This part of the report informs about the project’s implementation phase and what have been the strengths and weaknesses of the employment process. In the sections below you will be informed by our team what problems arose and what solutions we have found and also what have been the positive aspects in relation to the project design. Also, you will be able to find out how our international team worked together across sectors and how we enabled the voice of target and beneficiary groups to influence and enhance the project.
- Project started in January 2017 and had a duration of 24 months, ending in December 2018.
- The consortium included two higher education institutions: Manchester Metropolitan University from UK and Turku University of Applied Sciences from Finland and three NGOs: CESIE from Italy, Kopin from Malta and WEBIN from Serbia.
- The development of each intellectual output started with a partner meeting, during which each responsible partner (Work Package Lead) presented the structure and contents of the output and the support needed by the consortium. Meetings served also as an opportunity to discuss the work performed by the team so far and to agree on the work which still needs to be done.
- Each training kit that has been developed has been reviewed and evaluated by the Quality Assurance and Monitoring Committee (QAMC). QAMC is a group of potential users (target audience) of the materials and resources developed in the framework of the PAPYRUS Project. QAMC consists of representatives from each of the partner countries which provided feedback and opinions about the final product. QAMC members had performed their duties pro bono.
- Multiplier Events have been organised in each country to disseminate the results of the project and invite potential users to provide feedback and share their opinions regarding the materials and resources.
- Internal evaluation has been conducted during the second year of the project and has been the starting point for the creation of the Methodology Learning Report.
Timeline of the project
How did it work? Comments and evaluation from the partners
The analysis of the process of the project development has been conducted through internal evaluation during which questionnaires have been utilised as a tool to gather feedback. All project partners have been requested to evaluate the process of development of each intellectual output and activity and reflect on strengths and challenges regarding project work. The main points
highlighted by the partners have been included in the following SWOT matrix and then further elaborated in order to make it easier for the reader to review them.
Below you will find a short elaboration on the points highlighted in the SWOT matrix presented above. The short paragraphs are organised keeping in mind the main processes and results of the project, but also internal and organisational dynamics.
The topics at the core of the toolkits are quite broad and their lack of common structure makes the training kits look quite heterogeneous on the PAPYRUS platform. However, this reflects the willingness of the consortium to further expand their work and look for best ways how to improve and test the materials.
The main obstacle in the development process of the intellectual outputs has been the involvement of the Quality Assurance and Monitoring Committee (QAMC). The major challenge of the process was linked to the recruitment of the members of the QAMC and their availability to review the materials developed by the project team and provide feedback on them. The materials developed are quite detailed and lengthy and most of the people involved did not have time to properly analyse them. Moreover, materials have been developed in English, which is not the mother tongue of most of the people consulted, thus making it difficult for them to review them in detail.
These main challenges have been overcome by the partners by allowing some flexibility in the process of the resources evaluation: avoiding strict deadlines, asking for reviews of some specific modules rather than for the whole training kit, combining review and other activities.
Overall, the process has been positive for the project, as the active involvement of the target audience/stakeholders in the evaluation has generated interest and enthusiasm about the project and resources developed. Moreover, having the ‘end users’ involved ensures that the materials are ‘user friendly’, reflect the needs of the target group and are suitable for the specific needs of this group.
The dissemination process of the project results has been successful overall. Partners had the ability to disseminate and network with the stakeholders, they have utilised already existing networks and also created new ones. Dissemination has been performed on all levels (internal, local, regional, national, international/European) and utilising various methods (paper based activities, internet based activities, social media channels, face-to-face meetings).
Multiplier Events have proven to be a very successful dissemination method and platform for engagement. Partners have managed to attract relevant stakeholders and increase projects’ visibility and gain interest in the project. In addition, some of the events have been utilised to collect feedback regarding the training materials. Each partner has taken into consideration specific needs of the country in relation to the youth work with refugees and asylum seekers in the preparation of the event.
The diversity within the consortium (both in terms of organisations and in terms of migratory situation within the countries) has proven to be positive for the project. The partners have been flexible in adjusting the topics and the work to the specific situations, contributing to the creation of materials that can be easily adapted to the different contexts.
The communication within the partners has been effective, efficient, frequent and respectful. Partners utilised various tools to ensure the effective communication: transnational meetings (faceto-face communication), e-mails, Skype, FaceTime/Viber etc. (virtual communication). Regularly held transnational meetings have been utilised as a platform for sharing ideas, having discussions related to the development of the intellectual outputs but also project management and coordination issues and coming to the common agreement on certain matters.
Although there have been some changes in the staff involved in each organisation, the partners have taken the challenges posed in a positive way. It has been beneficial because it provided a fresh outlook, and for a previous ‘outsider’ to have a critical standpoint on the materials being produced. However, changes in roles have been challenging predominantly with timeframes, as there is the need for ‘catch-up’ time. Nevertheless, all partners have been committed, supportive of each other and shown professionalism. Ideas have been shared openly and everyone has been treated with respect. Tasks and responsibilities have been distributed equally amongst the partners on the basis of their expert knowledge and practical experience.
Tips & Tricks - General reflections
- The research process behind the development of the outputs has been innovative. Taking inspiration from practice has helped to develop materials that are easy to use and adapt to different contexts.
- The very nature of the topic in the current political situation of Europe has been quite a challenge. Migrant flows are rapidly changing and the role of youth workers in this context is evolving and assuming increasing importance. Thus, the planned project activities can be affected by the different legislative context as well as wider social and political factors. These factors underline the importance of projects as such, but also open roads for further development of project activities.
- Transnational meetings have been very important to shape the final outcome of the project and all related details. Such efficiency has also reflected in the external communication, with a number of promotional activities and networking meetings being organised in each country. Partners had the ability to disseminate and network with the stakeholders.
- In order to ensure that the project tasks are fulfilled at its best, the partners should have a certain degree of flexibility in their work. They should be ready to adapt to changes in the staff, methodology and timeline of the activities.