From Latin America with Data: A New Fieldwork Model

Authors: Michael Rivera (USA), Gustavo Samudio (Panama)

In late 2021, the leadership of the Global Leaders Institute (GLI), an executive training program for arts professionals, faced a critical decision about the future of its flagship fieldwork program. For years, the program’s capstone was an intensive, in-person international engagement. The COVID-19 pandemic had rendered this model impossible, forcing the institute to adapt. A compelling report had just landed on their desks from two GLI fellows, Michael Rivera and Gustavo Samudio. Prevented from travelling, they had instead designed and successfully executed a multi-week, multi-organisational virtual seminar on program evaluation for arts leaders across Latin America. The pilot’s success was undeniable, but it presented GLI with a strategic dilemma. Should they view this digital pivot as a temporary fix, or was it a blueprint for a more scalable, accessible, and modern fieldwork model for a post-pandemic world?

BACKGROUND

The Global Leaders Institute (GLI) provides executive education to a curated cohort of leaders in the music and social change sector. A central component of its value proposition has always been the fieldwork assignment, a capstone experience designed to synthesise learning through practical application. The traditional model involved sending fellows, individually or in pairs, to one of GLI’s partner organisations around the world for an intensive, ten-day, on-site engagement. This high-touch, immersive model was prestigious and transformative for both the fellows and the host organisations. However, it was also resource-intensive, inherently limited in scale, and, as the 2020 global lockdown proved, highly vulnerable to external disruptions.

A NEW MODEL EMERGES: THE VIRTUAL SEMINAR

Faced with travel restrictions, GLI fellows Michael Rivera and Gustavo Samudio identified a critical gap in the Latin American arts sector: a lack of accessible, Spanish-language professional development in program evaluation. Proposing a creative alternative to the traditional fieldwork model, they designed a five-session virtual seminar, Introducción a las Herramientas de Evaluación para Proyectos Socio-Musicales en Latinoamérica.

This new model’s value proposition was to deliver targeted, expert knowledge to a cohort of organisations simultaneously, creating both a learning environment and a regional network. The operational delivery was lean and efficient, using Zoom for live sessions and Google Forms for data collection. The curriculum was designed to be foundational, covering topics from logic models to survey design and ethical considerations. The target market—leaders of socio-musical projects in Latin America—was reached through GLI’s existing network, with registration capped at 15 organisations to ensure a high-quality, interactive experience. The pilot was a clear proof of concept; post-seminar surveys showed a significant increase in participants’ self-reported comfort and knowledge in creating evaluation plans for their own organisations, and qualitative feedback praised the collaborative, cross-organisational format.

STRATEGIC CHALLENGE

The success of Rivera and Samudio’s pilot program forced GLI’s leadership to re-evaluate the core assumptions of its fieldwork model. The traditional, in-person model was central to the GLI brand, offering unparalleled depth and cultural immersion. Yet, its exclusivity and high cost were inherent limitations. The new digital model, by contrast, was cost-effective, highly scalable, and addressed a wider audience with specific, targeted needs. It also offered a solution for fellows who, even in a post-pandemic world, might be unable to travel due to professional or financial constraints.

This presented a fundamental strategic tension. How could GLI evolve to embrace the clear advantages of a digital model—scalability, accessibility, and customisability—without diluting the prestigious, high-touch brand identity built on the foundation of in-person immersion? The challenge was not simply technological but strategic, forcing the institute to define what aspect of its fieldwork was most essential: the method of delivery or the ultimate impact.

VALUE-ADDED CONCEPT: THE DIGITAL FIELDWORK TRACK

The pilot seminar served as an informal proposal for a new, permanent program: a formalised Digital Fieldwork Track. Under this model, GLI fellows could elect to design and deliver specialised, multi-organisational virtual workshops based on their unique professional expertise. This would transform the fieldwork from a standardised, place-based experience into a customisable, knowledge-based one.

This concept repositions the GLI fellow from a visiting consultant to a virtual facilitator and expert trainer. The logic model for this track suggests that by leveraging the input of its fellows’ diverse skills, GLI could produce a new output: a portfolio of specialised virtual workshops. These workshops would facilitate new activities, such as regional cohort-based learning and networking, leading to outcomes of enhanced organisational capacity across a wider range of partners. The long-term impact would be a significant expansion of GLI’s global reach and a more flexible, resilient operating model.

IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS

Formalising this track would require a significant investment in new infrastructure. GLI would need to establish a new administrative framework to vet and approve digital fieldwork proposals, provide robust technological support, and manage the marketing and recruitment of participating organisations on a larger scale. A critical risk is quality control; without the direct oversight possible with in-person placements, GLI would need to develop a rigorous mentorship and evaluation process to ensure that fellow-led seminars meet the institute’s high standards.

Furthermore, this new model changes the financial and resource allocation equation. While reducing travel costs, it would increase administrative overhead. The organisation would need to decide if this track would be offered as a cost-neutral alternative or explored as a potential earned-income stream, perhaps by charging a nominal fee to the dozens of organisations that could now be served.

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Adopting a permanent Digital Fieldwork Track involves clear trade-offs. On one hand, it would democratise access to the program for both fellows and partner organisations. It enhances GLI’s value proposition by offering customisation and flexibility, and it builds a more resilient model not dependent on global travel. The ability to scale the program could exponentially increase GLI’s measurable impact in the social sector.

On the other hand, it risks diluting the brand. The deep, transformative experience of cultural immersion, a key differentiator of the traditional model, would be lost. There is a danger that the digital track could be perceived as a “lesser” option by prospective fellows. For partner organisations, a short-term virtual seminar provides a different kind of value than an intensive, on-site consultation. GLI’s leadership must carefully weigh whether the benefits of breadth outweigh the potential loss of depth.

DECISION POINT

The report from Rivera and Samudio was more than a summary of a successful project; it was a catalyst for a decision that would shape the future of the Global Leaders Institute. The leadership had to decide how to proceed.

One path was to categorise the virtual seminar as a successful, one-off innovation born of necessity. The institute could reaffirm its commitment to the traditional, in-person fieldwork model as its sole, premier offering, arguing that the core brand identity is inextricably linked to the immersive experience. The alternative was to embrace a hybrid future. This would involve formally establishing the Digital Fieldwork Track as a permanent, parallel option, investing in the infrastructure needed to support it, and fundamentally redefining what a GLI fieldwork experience could be. This path would embrace a more flexible and scalable vision for the institute, but would require a significant shift in organisational identity and resources.

The ultimate question was one of strategy and identity. Should the Global Leaders Institute define its flagship experience by its time-honoured method of delivery, or by its demonstrated ability to create and disseminate value? The choice they made would determine GLI’s position of leadership in a rapidly changing world.