A great Babylonian confusion
•
1 like•902 views
5th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014 Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice 24-28 August 2014 in Davos, Switzerland
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to A great Babylonian confusion
Similar to A great Babylonian confusion (20)
More from Global Risk Forum GRFDavos
More from Global Risk Forum GRFDavos (20)
A great Babylonian confusion
- 1. A great Babylonian confusion: Terminological ambiguity in capacity development for DRR in the international community MAGNUS HAGELSTEEN, RESEARCHER PER BECKER, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR CENTRE FOR SOCIETAL RESILIENCE & LUCRAM IDRC, DAVOS, 2014-08-25
- 2. Outline • Research question • Methodology • Background • Result & discussion • Post 2015 Framework for DRR • Conclusion
- 3. Research question How do experts from different countries perceive and express the concepts of disaster risk reduction (DRR) and capacity development, and in what way are these concepts and terms used in documentation on capacity development projects for disaster risk reduction?
- 4. Methodology 1. Analysing 35 international external experts view/notions on capacity development for DRR (qualitative semi-structured interviews) – What does DRR mean to you? – What does capacity development mean to you? 2. Content analysis of nine international capacity development projects for DRR (project documentation and reports) – Are key terms clearly defined? – Is there consistency in terminology throughout the project documentation?
- 5. Background Capacity development for DRR – increasing resilience and reduce disaster losses
- 6. Background Capacity development for DRR – increasing resilience and reduce disaster losses Some studies: • Challenges with actual implementation • DRR not a self-explanatory term • International NGOs – lack of common definition
- 7. Background Capacity development for DRR – increasing resilience and reduce disaster losses Some studies: • Challenges with actual implementation • DRR not a self-explanatory term • International NGOs – lack of common definition Same terms defined in different ways by different organisations - Babylonian confusion
- 8. Result 35 interviews • High degree of terminological ambiguity • Vaguely or in broad terms • “Abstract concepts, buzz words, meaningless terms, intellectual constructions” • “Tricky questions” – some avoided the questions
- 9. Result 35 interviews • HFA being theoretical, with no actions or not being operational • One-third: confusion regarding DRR and what it means in practise • Two-thirds: gave little explanation of what capacity development meant to them. – “For many people, capacity development is like an abstract thing, it is not clear how to do it”
- 10. Result Content analysis of nine capacity development projects for DRR • Revealed an overall ambiguity - how key terms and concepts were described and conveyed. • Overall lack of references to key terms and of definitions of abbreviations.
- 11. Discussion The cause of confusion or lack of consistency concerning concepts • May assume that partners have the same understanding of key concepts • Used as slogans, rather than meaningful concepts due to a lack of clarity or knowledge • Abstract, academic, complicated and over-elaborated making it difficult to translate them into objectives and practical activities • Problems in translating terms between languages • Concepts changing meaning over time
- 12. Post 2015 Framework for DRR • Clear and precise communication • Not take for granted partners have the same understanding of the concepts involved – Misunderstandings between partners – Can undermine opportunities for learning, change… – Duplication and inefficiency – Can be difficult to assess whether the DDR measures were successful or not
- 13. Conclusion • Concepts such as “DRR” and “capacity development” are often used loosely – hinders successful communication. • Homogeneous group of experts and documentation from a single governmental agency but… • Concepts are perceived in different ways depending on the values, beliefs, practices, and organisational and educational background. • Does not mean that there must be consensus on the concepts. • Resilience, ownership, partnership…
Editor's Notes
- 1 min Distinguished / dear ladies, gentlemen, session chairs and friends good morning, My name is Magnus Hagelsteen and together with a colleague Mr Per Becker we have looked into the great Babylonian confusion: Terminological ambiguity/confusion in capacity development for DRR with a focus on the international community”. We are both working for Lund University with a focus on DRM/CCA and CD to make society more resilient. Both of us have been working in practice with these issues for more than one decade before going back to the University. We work closely with out former employer a Swedish governmental agency MSB as well as with different UN entities and the Red Cross and Crescent Movement.
- 1 min The purpose of this presentation is to discuss the potential for conceptual misunderstandings of the key concepts of “DRR” and “capacity development” within a relatively homogeneous group of external experts & partners involved in capacity development initiatives for DRR. The outline is as follows: Present our research question, a little bit of the used methodology & background, result & discussion, added values for HFA2 combined with a conclusion. To achieve this, we aim to answer the following research question:
- 0,5 min
- 2 min The research is based on: a broad literature review & our experience, and two separated studies: interviews with 35 experienced professionals (external perspective) within DRR and capacity development with backgrounds from UN, Red Cross, IFRC, NGOs, Gov agencies, and consultants with the purpose to obtain an understanding of what the concepts of DRR and capacity development meant to them. The interviews were part of a wider study. This study included two open questions: What does DRR mean to you? What does capacity development mean to you? The documentation from nine international capacity development projects for DRR from a governmental agency undertaken between 2007 and 2013 were analysed to gain an understanding of the way in which terminology was used in the project documentation. The analysis was guided by the following questions: Are key terms clearly defined? Is there consistency in terminology throughout the project documentation?
- 0,5 min Why is this important? Society is becoming increasingly dynamic and complex, and it has been pointed out that societies must be resilient in order to be able to protect their citizens and critical societal functions in the face of disasters. It has been suggested/advocated that disaster risk reduction (DRR) is key in establishing resilience and that capacity development for DRR is vital to substantially reduce losses resulting from disasters
- 1 min Recent studies have revealed problems impeding the actual implementation of capacity development in DRR. Both DRR and capacity development involve many individuals in different kinds of organisations, and there are indications of discrepancies in how they perceive the key aspects in this field. In a study on the United Nations’ contribution to the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action, Oelreich states that “Disaster risk reduction is not a self-explanatory term” The results of another study including 63 respondents from international NGOs from 18 different countries indicate a lack of a common definition of “capacity building” In addition, the link between capacity development and DRR is also unclear
- 0,5 min Some concepts are often used interchangeably
- 1 min The findings from the 35 interviews revealed substantial differences between the way in which the respondents expressed the two concepts of DRR and capacity development – high degree of terminological ambiguity what DRR and CD mean in theory and practice. They defined them vaguely or in broad terms, some stating that they were “tricky questions” or explaining that the concepts were “abstract” or just “buzz words”, or “meaningless terms” and “intellectual constructions”.
- 1 min Some informants referred to the Hyogo Framework for Action as being theoretical, with no actions, or not being operational. One-third stated that there is confusion regarding DRR and what it means in practise, while two-thirds gave little explanation of what capacity development meant to them. One informant said: “For many people, capacity development is like an abstract thing, it is not clear how to do it”. Several respondents avoided one or both of the questions, and a few of them explicitly refused to discuss them.