The Nature of Development Studies – A United Kingdom Perspective
Michael Tribe and Andrew Sumner, April 2005
This brief contribution aims to summarise some of the issues raised in Tribe and Sumner (2004) and Tribe and Sumner (2005). The first was prepared for the Development Studies Association’s (DSA’s) 2004 Annual Conference and the second is a revised and shortened version. Development Studies (DS) is in a period of positive change in the United Kingdom (UK). A stand-alone DS sub-panel for the 2008 UK Higher Education Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) (see DSA, 2004) has been established. It is hoped that over the next year the first ‘Benchmark Statement’ for DS degrees will be prepared by the DSA in collaboration with the UK higher education Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) (DSA, 2005).
The main objective of Tribe and Sumner (2004) was to open up discussion of the Nature of DS due to perceived lack of clarity in subject matter and intellectual standing. Basically DS is the study of ‘development’ – but then ‘what is development’? Is development confined to ‘developing countries’, or should transition countries and developed market economies be included? Even the contemporary category of ‘developing countries’ can be questioned because it is too broad – including least developed countries, newly industrialising countries, and low income transition economies.
There are several different conceptualisations of development, some of which include subjective value judgements. There will be general agreement that development encompasses various aspects of human society. The dimensions of development are diverse, including Economic, Social, Political, and Institutional (including Law) Structures, Technology in various forms (including the Natural Sciences and Engineering), the Environment, Religion, and the Arts and Culture.
One of the basic conceptual issues relating to development is whether it involves ‘progress’ and ‘improvement’, or whether more ‘detached’ study includes deterioration, crisis and decline. Surely these negative features are as important as more palatable positive features. Natural disasters and conflict (both national and international) also contribute to the evolution of the human condition. It is also significant that most academics who work in DS have a commitment to ‘social justice’.
DS includes several different and sometimes conflicting schools of thought. Is development unidirectional, and linear? Are there discrete stages through which societies progress in the context of modernisation theory? Are these stages reversible? Is modernisation theory an ethnocentric and ideologically charged approach to the evolution of societies? Is development something which occurs through focussed and targeted interventions, or does it happen through complex inter-relationships and inter-actions? Is there really ‘development theory’?
Is development a government responsibility, or does the government play a role as one of many institutions within a pluralist society? What is the State, and what role does it play in development? What is the role of ‘post-development’, and ‘end of development’ approaches? Can there be development failure? Some of these schools of thought have time-bound and institutional views of development which differ from others with a more detached, analytical, view. Surely it is conceptually impossible to have a post-development situation, or an end to development, if development is a continuous process which occurs through interactions between diverse technical, social and economic factors? It is, equally, impossible to have development failure unless development has a clear set of ‘objectives’ – but if development is not defined by subjective judgements, and is a subject of disinterested study, then development failure cannot occur at all.
Since the post-development school of thought clearly has a very formalistic and institutionalised conception of development, and other schools of thought do not, there must be diametrically different paradigms operating within DS and our conceptualisation of DS has to allow for this intellectual diversity.
DS includes teaching and research activities. While DS is unambiguously a subject, it is much less clear whether it is a discipline. Economics and Sociology, within the Social Sciences, are clearly disciplines in that they comprise bodies of theory, and focus on the study of specific phenomena. Mathematics, Chemistry and Physics similarly focus on specific subject-matters and have an identifiable bodies of theory and laws. By comparison Engineering takes theory, laws and methods developed within the pure sciences and applies them to empirical questions. If DS is the study of development, and if development has a range of dimensions, then DS must reflect these diverse dimensions.
DS is considered by many to have a body of theory. Books which are explicitly on DS relate to theoretical concerns, but in which discipline? Several disciplines are well-represented in the DS community having distinct sub-areas relating to development. A good example of this is Development Economics: and Political Science and Sociology also have approaches specific to development. The absence of theory, often associated with lengthy description, is a characteristic of elements of DS which are heavily criticised. A distinction can be drawn between interdisciplinarity, multidisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity (Tribe and Sumner, 2004: Figure 2). Transdisciplinarity “denotes integration” (Bergstrøm and Molteberg, 2000a: 12) of disciplines within DS, so that the totality of the transdisciplinary study is then greater than the sum of the parts.
Two particular categories can be distinguished within DS literature: one discourse-related, and another empirically- or practically-oriented. Major contributions have come from intellectual concerns of the empirically- or practically-oriented. The stakeholder and participatory approaches to policy analysis responded to the perceived prescription of policy in abstraction from the interest groups most closely affected. The sustainable livelihoods framework focuses on complex development situations rather than on narrow discipline-related compartmentalised approaches. Earlier, the Basic Needs approach attempted to break out of the mould of international rather than local concerns, and the evolution of Levels of Living analysis into the HDI and HPI has been a welcome achievement. Specific areas can be identified where DS has made an intellectual contribution to the analysis of ‘development’ on a global scale.
DS is concerned with the process of change. However, insights from study of developing countries may inform analysis of development in advanced industrial countries and transition economies. The socio-economic impact of technology change, the process of social change, the analysis of changing employment structures, the evolution of democratic governance structures, development of fiscal systems, the process of economic change and the impact of globalisation are areas where DS can inform analysis of advanced economies and societies.
Our discussion includes consideration of the relationship between DS, Area Studies and International Studies which is relevant to the wide range of structures and titles found in DS courses in universities and colleges. Some evidence of this is provided in an annex to the DSA’s submission to the QAA on benchmarking for DS, and in the DSA’s web-based Course Guide (DSA, 2005; DSA, Course Guide).
Although for research the DSA has been successful in securing the addition of DS as a ‘sub-panel’ within the RAE for 2008 (DSA, 2004), RAE preoccupations are not of direct concern to DS researchers in the NGO sector, in DFID (and other public bodies), in independent research institutions and other bodies.
There is also practical work and consultancy activities relating to international development, interfacing consultancy and academic/commissioned research. The preparation of training materials can also be a useful means of achieving interaction between practitioners and academics, providing fresh insights into complex situations.
For just over a quarter of a century the DSA has provided a forum for the DS community. Research findings and themes are discussed at an annual conference and in Study Group meetings. Sister organisations – such as BOND (British Overseas NGOs for Development), the DEA (Development Education Association), the DFID (Department for International Development – the relevant government department) and the British Council, have been regularly involved in DSA activities. There are also campaigning organisations such as War on Want and the World Development Movement, in contrast to the research and analysis concerns of the DSA. Several development NGOs perform substantial charitable fund-raising functions and also undertake research and campaigning. Faith groups are very significant in the NGO arena.
The two papers which we have produced have inevitably omitted significant areas, or have discussed important questions very briefly, and they have been written in the hope of stimulating discussion.
References
DSA; Course Guide; accessed from the DSA Website www.devstud.org.uk/courseguide/index.htm – 2nd April 2005.
DSA (2004); Unit of Assessment in the Research Assessment Exercise 2008 for Development Studies.
Refer to www.devstud.org.uk/consultation.htm and www.rae.ac.uk/pubs/2004/03/
DSA (2005); Submission to the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) relating to the Benchmarking of DS for Undergraduate provision in British Universities.
Refer to www.devstud.org.uk/consultation/dsa_benchmarking.doc
Molteberg, E. and Bergstrøm, C. (2000a and 2000b); Our Common Discourse: Diversity and Paradigms in Development Studies; Centre for International and Environmental Studies, Agricultural University of Norway; Noragric Working Papers Nos 20 and 21, September. Refer to: www.nlh.no/noragric/publications/workingpapers/default.htm
Tribe, M. and Sumner, A. (2004); The Nature of Development Studies: An Exploration from the Standpoint of the British-Irish Development Studies Association; Paper presented to the 2004 Annual Conference of the DSA, London. Refer to:
www.devstud.org.uk/conference/workshops/3.2-devstud.htm
Tribe, M. and Sumner, A. (2005); The Nature of Development Studies; revised version of Tribe and Sumner (2004). Refer to:
www.devstud.org.uk/conference/workshops/3.2-devstud.htm
