THE TRAINING OF PERUVIAN STAFF, THEIR SELECTION AND NUMBERS

Staff Training and Motivation

In formulating its policy for training of national staff, the Project began with the notion that all-round farmer trainers should be generated. Each trainer should be able to determine training needs, formulate a course proposal, develop this into a series of audio-visual programmes, and actually use them in a farmer training situation.

It was also agreed that the production of video-programmes should not follow the normal procedures of film-making, in which every member of the production crew has his or her specialisation as a scriptwriter, cameraman, soundman, editor, or whatever. Instead, the Project staff would be trained so that each of. them could carry out any or all of the functions, from prior research, to scripting, field recording, editing, and use of the programmes with farmers.

This approach has been dubbed that of "non-specialization", and it has been applied in all the projects using video for rural development with which FAO has been associated. It is probably true that non-specialization does not give the visual and audio quality that would be achieved using production teams of specialists, but more important than such quality is the efficiency and speed of production gained by halting people who can turn their hand to any part of the production process.

The Project staff consider that this approach, coupled with the use of sub-professional equipment, leads to an "artisanal" level of production that is in tune with the economic necessities of the country and the needs of the rural population.

Another principle agreed from the start was that the training courses should be based on the approach of "learning while doing". Thus, the trainees would begin working with video from the first day of the course, and in general, the mornings would be devoted to theoretical matters and the afternoons to practical work.

The first course began in late 1975, with 27 trainees, and lasted 7 months. It did not turn out well because, despite the declared emphasis on "learning while doing", it contained far too much theory. In effect, it was over-ambitious in trying to provide a theoretical and conceptual framework for the production and use of audio-visual training means in rural areas of Peru, as well as providing the basic technical knowledge required. It covered such subjects as semiotics, rural sociology, and linguistics, in addition to the more directly relevant fields of training methodology, pedagogical theory, communication, and technical fields such as lighting, basic electrics and electronics, etc.

The course turned into something of a fiasco; its theoretical and idealogical parts led to rambling and sterile discussions which were an intellectual orgy for some university graduates, and at the same time, deeply frustrating for the more practically minded; for all the trainees, it was daunting in the sheer quantity of the material covered, in its duration, and in the intensity of the work schedule.

The normal working hours forseen for the course were from 08.30 hours to 19.00 hours, with appropriate breaks during the day, but there was a deliberate strategy to make people work longer hours. An evening practical session was scheduled each day to cover some specific technical field, and of course, the enthusiastic trainees stayed on for it, often working until midnight or beyond.

Quite apart from learning a great deal in those long days, there were secondary benefits for the Project. The first was that the trainees developed a strong work ethic and a disregard for normal working hours, a prerequisite once in the field because farmers might want courses at any time from dawn to late night. Secondly, these long hours had the effect of introducing a natural selection process: trainees who were not sufficiently motivated or interested would drop out in the first week or so because they were unwilling to accept the work rhythm of the Project.

It is worth commenting on that work rhythm. One of the most remarkable things about the Project has always been the dedication and hard work of its staff. This may result, in part, from the influence of the FAO International Project Director: an independent observer once wrote that he had "an uncanny gift for motivating people". This is certainly true, but it should also be mentioned that the Peruvian who was the National Project Director for the first 10 years of the Project's life was also a truly remarkable person and a natural leader.

But perhaps the fact that the staff were pioneering a new field, and that there was a lot of opposition to what they were trying to do, also helped to create a rare degree of staff unity and enthusiasm, as well as total dedication to the work. They spend long periods living in primitive rural areas, usually apart from their families; they often put in days of 12-14 hours, and show a unique commitment to their work with peasant communities, despite their very low pay.

The courses that followed that first, and rather unsatisfactory one, have been much more practical in their orientation, and the theoretical subject-matter covered has been more directly related to the farmer training methodology developed by the Project. A training manual was also produced by the Project as an aid to standardizing the course material for the future.

Over the years, the courses have been shortened to the point where it is now considered that 3 months of basic training are sufficient. However, these three months are followed by a period of up to nine months during which the new staff work under the close supervision of more experienced people. During this period, they are producing video programmes for farmer training, but it requires a total of about one year of training and working under supervision before the average new recruit has acquired all the skills required. Of course, we are not referring here only to the skills needed to produce video programmes that are satisfactory from the visual and audio viewpoint: they must be satisfactory too as training programmes for farmers, and this implies a proper structuring and presentation of the information in the programme. Hence the long period of apprenticeship before producers are considered fully fledged.

During certain periods of the Project's life, there has also been the need to train people who will be the users of the video playback units and tapes with the farming community. Such training goes well beyond the mere handling of the equipment: it also covers an insight into the whole methodology developed by the Project in the context of agricultural and rural development in Peru, and provides guidance on how to make best use of it, how to conduct the discussion period and practical work that form part of the methodology, and so on. Theme courses vary in duration from about 2 to 6 weeks according to the needs and background of the trainees. Over 200 people have been trained in this aspect of the work.

Staff Selection

The Project staff were drawn from two basic sources. Some of them already worked for the public sector and were transferred to the Project, whereas others were recruited especially. In both cases, none of the people had any experience of farmer training or the use of video, though a few had agricultural backgrounds. The Project had no say in the selection of those assigned to it, but for the new recruits, university graduates were in the majority. Most of them had degrees in some aspect of the social sciences, but this was not a formal requirement. Above all, those responsible for the selection were looking for young people with evident interest in the type of work, and with the sort of social opinions that would make them happy to work with the underprivileged. But there were no hard and fast rules and one of the best audio-visual trainers was an ex-driver from the Project.

It is a fact that the Project has never been able to develop a satisfactory selection process for its staff, especially bearing in mind the need for people with an understanding of peasant values, perceptions, language, and culture. A logical solution, which has been suggested on more than one occasion during the Project's life, would be to train farmers and send them back to work among their peers. But this has been possible in very few cases; in fact only 6 farmers have become qualified producers and users of video programmes; and among the 200 people trained in the use only of the methodology, 14 were farmers. One reason for the inability to recruit farmers is that there are many unemployed graduates who have priority.

Staff Resources

Since the Project began, it has trained about 150 people as video producers and users -- "Pedagogos Audiovisuales". Graduates of earlier courses have been the trainers for all course" subsequent to the first. This strong tendency towards "nationalising" the Project as soon as possible has always been a strong point in the Project's favour. It has had a number of beneficial effects, especially in terms of morale.

But just as important is that it has been a factor in helping to retain trained staff in the Project, for FAO follows a deliberate policy of using them as consultants in other countries. The extra revenue from being a consultant for a few weeks has been a considerable element in balancing personal budgets and fleshing out the pitifully low salaries paid in the Peruvian public sector. (More detail on salary levels will be found in the section of this document on the Institutional and Financial Factors). Furthermore, there can be no doubt that these Peruvian consultants, most of them young, have been very well received in other countries: as people from another developing country, they have enjoyed high credibility as promoters of, and trainers in, a video-based methodology that they themselves have fully mastered.

Despite the inducements and the generally high morale in the Project, however, there has been a fairly high turnover of staff and today only 6 of the original 27 trained in that first course remain.

The staffing levels since 1976 have been as follows:

It is interesting to note the slow increase over the years in the Auxiliary Staff, that is to say administrators, secretaries, drivers, guards, and cleaners. Unfortunately, these add to the overall cost of the Project and therefore reflect on the ultimate coats in the field, but it is probably impossible to expect that, in a Third World country today, there will not be pressure to provide employment, whether the jobs filled are strictly necessary or not.