In this discussion paper, Jock Noble of World Vision articulates some of the difficulties that we face in the field of development. He presents some particularly thorny issues in the donor, NGO, and beneficiary relationships, and lays out the integral approach as a possible avenue forward. Particularly, he introduces a way to measure results that is more dynamic and non-linear than current models. He explains:
“Conceptualisation of development in communities that are poor can generally be best thought of as ‘Wicked’ problems (Rittel, 1973). A Wicked problem is one in which each situation is essentially unique, evading definitive scoping, where there are no defined ends, solutions are partial and better or worse rather than being right or wrong; where every intervention counts, altering the entire situation and all within the context of being a part of another problem.
Shifting interventions from ‘linear solution thinking’ in overcoming development challenges to wicked problem thinking requires a new way of conceptualizing what is to be done, and when and by whom.”
Noble goes on to say how a tension exists between the NGO’s ‘donor promise’, that is, what NGOs and other Agents of Change (AOC) promise donors in terms of end results that are supposedly arrived at via a logical, linear cause-and-effect process, and the nonlinear reality of development itself, in which often what donor’s would view as ‘failure’ is actually a necessary part of transformation.
“For individuals and groups of people who are poor, to increase their perspectives in ways that increase their options, generally requires some shift in worldviews and for this shift to take place it is likely to require some kind of dis-ease, failure or real risk of failure. But risk of failure is unattractive to donors and both donors and AOCs tend to identify outcomes below the donor promise line as failure.”
Seeking to avoid the possibility of so-called failure downshifts the creativity and innovation that we actually need for a transformation, and does not account for the true non-linearity of the process of development.
Noble suggests the integral framework can meet this need for a more flexible and dynamic approach, one that is able to account for and make positive use out of nonlinearity as well as recognizing the interior, unseen and usually ignored dimensions of development. He writes,
“In the context of development, the four AQAL dimensions [of the integral framework] provide the potential to change program designs from the fear that individual program or program components may fail, to focusing on tetra-meshed end states that allow for a myriad of flexible shared learning opportunities. This focus can more fully utilize the initiative, creativity and energy of staff and community members on the ground to generate continuous iterations of relevant and timely interventions and apply them towards end states. This approach also allows for an increase in flexibility and for the ongoing adjustment of approaches as successes are achieved and complexity increases. In this framework measurement of progress and positive change is also possible when none of those involved could have predicted what change would happen or how or when and in what form the change takes place.”
How might we contribute to these ideas, and develop this idea further?
This is a current and important topic for anyone working in development. It may also be an interesting topic for those participating in the South African event on “integral practice” next month.