logo
Support the SSCN by making a donation. Our work is growing and we need your financial support to enhance the growth of our sector in Africa and to remain sustainable and relevant.
DONATE HERE

Follow us

 
SSCN / RESEARCH  / MANAGEMENT  / Power Relations 003 – Oxford and Spaaij 2017

Power Relations 003 – Oxford and Spaaij 2017

What is it about? (Aim/objectives)

Investigating donor-recipient NGO power imbalances (from a critical pedagogic perspective) and donor expectations for numbers and sustainability without understanding NGOs commitment to deliver meaningful
programmes in harsh circumstances.

Where is it from? (Context/location)

Two impoverished communities in two major cities (Chévere and Bacano) in Colombia.

Who are involve? (Research participants)
What is it about? (Aim/objectives)
Where is it from? (Context/location)
Who are involve? (Research participants)

Local youth (from 8 to 18 years old), peer leaders and community members (from 8 to 81 years old).

What are the readings and main concepts?
What are the readings and main concepts?
  • Critical pedagogy (based on the work of Paulo Freire (a famous Brazilian educator who wrote much about the ‘pedagogy of the oppressed’). In application to SDP programmes, critical pedagogy suggests to ‘move beyond the goal of merely engaging participants in activities that prepare them for labour market and produce lifelong consumers, and instead strive to create social change by developing critical and reflective capacities and action repertoires in participants.’ (p. 103).
    • Participants should learn to question taken-for-granted knowledge and behaviours (e.g. accepting violence in the streets or teenage motherhood), structural inequalities and actively engage in strategies to bring about change – individually and collectively.
    • To assert a sense of their rights and responsibilities and take up active citizenship
      • NGOs should create a caring, nurturing and inclusive environment (programme culture) with safe spaces for reflection and mutual learning (between coaches and participants, as well as parents) whilst ‘living’ the values associated with hope, humility, trust and respect.
  • Critical pedagogy (based on the work of Paulo Freire (a famous Brazilian educator who wrote much about the ‘pedagogy of the oppressed’). In application to SDP programmes, critical pedagogy suggests to ‘move beyond the goal of merely engaging participants in activities that prepare them for labour market and produce lifelong consumers, and instead strive to create social change by developing critical and reflective capacities and action repertoires in participants.’ (p. 103).
    • Participants should learn to question taken-for-granted knowledge and behaviours (e.g. accepting violence in the streets or teenage motherhood), structural inequalities and actively engage in strategies to bring about change – individually and collectively.
    • To assert a sense of their rights and responsibilities and take up active citizenship
      • NGOs should create a caring, nurturing and inclusive environment (programme culture) with safe spaces for reflection and mutual learning (between coaches and participants, as well as parents) whilst ‘living’ the values associated with hope, humility, trust and respect.
  • Critical pedagogy

    • Participants should learn to question taken-for-granted knowledge and behaviours (e.g. accepting violence in the streets or teenage motherhood), structural inequalities and actively engage in strategies to bring about change – individually and collectively.
    • To assert a sense of their rights and responsibilities and take up active citizenship
      • NGOs should create a caring, nurturing and inclusive environment (programme culture) with safe spaces for reflection and mutual learning (between coaches and participants, as well as parents) whilst ‘living’ the values associated with hope, humility, trust and respect.
  • Participants should learn to question taken-for-granted knowledge and behaviours (e.g. accepting violence in the streets or teenage motherhood), structural inequalities and actively engage in strategies to bring about change – individually and collectively.
  • To assert a sense of their rights and responsibilities and take up active citizenship
    • NGOs should create a caring, nurturing and inclusive environment (programme culture) with safe spaces for reflection and mutual learning (between coaches and participants, as well as parents) whilst ‘living’ the values associated with hope, humility, trust and respect.
    • NGOs should create a caring, nurturing and inclusive environment (programme culture) with safe spaces for reflection and mutual learning (between coaches and participants, as well as parents) whilst ‘living’ the values associated with hope, humility, trust and respect.
  • NGOs should create a caring, nurturing and inclusive environment (programme culture) with safe spaces for reflection and mutual learning (between coaches and participants, as well as parents) whilst ‘living’ the values associated with hope, humility, trust and respect.
  • What are the main findings? (Results)

    A SfD programme delivered twice per week by peer leaders that includes informal play and/or structured sport, as well as post-play conversations led by social workers. Participants choose and co-plan activities and after a year of participation receive school support (about 10% – tutoring and re-integration in schools), whilst some peer leaders got academic support for further (e.g. tertiary) learning). Other activities include sport festivals and income-generation (e.g. selling clothes).

    What are the main findings? (Results)
    • The ‘soft power’ dynamics of donors are questioned who requires continuous expanding of numbers (more participants and more sites – playing the numbers game without understanding the realities).
    • Contentious reporting and trouble-shooting to meet the demands and success indicators for donors requirements for ‘sustainable development’ regardless of real impact and local needs.
    • Donor demands and short-term funding lead to:
      • over-stretching of staff having to fill multiple roles and threat to the survival of the NGO in a competitive environment and compromising their mission.
  • The ‘soft power’ dynamics of donors are questioned who requires continuous expanding of numbers (more participants and more sites – playing the numbers game without understanding the realities).
  • Contentious reporting and trouble-shooting to meet the demands and success indicators for donors requirements for ‘sustainable development’ regardless of real impact and local needs.
  • Donor demands and short-term funding lead to:
    • over-stretching of staff having to fill multiple roles and threat to the survival of the NGO in a competitive environment and compromising their mission.
    • over-stretching of staff having to fill multiple roles and threat to the survival of the NGO in a competitive environment and compromising their mission.
  • over-stretching of staff having to fill multiple roles and threat to the survival of the NGO in a competitive environment and compromising their mission.
  • read this articlelouis vuitton phone caseelf bar 2500telefoonhoesjes hema

    What are the main lessons? (Discussion/Reflections/Learnings)
    What are the main lessons? (Discussion/Reflections/Learnings)
    • The chase for numbers and quantifiable results without understanding day-to-day challenges and real triumphs that may be possibly unappealing to donors, as well as entails a mismatch agenda for relevant change what communities need and want.
    • Uncritically accepting that this is how things are and that it is normal for donors to dictate terms blocks the true value of development work that would leave lasting outcomes.
    • Collectively NGOs (networks) to ‘educate’ donors, request quality (not always hand-me-downs) in-kind donations, long-term grants without strings and top-down management but an equal partnership.
  • The chase for numbers and quantifiable results without understanding day-to-day challenges and real triumphs that may be possibly unappealing to donors, as well as entails a mismatch agenda for relevant change what communities need and want.
  • Uncritically accepting that this is how things are and that it is normal for donors to dictate terms blocks the true value of development work that would leave lasting outcomes.
  • Collectively NGOs (networks) to ‘educate’ donors, request quality (not always hand-me-downs) in-kind donations, long-term grants without strings and top-down management but an equal partnership.
  • Is it useful? (Chat room, knowledge sharing)
    How do you help shape the requirements of donors by balancing the demand for increasing numbers versus making lasting changes in the lives of smaller numbers of participants over time?

    Is it useful? (Chat room, knowledge sharing)

    How do you ensure you keep your mission on track and keep true to your integrity and mission?

    DOWNLOAD ARTICLE HERE

    No Comments

    Reply