As a development practitioner, I fully subscribe to Giulio and Millie who not only challenge the prevailing thinking on scalability of development interventions, but also hint the way out. The fact that an intervention works in a certain setting is an indication, but in no way an assurance that it would work in some other setting or place as well. More than a century ago, A. Marshall asked why firms in the same industry were often geographically near each other (or why they cluster?); and concluded that proximity created something “in the air”: “…if one man starts a new idea, it is taken up by others and combined with suggestions of their own; and thus it becomes the source of further new ideas.” Marshall was thinking about Victorian manufacturing, but same applies for many development issues and, if I may add, there is always something different in the air. This is, I believe, why the luster of so-called best practices and their humbler sisters (i.e. good practices) has started to fade quickly, with the unsatisfactory outcomes of the efforts towards mimicking them. I think we won’t be surprised (may be a few us would) if the things that look good on Brad and Angelina would not look as good on us! So why should we even assume that a social service developed in one place can be applied in somewhere else without any consideration for the contextual differences and still would look good. I believe that this understanding is becoming more common sense now, later and slower than it should but it is happening. I think our next challenge will be to communicate the differences between “piloting” and “prototyping”, and between “solving” and “addressing” development challenges. Development challenges, like many viruses, mutate and we usually deliver nice presentations on best practices with the un-derserved satisfaction of “solving” a problem and not understanding the nature of the next one or the one in next door.
I was glad to read this post, and also appreciative of Matt Gürsoy’s comment above. I feel that we need to extend the evolutionary biological metaphors to include the idea of phenotypic plasticity - specifically the ability of an organization [sic] to change its phenotype in response to changes in the environment. This form of bio-mimicry is what we seek to embody at Big Picture Learning (http://www.bigpicturelearning.org) where rather than having a prescriptive model, we have identified a set of design parameters and then seek to collaborate closely with local communities to co-create novel innovations that are context-specific.
An arresting analogy, which begs the questions: “Why stop?” and “What happened next as a consequence of the male crickets’ selection of silence over serenading?”
If the survival of the crickets was predicated on the males’ vocal dexterity and audacity in their search for females, what became of the risk-averse and chirp-free crickets as a species?
THAT’S NOT CRICKET:
A strategy to avoid detection may result in getting no satisfaction
For the crickets who abandon their practice in mating attraction
Sex seeking serenading may entail risks and fears and doubts
Alerting predators to the crickets’ ways and whereabouts
But if crickets cease their chirping how can they mount the incline?
As a species and as a collective their plan can only lead to their decline
All out – maiden over – stumped – game over and the end of the line
“Howzat?”
Marlene, thanks for your response! You nail the point- what is next! We dont know and that’s OK but what we do know that there this evolution of a generation of silent crickets is going to have an impact on both the cricket population (whose ultimate goal is survive and procreate) and flies (ditto on the goals)- and the dance between the two continues. The corollary to development is that:
- there are existing dynamics in communities/environments where we work at
- by identifying, understanding and working with them (as opposed to creating something new) we have a chance of getting to more evolvable solutions
- fully well knowing that a ‘solution’ today may be out of date tomorrow, thus when we design projects, we ought to be mindful of creating a space where this iteration and adaptation can happen
COMMENTS
BY Murat Gürsoy
ON August 30, 2014 07:14 AM
As a development practitioner, I fully subscribe to Giulio and Millie who not only challenge the prevailing thinking on scalability of development interventions, but also hint the way out. The fact that an intervention works in a certain setting is an indication, but in no way an assurance that it would work in some other setting or place as well. More than a century ago, A. Marshall asked why firms in the same industry were often geographically near each other (or why they cluster?); and concluded that proximity created something “in the air”: “…if one man starts a new idea, it is taken up by others and combined with suggestions of their own; and thus it becomes the source of further new ideas.” Marshall was thinking about Victorian manufacturing, but same applies for many development issues and, if I may add, there is always something different in the air. This is, I believe, why the luster of so-called best practices and their humbler sisters (i.e. good practices) has started to fade quickly, with the unsatisfactory outcomes of the efforts towards mimicking them. I think we won’t be surprised (may be a few us would) if the things that look good on Brad and Angelina would not look as good on us! So why should we even assume that a social service developed in one place can be applied in somewhere else without any consideration for the contextual differences and still would look good. I believe that this understanding is becoming more common sense now, later and slower than it should but it is happening. I think our next challenge will be to communicate the differences between “piloting” and “prototyping”, and between “solving” and “addressing” development challenges. Development challenges, like many viruses, mutate and we usually deliver nice presentations on best practices with the un-derserved satisfaction of “solving” a problem and not understanding the nature of the next one or the one in next door.
BY Andrew Frishman, Big Picture Learning
ON September 6, 2014 09:38 PM
I was glad to read this post, and also appreciative of Matt Gürsoy’s comment above. I feel that we need to extend the evolutionary biological metaphors to include the idea of phenotypic plasticity - specifically the ability of an organization [sic] to change its phenotype in response to changes in the environment. This form of bio-mimicry is what we seek to embody at Big Picture Learning (http://www.bigpicturelearning.org) where rather than having a prescriptive model, we have identified a set of design parameters and then seek to collaborate closely with local communities to co-create novel innovations that are context-specific.
Carlos Moreno, Charlie Mojkowski, and Dana Luria wrote about this unique approach last year in the Phi Delta Kappan - http://pdk.sagepub.com/content/95/3/8.full
BY Marlene Greenhalgh
ON September 19, 2014 06:45 AM
An arresting analogy, which begs the questions: “Why stop?” and “What happened next as a consequence of the male crickets’ selection of silence over serenading?”
If the survival of the crickets was predicated on the males’ vocal dexterity and audacity in their search for females, what became of the risk-averse and chirp-free crickets as a species?
THAT’S NOT CRICKET:
A strategy to avoid detection may result in getting no satisfaction
For the crickets who abandon their practice in mating attraction
Sex seeking serenading may entail risks and fears and doubts
Alerting predators to the crickets’ ways and whereabouts
But if crickets cease their chirping how can they mount the incline?
As a species and as a collective their plan can only lead to their decline
All out – maiden over – stumped – game over and the end of the line
“Howzat?”
From: “The Peasant Tree” © 2014 Marlene Claire Greenhalgh
Leg over cricket not leg before wicket
That’s the ticket
Off to picket
Marlene
BY Millie
ON October 30, 2014 02:30 AM
Marlene, thanks for your response! You nail the point- what is next! We dont know and that’s OK but what we do know that there this evolution of a generation of silent crickets is going to have an impact on both the cricket population (whose ultimate goal is survive and procreate) and flies (ditto on the goals)- and the dance between the two continues. The corollary to development is that:
- there are existing dynamics in communities/environments where we work at
- by identifying, understanding and working with them (as opposed to creating something new) we have a chance of getting to more evolvable solutions
- fully well knowing that a ‘solution’ today may be out of date tomorrow, thus when we design projects, we ought to be mindful of creating a space where this iteration and adaptation can happen
this is our hunch in any case!
thanks again