Resources

This paper is part of the series Lessons for change about organisational learning, resulting from a collaboration between ActionAid, DFID, Sida and the Participation Group at the Institute of Development Studies to explore understandings of learning and to document innovative approaches. Today's development talk is full of concepts such as participation, ownership, partnership and accountability; concepts that speak above all to the complex relationships that those who work in aid bureaucracies need to manage. Yet scant opportunity exists within these settings for reflection in and on everyday working practice and its relationship with the ideals that policies profess. In this paper, we describe an experiment in creating these spaces for reflection and learning in such an organisational setting. It narrates the process of establishing and running two participatory learning groups in the Swedish official development agency, Sida: one in the Stockholm headquarters, and one in the Embassy of Sweden in Nairobi. In the work, a hybrid approach to participatory learning was evolved, taking principles from action oriented research methodologies and adapting them to the context of an aid bureaucracy. Through cycles of reflection and action over a period of close to a year, group members explored experiences and ideas, building analyses, alliances and possibilities for action through participatory interaction. Fostering subtle changes through small acts and shifts in thinking, the learning groups helped foster greater reflexivity amongst participants and, with it, a degree of engagement and awareness with the potential for changes at other scales. This paper reports on the way the process developed, and reflects on lessons learnt with potential for wider application.

"Participation" has three uses and meanings: cosmetic labelling, to look good; co-opting practice to secure local action and resources; and empowering process, to enable people to take command and do things themselves. Its new popularity is part of changes in development rhetoric, thinking and practice. These have been shifting from a standardised, top-down paradigm of things towards a diversified, bottom-up paradigm of people. This implies a transfer of power from "uppers" - people, institutions and disciplines which have been dominant, to "lowers" - people, institutions and disciplines which have been subordinate. The many labels and schools of participatory approaches in research and development tend to hide underlying changes in philosophy and practice. Rapid rural appraisal leading to participatory rural appraisal (PRA) is one example of a shift from data collection to data sharing and empowerment. With PRA, poor people have shown far greater capabilities to appraise, analyse, plan and act than professionals have expected. Empowerment of the poor requires reversals and changes of role. Some of the new approaches and methods, especially of PRA, make reversals less difficult and improbable than they used to be. PRA faces many dangers. For it to be used on any scale in an empowering mode implies widespread changes in bureaucratic procedures and culture, including more participatory management. This Working Paper explores these ideas, looking at Participation, The Paradigm Shift from Things to People, Power Relations: Uppers and Lowers, Change and Spread, The Paradigm Shift in Practice and the Implications (of the paradigm).

This paper is about the practice and the potential of immersions. Immersions are occasions when professionals learn directly from encounters with poor and marginalised people by living with them and reflecting on the experience. Those taking part may be the staff of bilateral and multilateral agencies, diplomats, parliamentarians, government officials, NGO staff, academics, or other development professionals.|Aims were to:|describe types and purposes of immersions;|review practical experience with immersion design, logistical organisation and the host community;|assess the rationale and impact of immersions, including better awareness of the realites of poor and marginalised people, personal and institutional learning and change, reinvigorated commitment, and influence on decision-making and policy;|identify enabling conditions for making immersion experiences a normal, regular and expected activity for development professionals, together with good practices.|Authors' summary

In the last few years, there has been growing talk amongst development actors and agencies about a rights-based approach to development. Yet what exactly this consists of remains unclear. For some, its grounding in human rights legislation makes such an approach distinctive, lending it the promise of re-politicising areas of development work that have become domesticated as they have been mainstreamed by powerful institutions like the World Bank. Others complain that like other fashions it has become the latest designer item to be seen to be wearing and has been used to dress up the same old development.|

This paper seeks to unravel some of the tangled threads of contemporary rights talk. Where is today's rights-based discourse coming from? Why rights and why now? What are the differences between versions and emphases articulated by different international development actors? What are their shortcomings, and what do these imply for the practice and politics of development? Reflecting on these questions, we explore some of the implications of the range of different ways of relating human rights to development. We argue that ultimately, however it is operationalised, a rights-based approach would mean little if it has no potential to achieve a positive transformation of power relations among the various development actors. Thus, however any agency articulates its vision for a rights-based approach, it must be interrogated for the extent to which it enables those whose lives are affected the most to articulate their priorities and claim genuine accountability from development agencies, and also the extent to which the agencies become critically self-aware and address inherent power inequalities in their interaction with those people.

As more and more development and human rights organisations critically assess their impact and strategies, there is growing convergence in the questions they raise about how to be most effective in addressing structural, systemic causes of poverty and exclusion and thus, make a positive difference in the lives of poor and marginalised people. This paper explores the growing trend of rights-based approaches (RBA) to development, drawing from interviews with a range of primarily US-based international human rights and development organisations as well as from insights through the authors' years of experience working with development and rights groups in the global south. While the theory of RBA has been broadly embraced as key to getting at the root causes of poverty, many organisations are struggling to make sense of the significance of RBA in practice. We begin to unravel some key concerns with a brief discussion on critical considerations for groups as they advance rights-based work. Next, we focus on clarifying meanings, offering our own definitions of what seem to be critical components of RBA, namely participation, rights, and power. Next we summarise some of the current thinking and practice among international human rights and development organisations that are deepening their work in RBA. This includes some of the key tensions, challenges and opportunities they are encountering. Finally, in building on forgotten experiences and innovations we look at a handful of practical experiences from the past that offer valuable insights and lessons as groups seek to maximise the full practical potential of RBA.|Authors' summary

This Policy Briefing from IDS looks at rights-based approaches to development, something increasingly being used by international development agencies. It asks if their policy and practice support peopleÆs own efforts to turn their rights into reality. It first looks at the concept of rights based approaches and what international agencies mean by this, then goes to examine how rights are evolving, issues around power, politics and claims and finally some implications of rights-based approaches.