BEYOND FAILURE: OWNING YOUR STORY
Ineke Buskens
Opening Keynote for the ‘Learning from Failure ICT4D’ workshop
UCT Centre for ICT’s for Development.
Cape Town, 20 January 2015
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Purpose of this talk
What is development?
An appropriate frame of mind for ICT4D Research?
Definitions of failure and their implications
Failure as ‘failure to excel in a research project’
Owning our story as methodological prerequisite
Nurturing subjectivity, individuality and uniqueness
Caveat: Can we really see ourselves?
What it takes: truth, courage and humility
Concluding Remarks
PURPOSE OF THIS TALK
To contribute to the methodological discourse in the field of ICT4D research in
order to optimise researchers’ capacity to make life better for people who
would normally be excluded from the Information Society’s benefits.
Why is this important? Participating in research conversations on the basis of
ones research, either validates the underlying assumptions as to how
research should be done, or it challenges them and offers an alternative.
I think that the concept of failure resonates with and strengthens an
understanding of ICT4D research that is not conducive to get the best out of
researchers, research situations and methods.
Failure in ICT4D research has been a very popular and entertaining endeavour:
it allowed researchers to speak truthfully about their research processes,
but I think we can do better than that….hence the title beyond failure…
WHAT IS DEVELOPMENT?
Economic growth?
Development of ICT sector and/or products
Freedom: enhancement of capabilities?
Enhancement of choice?
Participation in the Information Society / Networked Society?
Buen Vivir?
Conscious Evolution?
Natural Unfolding like trees for instance?
………..
…………
AN APPROPRIATE FRAME OF MIND FOR ICT4D RESEARCH?
What does the field of ICT4D need?
Agile technology, participatory design…all iterative processes, very
bounded to context and the personalities, intentions of the specific
role players
When ICT4D is understood as a form of normative social science and as
a form of research for social change, the following points need to be
considered:
Truth claim has to be pragmatic.
Theory development has to support the purpose of change.
Research designs should ideally be iterative, allowing for and supporting
the change process, not to fall into the theory-praxis gap.
Researchers have to (be trained to) be comfortable with participating in
emergent processes, be able to cope with unexpected events and be
equipped to give meaning to unfolding processes that are relevant to
the particular purpose of the research.
DEFINITIONS OF FAILURE AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS
Definitions:
a. Omission of occurrence or performance; a state of inability to perform a
normal function or an abrupt cessation of normal functioning; a fracturing
or giving way under stress.
b Lack of success; a failing in business.
c A falling short: deficiency; deterioration, decay.
d One that has failed (adapted from Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary- http://
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/failure)
Implications:
1) This definition exemplifies a frame of mind where expectations and
requirements are known and where it is accepted as logical, normal and
natural that these expectations and requirements are met and where the
power structure underlying these expectations and requirements is not
questioned.
2) Use of the denotation of failure will inevitably evoke emotions of
unworthiness and shame when it will shift from denoting the lack of doing,
to a lack of being (shame is about not being good enough).
FAILURE AS ‘FAILURE TO EXCEL IN A RESEARCH PROJECT’
Excellence as doing justice to the object of study:
Truth: validity and reliability
Usefulness / Relevance
Ethical / righteousness
Recognisability (Buskens 2001)
Failure as ‘failure to excel in a research project’:
Failure to do what needs to be done
in the process of constructing truthful, useful, ethical knowledge
(data collection, analysis, interpretation and reporting)
about or with the object of study
and represent this knowledge in a way that is recognisable to peers
(for review), to clients (for use) and to communities of knowledge
for transferring the research learning to other contexts and
incorporating it into existing bodies of knowledge.
OWNING YOUR STORY AS METHODOLOGICAL PREREQUISITE
Given the emergent nature of ICT4D research, research excellence thus
depends on the way in which researchers are able to share their research
learning beyond the expectations they may have started with. They have to
be able to tell their story ‘beyond failure and success’. In order to do justice
to their research learning they have to be able to tell their own narrative
about it: they have to ‘own their story’. Owning ones story has two main
dimensions:
1) The capacity to ‘know ones self’ in the context of the research process.
This ‘knowing’ is grounded in an understanding of ones personal context
and history, of the way in which the research purpose and process fit into
the ‘project of one’s life and the capacity to integrate the unfolding
understanding of these changes in ones understanding of self and of the
research process and results.
2) The capacity to engage in critical dialogue (purpose aligned discourse
grounded in open-heartedness, open-mindedness, good will and mutual
trust and respect - Smaling 2008) in the research language that is current
in ones field.
NURTURING SUBJECTIVITY, INDIVIDUALITY AND UNIQUENESS
The interpretation of ‘what needs to be done’ and hence the way in which an
‘object of study can be done justice to’ is determined by subjective choice.
Reality is complex and it can be known and changed, in many different
ways.
Even when a fixed research protocol is used (following convention as
accepted by a certain research community), applying that protocol is a
choice, i.e. a subjective decision.
Human beings are individual and unique, hence researchers’ choices may
differ even when research question and research process seem similar.
Questions of validity, reliability, trustworthiness and ethics may be
answered differently by different individuals and yet those answers
could, in all their diversity all be genuine, true and legitimate.
Regardless whether a fixed research protocol is adopted or whether the
research process is allowed to emerge iteratively in alignment with purpose,
documenting the rationale and process of research choices is a subjective
endeavour. Research discourse (and research education) has to honour and
nurture subjectivity, individuality and uniqueness.
CAVEAT: CAN WE REALLY SEE OURSELVES?
In order to create the opportunity for researcher excellence to
emerge and mature, it seems we need to let go of the concept
of failure and the mind set it is embedded in and stands for.
However, there will be resistance to such a stance because of
the fallibility of human knowledge and definitely when that
knowledge has to include knowledge of the self. In order to own
our story, we have to really see ourselves. Is that possible?
Confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance are accepted realities.
The more intelligent and creative people are, the more they can
fool themselves. How do we protect ourselves and each other
from such ‘bias’?
WHAT IT TAKES…..TRUTH, COURAGE AND HUMILITY
There are always the facts:
Congruence as marker.
Dialogical Inter-subjectivity with the shared agreement on a purpose guiding
the processes of awareness and dialogue.
Beware / raise alarm when the story is too coherent
In research for change, researchers change too. Human beings are complex,
have many aspects and are always in a process of de-fragmentation: a
research for social change like ICT4D processes ideally would be, will
accelerate and intensify internal in-coherence in both researchers and
participants. Without this creative chaos, no newness would be able to
emerge, but that means that the human beings involved have to hold their
identity ‘lightly’.
Commitment for the truth is paramount, more important than loyalty towards
people, places, things, times and event.
Such commitment to truth requires courage and humility and such personal
growth is a never ending process.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
So how personal does it get? It has become clear that the more open
researchers can be about themselves yourself, (grounded in
awareness), and the more open - minded and open hearted in
dialogue, the better they can share what there is to learn with all
their knowledge communities.
Maybe all the talk about failure is so attractive because it creates the
space not only for the emergent and unpredictable nature of
research processes but also because it acknowledges the
uniqueness, individuality and subjectivity of researchers. Admitting
and sharing failure could be grounded in a defiance of the ‘protocol’
(the subtext of the unexamined and unquestioned mainstream
paradigm) and hence a cry for freedom and a demand for the
opportunity to deliver excellence. But just defying the protocol is not
doing us, our intentions and efforts justice.