Using a Behavior Change Model To Fight the “Field of Dreams Syndrome”

At the USAID Microenterprise Development Office Breakfast Seminar #54: Seeds of Change, the presenters from Abt Associates offered a compelling session on using a behavior change (BC) methodology to strengthen agriculture value chains. Abt’ers Gael O’Sullivan and Stephen Rahaim bring years of BC experience, especially in the health sector, to this relatively new USAID-supported approach to agriculture development.

Wade Channell, USAID/EGAT opened the presentation with a great observation: all too often, development practitioners parachute into a situation with the “Field of Dreams syndrome.” In other words, experts feel like “if they build it, people will come.” But, as any seasoned development veteran can tell you, it just doesn’t work that way. Even if your idea is great and you invest in education, awareness and training, it usually isn’t enough to change people’s behavior. There are too many barriers to change, both cultural and technical and at the micro and macro levels.

That’s where Gael and Stephen come in with their BC model, called AgBC in this context because of the agriculture focus. They’ve defined AgBC, which is an exceedingly inter-disciplinary framework, as a “systematic approach to addressing the dynamics underlying the adoption of behaviors that promote sustainable agriculture development.” The project cycle they presented for a basic AgBC project will look pretty familiar to most people (with a few critical exceptions that set AgBC apart in my eyes):

  1. Situation Analysis—SWOT + a value chain analysis that looks not only at the nodes, but the links between them
  2. Audience Segmentation—a step informed by the marketing field that requires looking beyond demographics to psychographics
  3. Planning the Creative Approach—a data-driven process that works to set discrete and achievable behavior objectives
  4. Develop, Pre-test and Revise—the beta phase that goes well beyond your average stakeholder workshop
  5. Implementation—a step that everyone should recognize
  6. M&E—a step that really isn’t a “step” as M&E should be iterative, or, as Stephen put it, “sprinkled throughout” the project

With my recent but somewhat limited personal experience with value chain development, there were several key points of the AgBC methodology that caught my attention. First was the use of the value chain as a way to begin the segmentation process, but beyond that, the importance of augmenting the segment profiles through psychographic analysis to get a holistic picture of underlying motivations and barriers to change. Those details can then be incorporated into the model to prevent relying on assumptions or falling into the “if you build it, they will come” trap. Pre-testing can also help implementers avoid that insular mindset, but it will only work if people aren’t afraid to change things that didn’t work during testing. It’s a bit of practicing what you preach for behavior change professionals.

The last three thoughts, in no particular order, that really stayed with me were: 1) effective projects require a mix of activities, channels and tools; 2) key messages shouldn’t only be pushed via outbound communications, instead the conversation needs to be two-way; and 3) throughout implementation, there needs to be a focus on capacity building for the next iteration.

Photo of Breakfast Seminar #54: Seeds of ChangeAfter that, Gael gave a brief review of some projects where AgBC is being implemented, ranging from Avian flu prevention in Lao PDR to eradication of a tomato plant disease in Mali. What it all seemed to boil down to is that you have to find a change champion with a position of influence, be they poultry market customers in Laos or village chiefs in Mali. This struck me as a reaffirming echo of a key message from last month’s Breakfast Seminar where Santiago Sedaca from Carana talked about the importance of having champions in the Lead Firm model.

Just as he opened the presentation, Wade came back and offered a poignant closing thought: What are the funding implications of the behavior change model?