing farming practices when it was the womens’ groups who were actually doing the farming or selling the fish.
This rings true even for K workers within an organization - TRUST -important component in KM (co-creation, collaboration, learning)
Considering that tacit K culminates from a person’s abilities, values, experiences and insight – a simple “fill out a form” will not do. Also when there is no obvious benefit to sharing tacit K as an individual – there are only risks (losing competitive edge, questionable source info).
So let me ask you – a show of hands (or any interaction allowed?)
How willing are you to share tacit K? With who?
How willing are you to use what you’ve just heard from someone?
What is the key ingredient that would enable this? – TRUST

3 of 9

Example: Benchmarking CGIAR research outputs (2010)

Organizational level -Trust

When the CGIAR decided to embark in KM, some of their early interventions included conducting a baseline study to see how their Centers made their research outputs available and accessible to their stakeholders.
Conducted between 2008 – 2009, 6 Centers participated. We looked at
Availability: research outputs stored in open digital formats and described using public metadata standards so they can be found through structured search and access systems
Accessibility: research outputs publicly available online so they can be queried, viewed and obtained in full
Won’t go into details here. The paper is in the references. I share this to demonstrate the impact of providing reputable proof to all 15 CGIAR Centers on the state of their publications in 2010. This led to the libraries moving forward into revamping their research outputs access capabilities, so anyone could access them more freely.
A study by Holste and Fields (2010) showed a 25% variance in people’s willingness to share tacit knowledge when two types of trust were met:

- Affect-based trust – grounded in mutual care and concern between workers, and

- Cognition-based trust – grounded in co-worker reliability and competence

So the cognition-based trust in the reliability of our study enabled the Centers to act accordingly.

Extras:

WorldFish alone: 41 peer reviewed articles, 6 peer reviewed book chapters, 7 conference and workshop papers, 13 articles from other journals, 24 own reports/ publications (not including newsletters, annual report) 🡪 Total 91 research outputs

4 of 9

Investment in Trust

Tuckman model of group development

For meaningful knowledge exchange between practitioners and researchers
Cultivated organization-wide, across stakeholder groups

IT systems not a catchall for tacit knowledge capture. In the end the individual decides if they will share or not!

For more meaningful K exchange and to bridge the gap between practice and research, Trust needs to be cultivated within these groups as well as between the groups or different stakeholders.
Organization-wide across stakeholder groups
Build better groups – popular model: Tuckman model of group development

- Giving individuals a conducive environment to come together, overcome their issues and work effectively – thru Forming, Storming, Norming so they Perform, before they adjourn needs to be built in the organization culture.

4. Holste and Fields also noted that tacit K is not easily captured by sophisticated IT systems/ software.

In many organizations, incl. Asia – when we speak of KM practice, it is IT that popularly leads– with K treated as an object that can be quantified, codified and perhaps to some extent, most explicit K can be handled this way. Yet KM becomes an afterthought
Soon they find themselves in a bind because staff won’t use the system/ software or they have trouble getting to the K they really want to retain

Tons of literature out there on how to build teams – a good measure of it involves trust building within the teams
The Tuckman model of group development from 1965, amended later to include “ädjournment” to signify how groups eventually move apart. Provides a very rational way to view how groups could be cultivated into teams with a facilitator guiding the process. As a facilitator of knowledge exchange, you are often placed in scenarios where you have to get a united ‘team’ together over a short period of time from 3 days to 3-4 weeks, or if you’re lucky over several months.

3. In situations where as a practitioner, how can you get a diverse group of individuals who come into workshops and events with their own expectations and needs and get them to put those aside and come together to meet a more lofty ideal of sharing and learning together. In short, how do we create an environment where

Affect-based trust – grounded in mutual care and concern between workers, and
Cognition-based trust – grounded in co-worker reliability and competence, can grow and aid in tacit K exchange?

5 of 9

Visualisation in Participatory Programmes (VIPP)

Photo credit: Meena Arivananthan

Build trust by engaging stakeholders and cultivate greater understanding across cultures while addressing concerns respectfully

Participatory processes developed in the 60s/ 70s sought to democratize and empower communities into action. Built on the foundation of respecting the values and rights of the individual/ group / culture, these tools were later adapted as VIPP (Visualization in Participatory Programmes), a collective manual of knowledge exchange tools used extensively in UNICEF South Asia for knowledge exchange.
Over time, these tools have been adapted in many toolkits including the KSToolkit (KM4Dev) and also in UNICEF’s Knowledge Exchange Toolkit (2015). VIPP tools have been used successfully to engage stakeholders and build greater understanding across cultures while addressing concerns respectfully despite their differences. From deeper understanding, we build a foundation of trust.
Facilitation is key – whether it is to impart new learning, test new theories in the field or capture information or feedback from groups and communities.
Role Play – photo on the right – great way to analyse real-life situations without pressure. Gives you room to discuss disagreements and issues in a simulated setting.

6 of 9

VIPP Tool: River of Life

Personal reflection tool
Individual drawing that highlights milestones, challenges and celebrations in their life (or specific timeline)
To introduce unknown aspects of yourself to others
Helps groups to understand their colleagues better
Greater trust, improved group dynamics and mutual understanding

Photo credit: Meena Arivananthan

I use this VIPP tool called River of Life a lot in many workshops as it is a great icebreaker tool and can be adjusted to be as light hearted as you like.
One place where this worked was with a diverse group of students ranging from 18 to 55 years of age. Mindful that there would be cultural and technological barriers, River of Life was used to help them see their new colleagues in a different light.
A great personal reflection tool, it is a metaphorical way of introducing unknown aspects of yourself to others. By imagining you are a river, you can articulate, using the landscape, water, boats etc., the major events and milestones in your life.
In the River of Life, each participant creates a reflective individual drawing that highlights milestones, challenges and celebrations in their life. The process of sharing these highlights in a group encourages group members to bond with one another, laying a basis for improved group dynamics and promoting increased effectiveness in working together as a team

5. Debrief tends to provide more context:

How did you feel about telling your story? What was it like to hear the stories?
What surprised you? What insights have you gained?

- Debrief for River of Life as a KM tool: Capturing the milestones, successes and failures over the years, the River can be used much like a guide/ compass for ppl to see where they are and how they can make a difference.

�

7 of 9

VIPP Tool: Information Marketplace

Sharing at Royal University of Bhutan

Photo credit: Meena Arivananthan

8 of 9

Example: Knowledge exchange with isolated communities in Bhutan

Photo credit: Meena Arivananthan

Photo credit:

Meena Arivananthan

With less than 2.8% agriculture conducted, and a projected 4percent future land use, Bhutan’s agri-systems management is unique. Participants to the Summer School on Food Sovereignty, Organic Agriculture and Climate Change in 2016 were provided training on how to engage with the communities before they went to observe them in villages.
Using VIPP tools like River of Life, Walkabouts and Information Marketplace to promote mutual understanding, they came away with great insights.
While these tools tend to have an old-world feel about them (considering when they were developed), they play a crucial role in ensuring that we maintain our sights on the most important stakeholder – the people. At work, I have also adapted these tools successfully in online meetings.
We tend to gravitate to shiny new toys like IT systems, digital tools and AI interfaces, yet we should remember these are surface level tools that only scrape the surface. If we want to truly connect, we need to address the fact that people are motivated to share meaningfully or use what they have learnt:
if they trust the person they are speaking to,
If they trust the source from where their knowledge came
Or if they are told to by their supervisor/ authority figure

Which connection would you like to cultivate?

9 of 9

References

Holste J. S., & Fields, D. (2010). Trust and Tacit Knowledge Sharing and Use. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14, 128-140.
Nahapiet, Janine, and Sumantra Ghoshal. Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage. The Academy of Management Review 23, no. 2 (1998): 242–66. �
Visualisation in Participatory Programmes – Maria Angelica Salas, Hermann J. Tillmann, Neill McKee and Nuzhat Shahzadi.

(pdf: VIPP Visualisation in participatory programmes -1993 version)

UNICEF Knowledge Exchange Toolbox Vol. 1 and Vol. 2

Benchmarking CGIAR research outputs for availability and accessibility – M. Arivananthan, P.Ballantyne and E. Porcari, AgInfo Worldwide Vol 3 No.1 (2010)

KM4Dev Knowledge Sharing Toolkit

AI statement: AI not used