Message-ID: <mailto:KF16+VT2sja@ssc.msu.edu> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 09:59:41 EDT From: mailto:don.osborn@SSC.MSU.EDU Subject: Re: Telecommunication in 3rd. World To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L
>>............................... Development projects, whether or not they
>>involve telecommunications, have often labored under the assumption that
>>their efforts will "teach someone to fish," ignoring that the people they
>>hope to help may 1) not want to "fish" (i.e. their real needs and interests
>>may be something else), and/or 2) may already know more about fishing in
>>their particular environment than outside devt. experts do. ...
>>
[deletion]
>
>I respectfully disagree with the interpretation of "teach a person to
>fish...." The word fish is a generic term..It does not mean literary
>teaching a person to fish as such but teaching, where needed, a person to
>develop that person's skills and competence in mobilizing local resources
>for sustainable development. The term was developed in the third world and
>is based on third world experiences. S. Mukasa
Point well taken. However I did not make my point very clear. I was using "fish" figuratively also, but in a different way. My intention was to point out that development efforts are often conceived with an idea of what people need to learn that may not address people's own priorities. The fact that learning, education, and training are fundamental to any real process of development (along with justice, resources, etc.) is beyond dispute.
Many projects, however, have designed "technical packages" based more on their own conception of what kind of "fishing" to teach the intended beneficiaries, rather than on the beneficiaries' own ideas. This has included so-called "agenda-driven" projects where an agency has a technology it would like to introduce to help people--however sincere the desire to help, this kind of "teaching to fish" often does not help people where they may themselves feel the greatest need. Nor does it help people to enhance capacities to research, clarify, and prioritize their needs (as well as systematically identifying their strengths and potentialities)--a step towards being able to acquire knowledge and technologies actively rather than being relegated to the role of reacting to "technical packages" brought to them from outside.
Does this sound more reasonable?
Don Osborn mailto:don.osborn@ssc.msu.edu osborndo@student.msu.edu