February (two meetings)

For each topic area we developed a list of questions we wanted to have answered; the types and sources of information which might answer those questions; where the information might be found; and which committee member would be responsible for gathering which information. e.g. for topic 1, we used library material from Unesco, OECD, Manpower, and several provinces; for topic 5, one member taped conversations with three women in BTSD programs; for topic 9, we plundered the resource files of everyone we knew.

This material was assembled and discussed. Some information was raw data which had to be converted into percentages; some was print material, some was in the form of an oral report of a personal conversation. Everything was used somewhere.

During this step, the energy level of committee members declined considerably. Several reasons for this are possible

1. The time of year
2. We allowed more time than was necessary and everyone got involved in other projects. This stage actually takes less time than at first appears necessary.
3. We have a tendency to not want to carry out this type of activity. One hidden implication is that we really don't want to have our most cherished opinions confused by facts.
4. Taking a hard look at reality is sometimes very depressing.

March (one meeting plus one aborted)

The background material was assembled by Dorothy and reduced (or expanded) to the basic facts. Most of these were general in focus rather that relating directly to women. Therefore we developed some ways to understand how the basic facts related to women and about the problems arising from this relationship.

This step requires extensive discussion. In some cases the implications arising from the facts are not clear. For example, the data relating to functionally illiterate women registered in vocational programs (Appendix A).

The discussions also indicated some major holes in our information. This was retrieved as the spaces were discovered.

April (one meeting)

We developed recommendations which seemed to be appropriate given the background material and our over-riding concern for improving the learning opportunities of undereducated women.

The overall process we used follows a gestalt model for problem-solving or learning. The theoretical stages of this model are...

1. Exploration of the whole problem
2. Discriminate whole problem into its component parts
3. Focus on each component part
        - gather information relevant to each part
        - extend awareness and understanding of each part
4. Look for relationships and patterns
        - among parts
        - between parts and the whole
        - develop generalized inferences about these patterns
5. Re-assemble the whole problem using new awareness, understanding and inferences
6. Develop tentative plans to resolve problem
7. Carry out plans and repeat process

This model is cyclical and hierarchical in that, while we could have returned to a previous step if that had seemed appropriate, skipping one step would have produced an unsatisfactory outcome. This step-by-step solution to problems tends to frustrate action-oriented individuals but is really on of the few ways that a group of people can come to a satisfactory agreement on what the problem really is, and how best to solve it as a group. We invite you to try with your own group.