Engagement, Learning and Emancipatory Development Management: A Commentary

Abstract

Complex and constantly emerging relationships between groups, organisations and movements aiming to promote and manage change bring into sharp focus the nature of means and ends and how they interact. Development managers are continually negotiating these relationships, where the tools (the means) and the espoused goals of development (the ends) are caught up in the process. We argue that although it is essential to recognise the role of power relations in development management, social difference and contestation experienced in the negotiation of changing relationships can create spaces and be important sources of engagement and learning for development managers and their organisations. A question is whether and how such learning can lead to more emancipatory means and ends of development management, rather than simply consolidating existing social relations. In this article, we provide a commentary on these issues through interviews with a small group of practitioners working mainly in non‐governmental organisations. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Nonprofit Organizations Becoming Business-Like

“…NPOs that are well resourced, operate above the grassroots level, and proactively adopt business-like approaches stand a chance of gaining power (Nazneen & Sultan, 2009). NPO managers, at least in the field of development cooperation (Ebrahim, 2002;Johnson, Pinder, & Wilson, 2012), tend to be aware of mission-incapacitating power effects and try to counteract them in their work with mixed success.…”

Development on My Terms: Development Consultants and Knowledge for Development

“…the kinds of knowledge needed for development. This is not to suggest that this process is monolithic: on the contrary, even unproductive as well as productive knowledge engagements can lead to new spaces for change (for example, in the senses discussed by Cornwall and Coelho, 2007;McKinnon, 2008;Johnson et al, 2012).…”

“…However, even productive knowledge engagements may involve collusion because the overall effect is to embed all three parties further in a particular discourse and set of expectations about the kinds of knowledge needed for development. This is not to suggest that this process is monolithic: on the contrary, even unproductive as well as productive knowledge engagements can lead to new spaces for change (for example, in the senses discussed by Cornwall and Coelho, ; McKinnon, ; Johnson et al ., ).…”

Ethical, Managerial and Methodological Perspectives in Knowledge Creation in Two Finnish Civil Society Organisations

“…Second, the participatory approach argues that the beneficiaries have an ethical right to participate in the knowledge creation concerning their lives, instead of merely being objects of knowledge production conducted by so-called experts (Chambers 2008;Powell 2006). Third, there is the question of the purposes of knowledge production and the consequent use of knowledge acquired (Johnson et al 2012). The question of ethics applies especially when problems, flaws and mistakes are revealed.…”

“…Whilst knowledge creation is closely tied to money transfers, control and upward accountability are essential parts of the practice (Townsend/Townsend 2004;Johnson 2001). Less space is left for learning and identification of alternative ways of conducting and evaluating interventions (Johnson et al 2012;Guijt/Roche 2014).…”