Some of us may not go into academia, but instead may be interested in joining the ranks of USAID, State Department or a small start-up NGO. Many of these organizations focus on monitoring and evaluation, lessons learned, and “scaling-up” and replication. However, are these buzzwords reflecting the implementation of effective programs and policies?
As you read the article "Stop Trying to Save the World", think about the use of these buzzwords and the movement towards a focus on lessons learned, replication and scaling. Please review discussion questions below as you read the article to guide our conversation in class.
(You can skip the section of the article about NGO funding titled: “The last NGO I worked for had 150 employees and a budget of…”)
Discussion questions:
- As Professor Härdig pointed out in his previous blog post, not all research can or should be used for producing policy. Why do you agree or disagree with this statement as it relates to the article by Hobbes?
- Is there such a thing as an objectively existing reality that researchers can represent without internal biases or shaping it through interpretation? Or is reality an inescapable byproduct of our own interpretations?
- Can there be more than one scientific method?
- Should policy or program relevance determine a research agenda?
- What are your ontological and epistemological commitments?
- As a practitioner of international development, what lessons can be drawn from the article “Stop Trying to Save the World” as it relates to research methodologies and small-N case studies?
- What are some methodological issues highlighted by Hobbes’ articles and how can practitioners avoid those issues?
- In the case of deworming in Kenya and India, what independent variables and processes could have been used to better understand the dependent variables, and how?
- George and Bennett suggest that a “controlled comparison...is very difficult to achieve,” (pg. 151) and the other methodologies discussed attempt to get around strict comparison as much as possible. If this is true, then should practitioners scale-up or replicate interventions based on findings from non-controlled comparisons? If so, how?
This case study was used in a skills institute I took last Spring with Dr. Taylor, Culturally-Responsive Program Design. The case study is a great example of the tunnel-vision to which the human world is susceptible, and how data that feeds our biases can influence our decisions.
ReplyDeleteAs researchers or practitioners in the field of international development we have to be very aware that existing data may also be telling an existing narrative. In most cases project evaluations tend to get lost in numbers and hide the moment of collections, what happens behind the scene. We have to look into what is missing and what becomes invisible behind large evaluations and measurements.
Delete4. Should policy or program relevance determine a research agenda?
ReplyDeleteI’m assuming that a policy or program relevant research is a study to find out facts on a particular subject with the aim of influencing policy changes or leading to a plan of action that will ameliorate the conditions by which people live in relation to that subject. If this is correct, then policy or program relevance should determine a research agenda, particularly in the field of international or community development.
As already revealed by Hobbes in his article, different communities have different needs and there is likely to be failure if a project that succeeded in one place is replicated in exactly the same way in an entirely different area.
What makes policy or program relevant research necessary is that, based on facts (ontological or epistemological) and evidence, a case is built on why a government or a leading body needs to serve its people in a particular way, and a plan of action is drawn and implemented to achieve that change.
Another reason why such a research is important in international or community development is that recommendations are always based on suggestions given by experts in the particular field and the people affected by that policy or program. Therefore the changes implemented are in line with the people’s culture and will likely not flop once implemented.
However, not all research falls under international or community development, but are necessary to answer the curiosity of man. For instance, how many planets are in the universe, or how far is the sun from the earth?
7. What are some methodological issues highlighted by Hobbes’ articles and how can practitioners’ avoid these issues?
The two methodological issues that caught my attention in the article were: (1) Failure of projects once the implementation phase is over, and (2) The quick spread of replicating projects in different areas.
The solution I think will work in the first case is that, projects implemented should be done in ways that the local people are fully involved and are trained to carry on with the project when the main organization is gone. Help should not be permanent, it is best to teach a person to fish than to offer them fish.
To strengthen this commitment, it is also necessary to see what the government is doing to solve that issue and find out how the local people can be involved in a participatory governance approach.
The second point just reiterates the comments I’ve already raised in my response to question 4. Every project or policy needs a separate research once the location changes and like Hobbes mentioned ‘development, no matter how it happens, is a slow process … successful programs should be allowed to expand by degrees, not digits.’
This in my understanding means instead of throwing a lot of money into projects and expecting quick results and expansion, the focus should be more on how well has the project resolved the problems of the people, what can be done better, and how far can we expand our projects to other locations without lowering our standards?
Is there such a thing as an objectively existing reality that researchers can represent without internal biases or shaping it through interpretation? Or is reality an inescapable byproduct of our own interpretations?
ReplyDeleteThe answer to this question is a matter of ongoing debate. Therefore, it is difficult to answer the question with a definitive answer. However, a line of thinking suggests that it is difficult to argue the existence of an objectively existing reality that we can represent in some shape or form without the internal biases of the researcher interfering in his or her inquiry.
As opposed to natural reality that does not need human interaction to exist, social reality is born from human interaction and production. Therefore, social reality consists of social constructs that were created in a specific historical moment, under specific conditions that were in influenced by human interaction and production to serve specific purposes, be it economic, political, legal, ideological etc. These constructs have no inherent meaning without human interaction to give meaning to them, and in return, they carry the ability to influence our interactions according to their own capacities.
We must be aware of these social constructs, in terms of their nature as social constructions, if we are to try to understand their properties. We must be also aware that in this case, the intellectual tools that we use in order to understand these social constructs are also themselves social constructs with particular meanings that we have given to them ourselves. That is why, I think it may difficult to talk about an objectively existing reality.
Can there be more than one scientific method?
Yes, there can be more than one scientific method of social inquiry. As Patrick Jackson explains in his book, what is labeled science or scientific method varies according to different social scientists based on their ontological and epistemological convictions. Therefore, each social scientist according to their personal ontological and epistemological convictions will prefer to use appropriate methods of scientific inquiry in line with their convictions. That is why it can be stated that there can be indeed more than one scientific method.