Resources

Paradigms, poverty and adaptive pluralism

Download available

2010

Abstract

In earlier analysis, two paradigms were identified in development professionalism, thinking and practice: one, often dominant, associated with things; and one, often subordinate, associated with people. Current development thinking and practice have diverged into two clusters, with procedures associated with the paradigm of things imposed by powerful actors and organisations in tension and contradiction with participatory methodologies (PMs) associated with the paradigm of people. A binocular vision sees both. This sets out to see further, and whether participatory methodologies (PMs) can bridge these binaries with both – and complementarities and win-wins. In recent years, PMs have proliferated. Contributing factors have been the way methods have multiplied, their versatility, adaptability and combinability, the explosion of applications of Information and Communication Technologies and Web 2.0, and more speculatively an increase in the number of people working in a creative participatory way. PMs that combine methods have proved increasingly versatile and adaptable to contexts and purposes. PMs are well suited to understanding and expressing the local, complex, diverse, dynamic, uncontrollable and unpredictable (lcdduu) realities experienced by many poor people. These contrast with the controlled conditions and universalities sought in much high status professionalism. Paradigmatically and practically, four domains have increasingly converged and cohere: PMs; poor people’s lcdduu realities; technology; and complexity. Paradigm can then be defined as a coherent and mutually supporting pattern of: concepts and ontological assumptions; values and principles; methods, procedures and processes; roles and behaviours; relationships; and mindsets, orientations and predispositions. Empirically, a paradigm of adaptive and participatory pluralism can be inferred from experience and examples. This fits with the realities of poor people as adaptive agents and with PMs seen through lenses of technology and complexity. It contrasts with a paradigm of neo-Newtonian practice.

 

Publisher

Paris in Bogota: applying the aid effectiveness agenda in Colombia

Download available

Authors: 
R. McGee and I.G. Heredia
2010

Abstract

Recent research in the field of development aid persuasively problematises aid relationships and begins to reveal their significance for the real-life application and effectiveness of international development cooperation. Until insights from such research percolate through aid machineries such as the OECD DAC and its workings, the country-level consequences of universal aid frameworks and prescriptions will continue to be insufficiently foreseen, and in some cases unexpectedly problematic. This paper is about an in-depth, qualitative study of the application of the Paris Declaration (PD) on Aid Effectiveness in Colombia. This middle-income, non aid-dependent country with a prolonged and complex internal armed conflict and a poor human rights record, hitherto on the margins of international aid circles, has fast assumed a high-profile role in them via its adoption of the PD.

The study stemmed from a conviction that PD application in Colombia has unanticipated consequences, with under-appreciated impacts on the strategies of donors and social actors. Donors are subject to an attempt to push them (back) into a technocratic corner. In this politically complex context where donors' presence owes at least as much to concerns over Colombia's international human rights performance as to classic aid donor concerns with widespread extreme poverty, this is worrying and undesirable. It also has serious implications for the tripartite aid dialogue process established in 2003, involving Government, donors and social actors. This, for all its flaws and frustrations, is unique and important in a historic context of polarised, antagonistic and violent relationships between the state and left-wing advocates of human rights and social democratic principles. It will require skilful and opportunistic responses by both donors and social organisations to turn this conjuncture to their favour, in the sense of strengthening their leverage on the Government in relation to human rights, poverty, conflict and democratic governance.

Publisher

A Learning Approach to Monitoring and Evaluation

Download available

Authors: 
Katy Oswald and Peter Taylor
2010

Abstract

This article draws on literature from both monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and organisational learning to explore synergies between these two fields in support of organisational performance. Two insights from the organisational learning literature are that organisations learn through ‘double-loop’ learning: reflecting on experience and using this to question critically underlying assumptions; and that power relations within an organisation will influence what and whose learning is valued and shared. This article identifies four incentives that can help link M&E with organisational learning: the incentive to learn why; the incentive to learn from below; the incentive to learn collaboratively; and the incentive to take risks. Two key elements are required to support these incentives: (1) establishing and promoting an ‘evaluative culture’ within an organisation; and (2) having accountability relationships where value is placed on learning ‘why’, as well as on learning from mistakes, which requires trust.

Notes on practical approaches and methods for participants in PRA/PLA-related familiarisation workshops in 2009

Download available

Authors: 
Chambers, Robert
2009

Abstract

These notes are an updated foundation for workshop participants. They cover - what is PRA, the common elements of its approach, its origins and spread, concerns about its practice and the relationship between PRA and RRA. This is followed by details of how behaviour and attitudes are fundamental and more important than PRA methods. Some notes on ideas for approaches and methods are followed by notes on new frontiers.

Pages