2012: Volume 43
Volume 43 Number 5 September 2012
Edited by: Tessa Lewin, Blaine Harvey and Susie Page
The landscape of research communication in development has been undergoing a significant shift in recent years. The very visible emergence of new technologies has been accompanied by other shifts in the politics and business of development knowledge: the understanding of what constitutes “expert knowledge” in development, a growing emphasis on process over product in development research and new understandings of what drives social change and policy influence.
With the rise of participatory and co-constructed communications have come suggestions that we have neglected the rigour and “hard evidence” needed to influence policy. As some have turned back to grassroots forms of communication such as community radio, they face ambivalence from others struggling to see what is new or innovative about such ‘archaic’ approaches. As such we find ourselves at an interesting juncture, one that this Bulletin aims to explore by drawing on the experiences of practitioners, theorists and community intermediaries from a wide range of disciplines.
Volume 43 Number 4 July 2012
Edited by: Nigale Bagayoko and Freida Ibiduni M'Cormack
The rise of the security sector reform (SSR) concept has recognised and renewed the importance of security forces in democratisation processes and paved the way for a civilianisation of security provision in African states. Security reform has increasingly been seen by international actors as a central matter of democracy with security forces being considered as dedicated to promoting and defending the rule of law and, ultimately, the degree to which political and human rights can be enjoyed equally by all citizens. Transforming such forces into rights-respecting services that provide protection both to the state and to citizens has been one of the most complex challenges, particularly in post-conflict situations where security forces have often perpetuated serious human rights violations.
This IDS Bulletin focuses on both formal and informal governance mechanisms which characterise African security systems. It identifies informal networks and processes which, alongside legally established structures, influence decision-making processes as well as policy implementation. Articles are based on research conducted within the 'Global Uncertainties: Security in an Africa of Networked, Multilevel Governance' programme and address the current state of the security sector in African countries, referring to the analytic models of 'hybridity' to grasp the current realities and the prospects for change in security-related policies. They reaffirm the importance of conducting any analysis of African security governance at multiple levels; show how networks are seen as central in explaining how all the different levels function; and highlight the continuing importance of ethnicity in the legitimation of authority.
Volume 43 Number 3 May 2012
Edited by: Danny Burns
Participatory research to achieve social change has a long history of association with development, with recent significant evolutions and innovations in practice. Participatory and Action Research have never been a unified approach to inquiry with questions of vision, aim, and process, and as they extend to more and increasingly diverse contexts, this range of interpretations and approaches will grow.
Contributors to this IDS Bulletin reflect on both the theory and the practice of action research for development and social change, as we engage in it today. They ask questions such as ‘What do our collective understandings and experiences of, and approaches to, action research have in common?’, ‘What can we learn from instances where these differ?’ and ‘What separates these approaches from other forms of social inquiry?’ and reflect on methods to shed light on the practical implications and challenges of doing action research.
Firm conclusions or a single ‘theory of practice’ are not sought, but rather themes such as power, learning, action, and understanding of change are a starting point for further discussion. The authors in this IDS Bulletin all have different histories and relationships to action research, and use different language. Work is variously described as Action Learning, Action Research, Participatory Systemic Inquiry, Participatory Action Research and Systemic Action Research.
Authors have reflected on how their own positionality invariably shaped the aspects of the research process or outcomes while participating with other actors in trying to alter, improve or transform challenging situations, or at least prevent them from getting worse.
Volume 43 Number 2 March 2012
Edited by: Alan Nicol, Lyla Mehta and Jeremy Allouche
This IDS Bulletin looks back at the legacy of the UN’s New Delhi 1990 global consultation and the Dublin Conference that followed, assessing their meaning and significance, and challenging the wider global water and sanitation community to rethink approaches and emphases, shifting from targets and pronouncement to sustainability and local knowledge, in the context of 2015, the 6th World Water Forum and Rio+20 in 2012. Under the slogan, ‘Some for All Rather than More for Some’, the New Delhi Statement was expected to set a course for the global community to follow in the 1990s.
Articles in this issue derive from Liquid Dynamics II, a STEPS Water and Sanitation Symposium, which brought together current thinkers and past architects of the Statement, as well as academics and those deeply involved in current policy and practice. The notion of Liquid Dynamics helps us address interdisciplinary perspectives and practical action to tackle upfront the challenges of sustainability, uncertainty and social justice in water and sanitation access.
These dynamics have often been ignored in conventional policy approaches, with water and sanitation debates disconnected from the everyday needs of the poor. In 2015, the UN Freshwater Decade will have ended and the MDG targets will come under a critical spotlight – a global policy juncture. We hope that the underlying message of this IDS Bulletin – that it is vital not to forget the past and rush to new futures – will become part of global public discourse in the coming post-MDG world. Understanding how we have arrived at the current situation is key to understanding future pathways to more effective global collective action.
Volume 43 Number 1 January 2012
Edited by: Mariz Tadros
How do we explain the way in which change unfolded in the wake of the recent Egyptian uprisings? What can this tell us about the success or failure of related development policies? This IDS Bulletin contributes to our understanding of why and how the uprisings began, and their implications for development paradigms, concepts and practices.
In view of the politically volatile and dynamic situation on the ground, this issue neither provides an historical account of ongoing political struggles, nor does it assess impact or seek to predict outcomes. Rather, it analyses that moment when people revolted – when the tipping point was reached. The aim of this IDS Bulletinis to bring new empirical and conceptual insights on pathways of political and social change to an audience of development, area studies and democratisation academics, policy actors and practitioners who wish to interrogate the methodological and paradigmatic nuances of that rupture with the status quo.
The focus of this IDS Bulletin is, on the whole, Egypt, although many of the articles have strong resonances with Tunisia, Yemen and other countries in the region and beyond. The issue is distinctive in its engagement with the Egyptian revolt in its examination of the development theory, policy and practice nexus and in the selection of contributors on the basis of their positionality. Contributors are Egyptians who have one leg in activism and one leg in the policy-influencing arena, and whose perspectives are not commonly conveyed in mainstream academia. This is in effect one modest step to reverse the trend of bias in favour of the 'experts' from the West, to give the floor to local voices, not only academics but also activists and practitioners.
