Part 3
Reflecting Critically
Once a rigorous description of the various realities has been institutionalized or given value, the next stage in analysis is to critically reflect on the information and descriptions that have been collected. This can involve questioning the evidence, for example by asking:
• How accurate is the information?
• Which methods were used to collect the information?
• Are there gaps or additional information which would be useful to have?
• Whose knowledge has been included or excluded?
• Whose perspective does the information represent?
• Might the information be biased towards particular perspectives?
In addition, the underlying assumptions and values of those involved need to be recognized and articulated before conclusions are made. Assumptions are the unstated ideas that we accept to be true or take for granted without necessarily having evidence to support them. Values can be described as the ideas or beliefs that people see as worthwhile, meaning those that provide standards of conduct by which we measure the quality of human behavior.18 Both assumption and values can be very influential in guiding people through a process of reflecting on and interpreting information. However, they can also be potentially deceptive because people may not be aware of the way in which their values and assumptions are directing their reasoning and, consequently, their conclusions.
Since the development sector focuses on processes of social transformation across many different cultures and contexts, the implicit values and assumptions of the different actors involved may vary considerably. If these values and assumptions are not discussed openly and made explicit, it may result in a conflict of values, one value being treated preferentially over another or, ultimately, the wrong conclusion
being drawn. There are many common, but often unproven, assumptions which some of those involved in development make – such as the preconceived idea that agricultural development will lead to increased incomes or that literacy makes for a more liberal society.
These assumptions and values can lead to inappropriate and/or ineffective development initiatives. For example, after 10 years of civil war on the island of Bougainvillea in Papua New Guinea a programme was established to support village development committees to set up income-generating projects. Traditional councils of elders were exclusively male so it was assumed that the only way to ensure the inclusion of women was for them to have their own committees and projects. However, many of the projects that were established, such as poultry production, were later vandalized as a result of jealousies between husbands and their wives. On reflection it was recognized that as the local culture was matrilineal, although women were not formally involved in village councils, they did have many informal ways of influencing decisions. Separating men and women had therefore inadvertently emphasized their exclusion rather than promoting their inclusion.
A lack of understanding of the local culture and context can lead to inappropriate conclusions being drawn from a process of critical reflection.
A lack of understanding of the local culture and context can therefore lead to inappropriate conclusions being drawn from a process of critical reflection. However, it can also lead to assumptions that there is a ‘correct’ way to reflect critically which can be used across cultures. In many cultures there are significant barriers to analytical thinking which may require more locally appropriate approaches to critical reflection to be used. For example, in the Cambodian context19:
• People educated up until the 1980s experienced a didactic teaching methodology which actively suppressed independent and analytical thinking.
• A question someone cannot answer will lead to loss of ‘face’, so in general questions (especially ‘why?’) are viewed as something negative, rather than constructive.
• There is a general expectation that everything has a ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ answer, with little tolerance of anything else.
Also, for many cultures critical reflection is not just based on ‘rational’ thinking but also involves a person’s intuition, emotions and empathy. Acknowledging and mobilizing these human capacities can be enough to engage people in a much deeper and more reflective process of analysis. This can be encouraged by opening spaces for collective reflection, for example using de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats methodology (p. 14) as a group process (see text box below). However, it must also be recognized that in the wider context of civil society, with organisations openly
competing for funding and status, it can be both difficult and undesirable for organizations to reflect on, and openly critique, their own work.
Using Six Thinking Hats for Collective Reflection
The Six Thinking Hats methodology20 can be used in a structured sequence for collective reflection, where the members of the group all wear one symbolic hat at a time. This is called parallel thinking and provides focus and a clear direction of the thinking process. For example:
Step 1: The relevant facts about the issue are explored (White)
Step 2: Ideas are generated about how the issue could be addressed (Green)
Step 3: The benefits (Yellow) and drawbacks (Black) of the ideas are listed
Step 4: Intuitions and feeling about the alternatives are shared (Red)
Step 5: The outcome of the process is synthesized (Blue)
Reflecting Critically
Once a rigorous description of the various realities has been institutionalized or given value, the next stage in analysis is to critically reflect on the information and descriptions that have been collected. This can involve questioning the evidence, for example by asking:
• How accurate is the information?
• Which methods were used to collect the information?
• Are there gaps or additional information which would be useful to have?
• Whose knowledge has been included or excluded?
• Whose perspective does the information represent?
• Might the information be biased towards particular perspectives?
In addition, the underlying assumptions and values of those involved need to be recognized and articulated before conclusions are made. Assumptions are the unstated ideas that we accept to be true or take for granted without necessarily having evidence to support them. Values can be described as the ideas or beliefs that people see as worthwhile, meaning those that provide standards of conduct by which we measure the quality of human behavior.18 Both assumption and values can be very influential in guiding people through a process of reflecting on and interpreting information. However, they can also be potentially deceptive because people may not be aware of the way in which their values and assumptions are directing their reasoning and, consequently, their conclusions.
Since the development sector focuses on processes of social transformation across many different cultures and contexts, the implicit values and assumptions of the different actors involved may vary considerably. If these values and assumptions are not discussed openly and made explicit, it may result in a conflict of values, one value being treated preferentially over another or, ultimately, the wrong conclusion
being drawn. There are many common, but often unproven, assumptions which some of those involved in development make – such as the preconceived idea that agricultural development will lead to increased incomes or that literacy makes for a more liberal society.
These assumptions and values can lead to inappropriate and/or ineffective development initiatives. For example, after 10 years of civil war on the island of Bougainvillea in Papua New Guinea a programme was established to support village development committees to set up income-generating projects. Traditional councils of elders were exclusively male so it was assumed that the only way to ensure the inclusion of women was for them to have their own committees and projects. However, many of the projects that were established, such as poultry production, were later vandalized as a result of jealousies between husbands and their wives. On reflection it was recognized that as the local culture was matrilineal, although women were not formally involved in village councils, they did have many informal ways of influencing decisions. Separating men and women had therefore inadvertently emphasized their exclusion rather than promoting their inclusion.
A lack of understanding of the local culture and context can lead to inappropriate conclusions being drawn from a process of critical reflection.
A lack of understanding of the local culture and context can therefore lead to inappropriate conclusions being drawn from a process of critical reflection. However, it can also lead to assumptions that there is a ‘correct’ way to reflect critically which can be used across cultures. In many cultures there are significant barriers to analytical thinking which may require more locally appropriate approaches to critical reflection to be used. For example, in the Cambodian context19:
• People educated up until the 1980s experienced a didactic teaching methodology which actively suppressed independent and analytical thinking.
• A question someone cannot answer will lead to loss of ‘face’, so in general questions (especially ‘why?’) are viewed as something negative, rather than constructive.
• There is a general expectation that everything has a ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ answer, with little tolerance of anything else.
Also, for many cultures critical reflection is not just based on ‘rational’ thinking but also involves a person’s intuition, emotions and empathy. Acknowledging and mobilizing these human capacities can be enough to engage people in a much deeper and more reflective process of analysis. This can be encouraged by opening spaces for collective reflection, for example using de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats methodology (p. 14) as a group process (see text box below). However, it must also be recognized that in the wider context of civil society, with organisations openly
competing for funding and status, it can be both difficult and undesirable for organizations to reflect on, and openly critique, their own work.
Using Six Thinking Hats for Collective Reflection
The Six Thinking Hats methodology20 can be used in a structured sequence for collective reflection, where the members of the group all wear one symbolic hat at a time. This is called parallel thinking and provides focus and a clear direction of the thinking process. For example:
Step 1: The relevant facts about the issue are explored (White)
Step 2: Ideas are generated about how the issue could be addressed (Green)
Step 3: The benefits (Yellow) and drawbacks (Black) of the ideas are listed
Step 4: Intuitions and feeling about the alternatives are shared (Red)
Step 5: The outcome of the process is synthesized (Blue)
No comments:
Post a Comment