This past week Kristof had an article in the NYT Magazine praising Do-It- Yourself (D.I.Y) development projects around the world. You must read the article to understand some of this blog. The web address-
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/magazine/24volunteerism-t.html?ref=magazine
The article was excellent and caused a great debate between Matt and I as we sat, prisoners in our house, held up by the 105 degree heat.
At first, Matt and I disagreed about what we thought. Matt agreed with Kristof and I, for the most part, disagreed with Kristof. I was under the impresson that by allowing D.I.Yers in the field we were taking away from the professionalism of the field. However, after many days of thinking about this idea, then reading many blogs by people working around the world in the field of development, who also received Masters, through university programs, I realized I was being selfish. I was trying to hold on to the field as something only us trained in the field could do successfully. I have totally changed my point of view and written this in response to the following blogs:
http://findwhatworks.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/diy-follow-up-part-2-of-5-questions-of-elitism-or-just-what-is-a-%E2%80%9Cprofessional%E2%80%9D/
http://talesfromethehood.wordpress.com/
http://findwhatworks.wordpress.com/2010/10/29/diy-follow-up-part-1-of-5-how-complicated-can-things-really-be/
My response:
As a graduate of NYU's International Education program with a focus on Development Education and a current Peace Corps Volunteer in Botswana, I am perplexed at how to respond to your recent post.
You have valid points. However, you over estimate what a graduate degree prepares you for. If someone does not already know the importance of knowing your community or audience, involving the community and the important members of the community, and using past lessons as guiding principles, then I suppose they do need graduate school.
However, I think these principles are common sense. This is how we should live our lives in general; learning from past relationships and adjusting accordingly, learning about the culture we are trying to be apart of, learning from past mistakes in any professional field and correcting them for the future and learning how to interact with others effectively are all the same principles on a different scale. Why would we act differently in the field of international development?
If you have successfully volunteered at a soup kitchen, worked at an inner city school, worked in volatile communities anywhere and formed relationships there and become an agent of change with that organization, then you know the guiding principles and what it takes to enter into a place you do not naturally belong. If you have ever earned the respect of those you work with thus enabling true dialogue about how to move forward between all involved then you have also earned the right to add to the academic discourse that goes on in the classroom.
I agree with you that what it takes to be successful is a commitment. But, I also think what it takes is cultural humility and I think sometimes grad school strips us of this notion. We think we know so much, theory, lessons learned etc, yet we know nothing until we are on the ground and we hear, feel, smell and see what is all around us in that certain situation. D.I.Yers are in the field, on the ground, learning the theory while doing the practical work that is so desperately needed. Me, I sat in classes in NYC in a controlled environment so far removed from the reality and learned the theory, so excited to have the background that everyone told me was so necessary. To then go into the field and throw theories out the window because any good development worker knows the two do not always go hand and hand, when the problems and reality hit you so bluntly in the face.
When I get furious, seeing so much money squandered away, while the orphaned kids in my village are scavenging for food on a daily basis, I constantly remind myself the field is learning and evolving. I also remind myself of the development theorist Samuel Huntington and Immanuel Wallerstein and how Botswana is a young country growing and learning. This is what keeps me going, hoping for the best while aware of all the shortcomings of this field and I try to remember development is an evolving process that is natural, as well as forced.
There is not one organization that I see working perfectly; there is more, of what you call ‘professional organizations’, that need to be shut down than I can count. Moreover, I find that professional organizations have no real incentive to succeed. I mean if they succeed and reach their goals, there is no need for funding or the organization any longer, thus making them obsolete. Why implement your programs and reach the desired outcomes, if you are no longer going to be needed and thus left without a job?
The closest parallel I can think of is looking at the education system in America. It, too, is broken like the field of aid and development. So, Charter schools have been created, many times run by people how know nothing or very little bit about education. At first, as an educator I was insulted or reluctant to believe that this was the best solution. I still do not even know where I stand on this idea of creating a new system without fixing the old. But, after years of watching charters and a true investment in fixing the system and seeing public school perform better to keep up with the competition, who am I to judge this? What if one succeeds and we can learn from it, wasn’t it worth the investment, wasn’t it worth the unknown or the possibility of failure to help secure a better future for those kids that were involved and that will be involved in the future? Or what if one fails, and we learn what not to do the next time, wasn't that also worth it in the sense that we now know more and how to move forward and be more accurate next time? Isn't this the way the most innovative ideas have presented themselves throughout history?
With all the money that is wasted on moving development workers in to their field assignment, for their kids to go to private schools, cars for their organizations, personal housing payments, diplomatic pouches, flights home, lunches and workshops, I think the money invested in D.I.Y is a drop in the bucket, comparatively.
Doctors are known for being elite and for that I am thankful. Doctors hold our lives in their hands sometimes and for that we need the elite and the best. Similarly, we as development workers hold the lives of many in our hands and we are still not completely working at 100 % and are not seen as elite, much less effective, amongst members of other professions, even if we were educated at the top schools. We flounder and do not always know how to approach the problems that plague so much of the developing world. Therefore, since we, as aid workers, do not have the answers/results nor are we even close to coming up with one, until I see the perfect solution that we in the development field have come up with, I am willing to look at, learn from and accept D.I.Y approaches that are not so caught up in the bureaucracy but rather on the ground trying to do what they can.
Here is Kristof’s response to the Find What Works blog critical response:
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/a-postscript-on-diy-aid/
If for some reason you are interested in the field of aid and development I have found some great blogs from people working in various sectors of the development field:
http://www.aviewfromthecave.com/
http://goodintents.org/blog
http://africasacountry.com/
http://lessonsilearned.org/
http://onmotherhoodandsanity.blogspot.com/
http://penelopemc.wordpress.com/about/
http://www.owen.org/blog
http://texasinafrica.blogspot.com/
http://bloodandmilk.org/
-laura
No comments:
Post a Comment