Aid Learning Is Too Important To Leave To Aid Workers

Embarrassing admission - I'm aid-illiterate.  At least when it comes to the serious literature, the whither aid books.  Basically, if it mentions modalities or narratives, or tries to set out a sweeping vision of how humanitarian assistance or development should be, I probably haven't read it.

A thought that came to mind after reading Chris Blattman's recent post, questioning why aid workers never seem to learn.  Or, more accurately, wondering what it takes to get aid workers in the field to engage with the latest thinking and research.

Blattman argues that such engagement would improve the quality of aid programs, and suggests podcasts and reading clubs as one way to make learning more palatable.

Paul Currion at humanitarian.info disagrees, questioning not only the usefulness of technology-focused solutions, but also the underlying linkage between aid-learning and quality programs.

Instead, Currion proposes a more retro-approach - workshops to bring aid workers together across different organizations and sectors, and then creating structures to allow these linkages to be maintained once the workshop ends and the hangover fades.

I think highly of both Blattman and Currion, but I still find both of their approaches frustrating.  Very frustrating. 

Blattman assumes that all aid workers are somehow alike, or at least assumes that most aid workers actually want to delve into the literature and research, and that it's only external barriers - be they technological or stylistic (cue cliche about academic writing) - that keep them from doing so.

In my experience, aid workers are just like everyone else.  Some want to learn more, and some don't.  Podcasts and book clubs might entice the first group, but certainly not the second.

Currion, on the other hand, does a good job of critiquing Blattman's argument, but then comes up somewhat short in terms of offering concrete suggestions - the recommendation to "create structures" without any further detail isn't all that useful.

[N.B. - tho Paul does give a good rationale for his reticence in the comments below.]

Instead, I think the answer is institutional - aid workers, like everyone else, respond to incentives. Especially when those incentives are tied to performance evaluations.  If aid agencies are serious about fostering learning, they'll make it a requirement, tying it to bonus or other incentive structures.  Agencies could require that aid workers take X number of online courses a year, or organize mandatory trainings and workshops to disseminate the latest research and learning.

(In his post, Blattman praises the CARE Academy.  It's a great idea, but the only reason I ever took a CARE Academy courses when I was actually with CARE was because it was required.)

This costs money, but everything costs money.  It's all a matter of prioritization.  If learning is in fact critical to the delivery of effective aid programs, then it should be prioritized by aid agencies.  If learning isn't critical to the delivery of effective aid programs, then we shouldn't worry about it overmuch.

But, you say, what about the responsibility of aid workers to better themselves?  In a perfect world, this would be enough, but we don't seem to live in a perfect world.

[Image from paloozachronicles.blogspot.com]