Comments on: Is the British development bubble a good thing? Reflections after another session at DFID.

By: L Rashid

L Rashid — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 05:00:50 +0000

Powerful map.

Though I am not against UK aid, perhaps the UK government isn’t exactly bucking the trend when it ramps up aid that makes it a requirement for development NGOs to partner with the private sector. And uses it to pay (mostly UK based?) private consulting firms to fund manage and knowledge manage.

By: Fiona Remnant

Fiona Remnant — Wed, 29 Jan 2014 12:33:22 +0000

The term ‘beneficiary feedback’ may have made you cringe – is ‘self-reported assessment’ somewhat better? The Assessing Rural Transformations project at the Centre for Development Studies (www.gobath.ac.uk/art) is developing the Qualitative Impact Assessment Protocol (QUIP) which combines quantitative monitoring of key indicators and qualitative attribution of impact based on self-reported assessment by beneficiaries. The key here is that those conducting the qualitative research are deliberately ‘blinded’ (no researchers harmed in the process!) and know nothing of project interventions in the area. This avoids pro-project bias, and brings a more exploratory (as opposed to confirmatory), right-brain approach to the impact evaluation. Of course the proof is in the rigour – of both quant and qual elements of the evaluation, but preliminary results are very positive. For more ‘wonkish’ reading on this see: http://www.bath.ac.uk/cds/projects-activities/assessing-rural-transformations/Credible_impact_evaluation_18_October.pdf

By: Kalyani

Kalyani — Wed, 29 Jan 2014 12:12:13 +0000

i’m not surprised that there were no black or asian faces at the Dfid meeting. Disapoiintng that this worrying trend continues..especially as the world dynamics, decision making and stronger economies are shifting to the emerging countries..Dfid and its network then must rreally be living in a ‘bubble’.

By: DfID Gets the Memo | Campaign for Boring Development

DfID Gets the Memo | Campaign for Boring Development — Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:19:44 +0000

[…] DFID’s budget is still not quite up to the (probably never realistic) 0.7% of GDP that we were told the rich countries aspired to, but at 0.56% it’s within spitting distance – plus it’s growing, rather than shrinking, even amid a harrowing recession. With more of a bigger budget moving into increasingly boring areas, I think we can give Duncan Green a clear answer: yes, the British development bubble is a good thing. […]

By: P Baker

P Baker — Sat, 25 Jan 2014 09:32:21 +0000

A bit surprised about the comments on panels – isn’t everyone trying fishbowls these days? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishbowl_(conversation)

By: Robin Ford

Robin Ford — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 18:35:25 +0000

Interesting. I too dislike the talk down approach when it is not twinned with lots of opportunity for discussion. The Toronto Centre uses a collaborative process in at least some of its courses for financial sector regulators. I participated in one where “students” brought a draft action plan to solve a problem or achieve a goal that they were working on at home. A small group of students and teachers read and discussed each one and provided constructive feedback. It was very productive. The learning goes in both directions.

By: Graham

Graham — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 13:19:01 +0000

I find it somewhat ironic that a blog post about evidence makes several references to the right/left side of the brain ‘myth’ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/16/left-right-brain-distinction-myth

By: Brendan Coyne

Brendan Coyne — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 12:00:50 +0000

The comment on ‘vertical’ knowledge exchange rings very true – meetings using the panel format are often a disheartening experience. Even when on the ground development/anti-poverty/community workers – or the people who are affected by development programmes – are involved in such panels, what they say often seems to be immediately seized upon and reinterpreted by the ‘gurus’ in a way that fits with their own knowledge. Jane Carter notes that engaging with panels in meetings like this requires self confidenceand persistence. I’d add that familiarity with that kind of environment is also key – and once again, this favours those within the ‘expert bubble’ over those coming from a grassroots angle.
My organisation (ATD Fourth World), has been trying to address this for a long time, by developing meeting/seminar formats that level the playing field , and try to allow for a horizontal exchange between academic experts, workers on the ground and the people affected by development projects (here’s a detailes description of the methodology: http://www.atd-fourthworld.org/Guidelines-for-the-Merging-of.html). The focus is on an equal back and forth exchange between all those present, not only to ensure everyone has understood what the ‘experts’ say, but also that the experts have not misconstrued what fieldworkers and ‘beneficiaries’ have told them. This takes a good deal of time, and language, cultural and social barriers all have to be carefully negotiated. We’ve found that during meetings like this, if people can spend time discussing common experiences in peer groups(ie groups of academics, or community workers, or people with experience of living in poverty) it improves the confidence of those not used to a seminar environment. Of course, as a method this isn’t perfect, and can lead to some quite heated discussion amongst participants.
Most recently we’ve successfully used it in a 2 year project evaluating development programmes in roughly a dozen countries. Unfortunately, most of the country specific material about the project is not in English, but there is a working paper that gives a very broad summary: http://www.atd-fourthworld.org/Towards-Sustainable-Development.html.

By: Adam Groves

Adam Groves — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 11:03:45 +0000

Regarding the ‘online surgery’ question, OneWorld.org have done something a bit similar from the UN Climate Talks, broadcasting live video and enabling viewers to put their questions directly to interviewees (everyone from Presidents/Ministers, to negotiators, policy wonks and campaigners) via twitter, facebook, skype-video… etc. Not such a niche-focus, but similar underlying principles – an effort to open up a forum that’s not normally accessible, and to give a voice to people who aren’t normally heard.

By: Jane Carter

Jane Carter — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 09:46:30 +0000

Your comment on pannel discussions rang a chord with me as my heart sinks every time I see that one is scheduled. It’s very rare that they generate any real audience participation, and even if the audience does get much time to pose questions, those chosen tend to be the most persistent and self-confident (here there’s commonly a gender bias), and not the more timid who might have rather different points to raise. Have I tried something different? A local level “surgery”? Well,it’s a rather different context, but when I was advising on a participatory watershed project in India which operated in 3 watersheds, we decided (in 2005) to do a participatory evaluation – with an evaluation team made up of 1 man and 1 woman from each of the 3 watersheds, one NGO representative each, and 1 (externally recruited) team leader. I joined from time to time as an observer. It was a very long process of field visits, and I failed to catch everything not only because of partial attendance but also as the language used was that of the villagers (Kanada and sometimes Telegu). So producing a final report in English with clear recommendations was a major headache! But in terms of learning and sharing at local level, I think a lot happened, and was really valued. Of course this would be inadequate in these days of demands for facts, figures, and “value for money”. SDC remains a little less demanding than DFID in this respect, but the trend is clear.