Message-ID: <199701011754.MAA23787@jericho.american.edu> Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 12:54:33 -0500 From: Yvonne Sobers <mailto:asante@COLIS.COM> Subject: Re: Escalating philosoph To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
At 08:56 AM 1/1/97 -0500, mailto:rmoreno@asterix.helix.net wrote: >
> Which of these questions are the most important or are addressed first?
> Any questions mentioned or not mentioned that have no answer?
> Any questions that arise when the project is underway? Any of these
>questions have more importance than the original questions?
> Any case studies of one projects with these questions asked, and
>one without? What are the main benefits from this process? Time reduction?
> Which factors affect a project the most?
I suggest principles rather than the formulae that might, for example, indicate the scale of importance of the questions. Part of the problem faced by development agencies is assuming that formulae that appear to work in India, for example, will equally apply to Guatemala, Ghana, or Sri Lanka. A development formula does not necessarily apply across or within borders and timelines.
An intervention requires that, as Anselm Orighono, in his post [11.18 AM 12/31/96] pointed out:
" ..........................in most developing nations, to get to the right answers we have to ask the right questions, not in a roundabout way, but in a real and sincere way. That again is where the problem lies - are the questions sincere?"
The attitudes behind the questions can be more important than the questions themselves. Many persons in developing countries have learnt, from bitter experience, to play the chameleon and to camouflage themselves for their survival. Sometimes the camouflage, at one stage a justified response, impedes development.
Therefore, as Anselm goes on:
"It takes real thinking and compassion to prise out the real issues, much too often the real intentions of the west are either disguised or misguided."
The "real thinking" might include might include moving from linear thought to more circular thought: - from: A then B then C, to: X then M or F or T depending on the answer to X or the silence with which X was received - from: A or B or C, to: A and B and C that may also imply Q and R and S
The "real thinking" recognizes that many issues are intertwined and entangled. In many developing countries, contradictions are almost the norm, and ying and yang are perceived as inclusive/convergent as well as exclusive/divergent.
An intervention therefore challenges the developed country to determine the right thing to do, and then to do the right thing in the right way. The intervention is likely to be carried out in an atmosphere that has so far engendered mistrust and misapprehension; and in a territory in which the maps are not drawn, are poorly drawn, are out of date, or are entirely irrelevant.
This past year I evaluated three funding agencies that operate in Jamaica. All the agencies had similar purposes, served the same sector, and had been operating in Jamaica over the same time period.
Agency A was connected to the US. The approach was bureaucratic, the mission was vague, and work was hampered by internal conflicts. Clients were dissatisfied with the lack of focus, the attention to paper, image and formula rather than problem-solving within the local context. This agency based its success on the number of projects attracted and on the amount of funds disbursed, rather than on any change in quality of life of the people served. In general, those who could write good (even if somewhat mythical) proposals were favoured over those with burning issues but with less facility in expressing themselves. This agency was office-rather than field-based. Agency personnel were oriented to banking and the corporate world, not to the more humble communities they were supposed to serve.
Agency B was connected to Canada. This agency had warm relationships with its clients and were active in the field. Agency personnel were people-oriented. Persons with ideas received help with writing proposals. However, the mission of the agency was based on generalities rather than the analysis of baseline data. The result was the many projects that were funded did not add up to change in any particular direction. Achievement, apart from good feelings generated and internal administrative efficiency, was difficult to measure.
Agency C was connected to the UN. The mission, target group, values, principles and success criteria were all clear. The importance of the country-specific context was enunciated and illustrated. Projects were not ends in themselves, but the means by which a community could develop the capacity to take responsibility for solving their problems. The agency co-ordinator conducted needs analyses in tandem with communities, and collaborated with communities in before, during and after the project writing phase. The agency made errors of judgment in the start-up phase. It also experienced some outstanding successes, measured by - increased teamwork within communities and between communities and local agencies/authorities - improved quality of dialogue within communities - the confidence with which some communities are now able to negotiate with authorities to improve community infrastructure - the increased capacity of some communities to organize themselves and to generate their own funds
Agency A did not feel a need to ask questions as it was operating with a prepared formula. Agency B was willing to ask questions. However it operated within a framework that was predetermined elsewhere, and so some questions were out of bounds. Agency C operated with guidelines that were expected to be modified according to contextual realities. Agency C personnel listened a lot, observed a lot, and asked the sorts of questions that implied compassion and a deep desire to understand the other person's worldview.
Agency C enjoyed qualified success. It encountered situations in which its trust was not reciprocated, as people in the habit of camouflaging do not immediately change established habits. However, the agency's clarity about its role enables it to be reflective rather than defensive, and to learn how to listen better, observe better, to ask better and more timely questions, to be more compassionate, more sensitive, and more faithful to its mission. It also realizes that it is likely to make more errors in future, but hopefully not the same ones as in the past.
Towards a year in which developed and developong worlds benefit from increased dialogue.
Yvonne ============================================================================ ========