Adrian Best, Lucy Jan, Hisham Dios and Ana Birsan discuss the experience:
Your ARP explores the Central Bank of Colombia and the economics of care and national accounting. What drew you to this topic?
We were all drawn to the topic for different reasons. First, there is the care aspect which interested Hisham because he had never had the opportunity to research it and thought he would learn a lot from it. For Lucy, it was the occasion to work more in depth on a topic she had already encountered during her bachelor and she was familiar with. Ana Maria was attracted by the possibility of working on a topic at the crossroads of social reproduction, unpaid labour and broader issues of welfare and economics. Furthermore, we all had heard about the social impact of decreasing fertility rates – which motivated the Central Bank to propose this topic – and this research allowed us to better grasp the concrete consequences of this phenomenon.
Then, there is the specific case study which caught Adrian and Lucy’s attention because they have personal ties to the country – Adrian is Colombian himself and Lucy’s partner is from the capital, Bogota. For Hisham and Ana Maria, this was an opportunity to learn about a country they did not know very well.
Finally, this topic goes beyond our usual areas of studies and what is covered in most of our coursework and we saw this choice as an opportunity to broaden our perspectives and challenge ourselves.
How was your experience preparing for the project work?
We did not necessarily prepare for the project but rather directly jumped in. We met multiple times to talk about the work ahead and understand each other’s expectations, but we very quickly had to get to work. While we did not start interviewing experts before the second semester, the time we spent reading, familiarising ourselves with the topic, and drafting our research questions and methodology is an integral part of the overall project. These first steps were key in allowing us to learn how to collaborate and move in the right direction.
How did you go about the logistics and what was the support you received in general and from your?
We managed to very quickly organise ourselves and divide tasks to be as effective as possible. One key logistical aspect we implemented was the creation of a literature review table in a shared Google Sheets. We used this document to write down any information we gathered from readings and keep it categorised by themes, which made the writing process easier. We also worked with a shared drive on which we had multiple documents with relevant information about the project, consent forms for our informants and interview questions.
While we decided to meet as a team weekly to check up on the work and know each other more personally, we also had a few online meetings with Rémi Viné, Nikhil Ray (another Faculty Lead), and our partner at the Central Bank. These always started with us quickly presenting where our research was and ended with clear feedback on our work and how to move forward. We mostly benefited from guidance on managing the scope of our research and some methodological advice to connect with expert informants.
Overall, on both the Institute and the Central Bank sides, we received excellent support. We were collaborating with professionals who were accessible by email, quick to respond to our questions and truly interested in the project. This made the communication and collaboration as smooth as possible.
You focused on the Central Bank of Colombia as your case study. Could you explain your decision and how this specific case study helped illustrate your research ?
We would not necessarily qualify the Central Bank of Colombia as our case study. Rather, it was a key reference point when defining the scope of our research and drafting our recommendations, as these were addressed to the Central Bank’s team. When drafting our main takeaways and the final report, we tried to keep in mind what would be relevant to the Bank, how to frame our findings to make sense to them and what practical policy advice would be useful to this specific audience.
That being said, we quickly opted in favor of a comparative analysis focused on the similarities and differences between Colombia and three case studies – Chile, Uruguay, and South Korea. This approach allowed us to see what solutions could – or could not – work in the specific Colombian context and lead to the formulation of recommendations specifically tailored to the needs of the Central Bank.
What were some key conclusions you drew from this experience and how does it support your overall learning experience in the MINT programme?
The long-term and large-scale group work aspect was a first for both Hisham and Adrian who learnt a lot on how to collaborate with colleagues with different approaches and backgrounds. They see this experience and its outcomes as very valuable for their future careers.
In another dimension, Lucy, Ana Maria and Adrian appreciated the more concrete approach to research the ARP offers. The project was an opportunity for them to address real-world issues and take concepts and theories outside of the classroom to provide useful and clear recommendations.
We can also mention some smaller takeaways such as improving our academic writing skills, experimenting with a methodology that was new to some or expanding our network by communicating with expert informants. All of these aspects make the ARP valuable to the MINT programme.
The ARP encourages team work. How did you approach working collectively?
This might be the hardest part of the ARP: we all have different backgrounds, schedules and approaches to work. However, we were fortunate enough to have a cohesive group in which everyone was genuinely involved in the project. Our weekly meetings helped us to structure our work and know each other on a more personal level. This made it easier to collaborate and communicate in a respectful manner. It further allowed us to work individually but keep our overall work consistent.
We also established a clear task division based on our individual interests – we each picked a case study to focus on during the research period and split the literature review work based on preferences. Despite this division in writing, we all edited each other’s work, making the final report coherent and allowing us all to have a complete understanding of our research.
Finally, one of us made use of the wellbeing services to learn how to better communicate their frustrations – even with a great team, there can be some moments where things are not perfectly clear – and give feedback while being respectful. Our collaboration also worked thanks to this service and knowing that we were not alone in the journey!
Could you share with us a fun or important moment that occurred during this experience?
We had some social gatherings and dinners that were fun and that we believe are essential to make this type of project work in the long run.
On a more professional note, the most important moment might have been when we presented our research at the Feminist Feast colloquium organised by GISA’s Feminist Collective. This was the first time we could officially share our results with external people and discuss them with others. While we hope the audience learnt from our speech, this event definitely helped us streamline our report, reorganise the order of our recommendations and polish our final presentation for the partner. Taking the ARP outside of the strict “partner organisation - faculty lead - student team” triad gave more sense to our research and we would do it again if another opportunity arose.
