Social impact storytelling in Southeast Asia
An exploration of the support ecosystem.
Firetree Philanthropy engaged in a brief exploration of the ecosystem supporting ‘storytelling for social impact’ in 6 countries in Southeast Asia and Nepal.
The main purpose of this exploration was to learn and document how this space is currently structured, funded and supported.
This is a learning and sharing journey, not a robust academic study.
As narrative become instruments for participation and for negotiating civic space, we felt the need to engage in open conversations and deeper reflections on and within the support ecosystem.
Introduction
Over the last two decades, several countries in Southeast Asia have shown a consistent trend in the shrinking of civic space, defined as ranging from closed to repressed, to — at best — obstructed.
COVID-19 exacerbated inequalities and exposed failures, and has forcefully pushed the digital to the forefront of life and social impact work.
The square, the public sphere, the space has become increasingly digital, as much as physical — at times, even more so. The work of civil society happens in a continuum between the digital and the physical realm.
The forced digitalisation of all aspects of life (from education to smart/remote working, to informing, mobilising and organising communities) has also highlighted and further sharpened inequalities and divides within societies.
“Imagined communities” occupy “imagined geographies”
Parallel to the shrinking of the civic space, there also appears to be a fragmentation of the civic space, including the media civic space, articulated into segments, silos, echo chambers, islands, pockets, niches.
In the narrative arena, stories compete for attention and legitimacy, and, ultimately, for power.
Narratives are made of stories, and stories are not just words, images, sounds, signs. People make sense of the world with stories. Stories tell the world as it is, or as people perceive it, and allow us to imagine the world as it could be. Stories make sense and create meaning.
And they matter. What stories get told, by who; how, when and where they are accessible, in what languages, in what formats — all this matters.
Social impact storytelling as we see it
We use ‘storytelling’ as an umbrella term, embracing the production of stories intended for an audience in any format, and aimed at having a social impact — that is, producing and sharing information on issues affecting society at local, national or regional levels, highlighting dynamics around these issues, showcasing virtuous experiences of tackling problems, and telling the stories of the people working to solve these problems in various capacities, especially when they come from the communities affected.
We consider ‘storytellers’ to be any professional and non-professional individuals and organisations, media companies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society organisations (CSOs) engaged in storytelling work, in any format, with a focus on social impact.
We define the ‘support system’ as the complex of short and long-term strategies, policies and actions actively supporting storytellers in their work, both directly or indirectly, put in place by individuals, communities, private, public, national and international actors.
The focus
The mapping has focused on several ASEAN countries and Nepal. We have also included some actors based in Europe, the UK, Australia and the USA because of their significant interests and operations in the region.
While appreciating the many existing organisations and actions supporting the social impact storytelling ecosystem in vital, effective and innovative ways, we opted to focus on gaps and pain points hoping to shed some light on how and where the greatest impact could be achieved by existing or potential actors, including from philanthropy.
The methodology
Our approach focused on the qualitative dimension, and the result is not an academic piece.
Due to COVID-related restrictions, this research was conducted purely online. All resources examined and all conversations were held in English; we are aware of the limitations of this.
We conducted the exploration through desk-based research, stakeholders mapping and power analysis.
With the time and resources available, we chose a limited number of stakeholders to engage with; some of them were approached through referrals from Firetree’s wider networks.
We curated 30 conversations with stakeholders who play a significant role in the social impact storytelling space.
We started off in our exploration by assessing the field supporting social impact storytelling, to outline a brief and clearly partial overview of the models of funding and support that surfaced more often during both desk-based research and conversations; for each model we have heard pros and cons from both funders and from recipients.
We then did a similar analysis of the most common models of capacity building, highlighting their most salient features, together with examples and anecdotes from conversations.
This analysis contributed to the identification of the main gaps and pain points in the support ecosystem.
Gaps: what we heard.
The main gaps that we heard of in the support system all seem to stem from the lack of a systemic, coordinated and strategic approach. What emerged from the exploration is often a fragmented, rather than holistic approach, aiming at supporting storytelling on a specific activity and for a limited time, but ignoring the ecosystem as a whole, and the power dynamics at play. This gap also leads to ignoring the material conditions and infrastructures allowing storytelling to happen in a significant and relevant manner.
Pain points: what we heard.
▼(Un)Predictability of funding
“In traditional fundraising there are ‘donors’ and ‘recipients,’ and the donors decide who gets what. [This is] one of the biggest sources of dissatisfaction with current models, in which large funders target support according to their own particular priorities and interests. These interests change all the time, making funding completely unreliable, but they rarely include transforming the systems that have put them at the top of the social and economic tree.”
Social change and narrative change often take place over decades. In contrast, only a few progressive funders commit to long term support and strategies specifically supporting the storytelling ecosystem. Most of the other funds come in bits and pieces, and can be short-lived (or relatively so). The grants and assignments prevailing model also does not allow or ensure continued support in accessing the funds.
▼ Discriminatory access to funds. The first barrier to access is language. Almost the totality of application processes (grants, assignments, pitching, proposals, etc.) are in English; some are in the national language, but very few are in multiple local languages. The same goes with all documents and communications regarding the management and reporting of funds.
Announcement and publishing of grants also happens mostly online, so there may be issues with storytellers with limited data connection and knowledge on where to navigate to access information. The funding system is also currently designed to require a certain level of education in order to elaborate all materials required. It is not sufficient for storytellers to be good at their work — they also have to be good at writing narrative proposals, budget and financial reports.
Another very common way to access funds is through personal connections, discriminating those more distant to the centres of power and education, while also favouring those coming from privileged backgrounds. Considering that also access to (very expensive) technical equipment might be a challenge, the risk is that the storytelling support system as it is would fund only the already rich and powerful to tell their stories about the rest (majority) of the (peripheral) population.
▼Extractive model to access funds. The model to access funds and support is functioning with an extractive logic, with applicants having to spend huge amounts of time in activities like scouting for funds, pitching, writing proposals, preparing supporting documents, building relations with potential donors, etc.), with unpredictable and generally low success rates.
▼Siloed approaches with stakeholders in the ecosystem not understanding each other’s needs and challenges, or the consequences of certain choices on other stakeholders and on the ecosystem as a whole. This is mostly because there are not many occasions where different stakeholders can meet and dialogue in a safe space and without fear of consequences. When they do happen, these occasions are too rare and not at regular, predictable time intervals.
This means different stakeholders often do not necessarily perceive themselves as belonging to the same ecosystem.
▼Lack of synergies across sectors. Although of course no single stakeholder is expected to bring about changes in the whole ecosystem, there is the widespread idea that each stakeholder develops approaches and strategies without even acknowledging the system as a whole.
There is a lack of coordination among similar stakeholders — funders, for example, to avoid duplication and, more often, the widening of funding gaps (Firetree’s initiative to map the system in order to understand it, and do so reaching out to stakeholders in the system was always greeted with enthusiasm and appreciation, as something quite unusual).
NGOs and the media can also suffer from a lack of synergies: NGOs might actually have privileged access to communities affected by issues that could be of interest to the media, but there is no organic synergy between these sectors. What sometimes follows is unmet expectations, unrealised potential of the stories produced and products’ quality not at the best possible standards.
This has implications at many levels, from the micro to the macro, and it leads to an overall reduced impact of the ecosystem as a whole.
▼Lack of strategies, strategic approaches and national government policies. Please note there was no direct engagement with governments.
The lack of strategies can take many forms.
Funders’ approaches may be disproportionately focused on short term outputs and measurable outcomes (such as the production of stories on people affected by certain issue). Successful strategic approaches should focus rather on adopting long-term strategies aimed at building and strengthening local storytelling capacities, infrastructures and power — with stories being produced by the people affected by certain issues — and measuring long-term impact.
NGOs lacking strategic communication, social media strategies, strategies on how to respond to cyberattacks, red-tagging, wrong framings of their works, etc. Even NGOs with clear strategic plans and objectives may not have a specific strategy for communication, or might not incorporate storytelling and communication as key elements in their strategies.
Civil society lacks strategies on how to develop, communicate and achieve alternative futures, or on how to gain popular support through cultural production (including storytelling).
We then delved deeper into what were the main challenges experienced by funders in the space, as the lack of adequate financial resources emerged strongly as a key problematic area, and on possible courses of actions.
Possible roles of philanthropy
► Fund (more)
Given the strategic importance of storytelling and the challenges faced, philanthropy should consider increased funding of the ecosystem, always in line with the principle of doing no harm.
► Fund better
Adopting an ecosystem approach will ensure that the impact is greatest even for limited actions of support, especially if they go towards filling identified gaps.
Imbalances of power, biases, inequality, misrepresentation and under-representation should be openly acknowledged, in order to be more effective in the support to the ecosystem.
There should also be a process of reflection on how the design of the support mechanism deeply affects the impact of the support itself, and might hinder reach and representation.
► Fund strategies and strategic work
Philanthropy can favour long-term impact over short term outputs, by supporting concerted efforts to develop strategies. This would represent a turning point for key actors (especially from civil society) that may not otherwise have the resources to ever do so.
► Fund and share research
Fund and produce research, mappings and other thought material that is relevant for the intended audiences. Do so through time, to observe changes and contribute to fast decision-making processes, so that responses remain relevant even in a quickly evolving context.
► Win allies
Philanthropy can lobby the gatekeepers through interaction and sharing.
Traditionally, editors have been the gatekeepers, deciding what made the news, and what amount of time and space was devoted to each news.
Adapting this definition in the context of this research, in relation to storytelling for social impact and the media ecosystem as a whole, we may broadly define gatekeepers as anyone having the power to define and shape the field, and to legitimise the actors in it. Philanthropy actors may well fall into this category, as they have the power to establish and promote a narrative of storytelling and media as essential tools to preserve and enlarge civic space, and to significantly contribute to narrative changes, together with the power to decide what is “legitimate” storytelling for social impact, and who can be a storyteller for social impact.
Philanthropy can also advocate with other funders on trust-based models, on the mitigation of the identified problems of access to support, and on possible, practical ways to address the gaps in the storytelling support ecosystem.
► Expand the field and experiment
Shift the boundaries of what ‘storytelling’ (worth funding) is, also by supporting new media, alternative media, formats that may veer away from tradition, but that might reach the intended audiences more and better. Legitimise by supporting, and allowing also experimentation (and the possible failure that comes with it).
Expand also the geographical field, by focusing on new centres outside traditional seats of power. Support storytelling by and for the grassroots.
► Create and nurture space
Connect and convene across sectors consistently and through time, creating a safe space where different stakeholders can meet and share. Nurture this space in order for significant human relations to be established and become a significant, more equal network. Do so with inclusion and equity.
CONCLUSIONS
It matters what stories are being told, who tells them, how they are being shared, in what ways they impact and shape narratives.
This exploration has tried to offer a snapshot of the ecosystem supporting social impact storytelling in Southeast Asia today. It has been especially important for us to listen to different stakeholders — funders, storytellers themselves, civil society organisations, capacity building organisations. Our aim was to understand how things currently works, but we also wanted to investigate the full consequences of the structure and design of the system as a whole.
Despite the many limitations we have highlighted throughout, some key trends emerged from this research.
The scarcity of resources — financial, first of all, but also in terms of time and expertise — has often been quoted as one of the main reasons preventing social impact storytelling to reach its full potential. We also heard how the way resources are accessible is key in preventing or reinforcing barriers and echo chambers.
Another important issue that emerged was the need to invest in long-term, strategic work. Storytelling is meaningful per se, but it becomes an even more powerful agent of social change if it happens within an intentional, purposeful vision and strategy acknowledging complexity.
What seems to emerge forcefully is also the need for all stakeholders to engage in greater, wider, deeper conversations, as to better understand each other’s needs, and to elaborate strategies building on common interests and shared goals. Operating in an increasingly fragmented, shrinking civic space, trust becomes a vital resource to face present and future challenges.
You can download the full version of the exploration here.
We see this exploration as an act of learning and sharing, and we would love for it to be a ‘live’ piece, so please do feel free to reach out to us with examples, ideas or comments. Thank you!
