This is the first of a series of blogs hosted here that builds on, and extends, Reflecting Forewords (2024), a collection of forewords written by Robert from 1986 to 2020, each of which is paired with one or more pieces that offer contemporary riffs or contemplations on his ideas. Here, in the spirit of Reflecting Forewords we use Robert’s work as a springboard for our own reflections on strategy and practice.
This blog is authored by Marina Apgar, Research Fellow and Cluster Leader for the Participation, Inclusion and Social Change Cluster at the Institute of Development Studies.
In Robert’s foreword to Exploring the Science of Complexity: Ideas and implications for development and humanitarian efforts (2008) by Ben Ramalingam and Harry Jones with Toussaint Reba and John Young, he expressed a hope that taking the implications of complexity seriously...will make development and humanitarian practice more attuned to reality, more sensitive to context, more adaptive, less reductionist and less simplistic; and that this will in turn generate and enable changes that enhance social justice and are more effectively pro-poor (Chambers and Lewin 2024:74).
In today’s context, as we face the possible destruction of the aid and humanitarian sectors, and we experience a hyper reductionist approach driven by increasing polarisation and democratic backsliding, keeping this hope alive is existential. I ask myself what role, if any, our work with participatory methodologies and approaches to development might play in keeping this hope for a development that is more attuned to reality alive?
With colleagues in the Participation, Inclusion and Social Change cluster at IDS, we have been reflecting over the last year on how we build on the legacy of participatory research at IDS with a renewed research strategy that engages proactively with this moment of turbulence. Many possibilities have emerged of both things we need to let go of and things we hold on to or emphasise more. I share here two ideas that help me, and I hope others, hold on to hope.
A global community of systems change funders and practitioners is increasingly turning to epistemic plurality. Systems change is about shifting the underlying structures, relationships, and power dynamics that shape how a system functions. For us, this is about reconfiguring systems to be more just and inclusive. Development through this lens is not about improving select outcomes within a system (like better services or access) but about questioning the assumptions, values, and exclusions embedded in the system that cause oppression and harm. Systems are not neutral or fixed – they have boundaries, histories and are made up of power dynamics that are always in flux – achieving the desired ‘systems change’, then, requires engaging with plural and contested realities to navigate the mess.
Our work on systemic action research is one way we aim to contribute to this global community. Building on the knowledge-action-reflection cycles of action research, SAR identifies leverage points to intervene through building a picture of the system dynamics that drive oppression. This is achieved through participatory causal analysis of hundreds of life stories. Like building a mosaic, participants who are actors in the systems see patterns emerge as they look across the many fragments of individual lives, to detect dynamics that stand in the way of change, or where change might be propelled. Epistemological plurality is central – a system cannot be understood from one perspective alone, no matter how powerful AI is becoming, it is the many and contested experiences of a system that ground us in reality. Methodological bricolage, or, eclectic methodological pluralism as Robert called it, is crucial to building this systemic picture in ways that can grapple with rather than side step complexity.
Participation creates the possibility for reconfiguring relationships in systems. Participatory methodologies work with these different ways of knowing and aim to bring them into dialogue. Ultimately, transforming systems is about modifying the patterns of interactions within systems – their relational core. Whether we are working with our partners supporting child labourers as action researchers in the leather sector in Bangladesh, identifying opportunities to create safe space for dialogue with their employers; or we are supporting a network of organisations in Brazil to build participatory learning processes with actors across the education system in efforts to support racial equity, we are always working with and through relational spaces. In our work in Mali, we saw how action research processes with ordinary people exploring conflict through a systemic and participatory approach, became engines of change, repairing the social fabric that had long been torn between individuals, families and communities. These action research groups embodied a new inclusive form of conflict mediation – they were prefiguring a new way of relating.
This reminds me of Emily Dickenson’s poem “Hope” is the thing with feathers, which goes:
“Hope” is the thing with feathers –
That perches in the soul –
And sings the tune without the words –
And never stops – at all –
I am pleased to see that hope is getting lots of attention these days. As Irene Guijt, who is researching a book on the topic recently said “there is an inevitability about hope, like it or not it is simply there amidst adversity”. Hope can propel us forward.
So in spite of how challenging the times feel for all of us in development, Robert’s hope remains alive in our work.
