Mapping is one of the main activities of the project, an instrument for our mission, relevant and necessary but not the most important part.
What we are expected to do over the next year: Internal and external mapping, do some “research” (analysis) with the data, then plan of action & position paper/document
Bottom-up process, listen to what the people are doing and what they expect from us. What do we want? Identify Jesuit and Ignatian institutions, not just social centres, but also parishes, universities, concrete Jesuits and lay people that are active and that have experience and interest in advocacy. NO need to be exhaustive. We should try to contact the key people, institutions, as many as possible – these will be the (potential) members of our network. We are starting a relationship with the people through the mapping, their participation in the network starts there. Quality is much more important than quantity. Second aim of mapping: collect their experiences, strengths, interests on advocacy. Also, what do they expect want, need from the network regarding international advocacy. Integrate the perspective of the poor, collect the poor, stories, need, hopes of the poor.
Our target group: persons and institutions – active at provincial and local level. First, we have to reach them. (1) Existing mappings (2) questionnaire (3) interviewing people.
(1) Asia-Pacific has already done a complete mapping of the social apostolate – don’t go again to the same people! Migration: CPAL, USA, Europe; Ecology: CPAL – maybe there are more? Leader with Core Group members should decide how to use them.
(2) Questionnaire: identify institutions/persons, maybe not getting detailed information, but general information, to be done online. Same questionnaire for all networks, with specific section for each network. Example: online questionnaire. Problem: how to send it out? (A) Through social apostolate coordinators, using the “natural”, official way of Society of Jesus. From Patxi to Social Apostolate Coordinator to Social Apostolate Delegate who knows the local centres. Not possible everywhere. (B) Go through other channels – Core Group members may know people, SJES will help, www.jesuitsocialapostolate.org.
(3) Indentify key persona and institutions and get contact with them. In most cases, via Skype or telephone, but face-to-face would be even better. Identified by Core Group members, through answers to questionnaire, SJES, others. Get quality information, in-depth, much deeper than questionnaire. Select them according to criteria: global perspective, interest/capacity/experience, relevant number but not exhaustive (20-50). Each Core Group member 5-10 interviews in two months. Important to think how to do these interviews – agree on same questions.
Collect information through online questionnaire, information available immediately, qualitative information available from interviews. Then analyse and get conclusions => internal document (there is some money to do this). Internal mapping document should be approved at Specific Workshop. Important to send it to all the members and participants as feedback for their contribution. The participants are the potential members of our networks, so it’s important to keep communication flowing.
Expected outcomes: Document of global internal mapping, including: key institutions and persons, stories of grassroots people, diagnosis of strengths of the institutions, conclusions of interests, capacities of institutions. DOCUMENT.
Key allies, main targets and topics in the agenda – top-down process. Who is doing what on the global level. Identify key allies – church and civil society institutions at global level engaged in each of the issues. Same can be done at regional level. What is their agenda, how do they expect the issue will move over the next few years. Then identify the most relevant international institutions on the issue. And identify main topics on international political agenda. Again, NO need to be exhaustive, but need to find the key ones. Should be useful information for our planning.
Steps involved: (1) Information coming from the questionnaire (global); (2) information collected by leader & core group with support of SJES; same can be done on regional level. Expected outcomes: document with information of global key allies, international institutions (US, World bank) active in the issue, (one more).
Analysis, reflection, discernment. Strengths (internal) and opportunities (external).
Tomorrow, Patxi will tell us more about the planning for the next years including: Mission, Vision, Objectives, and the position paper coming out of this.
Draft of internal/external mapping by end of February 2012. Sending letters Plan A and Plan B, collect information as it comes in, do some interviews starting now. Then Draft mapping report. Final document of mapping and planning in November 2012 (Leaders’ meeting).
Jim Hug: special attention to needs of people in need. There is a great deal of activity in ecology where there is no attention paid to poor people, but CIDSE brings it up again and again. Second consideration: If we were to do an external mapping in ecology, it’s way too much information – what we usually look for the political opportunities to do something. We are missing Durham and Rio+20. Specific opportunities in the political process would help us to narrow the mapping to what is relevant.
Luis Arancibia: Mapping will be easier once we focus on a particular issue, we’ll get lost if we try to go into details. If you have decided that Climate Change is YOUR topic, then you can do a more focussed mapping.
David Hollenbach: Our group is still trying to figure out our focus, but on the other hand we need to do a mapping to know what our distinct contribution could be. I hope we’ll not be asked to produce a result before we are ready to.
Julie Edwards: We haven’t had the opportunity to own our vision statement, we need to go back to basics, and only after that we can look at key areas, and then move on to mapping. It’s so important to get the fundamentals right.
MK George: We know about internal mapping, but what are the criteria in limiting the key allies you are talking about?
Denis Kim: Each network has a different level of development. We need the mapping of the sending countries in Asia-Pacific, there are some more elements in our mapping on migration.
Muhigirwa Ferdinand: Patxi said yesterday that “the resources are in this room”. Maybe we could already start the internal mapping here in Loyola. In some Core Groups, that may be an option. We can then broaden information that we can gather here. May help us to see how things are moving.
Luis Arancibia: Yes, networks are at different levels, that’s not a problem at all. The calendar is only for reference, but we should be flexible. The idea of these days is to try to focus a little bit, e.g. by collecting ideas as Ferdinand is saying. Tentative approach, with the information we already have. After the mapping, confirmation or change. We are not making any final decisions here, after the mapping, we’ll have more information.
Solomon: One thing to consider first is to make GIAN known in the Society of Jesus. Raise awareness before we enter into the mapping. Through the mapping, they will find out more. How are we going to do the “PR”? Meetings we should take advantage of? Core Groups already talking to people, centres.
Rafael Moreno: In our April meeting, we said how important the introductory letter to the delegates. Maybe in this letter, we can explain to the delegates what Solomon has said.
Luis Arancibia: There are two letters, one for the coordinators and one for the delegates. Draft exists already.
Patxi Alvarez: It’s important that people in the Society know that this is going on. So at the first meeting of delegates this year, the one in the USA, I spoke about this. Next week meeting of CPAL, then Asia-Pacific, then Africa, then in October in India. In Europe, they already know (through migration meeting in March). It’s not just by letter but also by direct face-to- face communication.
Julian Filochowski: Yes, Patxi’s letter includes the explanation. It’s an iterative process, more people will get on board when they find out about us and will want to join in – that’s fine. I don’t want us to into a dead end. The internal mapping implies looking for membership, but what kind of membership do we envision? Do they have a right to join? Are we inclusive, or excluding and exclusive? Those who are not Jesuit works/institutions? Mapping has a supposition, so has this been decided or when will it be decided.
Luis Arancibia: Tomorrow and the day after, we will have a first reflection on that point. Each network should maybe have different levels of engagement. Leader + Core Group (appointed by someone with decision-making power in the Society). They need to find out what the other levels of participation are. The Social Coordinators will also have to say something about it.
Walter Fernandes: There are two types of information. Need to find ways to go beyond the social apostolate. In South Asia, information about GIAN has been minimal, we need to find ways to spread this information. Socius: not enough information. We need more support, not just financial but human. We need allies to deal with the issues, they are enormous. Alliance of Jesuits and non-Jesuits. Have to find a way to go beyond social field and beyond the Jesuits.
Luis Arancibia: Yes, with this mapping, we should be getting in touch with parishes, universities – absolutely intersectoral.
Luis Muñoz: This mapping process will entail gathering a lot of information. At what point should we have one tool (website, database) to access this information so that the networks can all use the same tool, so that we have easy access and have a sort of formalised process for each network.
Rafael Moreno: One of the reasons for Plan A was to avoid that we sent the questionnaire to the same institution. For CPAL, I think it will be necessary to get together and see how we will go about this with Plan B.
Luis Arancibia: I suggest you talk to the Social Apostolate Coordinators, those who are present here. I know all the coordinators want to support this. This is our opportunity to clarify how to avoid overlapping.
Trevor Miranda: Interviews: is there any format how to do it.
Luis Arancibia: I suggest to do that in the Core Group, SJES may support you.
Xavier Jeyaraj: Fill in questionnaire online will not be possible in many of our centres, so my plan is to print out the questionnaire and ask the people to send back. I can devise my own method of collecting the information without following exactly your suggestions. Mapping in South Asia is already done since there is a catalogue of the Social Centres that are sorted by issues, e.g. for migration. During our Assistancy meeting in October we will be able to gather the information, face-to-face contact is much easier than email. No difficulty doing it, procedure of mapping and information gathers in is okay.
David Hollenbach: Scope of this planning process… is this a substitute for a number of other initiatives in the social apostolate? There may be peace & human rights issues that are global and touch us all, but there are others that are just local, and it’s inappropriate for the rest of the world to engage in that. It’s linked but it’s not a substitute? It sounds like a re-organisation of the social apostolate worldwide – but it’s not like that?
Luis Arancibia: We just want a mapping for international advocacy.
Tom Greene: I’m in favour of re-organisation… In terms of not duplicating work – there is a lack of clarity that could be problematic. Who comes the questionnaire from – Core group members sending and Social Apostolate coordinators sending?
Luis Arancibia: If coordinators says it’s important to participate, but they are not the responsible. There is a risk of duplicating but it can be managed.
Rafael Moreno: I think that this could go into the introductory letter, who is responsible for each network (“if you have any questions…”).
For Vision statements and strategies, refer to individual Networks’ page: