I just read an interesting article on complexity by Alan Fowler, 'Connecting the Dots'. I encourage you to read it, along with the response by Chris Mowles at the bottom of the article, and the summary of the debate called 'Debating Complexity'. These give a good overview of some of the key issues surrounding complexity thinking, and if you read them in conjunction with the Snowden, Eyben et al, my research proposal, and the ECDPM articles I think you'll get a good dose of this stuff. I would also encourage you to read the Mowles et al article in my bibliography. If you don't have access to it through the MIIS online journals let me know. The Mowles et al article is a longer version of his criticism of the Fowler article, but in an earlier blog post of mine I 'observed' similar language from Mowles himself (if interested, see the second to the last paragraph of this blog post).
The Fowler article has a lot of relevance to theories of change, and I think has some good general ideas on complexity. On TOC he starts off the article with the assumption 'The function of international development work is to accelerate and guide change in societies'. That's a big generalization--what do you guys think the purpose of int'l development work is? Also on TOC, I found it interesting how he broke down the major worldviews on development by Sachs, Collier and Easterly. What was really interesting to me wasn't that such major thinkers, with many adherents around the world, have different understandings about development--that's probably even a healthy thing. Rather, I found it interesting to see them side by side, and wondered how many adherents of each explore the others' points of view. This goes back to the archetypes framework from the Eyben article, which shows how divergent some of this thinking can be, although its adherents often assume it to be true.
(Recreated from Eyben et al, 2008, Thinking about change for development practice: a case study from Oxfam GB, Development in Practice)
The article has some good language on development conditions under the subsection 'Re-framing Perspectives', which I think you'll be able to spot.
I did find his language to be a bit deterministic, even as he notes the strong linear tendencies of these three major development thinkers.
I could say more, but probably should leave further interpretation up to you. Anyway, I recommend the short reading--which I find overall a good complexity intro article, and at the same time share the criticisms leveled by Mowles. Enjoy.
0 comments:
Post a Comment