|
|
| français - Español |
|
 |
| idrc.ca HOME >
Publications >
IDRC Books >
All our books >
PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: A SOURCEBOOK >
|
ID: 85059Added: 2005-07-18 15:24Modified: 2007-03-25 22:18Refreshed: 2010-02-08 13:32 
|
|
Document(s) 19 of 34
In a 1997 monograph entitled, "Rural Development From Vision to Action", the World Bank posed the following rhetorical question: "If rural development is so important, why is it not happening?" The Bank posed three answers: poor commitment and capacities of countries; waning international commitment to agriculture and rural development; and poor commitment on the part of the World Bank. However, there is an additional explanation, which may be operating at a deeper level and contributing to these perceptions--the current problem-solving approach of many research and development organizations may be affecting their capacity as change agents. Although many such organizations have reconceptualized sustainable development in much broader and more holistic terms, and have made significant progress in evolving towards more participatory and people-centered approaches, a more positive approach is required to complement the problem-solving focus, as a way of ameliorating its self-limiting aspects. Mental Models of Sustainable Rural DevelopmentMental models are the images, assumptions and stories that we carry in our subconscious minds about how the world works. They are powerful in affecting what we do because they affect what we see. Different observers of the same event describe it differently because their mental models influence the details that they emphasize. The prevailing mental model of research and development institutions dedicated to sustainable rural development is that they exist to solve development problems. This has led to a diagnostic and often reactive problem-solving mode of action, and to a culture of trouble-shooting experts who develop solutions (Figure 1). Figure 1. The Problem-Solving Process in "Research-for-Development" Organizations.
Mental models have changed from the 1980's Transfer-of-Technology or Central Source model of sustainable development towards a more demand-led and people-centered approach. This approach focuses considerable attention on the importance of participation and equity, defines development much more broadly, and expands the concept of "expert" knowledge to include local, indigenous and informal knowledge as well as external, formal knowledge.
The key dimensions of development include: This more holistic and ecological view of sustainable rural development is framed as a positive vision or a dream to inspire us; nevertheless, the missions of research-oriented organizations dedicated to sustainable rural development, and the participatory tools and methods that they use for navigating the development process remain grounded in the problem-solving mindset. Beyond the Problem-Solving Approach to Sustainble Rural DevelopmentSustainable rural development seems elusive because people and organizations are constrained by their perception that resources, and hence their capacities, are limited. Other related constraints include the need to have concrete definition of problems, and the reluctance to step into unknown territory (e.g., other disciplines and ways of knowing requisite to a more holistic perspective). Together, these constraints limit human imagination, vision and enterprise. The World Bank's explanation for the poor track record in sustainable rural development is clearly grounded in a negative view of inadequate capacity and commitment. This may be a consequence of a deeply held mental model that is currently below the level of awareness of the World Bank and many other organizations.
The mental model says that our world is full of problems and that is the job of governments and development-oriented organizations to help fix them. A complementary approach is to choose to "see" consciously and focus on possibilities, capabilities and assets rather than focusing exclusively on problems, needs and deficits. By focusing on positive elements, individuals, organizations, communities and even societies can tap the transformative and creative energies of people who believe that humans have the collective capacity to create the future they desire. These ideas are not new, but rather, are part of a paradigm shift that is gradually challenging our mechanistic view of the world and moving towards a more holistic ecological view that gives greater eminence to the role of human consiousness in constructing reality. Appreciative Inquiry: An Example of a Vision-Based ApproachAppreciative Inquiry (AI) is one of a family of approaches that can complement problem-solving by counterbalancing its self-limiting aspects. AI is an approach for planning and working for change that identifies the best of "what is" as the grounding for pursuing a vision of "what could be." It is a cooperative and participatory search for the strengths and positive forces found within every system. The AI approach involves collaborative inquiry, based on affirmative questioning and theory building, to uncover and accentuate the positive in a community, enhancing cultural identity, spirit and vision. AI is selectively attentive to the best and highest qualities in a system. Local people can use their understanding of the "best of what is" to construct a vision of what their community might be if they identify their strengths and then improve or intensify them. They achieve this goal by creating a provocative vision for the future that can build on past and current achievements. These visions are realistic dreams that motivate a community to reach for something better, based on an understanding of what gives them hope now. Figure 2 describes the four steps in the Appreciate Inquiry cycle. Figure 2. Four Steps of the Appreciative Inquiry Cycle
The core task in the Discovery phase is to uncover and appreciate the moments of excellence when people experienced the community in its most alive and effective state. Participants then seek to understand the conditions that made the high points possible, such as leadership, relationships, technologies, values, capacity building or external relationships. They deliberately choose not to analyze deficits, but rather to systematically identify and learn from even the smallest victories. In this phase, people share stories of accomplishments, discuss the positive attributes at the core of their community and identify the aspects of their history that they most value and want to enhance in the future.
In the Dream phase, people challenge the status quo by constructing practical visions that are grounded in the community's history, but seek to expand the community's potential. Images of the future emerge from the positive examples from the past. In the Design phase, participants create a strategy to carry out their provocative visions, incorporating the qualities of community life that they want to protect and the relationships that they want to achieve. The Doing phase involves the construction of the new image of the future. It is a time of continuous learning, experimentation and innovation, adjustment and improvisation in the service of shared ideals. Appreciative Inquiry views collective imagination and dialogue about the future as infinite human resource for generating constructive change. This unfolds organically as people project a "horizon of expectation" that brings the future into the present as a mobilizing agent. This positive orientation can be powerfully combined with whole-brain approaches that draw upon the creative power of heterogenous groups with a spectrum of thinking preferences and capacities (including interpersonal, emotional, spiritual, practical, organizational, administrative, logical, analytical, technical, holistic, imaginative, conceptual and integrative). Such groups can synthesize a rich collective picture of what should and could be from many individual views of the world, and the energy that derives from positive intangibles like hope, excitement, creativity, humor, inspiration, caring and camaraderie.
ReferencesCooperrider, D.L. and W.A. Pasmore. 1991. The Organization Dimension of Global Change. Human Relations, 44(8):763-787. Cooperrider, D.L., P.F. Sorensen Jr., D. Whitney and T.F. Yaeger (eds). 2000. Appreciative Inquiry. Rethinking Human Organization Towards a Positive Theory of Change. Stipes Publishing. Campaign, Illinois. 287pp. Cooperrider, D.L. and S. Srivastava. 1987. Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life. Research in Organizational Change and Development 1:129-169. Elliot, C. 1999. Locating the Energy for Change: An Introduction to Appreciative Inquiry. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Winnipeg, Canada. 287 pp. Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's Consequences. Beverly Hills, CA. Sage Publication. Serge, P. M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday, NY. 424pp. UNDP. 1998. Overcoming Human Poverty. United Nations Development Program. New York. 94pp. Contributed by:
Document(s) 19 of 34
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| guest (Read)(Ottawa) Login | Home|Careers|Copyright and Terms of Use|General Infomation|Contact Us|Low bandwidth |
The energy that could create something new is diverted to preventing or containing something undesirable.
Negative visions carry a message of powerlessness, and they are short term - once the perceived problem or threat changes, the energy and vision dissipates.
Troubleshooting approaches are slow because they look backwards to yesterday's causes.
They can generate defensiveness and reinforce hierarchies and the social distance created by power differences.
