2014: Volume 45
Volume 45 Number 1 January 2014
Edited by: Jerker Edström, Abhijit Das and Chris Dolan
Much has happened in debates, practice and policy on gender in development since the ‘Men, Masculinities and Development’ IDS Bulletin was published in April 2000. The present issue follows up by drawing contributions from participants at the international symposium ‘Undressing Patriarchy’, which took place in September 2013.
It explores the shifting field of men and masculinities and how often conflicted engagements with the feminist project of redressing gender inequalities might be radicalised through a deeper analysis of patriarchy and our relationship to it, as well as by linking it to other struggles for sexual and human rights, or social justice. The methodology of ‘undressing patriarchy’ focuses on the underlying drivers of gender equality, rather than getting stuck in a generalised fallacy casting all men as patriarchs.
The findings and conclusions of this IDS Bulletin include recommendations for practice, politics and policy, with clear directions flagged for deepening research and debates. There seems to be a growing interest and demand for developing new research on patriarchy and ‘men in power’ across different sectors and settings. More enabling theories of change and conceptual frameworks along with practical methodologies for consciousness-raising and facilitating dialogues all need further development. We hope this IDS Bulletin will trigger new thoughts and contribute significantly to an ongoing conversation.
Volume 45 Number 2-3 March 2014
Edited by: Marika Djolai, Eric Kasper, Ricardo Santos and Shilpi Srivastava
This IDS Bulletin offers a platform for IDS PhD researchers to reflect on their fieldwork experiences, including research-related challenges, as well as cultural and personal encounters along the way.
The authors also develop theoretically-informed arguments about their research findings and the editors offer further reflections on the importance of fieldwork as part of the transformative experience of ‘doing a PhD’ in Development Studies.
The collection of articles in this IDS Bulletin represent a vision for the future of Development Studies research in which the human, relational and public work elements of research are emphasised throughout the contested process of working for change. The authors are not just researchers but agents of development, taking part in the contested process of working for change by doing research with people rather than on people.
This IDS Bulletin, produced and edited by PhD researchers and IDS Fellows with all the contributions written by IDS PhD candidates who have recently been awarded doctorates, is part of a wider IDS initiative to invest in the professional development of PhD researchers. It comprises seven articles covering locations from Ecuador to Bolivia, Mexico, Kenya, Swaziland, Germany, Nepal, China and India. The topics cover issues such as power of wellbeing discourses to water management, migrant children and education, and peace-building. The authors show, through their own experiences, the importance of connecting to the world outside the university – to the places where development is actually happening. Their new perspectives offer insights into a variety of research topics, innovations for fieldwork practices, and important reflections on the human experience of PhD research.
Volume 45 Number 5 August 2014
Edited by: Anuradha Joshi and Markus Schultze-Kraft
The past two decades have seen an enormous increase in academic and policy attention to, and engagement with, governance at the sub-national and local levels. Yet, our understanding of the conditions that enable local governments to deliver services to citizens, reduce poverty, be inclusive and responsive, bridge cleavages in divided post-conflict societies or represent citizen interests to higher levels of authority remains limited. Drawing on different perspectives, this IDS Bulletin takes a fresh look at how local governance 'really' works and how it could become more accountable, effective and legitimate to support development that favours poor and marginalised people. Extending the boundaries of prevailing debates on methodological and conceptual issues, civil society, political and power relationships, and the challenges of decentralisation in (post)- conflict settings, the authors offer an outlook on taking forward the work on localising governance and designing policies that help improve its performance. Rather than a set of contributions that speak to one overarching question, this IDS Bulletin represents a panoply of different perspectives on 'the local'. Articles chart out several promising avenues for taking forward the work on localising governance and designing policies that help improve its performance. While these are not the only avenues that deserve attention, they do point to several issues that require deeper thought on the part of both scholars and policymakers. There is certainly a need for more multi- and inter-disciplinary research on the complexities involved in making local governance in poor and/or conflict-affected countries more responsive, inclusive and effective.
Volume 45 Number 6 November 2014
Edited by: Barbara Befani, Chris Barnett and Elliot Stern
This IDS Bulletin presents a 'rallying cry' for impact evaluation to rise to the challenges of a post-MDG/post-2015 world. It is the first of two issues that follow a workshop entitled 'Impact, Innovation and Learning: Towards a Research and Practice Agenda for the Future', held at IDS in March 2013.
Convening a distinguished group of scholars and practitioners, this event situated development evaluation in general, and impact evaluation in particular, in the specific setting of today's complex and changing international development context. It aimed to sketch out a research and practice agenda to meet increasing demands for evidence about successful programmes and projects. Such evidence – needing to serve accountability and learning purposes while being accessible to recipients and donors – goes beyond innovation on research methods.
Methodological innovation is tightly linked to the new requirements of development impact evaluation; methods with the best current reputation are not necessarily the best at addressing the multiplicity of development outcomes, or the complex pathways towards long-term impact. This is fertile ground for a new research and practice agenda: one that can better enable impact evaluation to meet the new purposes of development cooperation; one that can innovate around methodological designs and practice to address increasingly complex challenges; and one that will help us better understand and improve evaluation systems.
The success of such an emerging agenda rests on whether we can make better use of evaluative evidence to have a real impact on the lives of the poorest and most marginalised.
2016: Volume 47
Volume 47 Number 1 January 2016
Edited by: Duncan Edwards and Rosie McGee
Open government and open data are new areas of research, advocacy and activism that have entered the governance field alongside the more established areas of transparency and accountability. In this IDS Bulletin, articles review recent scholarship to pinpoint contributions to more open, transparent, accountable and responsive governance via improved practice, projects and programmes in the context of the ideas, relationships, processes, behaviours, policy frameworks and aid funding practices of the last five years. They also discuss questions and weaknesses that limit the effectiveness and impact of this work, offer a series of definitions to help overcome conceptual ambiguities, and identify hype and euphemism. The contributions – by researchers and practitioners – approach contemporary challenges of achieving transparency, accountability and openness from a wide range of subject positions and professional and disciplinary angles. Together these articles give a sense of what has changed in this fast-moving field, and what has not – this IDS Bulletin is an invitation to all stakeholders to take stock and reflect.
The ambiguity around the ‘open’ in governance today might be helpful in that its very breadth brings in actors who would otherwise be unlikely adherents. But if the fuzzier idea of ‘open government’ or the allure of ‘open data’ displace the task of clear transparency, hard accountability and fairer distribution of power as what this is all about, then what started as an inspired movement of governance visionaries may end up merely putting a more open face on an unjust and unaccountable status quo.
