Theory in Practice

We monitor what works, and explain away what didn’t, but never think about truly monitoring and evaluating our failures to properly learn from them. Imagine the money saved on projects that do nothing if we focused equally on learning about what doesn’t work as we do on what does. Why don’t we want to learn about our failures? Our preference is to sweep them under the rug. We feel failure gives development a bad name and jeopardizes future money from the donors who funded the projects that didn’t go well or failed outright. Ironically, rather than worry about one failed project giving development a bad name, we should be wary of the fact that not learning from the mistakes that were made is what will give development a bad name because we risk repeating those mistakes again and again.

If ever there was a topic that denoted the very clear line between theory and practice, it would be the refugee ‘crisis’ currently ‘plaguing’ Europe. First of all, let us all be clear on what a crisis really is. The Oxford Dictionary defines it as “a time of intense difficulty or danger.” This usually necessitates “a difficult or important decision” to be made. Now, yes, the refugees arriving on Europe’s shores are in crisis: they are in grave, if not imminent danger, in their home countries (such as Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan) and have very difficult lives - more than most of us can even fathom. Perhaps among Europeans, our grandparents can. Amongst many populations the world over, conflict and hardship are very much part of daily life.

There was an interesting back and forth on Twitter a couple of weeks ago as one user vented frustration with the problem of evaluations making unjustifiable quantitative statements based on qualitative analysis. Then another user brought up bias (institutional and personal) which opened a whole other can of worms (or Pandora’s box, if you’re squeamish). As someone who used to commission evaluations and then later do them myself, I was interested to learn more about bias and evaluation results. Fortunately, the kind people of Twitter never fail to provide solid academic research links to their arguments (for once, I’m not being sarcastic).

At a conference last week which focussed on disaster relief and disaster risk reduction in Asia, I had asked a question about the need to focus on local government for DRR implementation, and the reality of that happening anytime soon given that the global framework for DRR was, in fact, global. The speaker pointed to that fact that local leadership was the critical factor in DRR and other issues being properly implemented at the local level. Indeed, this is true. Leadership is the deciding factor in any development success story. However, another participant in the conference raised the issue of changes in leadership - which are frequent at the local level - not just among elected officials but also public servant managers. ‘How can we sustain good policies and practices in DRR when management is always changing?’ she asked. Quite rightly, this is the other side of the coin on bringing policy and practice from the global/national arena to the local level.

In a recent article , I highlighted an issue that I feel needs more discussion and examination. I was writing about development jargon and the topic of resilience came up. In the article, I noted that I had recently learned that the concept of resilience was understood differently at the community level in a country which my husband had just returned from. In Vanuatu, communities viewed resilience as something built on local knowledge and historical practice, whereas the ‘resilience’ that was being pushed by development partners was heavily reliant on foreign practice and knowledge, which the communities felt would make them more dependent on foreign assistance in order to ‘be resilient’ to issues such as climate change in the long term. It was a very interesting issue that prompted me to begin investigating further into definitions and understanding of resilience, and the difference between those that need it and those that promote it.

The other day, I realized I've been in the business of development and conflict management for 13 years. If you include my time doing human rights research and advocacy, its 15 going on 16 years. Which I think is just enough time for me to credibly admit that most of us are   winging it most of the rest of the time, and happily confident in what we're saying about 20 minutes a week. Since moving into the blogosphere and thus taking a step back from daily meetings and face to face interactions with actual people in the same field, I have found that my confidence in the arguments that I make in my writing is increasing. With considerable reflection, I have concluded that a key contributing factor is the fact that I am not listening to jargon and therefore not spouting it to my audience. Over time, my readership has gone up and I like to think this is partly because I use actual words - words that mean something to the average person, and that have meaning to me.

Following the COP21 in December 2015, the Pacific islands have a chance at survival in the face of an increasingly changing climate. Along with other small islands and highly vulnerable states, Pacific island advocacy achieved concessions to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius in the outcome document, the Paris Agreement. It is a huge win for all countries in the region.   Ideally, the major emitters of greenhouse gases will bear the brunt of the work that needs to be done to ensure that that target is achieved, but in reality, the Pacific islands will need to continue to lead to hold signatories to the Paris Agreement accountable to the targets agreed, as well as lead in terms of adaptation, risk management and sustainable development. It is not a time to rest on the happy achievements of December, and it is not just climate change that the Pacific islands must address, but the Sustainable Development Goal s as a whole, and the significant work to be done to achi...