When I facilitated a fieldwork exercise in Kawu Community of Bwari Area Council, Abuja, Nigeria’s capital city, a conflict emerged over the selection of participants for a scheduled Focus Group Discussion (FGD).
The FGD was intended to gather community insights on indigenous communication approaches for climate change mitigation and adaptation among rural farmers, with particular attention to farmers’ perspectives.
However, tensions flared when certain community youth and influential change agents objected to their exclusion, questioning why they were not chosen to participate in what they believed should be a community-wide discussion.
The situation threatened to derail the FGD exercise. Accusations of bias, marginalization, and disrespect for the youth began to emerge strongly, and trust in me and my research team started to erode. At this critical point, I deployed the EMW3 approach, which teaches that “where you are standing determines what you see” and calls for shifting perspectives.
Instead of defending the selection criteria immediately, I paused and engaged the concerned youth in dialogue.
Using the EMW3 approach, I invited the youth to see the process from my standpoint as a researcher. I explained to them that the FGD was not structured to exclude, but to gain depth from specific sub-groups—in this case, rural and experienced farmers who possess deeper understanding of indigenous communication approaches and local adaptation knowledge.
To build trust and understanding, my team and I asked the youth:
“If you were trying to understand the role of indigenous communication approaches in climate change mitigation and adaptation among rural farmers, would a general discussion with all community members reveal that clearly?”
This simple but powerful question helped the youth begin to shift their standpoint. I then switched perspectives, acknowledging the cultural and social standing of the youth, and explained that other tools—such as key informant interviews and community feedback sessions—were already planned to ensure their voices were included meaningfully.
The EMW3 approach defused the tension. The youth agreed to allow the FGD to proceed as designed, with the understanding that their perspectives would be sought through separate but equally valuable formats.
In the end, the research maintained its methodological integrity while honoring community dynamics and respecting cultural hierarchies.
This experience in Kawu Community demonstrated the power of EMW3 as more than just a communication tool. It became a practical, peacekeeping strategy.
Have you encountered such a challenge in the field? How did you handle it? Let’s discuss.
Audu Liberty Oseni,
Director, Centre for Development Communication