Is Development Studies Still Irrelevant?
It was 1989 when Michael Edwards shook the
academe and sparked a debate when he wrote the critique “The Irrelevance of
Development Studies”. Fast forward to almost three decades later, whatever
happened to his criticisms? Is the irrelevance of Development Studies still
relevant today? Or did it become obsolete over time? When Edwards published his
work, he pointed out salient points about how development studies is being
carried out inside and outside the academe. According to him, there is still a
gap between research and development. Development studies fails to solve the
problems it was supposed to. It ceases to serve its purpose to bring progress
in most areas especially the underdeveloped countries.
One of the points he expounded was that development
studies scholars are still victims of the banking style of education where
there is a passive reception of ideas and inputs from professors to students.
In turn, this also affects development work through research. The researcher is
separate from the subject of its research. He adapts the etic point of view
leaving out his subjects and only contributing to the academe through the
papers and books he is to write. He forgets that the very reason he engaged
into research is to bring about “development” to the community. But through
time, did this crevice between the researcher and the subject have been
attended to? Let’s not go far and take into account the practicum experience
being implemented through the Development Studies program of the University of
the Philippines – Manila. A group of student-researchers live with the
community and help with extension, social mobilization and production work.
Through this, they try to address the gap by learning and experiencing the
struggles of the community and writing about it as well. Moreover, they give
back to the community the results of their research – a must for any study.
Another point to be discussed is where
the stream of teachings and ideologies come from. Most teachings and articles
that talk about development studies, according to Edwards, came from the North.
They hold the monopoly and control of knowledge and writings that if we read
and analyze, almost if not all contain bias and prejudice about the focus of
the study. Who knew that the North-South divide did not just exist in a
political and economic aspect? The chest of knowledge that was kept within the
bounds of the developed countries and third world elites resulted to the
failure to address the basic problems of third world countries. Because these
documents were not written appropriately to its targeted audience, those in the
grassroots were not able to utilize the meaningful insights of various studies.
Funding for researches and investigatory projects were also concentrated in
first world countries therefore giving them the upper hand not just in
accessing knowledge but also controlling what kind of “knowledge” or ideology
they perpetuate. Meanwhile, in the 21st century, did any of these
observations change? Could the establishment of development studies courses in
the third world and indigenization of the different concepts and translations
of different articles and books unlock the chest of knowledge?
The answer to the obsolescence of the
irrelevance should not be a yes or no. It begs no question but a call to
action. We can decide to let it stay irrelevant or do more for Development
Studies to serve its true purpose.
____________
Comments
Post a Comment