Partnerships and participatory knowledge-building

Subject: [IKD] Partnerships and participatory knowledge-building

Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 20:57:58 -0400

From: Tsoubbotina@worldbank.org

Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

To: Ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

CC: Ksheram@worldbank.org

 

Earlier in this discussion, Elisabeth A. Graffy posed a number of questions

related to both understanding the nature of development (which may differ

across

countries), and the role of international institutions in making knowledge

(in

this case knowledge of development experience) relevant to developing

countries.

She wrote:

 

"We've talked about case studies and small-scale achievements related to

"good" forms of development. What about the overarching ideas that create

the vision of development? The assumptions? Where are those being hammered

out? How do we share these ideas across cultures and economic boundaries?

How do we share lessons from the presumed-failed western model in ways that

do not appear to deny countries experiencing rapid economic expansion their

chance to succeed? What opportunities do we have to harmonise our ideas

globally (outside of high-profile events like Rio and Kyoto which, while

important, are mainly window-dressing)? How can education and

information-sharing mechanisms we have discussed play a role here?"

 

Ideally, overarching ideas shaping visions of development should emerge not

as a

"Washington consensus", but as a result of international discussion

capitalising

on the wealth of development experiences from most countries of the world.

Unfortunately in practice, such a democratic process encounters multiple

obstacles, many of which have been pointed out by participants of this

on-line

forum (e.g. the lack of access for the poor countries and communities,

technology and language barriers, credibility gaps). This particular

discussion

itself suffers from many of these drawbacks as only people with Internet

access

and fluent in English can make their voices heard in it.

 

Nevertheless, I believe that international discussions such as this one can

play

a certain positive role in harmonising concepts of development globally.

Many

recently created World Bank web sites collecting feedback from a wide range

of

countries are involved in the same participatory intellectual process. To

give

you a less high-tech (and thus more equitable) example of cross-cultural

interaction in "hammering out" the vision of development, let me refer to

the

project that I am now involved with as a consultant in the World Bank

Institute

(WBI).

 

The WBI Development Education Program has organized a collaboration among

several education institutions in Moscow (Russia) and contents experts of

the

World Bank to write a student book "The World and Russia" for Russian

secondary

schools. The concept of sustainable development, not yet widely known in

Russia,

is the central theme of this book, and the content of it combines the World

Bank

data and information about global development with Russia-specific issues

and

approaches. The book was written mostly by Russian authors, who selected

most

relevant information and presented it with explanations and comparisons

customized for Russian readers. The collaboration was not easy and many

heated

discussions among the authors took place in the course of creating the

manuscript. Even more were initiated when selected chapters were pilot

tested

with Russian teachers and students since the book deliberately avoids giving

simple answers to most difficult questions. Eventually, however, the

manuscript

was written, approved by the Russian Ministry of Education, and is expected

to

be published in Russia over the next few months.

 

Although merely the first attempt, this project could constitute a model to

be

used in other countries. Some of its major advantages, as I see them, are:

 

- genuinely collaborative approach (turning World Bank information into

knowledge relevant to Russia was the responsibility of Russian writers);

 

- reaching out to wide audiences (books are much more accessible for most

people

in developing countries than the Internet);

 

- educating the young generation in particular (young people are more open

to

new ideas and often constitute the most active part of civil society);

 

- building local capacity to access and adapt information from foreign

sources

(due to active participation in this Project of Russian partner

institutions).

 

Any comments and suggestion on this approach to adapting and disseminating

knowledge of development experience collected by international institutions

would be most appreciated. For example: How would you make such project even

more participatory? Which other countries would in your opinion benefit from

this kind of project? And what kind of difficulties can you expect this

project

to run into in various countries?

 

I am looking forward to getting your advice, through this discussion or via

my

e-mail address.

 

Tatyana Soubbotina

Consultant

Development Education Program

Knowledge Products and Outreach Division

World Bank Institute

tsoubbotina@worldbank.org

 

Subject: [IKD] Reply to James Deane

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 15:06:47 -0400 (EDT)

From: "Prof. Anil Gupta" <anilg@iimahd.ernet.in>

Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

Organization: Indian Institute of Management

To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

 

I have seen the note by Panos director with great intertest. I have high

respect for Panos for whatever they have done and continue to do. Thus

it is natural that I treat Dean's comments with respect they deserve.

 

Just three points:

 

a) free expression of views on the list is not a great achievement in

todays world of internet when in any case views can indeed be expressed

freely even if one wished otherwise. What would hav ebeen important if

there were some notes of self criticism by WB authorities and thinkers.

I did not see any. You have noted that too.

 

b)      there was very poor participation from third world. In itself a

lesson which must not be lost. The dialogue has relevance in any case.

But we need not lower down our expectations from international

institutions. I got a feeling that it was happening. We were trying to

feel satisfied with too little too soon-- malise too pervasive in our

times.

 

c)      There is a lot which needs to be done to even take first step in

improving our accountability towards those whose development 'business'

generates our jobs.

 

We do not even share in local language our project document with the

affected people, as a basic ethical requirment, what kind of

participation we are talking about. I am an optimist and thus see merit

of every small step.

 

I just did not want that our sights should be set lower.

 

keep it up

 

anil

 

Prof Anil K Gupta

Professor, Indian Institute of Management

Ahmedabad 380015, India

and

Coordinator SRISTI and Editor, Honey Bee

anilg@iimahd.ernet.in

http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/~anilg/

http://csf.colorado.edu/sristi/

 

fax 91 79 6427896

phone (o) 91 79 6407241

 

Subject: Re: [IKD] Introduction to Week 8

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 15:15:53 -0400 (EDT)

From: Reid Harvey <ceramics@AfricaOnline.Co.Ci>

Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

 

The view that. . .

 

> . . . .development, like knowledge, is something that has to be self

> determined by communities and developing countries themselves, and that

> therefore international institutions may have a very limited role, if any.

. .

 

can at times be a very destructive one; our heads in the sand. To the

contrary,

colonizers' governments, churches and businesses had a profound impact in

tearing down development, to the degraded level at which we see it today;

to a level where poor economies cannot again be vibrant without strategic

intervention. The intervention needed is to get poor people involved in

livelihoods.

 

Early on in this discussion I pointed to the fact that the iron industry was

seriously undermined throughout Africa during the colonial period. Skilled

African foundry workers, slaves, were displaced, to become important in

the development of the U.S. steel industry. Within Africa foundry workers

lost their jobs when imported iron implements were considered superior.

 

Metal industries are strategic in development. International institutions

should choose to restore these to Africa because to do so will make a

profound difference in the capacity of poor countries to develop

themselves. (The history related here is for perspective only. Clearly,

reparations as such would serve no useful purpose.)

 

To make this proposition realistic it is important to promote the industry

on the smallest scale preferrably on a widespread basis. From the 1950s

on developers have learned that large scale projects tend to fail. But

even today donor governments love the big projects, largely because they

point to a tangible contribution, good will placed on a high profile,

aspirations to help a poor country's government succeed. Donor

governments throw a plum to some legislator's favorite factory, and

buy tools and machines for the project. (Then bill that poor country!)

 

But it really is 'here today and gone tomorrow.' Where are the journalists

and the TV reporters when the factory's maintenance slips, when spare

parts break and cannot be replaced, and when the donor, after several

return visits, is blamed for not going the extra mile? Answer? The donor

has started another massive project in the next city and the cameras are

clicking over there. The failure is covered up by simply ignoring it.

 

In small scale projects the clear stakeholders are the individuals who will

become entrepreneurs. The startup cost of the training and project is low

because these trainee/ entrepreneurs are using 99% local resources. The

host government is providing a space and other amenities (in return for

some big project, already in the works). The primary cost to the donor is

the wages and benefits of their imported teachers and trainers. These

wages are not overwhelming, since they pay volunteers, much like U.S.

Peace Corps volunteers. Prospective volunteers are waiting in the wings,

as are host country nationals who crave opportunity and a better life.

 

Host governments may also find of interest that the donors are promoting

this

project as a long term plan to improve living conditions in their country.

The metal project can be promoted as an integral, but strategic part of

the livelihood approach to development. The metal industry is the

cornerstone. The newly skilled will also provide the pool of workers that

is part of the attraction for bigger investments.

 

The host government can rest assured that while there are those who push

them to give their people freedom and justice (ie. democratization),

there is an eventual answer to their dilemma in the improved living

conditions the project will bring. The powder keg of democratization

without opportunity can be diffused.

 

This is not to downplay the importance of freedom and justice, only to

attempt seeing the issues in the eyes of host country governments. We

should not imagine that democratization will come about without

opportunity, otherwise when one despot is removed another will replace

him. The livelihood approach is quite simply a way of assisting poor

people in their own upliftment. It is arguably the one guaranteed,

longterm method of overcoming poverty and bringing about development.

 

Reid Harvey <ceramics@AfricaOnline.co.ci>

Ceramiques d'Afrique

Abidjan, la Cote d'Ivoire

 

Subject: [IKD] Re: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT DOES EXIST!

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:56:05 -0500

From: "Elisabeth A. Graffy" <egraffy@usgs.gov>

Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

To: <ikd@jazz.worldbank.org>

CC: <edfnz@clear.net.nz>

 

I am dismayed that debates about "sustainable development" devolve so

quickly into disputes about whether or not continued material aggrandizement

is feasible in a world with limited resources.  That is barely scratching

the surface of what sustainable development debates and discussions ought to

cover and, I am convinced, what they often DO cover when discussed around

our own tables. While the material side of development must be discussed, I

would have hoped that we would have succeeded in evolving the concept and

the public debate beyond that. Implicitly, in this conference, we have been

asking each other this question: "How can we use information to alleviate

poverty, but in a way that supports the long-term social, political,

ethical, environmental and cultural goals of a given community?" We have not

simply been asking how we might most efficiently put a chicken in every pot,

a dishwasher in every kitchen, a computer in every home and a satellite dish

on every lawn. We know that's not the model of development that is likely to

be most beneficial in the long run. It has been very difficult to get as

concrete as we need to about a new model of development, but I think we

already know it extends beyond the material.

 

Economics defines much of the language of development debates and, though it

is perhaps broader than it has ever been (as an economist myself, I am

alternately hopeful and exasperated by the contributions of my profession to

the status of this debate), economic theory is still remarkably limiting: it

continues to define sustainable development largely in material,

commodity-related terms. And we want to talk about more than that.

"Development," after all, is a concept that captures multiple, adaptive

goals that we seek to evolve toward both as individuals and as a living

community. Not all of these goals are material and, in fact, there is an

argument to be made that material goals are generally in the service of more

abstract goals related to quality of life, protection of future generations,

satisfaction of basic needs (material and otherwise), etc. We talk about the

material things because they are easy to grasp and hard to ignore, but

hunger and poverty and the need for a new Volvo station wagon with

windshield wipers on the headlights really stand as proxies for other,

deeper goals we seek.

 

Forgive me for perhaps seeming to remove my comments too far from the

pragmatic, but sometimes it seems like we lose sight of the forest for the

trees. Some material goals are inescapable, but in a world of limited

resources, unlimited material goals clearly pose a problem.  (I doubt that

sentence will ever convince those who are not already persuaded by that

perspective.) Anyway, focusing on that, as important as it is, begs the

larger questions. The driving force behind sustainable development (one

would hope) is the set of social, spiritual, and other less-than-concrete

goals to which we aspire individually and communally. On some level, we

understand that these longer-term goals are the keys to our survival.

Acquiring the material things needed to survive are critical, and yet those

abstract goals of development dictate what we need to do materially to

support them. It's not the other way around. Here's a simplistic way of

putting it. Traditional development is oriented toward "What do we want to

have today and in the future?" while sustainable development is about "What

are we trying to become today and in the future, and what does that compel

us to do?"

 

Hope this entry has been at least entertaining.

 

Elisa

 

Subject: [IKD] Re: Implications for International Inst

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 18:34:41 -0400 (EDT)

From: "Angela C. de Siqueira" <acs4085@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>

Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

 

It is worthwhile to repeat that we need another model of development. In

fact, I really do not know if development is a good word, as it become so

entrenched to an economic and reductionist dimension of life.

If we think development as assuring a dignified level of existence: that is

serving human basic needs, such as food, clear water, shelter, clean air,

cloth, friendship, diversity of tastes, beliefs, preferences, etc we would

give a great step to construct a better world: healthier, happier and less

unequal.

 

How international institutions can work to promote a better world, dealing

with the question of knowledge and information?

 

First of all, learning to LISTEN; That means not arrive with models, lessons

of experience and top down measures, programs or information and knowledge

that were conceived somewhere else; by some unknown and unaccountable group

of people, completely far away from the reality (country; regions; groups)

that they intend to work with.

 

Second, KNOW THE REALITY. Study problems based in  "in locus" visit, as well

as knowing all possible material produced (analyses, evaluation, books, etc)

by national/ regional authors, associations and groups, from very distinct

perspectives. And not only read and study material produced in rich nations

or by international experts, while ignoring local/national/regional

production.

 

Third, ADOPT A COOPERATIVE PERSPECTIVE and not an arrogant and above

posture, as donor of money and projects ideas. This means to begin the

PRACTICE OF DIALOGUE, being respectful, listening to, paying attention to

and valuing positively  divergent and distinct voices, learning with the

disagreement and new suggestions, and not only avoid or discard them.

 

Fourth, PUT ALL ASSETS IN AVAILABILITY; that is money, knowledge,

information, etc. Thus, through dialogue people can chose what they need,

how they will use "assets" and how they will keep a permanent follow up and

be accountable.

 

These are a few suggestions. But the basic is that all must be done with

straight cooperation and real participation of affected people. If not, all

knowledge and information will be discarded as useless, or will be offered

in a way that do not serve population interests; but only the donors

interests; be those interests expressed or hidden.

 

A good idea to start, would be to take this kind of discussion to broader

groups, encompassing distinct segments of society, such as workers unions,

unemployed, street kids, universities, social movements, governments

officials from distinct areas - education, health, transportation, etc-,

NGOs, homeless, etc). This kind of discussion should be carried on in

distinct parts of the world, and in local language, permitting better

understanding and participation.

 

Best,

Angela C. de Siqueira- acs4085@garnet.acns.fsu.edu

 

Subject: [IKD] Development Project Knowledge Network

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 18:36:02 -0400 (EDT)

From: Sean O Siochru <sean@nexus.ie>

Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org

 

Hello all (for introduction, see end of message)

 

James Deane validly points out that the World Bank, in claiming to become

'the Knowledge Bank', risks setting itself up as a 'superior' source of

knowledge; and that this must at least be balanced by strategies to build

the capacities of developing countries to critically assess incoming

knowledge and to create their own knowledge.

 

A second, somewhat similar, risk also faces international development

agencies or organisations embarking on the (now much trodden) road of

becoming a Knowledge Organisation.

 

The usual approach to this process, to simplify somewhat, is for the agency

to identify and capture all the knowledge created within its ambit; channel

it into an organised retrieval structure (human or computer) within the

organisation itself; and then develop mechanisms by which it can be

disseminated narrowly or broadly.  In practice, this might mean that

knowledge generated by all participants (agency staff and others) within a

given development project funded by the agency is recorded through

evaluation and monitoring techniques; is then documented and transferred to

a database; and made available to other projects (of this agency, and, by

networking, to those of other agencies).  Alongside this, the knowledge of

direct agency staff may be made more generally available through more

effective internal knowledge identification and networking.

 

The approach has its benefits: It can lead to genuine sharing of experience

and knowledge within and between agencies and their projects, avoiding

mistakes and replicating successes.  But there are also a number of

problems associated with this model.  For one thing, the resources

available for the identification and documentation of knowledge generated

by development projects are far too small (the World Bank advocates that

international organisations must make more available).  More serious,

perhaps, is that the methodologies deployed to do this work are put through

the 'prism' of the organisation funding the project - it is this

organisation which decides which is relevant and useful knowledge, and how

it should be documented; and they are often implemented by external

consultants or agency staff.  Thus a huge proportion of the knowledge

created is lost; especially, I suspect, that generated at the ground level

by local beneficiary/participants and NGOs (including indigenous

knowledge), which may lie beyond the reach of the methodologies used.

Furthermore, the proportion that finally gets recorded is submitted to a

centralisation process, with access through headquarters or offices of the

agency involved.  And of course the use of that knowledge may, in practice,

be largely restricted to the agency itself and other similar ones, from

where, hopefully, it filters back down to the development situation.

 

There is possibly another way, that has yet to be explored or tested - to

support the creation of a horizontal exchange network between development

projects themselves, unmediated by the agencies.

 

The first step here would be to build the capacity to identify and document

knowledge within projects themselves, and within the local experts,

beneficiaries and organisations implementing them.  Through internet-based

exchange, such knowledge could then be communicated and networked directly

with other development projects, building up a database along the way of

proven useful exchanges.  The identification of such knowledge would be

undertaken on the basis of what the project staff themselves feel is useful

to others, and what they would like to receive from others.  Furthermore,

there is no reason why the network need be limited to one agency, and of

course (notwithstanding language and other barriers) could be global in

scope.

 

The difference between these two approaches is, in many respects,

fundamental.  In the second case, the local capacity to identify and

document knowledge is built up, and remains local; the knowledge resides

there and benefits are received directly through interaction with other

projects as against being mediated through western-based agencies.

Knowledge is also more likely to address real needs, felt by local

participants.  And much deeper ongoing exchanges and interactions between

projects could develop alongside the more formal system of knowledge

exchanges.   The fact that the agency may centralise the knowledge is

merely a by-product of the horizontal exchanges between Projects - the

'ownership' of the network and the knowledge remains with the project

participants (including NGOs, line agencies and others).

 

IFAD, in the context of a project caled ENRAP (of which I coordinated the

planning phase) is hoping to test this idea. As part of building an

internet network between their projects in Asia, we intend in ENRAP Phase 2

to undertake a 'knowledge audit' of a few projects, assessing what useful

knowledge is produced, by whom and where; and what might be needed there

from other projects. We will then develop, in a participative manner, a

process by which identification, documentation and exchanges could be

implemented by the project itself.  Guidelines for replication elsewhere

will also be developed.

 

Such an approach faced many challenges - indeed., it is more difficult that

a vertical, centralised approach.  It must build not only the capacities

described above, but also develop project connectivity and the skills

needed to network effectively.  It requires a rethink of information and

communication within projects, and presumes a highly participative approach

by the projects themselves.

 

If it works, however, the benefits will be well worth the effort.

International organisations might see a role for themselves in initiating

and supporting such genuinely empowering efforts.

 

(If anyone is interested in the ENRAP project, or is aware of a similar

effort elsewhere, contact me.  A public Website will be available soon).

 

Sean O Siochru, Research Director of NEXUS, a not-for-profit research

organisation based in Dublin, Ireland; worked for 15 years in media and

communications, and empowerment issues, with local communities, NGOs, UN

organisations, international research bodies, and national and regional

governments.

 

__________________________________________