Networking and learning
Most Significant Change - how stories help us learn
Most Significant Change (MSC) technique is a form of participatory monitoring and evaluation. Based on telling stories about events people think are important, the technique is inclusive; using it requires no prior knowledge of ‘indicators’ or the learning of special professional skills.
Everyone can participate and the technique can be used in different cultural contexts. It is especially useful for programmes where there is a focus on learning rather than just accountability.
Rick Davies, co-author of ‘The Most Significant Change Technique: A guide to its use’, first developed MSC in 1992. In a lunchtime discussion for the Exchange programme in 2005 he explained: “The emphasis on story-telling makes MSC different to formal monitoring techniques. Instead of introducing new professional skills MSC takes advantage of everyday communication practices. Every language has an expression for ‘”What’s new?’”.
He says: “MSC doesn’t replace other methods of monitoring and evaluation – in fact it works well in conjunction with methods like content analysis and quantitative analysis – but it comes into its own where outcomes are unexpected and meanings are disputed. In these situations indicators just don’t help us to see what has changed.
| Four types of possible outcomes |
Expected outcome | Unexpected outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Outcome with an agreed meaning |
1. Indicators are useful here | 2. Indicators unlikely to be developed here |
| Outcome with a disputed meaning |
3. Indicators might be developed here | 4. Indicators cannot be used here |
Davies uses two metaphors to explain MSC. The first is that of publishing a newspaper. In this instance journalists, sub-editors and editors pass stories up through a hierarchy with only a few making it to the paper and only one to the front page.
The MSC approach can be likened to an amoeba – it
explores many diverse directions simultaneously, but ultimately, gradually, ‘lumbers’ in
one overall direction.
At the lunchtime discussion Davies asked the participants to take part in a short exercise to demonstrate MSC in practice. Participants were asked the following questions:
Turn to your neighbour and ask them:
- What was the most interesting thing that happened to you yesterday? (Get the details)
- Then ask them why they thought this was the most interesting.
- Then let your neighbour ask the same questions to you.
- Come to a decision about which of the two stories you think is most interesting, and identify why you both think so.
- You may have a number of reasons.
When asked to, tell the whole group the story you chose, and why you did so.
Stories ranged from an unexpected solution to a web design problem on the walk home from work to a rethink of planning a journey after being stuck on a bus for three hours during what was usually a half-hour journey.
The exercise demonstrated the great value and power in face-to-face communication – the storytelling and selection process in MSC enhances communication and encourages people to interact, rather than being a paper based exercise. It is a powerful way of communicating.
Rob Vincent from Exchange described how he had used storytelling in a communication workshop that brought together project managers from ten different countries: despite the different cultures and languages at the workshop, stories allowed people to share their experience in a holistic and concise manner, in a way that was powerful and promoted dialogue.
Using Most Significant Change
One of the key aspects of MSC is the selection of areas of focus
for monitoring (domains). Rick Davies points out that it is always a strategic
decision about what to measure and why – this is no different when
using MSC. However MSC domains offer a lot of flexibility: a domain for
negative changes can be included to counteract bias towards positive stories;
or an ‘open window’ domain – what else has changed? – can
be included. Domains can even be left to emerge during the story selection
process.
Systematic in its approach, MSC involves asking the same questions of everyone and rigorously and regularly collecting stories. Davies says: “Enough time for face-to-face discussion is essential to the MSC technique. Values become explicit through conversations people have as they select which stories are most significant.” In addition documentation of the story selection process is key. As Davies says: “Participants at all levels are expected to say why they chose one set of stories over another, even in cases where there is obvious bias, diverse stories come through.”
After collection the stories are then analsyed, discussed, filtered, verified and documented. Overall nine stages are involved as follows:
- Selection of domains to be monitored
- Deciding the reporting period (frequency
- Deciding on the participants (different stakeholder groups)
- Phrasing the question
- Deciding on the structure of participation
- Feedback
- Verification
- Quantification
- Monitoring the monitoring system
There are huge variations in practice of what sort of stories are encouraged and produced. It depends on the programme and who is included in the process – whether you work with programme staff or a group of beneficiaries like farmers for example. “Getting people to explain why something is significant can be a challenge in different cultures,” said Davies.
You should work in the local language wherever possible, and then use translations when necessary. This might be more difficult in minority languages. Correct translation of the MSC concepts is also vital – for example, in a Latin American project, the word story has a connotation of fiction so an alternative was used.
Can stories be evidence?
All stories remain significant for their authors but some stories will have more
significance at regional or national level – these are the ones that
get filtered up through the levels of authority, up to the funders of a project
or programme.
The stories can be verified through a visit or by talking to several participants to check that people do not invent fantasies or to see how people in the field influence outcomes by producing a particular type of story.
A meta level of content analysis can also be done – addressing questions such as what is the proportion of negative to positive stories.
Davies had a word of warning when using MSC to report to donors: provide contextual information along with each story – where it comes from, who gathered it, when – making it clear that a coherent valid method has been used to generate and select the stories. This will increase the chance of the stories being understood as relevant evidence.
Feedback loops
Feedback is the weakest part in all monitoring and evaluation
systems and MSC is no exception.
It is important to remember that the MSC technique emerged from research on organisational learning in non-governmental organisations (NGOs). As the stories filter up a hierarchy, the feedback from different levels of authority about how stories are selected informs participants about how their work is understood and valued.
It is also vital that people are explicit about their reasons for seeing a story as significant, since someone else may ‘read’ what they feel is an obvious reason into a story which was not the one intended. Culture also plays a key role in the interpretation of stories at different levels: “…if you are a cultural outsider, picking up on a negative message in a seemingly positive statement can be difficult.” said Rick.
Healthlink Worldwide and MSC
Healthlink Worldwide has recently used the MSC technique in
its International Memory Project, a community led response to the HIV
epidemic to support children and their families when a close family
member is living with HIV. Some of the stories gathered as part of
the process can be read in the IMP section.
More about MSC and stories from IMP
This article was based on two Exchange
lunchtime discussions, which included presentations
by Rick Davies. For more information on the Exchange programme (2000-2005)
go to www.healthcomms.org