If it’s not broken, why fix it? is the phrase that runs through my mind when I think about the process of revamping the SARB survey. The SARB survey is a conceptually and methodologically well constructed instrument, why do we want to rethink something that is tired, tested and proved successful and useful?
While this is all true, if our views of reconciliation have indeed changed, then it’s not quite measuring what it set out to measure in the beginning. This is essentially what we are asking in the conceptualisation phase of this process – what does reconciliation mean today? The next step will be to ask: Is the SARB capturing this understanding of reconciliation, and if not, what we need to change, add or exclude from the survey as it stands.
In essence then we are building on the solid foundation that has already been created by the SARB, we are pruning its garden, revamping its kitchen and adding on a few new rooms to the SARB. So if we are building from what we already have, then it seems a good place to start this first entry into the series looking at how and why the SARB has been conceptualised as it has.
Stay tuned for more posts on #RethinkingSARB! Got comments? Share them with us on Twitter