back to resources pageReflect Global Survey

Contents
Executive Summary
Organisation of the Process
The Participants
The Facilitators
Training of Facilitators
Training of Trainers
Manuals/Materials
Other Comments

This is the second in a series of reports being produced by the International Reflect Circle, CIRAC, based on the systematisation of results from the Global Reflect Survey.  It provides a comprehensive overview of different aspects of Reflect practice, offering insights concerning:

We welcome your feedback on this and other CIRAC publications, please contact us at:  reflectaction@yahoo.co.uk

Introduction: This first attempt to undertake a global survey of organisations working with Reflect attracted responses from 137 organisations using the approach in 43 countries across Africa, Asia, the Americas and Europe.  The results have been systematised into a series of 50 graphs and pie charts below.  We have added an analysis after each of these, drawing on wider documentation (e.g. evaluations of Reflect, reports) and experience, to highlight significant learning or insights.  We have also included quotes from those sections of the survey that allowed for more descriptive responses.

The original survey form was distributed in English, French, Spanish and Portuguese both electronically and through inserts in the different language editions of the magazine Education Action.  Given that the International Reflect Circle (CIRAC) has links to 350 organisations using Reflect in 61 countries, the response rate among those organisations working with Reflect can be estimated as over a third –higher than what is usually anticipated for such a survey. However, it is important to note that there are certainly many other organisations using Reflect which were not reached by this survey.  The number of Reflect circles run by each organisation, which varies from just 1 circle to 249 circles and averages at about 18 circles per organisation.

This provides us with a comprehensive overview of Reflect programmes as they are in 2001, 5 years on from the completion of the original action research pilot programmes (see Action Research report on the Reflect pilots – published by ODA / DFID Education paper 17, 1996).  We will also use this as a baseline, repeating the survey in 3 or 5 years from now in order to track changes.

There are clearly some areas that the survey has not covered, in part because a survey would not be the best way to gain reliable information on them - such as the costs of the process in different contexts or the outcomes.  Our intention was to map out some of the core ingredients or characteristics of the process.  To do so we tried to use questions that would not have “right or wrong” answers and that would not encourage distortion or exaggeration.  This was necessary, as verification of the accuracy of responses is impossible for this type of survey.  We have highlighted in the analysis of the results, those areas where we feel some distortion may have occurred (e.g. in reporting drop out rates).

There are always dangers in trying to analyse consolidated results, as there is a tendency to generalise – to focus on the average rather than highlighting the unusual or diverse.  This is a particular danger in the context of an approach like Reflect that inherently emphasises its capacity to adapt to different contexts in different ways.  In the analysis we have sought to capture this diversity as much as possible whilst also reflecting on common executive summarytrends.

 

back to the top