Message-ID: <19981114010222.AAA12525@LOCALNAME> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 22:04:13 -0400 From: Kerry Miller <mailto:kerryo@NS.SYMPATICO.CA> Subject: Re: Consultant's Reports, Validation and "Lessons Learned" To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
Sam,> ... In contrast to published articles in refereed
> sources, they [consultant's reports] have not undergone any peer review or
> adjudication. They are - quite literally - the consultant's
> opinions, possibly informed by evidence and possibly not.
Hey, just llike e-mail!
... > Bellanet's decision, as a committment to transparency, is to
> make its consultant's reports public. This causes me further
> problems. What happens when I disagree with something in the
> consultant's report. Should I push for "editorial
> intervention" which can border on turning the report into a
> public relations document? If I (or Bellanet) disagree parts
> the consultant's report should we write a commentary? Who
> decides what is truth and what is opinion? This is a general
> problem.
>
The first reaction to the 'email syndrome' might be to suggest, in the particular case, posting both report and commentary on the Bellanet website, but you are right to recognize the 'general problem':
> For example, there are those who are reading the current
> World Bank Development Report as less an assessment of the
> topic (Knowledge for Development) and more as a marketing
> document for a re-positioned Bank.
A second instance is the current discussion of DNS administration, which some see as a secretive 'done deal' and a sellout of the Internet by the NSF to ICANN, but which can also be taken as a 'request for proposals' in true net tradition.
It seems there are two distinct attitudes to communication processes which, although independent of technology and medium, are highlighted by the ongoing 'connectivity revolution.' Having some journalistic background, I recognize them as 'critical' and 'editorial' attitudes (tho both terms have their limitations): the critic stands outside the event and evaluates it against hyr pre-existing ideas of what *should* be, while the editor participates in bringing the 'rough draft' to some presentable form (or forum).
Given that most folks on the net these days have more exposure to the final presentation or the fait accompli (in print or video), it is entirely understandable that they are more prone to adopt the critic's position (and its a short step from there to the cynic's, where 'marketing' of course is fair game). I happen to think, however, that *development -- in both the content of this medium, and of this medium itself (convergently, you might say) -- is in the direction of the editorial attitude: in seeing *every statement as an interim and tentative assessment, not a report 'spun' in a pre-determined strategy of competitive positioning for world (or argumentative) supremacy. Who knows, might even consultants use fewer superlatives and to write in a more dialogical and, dare I say it, humble way?)
> If I disagree with parts
> of the World Bank Report and say something, am I engaged in
> an intellectual dialogue - with whom? - or am I seen as
> objecting to a World Bank strategy. What does that mean for
> me as a consultant? What does it mean for my organiztion?
> What does it mean if I am an ultimate stakeholder, looking
> to the same organization for resources?
>
This is where the rubber burns, isnt it? As long as decision-making power is separated from information-gathering experience, all the dialogue in the world probably won't save you. On the distinctly other hand, 50 years and more of hierarchical 'administrative professionalism' have not solved *any* of the problems which folks like Jay Hanson persist in pointing out: " community, shelter, health care, clean water, clean air, and ...nutritious food" -- and how on earth are we going to even come to terms with such problems, let alone solve them, if we don't learn to talk about them together? If we can't collectively insist on *listening* as being of equal importance to *telling* each other what to do, what is 'worthwhile,' what is 'knowledge'? If we can't grasp that one-upmanship ('I'm right/powerful; you're wrong/weak') is *not* the only way to express ourselves?> These are difficult issues. What is clear is that this
> electronic venue offers a 'space' for greater transparency
> and a 'place' for discussing around these issues. It is my
> assessment that these are serious issues and are likely to
> be short changed in the short run as institutions treat
> "lessons learned" as so many knowledge bricks and struggle
> to be "the" knowledge bank" for this, that, or all
> development activity.
>
It is indeed a space and a place**; but lessons learned are indeed so many knowledge bricks, too. The metaphor I offer, editorially, to reconcile these images is that the course of human events amounts to a very soft roadbed. One can continually fill it in with rocks and bricks, but when they keep disappearing into the mud, it's time to consider learning to dance, rather than insisting that one's tank is going to make it across.> ...this venue will force us to take several steps backward
> before we leap blindly into some ill-defined age of
> knowledge for development.
>
By George, you've got it!kerry, strumming the transcultural rag
** It's interesting that email seems to invite a more ready response than any website -- thus the 'first reaction' above almost guarantees *less thought about an issue than posting and being damned. |{hm