Post Img
August 14th, 2020 11:35:39 pm

Global Development, Humanitarian Aid, and the Toolbox Dialogue Method

Terms & Conditions Icon


Global development and humanitarian aid sectors are rife with ethical problems, from the harmful impact of inappropriate development projects to the roles national governments play in violating the human rights of those in need of humanitarian aid, e.g., asylum seekers. These sectors have come under increasing scrutiny because of unfavourable effects that are avoidable. In this paper, we highlight some of the ethical and epistemic challenges that arise within the practices of AID (global development and humanitarian aid), think through some of the more important issues that contribute to these challenges, and consider how we should address them. We argue that AID professionals have a moral obligation to rethink their ethico-political responsibilities. Structured, critical dialogue, exemplified by the Toolbox dialogue method, is one means of addressing some of these challenges.

Global Development, Humanitarian Aid, and the Toolbox Dialogue Method

Anna Malavisi & Michael O’Rourke

Global development, as a practice, aims to support those in need by reconfiguring living conditions for the long term. The crises that motivate humanitarian aid, by contrast, are more urgent, requiring immediate responses and short-term strategies. In this paper we use the term AID to encompass both global development and humanitarian aid. In the case where more specificity is required, the terms global development and humanitarian aid will be used separately.

Both global development and humanitarian aid sectors are rife with ethical problems, from the harmful impact of inappropriate development projects to the roles national governments play in violating the human rights of those in need of humanitarian aid, e.g., asylum seekers.(1) For an example of a morally problematic global development project, consider the Sabarmati Riverfront Project in the state of Gujarat, India.(2) This project was first proposed in 1964 but only began in 2005 after being postponed for four decades. The principal aim of the project was to develop the two very culturally diverse sides of the Sabarmati River. This was intended to improve social infrastructure and the environment, and also contribute to sustainable development. One of the main failings of the project was the displacement of more than 30,000 slum dwellers along the river front. Only 11,200 people ended up being resettled, while 70% of those displaced continue to be homeless and jobless.

For an example of an ethical problem within humanitarian aid, consider the case of the United Nations denying its responsibility for the spread of cholera in Haiti through its UN peacekeeping forces. After the 2010 earthquake, cholera, an infectious disease transmitted via contaminated water ravaged through Haiti, killing thousands, and making ill many more. The bacteria causing cholera was found to originate from Nepalese members of the UN peacekeeping force. The Haitian government demanded that the UN claim some responsibility for this incident and asked for some financial help in dealing with the problem, of which the UN deemed diplomatic immunity absolving them of any responsibility. This incident demands a deeper ethical analysis of the responsibilities institutions have, particularly when decisions and actions result in such devastating results. This will be further discussed in this paper.

The idea of AID has come under increasing scrutiny because it can have unfavourable effects that are avoidable. While AID is motivated typically by the notion of doing good, this is not evident all of the time. Many of the effects of development can be considered harmful, whether that is reflected in project failures due to inappropriate technology, misplaced assumptions, or maldevelopment where people are displaced and not resettled in the name of economic development. Of course, we must also be cognizant of unintended negative consequences, such as those which result in environmental degradation or perpetuate particular paradigms which are not liberating. We are also aware of post-colonial, de-colonial, post-development, and anti-development theorists who reject the concept of development from the outset. In our analysis we do not set out to defend the concept of development, but rather advocate for a better understanding of the ethico-political implications of the entire AID sector in an attempt to rethink the theory and practice that guides this sector.

In this paper, we highlight some of the ethical and epistemic challenges that arise within the practices of AID, think through some of the more important issues that contribute to these challenges, and consider how we should address them. We argue that AID professionals have a moral obligation to rethink their ethico-political responsibilities. Structured, critical dialogue, exemplified by the Toolbox dialogue method, is one means of addressing some of these challenges. The Toolbox dialogue method, rooted in philosophical analysis, is a pragmatic and evidence-informed approach that aims to enhance communication within collaborative, cross-disciplinary practice through critical dialogue about the core beliefs and values that ground it.

We begin by discussing some of the ethical and epistemic challenges that global development confronts, focusing specifically on the role of policy. Second, we consider ethical and epistemic challenges within the humanitarian aid sector. Third, we analyze the ethical and epistemic challenges that arise in these two sectors and argue that many of them can be understood as structural. Fourth, given that they are structural, we argue that some form of critical dialogue among AID actors is an especially effective mechanism for addressing them, although we are aware that it is not sufficient for meeting these structural challenges. Finally, we introduce the Toolbox dialogue method as a way of facilitating the process of structured, critical dialogue.

While the ethical problems in these sectors have received some philosophical attention, we believe that they have not received near enough.(3) Specifically, philosophy should be focused on better understanding problems of global poverty, hunger, the vulnerability of children and women in areas of conflict, the displacement of people, and other ethical dimensions of global development and humanitarian aid. To succeed in providing clarity in these sectors, philosophers also need to understand the social and political contexts of regions that receive AID and the responsibilities and obligations of the countries that provide it.

Understanding, though is not enough – philosophical work should also aim to improve the ethical character of AID through the coupling of ethical and epistemic issues. Once philosophical understanding of the ethical and epistemic dimensions of the AID sector is in place, the next step entails applying this knowledge in practice by engaging with those working in governments, global institutions, NGOs, and elsewhere, with the ultimate goal of influencing policy. As we will argue, this application step requires that those engaged in all aspects of AID engage in dialogue that is based on ethical principles such as justice and equity.

Global development

The idea of global development, understood as an effort to ameliorate the lives of those living in very precarious situations, has been with us for centuries.(4) Although it has not always been articulated in terms of development – it has also been referred to as, e.g., growth(5)  – the idea has been an important driver of discussions about facilitated progress and advancement. Development theory and practice as we know it today was set in motion during President Harry Truman's inaugural address in 1949. While a full understanding of the concept of development requires an appreciation for its history, in this paper we concentrate on development post-1949.

In his 1949 inaugural address, Truman claimed that the United States, as well as other richer countries, could bring an end to poverty and hunger in poorer countries through development. So conceived, development was characterized as an economic activity, with the developed/underdeveloped dichotomy articulated in terms of the “haves” and “have nots”. That is, the emphasis is on having rather than being – rather than concentrating on the general well-being of people, development was measured by income activity per capita.(6) The higher the income, the more 'developed' a nation was.

Seven decades have passed since Truman’s address, and many people have benefitted from development, e.g., it has reduced infant and maternal mortality rates as well as the number of people in extreme poverty (i.e., unable to satisfy basic needs such as access to good water and sanitation facilities, food security, shelter, protection, and so forth).(7) However, there are still far too many children, women, and men who do not have access to a water tap in their home, or enough food to satisfy the nutritional requirements of a healthy individual. In our affluent world, no person should be living in extreme poverty. The number and extent of global inequalities and inequities that we witness in the 21st century indicate a moral failing on the part of individuals and institutions. Extreme poverty is avoidable, not inevitable.(8)

The first development theories focused on development understood in terms of increase in national income, and so was reduced to economic growth. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was the measure for growth, and for more than 40 years the GDP was considered the only worthwhile indicator of development or improvement. The higher the GDP of a country, the “less poor” were its people. The idea of development as economic growth greatly influenced the project of development, or how development was translated into operational plans. Because it was synonymous with economic growth, development programs and projects focused on facilitating economic growth.

However, it became obvious that relying on GDP was insufficient for assessing the impact of development. It was just over 20 years ago that criteria not based on GDP were introduced for development assessment. In the early 1990s the concepts of human development and sustainable development began to receive wide discussion and analysis by development theorists at a global level. These concepts extended the reach of development from mere economic growth to literacy, education, well-being, infant and maternal mortality, nutritional status, and other indicators. For example, in the 1990s the United Nations Development Program endorsed the following concept of development: “Development embraces not only access to goods and services, but also the opportunity to choose a fully satisfying, valuable and valued way of living together, the flourishing of human existence in all its forms and as a whole.”(9) As these concepts began to influence how we understood development, they also influenced how development was carried out.

Furthermore, in regard to the situation of women, in some cases development has ameliorated it, but in other cases it has worsened it. Women were absent from the development debate until the 1970s despite the fact that human development indicators such as infant mortality, maternal mortality, extreme poverty, and illiteracy pointed to the most deplorable and appalling conditions for girls and women. What became clear during the decade of the 1990s was the need to consider the situation of women in the context of AID from a pluralist perspective. Feminists from so-called developing countries criticized Western feminist critiques for the way they homogenized the problems of women and assumed certain positions and ideas which did not accord with the viewpoints of other feminists from around the globe. In her influential piece, Under Western Eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourse, Chandra Mohanty argues that much of the literature written on women in development during this time, particularly by western feminists, erroneously assumed women as a homogenous category. That is, that women in Kenya, Mali, India, Bolivia, or Vietnam all share the same beliefs, suffer the same oppressions, and so forth. The analysis is redolent of a form of cultural reductionism.(10)

Over the past ten years we have witnessed a rising form of transnational feminisms which acknowledge the pluralism that Mohanty advocated, and challenges the harms perpetuated in social and structural hierarchies.(11) We believe that a feminist methodology will help us bridge theory and practice. It also demands other commitments such as intersectionality, context sensitivity, and the development of self-reflexive critiques.(12) These commitments, which are needed to better understand the AID context, provide the backdrop for this paper.

The practice of development is very complex, a fact that is reflected in the types of institutions involved, from very bureaucratic, multilateral agencies such as the United Nations and World Bank to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to grassroots, community-based organizations. This complexity influences how development decisions are made when different institutions collaborate with one another. For example, one can witness a cascade of power beginning from higher level multilateral and bilateral agencies and flowing down to lower level grass roots organizations. Because multilateral and bilateral agencies set the development agenda and provide funding support to those lower down the power gradient, there is a risk that the agenda will reflect priorities that are out of alignment with the targeted beneficiaries of development projects.

Another example of the deleterious impact of organizational complexity involves the incessant lack of coordination that occurs on the ground in development projects. It is still not unusual to observe two or three national and international NGOs working in the same community, doing similar work and not coordinating. Food aid continues to harm local markets, and inappropriate projects are implemented that result in more harm than good. This rather brief analysis of the idea of global development emphasizes that although much progress and improvement has taken place there is still much to do.(13)

Challenges for global development

There are a number of challenges one can discuss for the project of global development. We focus on these: (1) identifying exactly whose development we are talking about, (2) determining whether the practice should aim to develop societies in certain ways, (3) assessing the impact of the global economic order on global development and (4) managing the diversity of different actors involved. Of course, all these challenges relate to each other. For example, how one determines who will be the beneficiaries of development will influence how one will pursue it in the context of specific societies. We begin by considering the first two challenges together, viz., identifying whose development we are talking about and determining whether the practice should aim to develop their societies in specific ways. Often development takes the form of countries in the West and North supporting projects intended to improve life in the East and South, raising the concern that global development is just a form of paternalism that aims to create a world in which people live like those in the West and North think they should. On this way of looking at it, global development derives from the premise that all non-western societies are backward and disadvantaged. So conceived, development is a strategy that is heavily entrenched within a western paradigm.(14) 

Post-development and anti-development theorists reject outright the concept of development for these reasons, and rightly so. However, these theorists do not offer a viable alternative. We cannot begin from a tabula rasa; rather, we must begin from where we're at. And to address how to move forward, we need to understand how we got here. Thus, understanding the theory – particularly concepts that have shaped global development such as human development, participation, and sustainable development – helps us understand the practice, since development practice is based on these ideas.

In fact, development as a concept can only be conceived within a broader context that allows an understanding of the social, political, economic, and cultural factors that affect it. For example, thinking about development after World War II requires some understanding of the global situation and relations between countries prior to World War II. For Noam Chomsky, the colonization of various countries was brutal and devastating. Colonization only perpetuated the power that richer European countries, and subsequently the United States, had over these countries. According to Chomsky, “Today’s gap between North and South – the rich developed societies and the rest of the world – was largely created by the global conquest. Scholarship and science are beginning to recognize a record that had been concealed by imperial arrogance.” (15)

This leads us to our third challenge, which has to do with the effect of the global economic order on development practice. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) set the stage for top-down, paternalistic development of aid in general through their global development policies. For example, consider structural adjustment programmes that obliged countries to cut social welfare programs. These policies drove development agendas and often formed the basis for global strategic plans for bilateral and multilateral agencies. The global economic order is the ruling force behind development policies. These policies are often devised to support economic policies that help developed nations rather than those countries struggling for economic autonomy; as a result, struggling countries can be caught in a poverty trap ruled by hegemonic powers and policies.(16) Global justice theorists argue that the current global economic order will only further inequalities and perpetuate abysmal conditions amongst the poorest. (17)

International and national NGOs that engage in global development feel compelled to devise their plans to comply with the strategies of donors who typically come from rich Western countries. A consequence of this is that the needs of a community or even a country may be undermined by the needs of donors. For example, in the early 1990s, the UN and other funding bodies prioritized HIV/AIDs programs, globally. This is not bad in itself, but it encouraged countries with a very low incidence of HIV/AIDS compared to other health conditions to follow the funding and adopt HIV/AIDs programs, abandoning other more urgent national priorities. This happened in Bolivia where the incidence of HIV/AIDs was estimated at less than 1% of the population, compared to Chagas Disease which infected 50% of the population by some estimates.(18)

Emphasizing donor needs over the needs of a community can lead development agencies to ignore ethical issues such as social justice, since attending to those issues would reverse the emphasis by prioritizing the needs of the world's poor and the importance of analyzing the causes of poverty. In a research study conducted in Bolivia, a director from a national NGO said, “We have to see what funding opportunities are available, rather than keep to our Strategic Plan and we are seeing this in a majority of NGOs.”(19)  In Bolivia, nearly all national NGOs depend on external funding for their existence, so many will compromise their specific organizational mission in pursuit of funding. Funding, then, can drive development work that leaves unaddressed the primary needs of the communities.

One of the biggest challenges for global development comes from the diversity of actors involved, making it a very complex practice. The field of global development includes the following actors:

  1. Multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund;
  2. Bilateral institutions such as the foreign aid ministries of governments of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, European countries, and others;
  3. International NGOs such as Oxfam and Save the Children;
  4. National NGOs and governments in the poorer countries;
  5. Corporations, particularly those with a transnational focus, and
  6. Community based organizations or grassroots movements.

The complex composition of development efforts makes it very difficult to hold any one group accountable for those efforts. For any particular aid strategy, many institutions will be involved. A rural project to build a dam in Bolivia, for example, was executed by a national NGO, with funding support from a Canadian NGO that was funded by the Canadian Government. The project was deemed a failure. Who takes responsibility? The Canadian Government who approved the funding of the dam project? The Canadian NGO who solicited the funding from the Government? The Bolivian NGO who solicited the funding from the Canadian NGO? One could say that all held some responsibility, but how is this evaluated? By whom? This complex situation is just an example of how easy it is to evade responsibility and accountability. Political responsibility becomes opaque as different interests guide different institutions.

Not only do these actors have different interests, but they are also interdependent in important ways. For example, both international and national NGOs rely on external funding for their existence and this is usually provided by “rich world” governments such as the US, UK, and European Union. In some cases, international NGOs will fund the national NGOs of poorer countries. Many corporations also support community-focused initiatives, and of course the World Bank and IMF offer loans to poorer countries. Often, these funding relationships are described as partnerships, but in reality they are not, since partnerships assume some form of equal footing and shared power.(20) This is not often the case in many of these so-called partnerships, which are entrenched in hegemonic structural frameworks.

By structural frameworks we mean those frameworks in which the development actors work. For example, AID functions within the global economic order, which is an overarching structural framework that significantly influences the practice. In 1970, a UN resolution stated that all “economically advanced countries should endeavor to provide by 1972 annually to developing countries financial resource transfer of a minimum of 1 per cent of its gross national product...”(21) The target was later reduced to 0.7% of donor gross national product (GNP). In 1993, a revision saw GNP replaced by gross national income (GNI). Other frameworks include the lending and funding possibilities that arise within the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the United Nations for poorer countries, and of course other funding bodies such as foundations, corporations, and others.

Other adverse effects of the diversity of actors involved in global development include the duplication of projects—it is not unusual to observe two or three NGOs working in the same community on the same range of issues. Another is the lack of coordination on the ground among the various development actors who are at work in a particular location; so, for example, not only do you find a duplication of projects, but also a lack of coordination between those same projects. Additional harmful effects include harm done to local markets and growers as well as dependency of communities on food aid. We can talk about successful projects, certainly, but we need to be cognizant of project failures due to their inappropriate design or implementation.(22)

Humanitarian aid

Humanitarian aid, or “humanitarianism”, focuses on providing immediate and short-term relief to people suffering from an active or recently concluded crisis, whether natural or human-induced.(23) Official humanitarian aid began with the founding of the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) in 1863. The primary objective at that time was to aid in providing care for wounded soldiers during wartime. Over the years, this form of humanitarian aid has resulted in a number of Geneva conventions, which are international humanitarian laws formed by countries coming together to protect and provide assistance to wounded soldiers, prisoners of war, and civilians. (24) The first Geneva convention was adopted in 1949 and since then additional protocols have been added in 1977 and 2007.(25) 

It wasn't until World War I that the ICRC began to consolidate their work as a humanitarian agency. Their presence was important for providing medical relief to the injured, but at that time they extended their efforts to aiding prisoners of war. It was also during and after World War I that a number of private organizations extended relief to distant and new populations, while also supporting the reconstruction of Europe.(26) This marked the time that humanitarian agencies realized humanitarian action was needed at a global level and should not be restricted to European countries.

The foundational principles of humanitarianism are humanity, impartiality, neutrality, and independence.(27) The principle of humanity is the root of humanitarian action. It concerns the inherent value of human life. The principle of impartiality adopts a universal perspective on human life: one should not be partial toward any particular person or group of people or discriminate against any person or group of persons based on their race, nationality, religious beliefs, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, etc. While humanity and impartiality are considered ethical principles, neutrality and independence are political ones. Neutrality enjoins us not to be partisan and is recommended for its instrumental value in grounding trust and fairness when dealing with conflict. The principle of independence is important for organizations such as the ICRC to avoid being associated with any government or being used to support a political agenda.(28)

Humanitarianism, like global development, has not been free of criticism. Too many times the concept of humanitarianism, or the notion of “responsibility to protect,” has been used to justify interventions which in the long run have created greater harm than the original crises that motivated them (e.g., Sri Lanka).(29) And many times, in the name of humanitarianism, intervention has gone badly wrong (e.g., Rwandan genocide).(30) But for all the failures, one can still count successes, and fundamentally the intention of humanitarianism is good. According to Slim, “In its best form humanitarian action embodies a very human response of love and care to the cruelty and devastation of war and disaster, and is an ethical gesture that is universally understood.”(31)          

Humanitarianism is also very complex, due to the variety of ways it is interpreted, the differences in institutions, and for the actions done in its name. The existence of laws and principles supporting humanitarian action do not lessen the challenging problems that arise in its delivery. Many humanitarian crises (Kosovo and Rwanda, to mention only two) have posed real challenges in putting into practice complete neutrality. Often, because issues of access and equity arise in situations of violent conflict, humanitarian aid can be problematic – it is either resisted or usurped by violent perpetrators. It can be enmeshed with political agendas, power games and corruption. Furthermore, the urgency of humanitarian action is only going to increase, due to an increasingly unstable geopolitical context but also as a result of climate change. Scientists predict that we will experience an increasing incidence of natural disasters globally such as severe storms, flooding, drought, and so forth, not to mention the massive displacement of people having to move due to submerging lands.(32)

Challenges for humanitarian aid

There is overlap between development and humanitarian aid; however, it is important to discuss humanitarian aid separately to allow for some reflection on the particular challenges that arise in this sector that might otherwise go unnoticed. Here, we are thinking particularly of challenges associated with the responsibility of nation-states, and multilateral institutions such as the UN for their actions and the consequences of those actions. The responsibility of multilateral institutions in delivering humanitarian aid is not only important because of what they are trying to do, but also because the recipients of their humanitarian aid, who are usually refugees, asylum seekers, or poor people, are at risk of being raped, injured, or even killed. Given that these children, women, and men are in very vulnerable situations, the need to take action to protect them, in cases where their human rights have been violated becomes imperative.

For this paper, we focus on two examples that require more profound and critical responses. The first involves the UN and the cholera epidemic in Haiti, and the second one involves the Australian Government, Save the Children, and asylum seekers. In 2010, cholera appeared in Haiti, killing thousands. Records indicate that this was the first time cholera had been found in Haiti. There is substantial evidence to support the claim that it came to Haiti by way of Nepalese soldiers who were members of the UN peacekeeping force.(33) Since October 2010, some 8,000 Haitians have died and 646,000 have become ill due to cholera. The virulence of the disease and the high morbidity and mortality rates have been amplified by the existence of deplorable water and sanitation facilities in those communities where the disease has been found. The UN rejected any claim of responsibility and had refused to offer compensation to victims and their families. Ban Ki Moon, then Secretary General of the UN, justified this position by invoking the diplomatic immunity of the UN. Louise C. Ivers, senior health and policy adviser at Partners in Health, said, “The United Nations has a moral, if not legal obligation to help solve a crisis it inadvertently helped start.”(34) In August 2016, the New York Times reported that the UN had finally acknowledged their role in the cholera epidemic in Haiti. “Over the past year, the U.N. has become convinced that it needs to do much more regarding its own involvement in the initial outbreak and the suffering of those affected by cholera.”(35) The UN has said that action will be taken, but as yet, nothing has happened.

A second example involves the Australian Government and their treatment of asylum seekers. Asylum seekers do not enter Australian land directly; rather, they are deposited on offshore islands such as Nauru and Manus.(36) There they spend several years living under horrendous conditions and are subject to abuse and other human rights violations. In 2013, Save the Children Fund (SCF) entered into a contract with the Australian Government to provide support for the migrant children on Nauru.(37) All SCF workers were obliged to sign a confidentiality agreement that prohibited them from disclosing publicly what they observed. Many of the migrant children suffered constant sexual and other forms of abuse by security guards on Nauru, but because of the confidentiality agreement, SCF workers were not allowed to speak out. One such worker did, surreptitiously sending thousands of pages of reports to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. She subsequently lost her job and SCF lost the contract, but at least the vulnerability of these children was exposed.(38) This particular incident reveals a number of grave ethical issues, such as the unwillingness of the Australian Government to take action even though they were cognizant of the continued sexual and other forms of abuse of migrant children on these islands, the requirement that SCF sign a confidentiality agreement to protect the Australian Government, and the legal obligation of SCF workers to remain silent even though they must have had a deep desire to help the abused children. The fact that these ethical issues could manifest in so striking a form without motivating an immediate response highlights the need for a deeper analysis of this work. We consider such an analysis in the next section.

The need for a deeper analysis of the ethical and epistemic implications of AID

There are two fundamental problems in AID. First, ethical considerations do not serve as strong constraints on AID sectors, and second, knowledge that is relevant to AID practices is suppressed. Beginning with ethics, too many policies are guided by economic forces; national self-interest dominates the agendas in these sectors, and too many questionable decisions are made at all levels by the many actors involved often influenced by economic motives, self-interest, arrogance and greed. The need for ethical constraints on AID sectors primarily arises at two levels: first, at the level of institutions, where policy and program decision-making takes place, and second, at the level of everyday practices of those working in AID, whether it be in the offices of the World Bank in Washington or in the fields of Burkina Faso. The first of these levels can be described as ethics of AID, and the second can be described as ethics in AID. Both levels warrant attention.

Denis Goulet, a development ethics pioneer, was critical of the way development was portrayed and practiced. He was concerned about ethics at both levels. For Goulet, development was missing a normative evaluative dimension that could constitute an ethics of AID. He argued that development policies and programs espoused by the UN and other multilateral agencies entailed certain abstract evaluative principles such as the reduction of suffering, promotion of a better life, and enhancement of freedoms, but in fact, the “supply” of development projects has been unable to meet these.(39) For Goulet, an abstract form of ethics that is purely theoretical and analytical would not do.Goulet was also interested in the ethical issues that arise when working in the field, that is, ethics in AID – the need to ask questions, challenge assumptions, and understand the experiences of those with whom one is working. He argued AID needs ethics that is both critical and practical; that is, theory and practice are inextricably linked. According to Goulet, “Development ethics is useless unless it can be translated into public action. By public action is meant action taken by public authority, as well as action taken by private agents by having important consequences for the life of the public community.”(40)

Another development ethicist, David Crocker, was primarily concerned with the ethics of AID.  Crocker shows how reducing the problem of food aid to the provision of food, without taking into consideration more complex issues such as hunger and poverty, commits what Whitehead called “the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.”(41) For Whitehead, this fallacy is committed when abstractions are treated as real in a concrete way. Crocker believes that Peter Singer, for example, has committed this fallacy. Singer has argued for many years that individuals are morally obligated to help those in more disadvantaged situations – for example, by giving a percentage of one’s salary to charity – but Crocker believes that this argument is too simplistic. He argues that thinkers such as Singer “paid scant attention to food aid policies of rich countries or development policies in poor countries. And they mostly neglected the efforts of poor countries to feed and develop their own people.”(42) If Singer had taken a critical look at the food aid policies of the 1970s, he would have discovered that these were problematic in a moral sense and desperately needed reform. While giving a percentage of your salary to a charity may be considered a good thing, this alone will not address the structural causes that explain why certain people need aid in the first place.

Global justice theorists who are mainly concerned with the first level, ethics of AID, claim that problems such as extreme global poverty are not confined to one nation and are not purely attributable to a weak state. The persistence and perpetuation of extreme poverty is also attributable in part to institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF, and the World Trade Organization. The design of these organizations makes them systematic contributors to extreme poverty. (43) In fact, some have argued that the global institutional order and national institutional orders are in need of reform.(44) Globalization has increased the need for a deeper analysis of global institutional arrangements, which can be understood as the laws, agreements, and practices that exist between countries. There is also an urgent need for those working within AID agencies to recognize and understand their political responsibilities both at an institutional level and at a personal one.

From our perspective, an important methodology to use in thinking through the normative aspects of AID derives from work in feminist ethics and epistemology. Feminist theorists challenge global justice theorists (mainly white men) for the way they fail to address gender concerns and other forms of oppression. Unfortunately, women and children still make up the majority of the world's poor, and women's labor is both undermined, and undercounted.(45) Not only do women continue to take the burden for the caring of children, elderly, and the sick, they are also more likely to work in the informal sector. And not to mention the increased tendency for young girls to be raped, trafficked and exploited just on the basis of their gender entrenched within patriarchal systems.  Furthermore, there is an increasing need to extend this analysis to other oppressed groups such as the LGBTQI community, disabled people, and so forth.

The weak presence of an ethical dimension is also reflected in national policies and programs, and is illustrated by the case of the asylum seekers and the Australian Government. Politicians in richer countries justify their strict immigration policies which permit the subjection of fellow human beings to sub-human conditions as required for the protection of national sovereignty. In a globalized world possessing technologies that transcend borders—where laws, agreements, and practices exist between countries—transnational responsibilities should take priority in these cases. The duties and obligations of those in developed countries go beyond commercial actions.(46) For Miller, there is a need for a version of global justice that emphasizes the duties citizens of Western countries have toward the extremely poor in distant countries. Our duties extend from the point of advantage. If laws and policies between countries allow those in richer countries to benefit by taking advantage of those in poorer countries while maintaining their weakness, we are failing to meet our responsibilities.(47) 

Our citizenship in a country should not be understood purely in nationalist terms, although we are currently witnessing a resurgence of nationalist politics around the world. In 2020, in such a globalised world it makes more sense to describe any one person’s existence, irrespective of race, gender, ethnicity, etc., as inter-relational, inter-dependent and inter-cultural. Rather than existing as isolated entities, individuals relate at different levels: family, friends, colleagues, non-human species, nature and others. We also depend on broader structures such as a stable economic and political systems, legal systems, and an environment that provides us with clean air, water, and food. Further, we depend on the good will of people to maintain a safe and loving environment, and on our political leaders to make sound judgments and reasonable decisions. Lastly, because national borders have become more porous, many countries are home to people coming from different cultures, which generates the multicultural, dynamic contexts within which we live our lives.

Ethics in AID is more concerned with the practice of AID, that is, in what happens on the ground. Many of the ethical issues that arise are either swept under the carpet, function as topics for conversation at dinner or the bar, or are managed in a very ineffectual way. But the ethical issues are real and problematic. For example, two or three organizations work in the same community on the same topic but do not coordinate; projects displace community members without knowing where they will go or providing adequate compensation; and aid professionals witness the grave physical and psychological abuse of minors but are not permitted to speak.

The second fundamental problem for the theory and practice of AID—one that is often missed or intentionally ignored—is epistemological. This problem is reflected in both theoretical discussions and practice. Theories of AID must be rooted in knowledge about the practice, and AID practice is based on decisions about AID policies and programs that are dependent on what is known. Often the knowledge that informs the practice of AID is the knowledge of those with wealth and power, which is deemed to have higher epistemic authority and, hence, credibility than the knowledge of the recipients of AID. Because differences in the epistemic status of knowers vis-à-vis AID practice can underwrite injustices due to epistemic domination, it is important to consider the epistemological dimension.

Traditional, ideal epistemology is not that helpful in the AID context because of its emphasis on abstraction. It tends to ignore the real-world status of knowers or their situated capacities and so would not expose the epistemic injustices that concern us. In contrast, feminist epistemology challenges and questions traditional epistemologies and seeks to expand the theory of knowledge.(48) Seen from a feminist perspective, our knowledge claims always derive from a situated social context, and failure to interrogate the implications of this by those in dominant positions results in distorted forms of knowledge.(49)

According to Miranda Fricker, one form of epistemic injustice takes place when a hearer gives a diminished level of credibility to someone due to prejudice.(50) This is testimonial injustice and is pervasive in AID. It happens constantly in the field and in the offices of national and international aid organizations. Credibility deficits occur between poorer or Indigenous communities and local and international NGOs. Poor, illiterate Indigenous women are often given less credit by those engaged in implementing projects. On the other hand, credibility is lavished on those working in international NGOs by community members, especially if they are from richer countries. Testimonial injustice also manifests when the knowledge of Indigenous peoples is not valued by corporations or international agencies. Prejudicial stereotypes are a significant cause of testimonial injustice. This is illustrated by the case of development professionals who visit poorer countries for a few days, conclude that they understand the situation of the other, and then base their decisions on this experience.(51)

Therefore, in our view, any deeper philosophical analysis must allow for the coupling of the ethico-political and the epistemological, which is something that is a hallmark of feminist philosophy. Feminism has always been a political movement concerned with practical issues of the everyday lives of women. As we argue above, to address injustice requires revealing how it comes about in the first place, this creates a better understanding of the ethico-political obligations of development professionals through the coupling of ethical and epistemic issues. This is what doing helpful philosophy is, discussed in the next section.

Doing helpful philosophy

Philosophy as a discipline is sometimes considered useless because it is too abstract and divorced from reality. This view is perhaps unwittingly supported by academic philosophers themselves, whether as a result of academic elitism, the promotion-tenure system in universities, or just philosophers sticking their heads in the sand. However, during the last forty years, there has been an increase in the number of philosophers who have become more engaged in “real world problems.” (52) It is difficult to assess whether this is due to increasing pressure within universities to gain external funding, a “do or die” mentality among philosophers worried about their relevance, or a sincere desire to engage philosophically with the public. It is true, though, that many philosophy departments are smaller now than they used to be, and some have disappeared, raising real concern about pressure from within universities to justify one's existence.(53) It should also be noted that feminist philosophy for its methodology has acted as a catalyst in pushing forward the need for philosophy to be more relevant. It does this by engaging in issues of context, relationality, intersectionality, and the maxim: starting from the everyday lives of women.

Therefore, philosophy, is not useless. Philosophy, as Graham Priest states, “... is subversive. Time and again philosophers have shot at religions, political systems, public mores. They do this because they are prepared to challenge things which everybody else takes for granted or whose rejection most people do not countenance”.(54) In our view, just, effective AID practice requires rethinking the ethico-political responsibilities of key actors, and deploying philosophy in an engaged and subversive way can guide us in this effort. Focusing on AID, Goulet has written about the need for philosophers to be added to development teams.(55) It is not enough that philosophical thinking be instilled into development – philosophers should also become engaged in the theory and practice of development. Speaking of the related domain of public policy, the philosopher Jonathan Wolff writes, “Public policy needs philosophers more than it needs philosophy,”(56) and in line with Goulet, we think the same is true for AID.

Michael P. Nelson, an environmental philosopher, argues that helpful philosophy comes with two conditions. First, in the case of environmental issues, “philosophers need to continue to convince ecologists (and others) of the relevance of philosophical and ethical discourse.” (57)Just making known the ethical dimensions of problems “is not, in and of itself, sufficient.”(58) The second condition Nelson claims is necessary for helpful philosophy in environmental contexts is that philosophers must work with biologists, social scientists and policy makers. This condition builds on the notion that working in a cross-disciplinary way – that is, with members of other disciplines – is somewhat different than working on cross-disciplinary topics.

Both of these conditions apply to AID work. Philosophers can make a difference in the development context, but they must convince development practitioners that their perspective is relevant. This they can do by convincing social scientists, policymakers, and other development practitioners of the importance of ethical and epistemological dimensions of AID practice. The Toolbox Dialogue Initiative (TDI) is a group of researchers that practice helpful philosophy. In the next section, we discuss how philosophy and philosophers can convince AID professionals that they must address the ethical and epistemological problems with development that we canvassed above.

An example of helpful philosophy: The Toolbox dialogue method

Within development organizations and humanitarian aid agencies, there is a need to generate a space for critical reflection and dialogue about the values and beliefs that influence attitudes and decisions. This type of dialogue can support identification of potentially damaging differences and enhance communication by enabling colleagues to observe the development landscape from each other’s perspective. The Toolbox dialogue method offers a concrete and tangible method for achieving this, in two ways. First, it can generate a space for critical, reflexive dialogue within development organizations and humanitarian aid agencies; second, it can enable the analysis and discussion of the ethico-political and epistemic dimensions of specific development topics, such as power dynamics, implicit biases, ethical issues, and forms of epistemic injustice.(59)

The Toolbox dialogue method was developed by the Toolbox Dialogue Initiative (TDI), a US National Science Foundation-sponsored effort based at Michigan State University that offers a philosophical yet practical enhancement to cross-disciplinary, collaborative research and practice in the form of dialogue-based workshops. Rooted in philosophical analysis, Toolbox workshops enable cross-disciplinary collaborators to engage in a structured, reflexive dialogue about tacit assumptions that constitute the worldviews which frame their practice.

The method was originally developed to facilitate collaborative, interdisciplinary research efforts. And while development professionals may not be engaged in research, AID is essentially interdisciplinary in nature and is confronted by communication challenges rooted in the heterogeneity of collaborating actors.

The Toolbox dialogue method consists of two primary elements, an instrument and a workshop. The instrument consists of several rating-response items, or prompts, that develop themes that are foundational for a partner group. In a pilot workshop with an international development NGO, TDI personnel devised prompts based on four themes: development, sustainability, knowledge, and justice (see Appendix). The prompts that develop these themes are formulated to address the ethico-political and epistemic issues associated with AID previously discussed. The workshop is centered on a dialogue among participants about the issues raised by the prompts. A workshop begins with participants individually completing the survey, after which the structured dialogue begins. This method allows for the discussion of epistemic, metaphysical, and axiological assumptions that figure into deliberation and decision-making about development and humanitarian aid.

According to O'Rourke and Crowley, the Toolbox dialogue method “is built on the premise that philosophy can be deployed to enhance cross-disciplinary communication through greater mutual understanding of assumptions.”(60) One way to achieve this mutual understanding is to abstract away from specific individual and disciplinary differences among collaborators toward common epistemic ground. Philosophical analysis can be very helpful here since it encourages participants to question and clarify concepts and challenge assumptions and preconceived ideas. When focused on the orientations to research and practice that collaborators bring with them to a project, analysis can reveal common commitments and inclinations, especially when conducted by people who are independently motivated to work together.(61)

In the field of global development and humanitarian aid, the communication challenges, assumptions, and preconceived judgments come about as a result of both the theoretical dimensions of AID and its practical applications. There are many relevant differences among participants in AID practice, including government and NGO representatives, AID professionals, and community members. Mutual understanding among representatives of these different communities is necessary for successful development practice.

Conclusion and a way forward

The Toolbox dialogue method is not considered a panacea to the challenges that confront AID; however, it is one way to encourage critical, reflective dialogue among AID professionals and to encourage continued critical reflexivity which can lead to changes in practice and policy. For the past few years, TDI has been extending the Toolbox dialogue method into the field of global development and humanitarian aid.(62) Many ethical issues confront professionals in this field, such as development projects that generate more harm than good, violate basic human rights, and value some lives more than others. In addition to the ethical issues that complicate AID, there are also problematic epistemic issues, such as harms that occur as a result of epistemic domination. The Toolbox dialogue method serves as a systematic mechanism for identifying these issues, reflecting on them as a community, and resolving them collectively.

We have identified the need for a better understanding of the ethico-political implications of the AID sector using a feminist perspective as a theoretical and practical framework. We have also argued that AID professionals have a moral obligation to rethink their ethico-political and epistemic responsibilities. We have suggested that the Toolbox dialogue method can support this reconsideration, although it is only one way. We also believe that it is important for philosophers to become engaged with complex global issues such as AID and work closely with AID professionals since we are trained to provide in-depth analysis of ethico-political and epistemological issues.

The problems of AID are vast and difficult. Many of them are structural in nature, and we acknowledge that structured dialogue among small groups of collaborating development professionals is unlikely to have structural consequences, at least in the short term. Even so, philosophical analysis and structured dialogue through something like the Toolbox dialogue method could enhance communication among global development actors and support a more reflexive and collective effort to resolve the problems of AID.


Development Module

CORE QUESTION: How important is understanding the concept of development for development practice?

1. Collaborators working on a development project must have a shared conception of development.

Disagree                         Agree

1        2        3        4        5                 I don’t know         N/A

2. The practice of development should be more informed by the theories of development.

Disagree                         Agree

1        2        3        4        5                 I don’t know         N/A

3. The primary aim of international development efforts is to benefit richer countries.

Disagree                         Agree

1        2        3        4        5                 I don’t know         N/A

4. Addressing the needs of women and children should be the focus of development interventions.

Disagree                         Agree

1        2        3        4        5                 I don’t know         N/A

5. Development ideas should come primarily from those for whom development projects are designed.

Disagree                         Agree

1        2        3        4        5                 I don’t know         N/A

6. Power dynamics among development actors need not be addressed for programs/projects to be successful.

        Disagree                         Agree

1        2        3        4        5                 I don’t know         N/A

Justice Module

CORE QUESTION: How do differing understandings of justice influence how injustices are addressed?

  1. All project stakeholders should have a shared understanding of justice.

Disagree                         Agree

1        2        3        4        5                 I don’t know         N/A

  1. The practice of development is too often limited to justice understood as the distribution of resources.

Disagree                         Agree

1        2        3        4        5                 I don’t know         N/A

  1. Justice within a development context is an unobtainable ideal.

Disagree                         Agree

1        2        3        4        5                 I don’t know         N/A

  1. Working toward justice should entail redressing injustices.

Disagree                         Agree

1        2        3        4        5                 I don’t know         N/A

  1. Development projects concerned with justice must address aspects of injustice to individuals (e.g., marginalization, discrimination, powerlessness).

Disagree                         Agree

1        2        3        4        5                 I don’t know         N/A

  1.  Development actions that aim to ameliorate levels of poverty but only perpetuate structural injustice must be explained in terms of power imbalances among development actors.

Disagree                         Agree

1        2        3        4        5                 I don’t know         N/A

Knowledge/Cultural Understanding Module

CORE QUESTION: How important is it to development to consider what counts as knowledge?    

  1. All sources of knowledge within a development context must be given equal consideration.

Disagree                         Agree

1        2        3        4        5                 I don’t know         N/A

  1. Western knowledge plays too big a part in international development.

Disagree                         Agree

1        2        3        4        5                 I don’t know         N/A

  1. The knowledge of all community members is as valuable as that of development professionals.

Disagree                         Agree

1        2        3        4        5                 I don’t know         N/A

  1. Traditional knowledge should be given more credibility by development professionals.

Disagree                         Agree

1        2        3        4        5                 I don’t know         N/A

  1. The implicit biases of development actors must be managed in development projects.

Disagree                         Agree

1        2        3        4        5                 I don’t know         N/A

  1. Development professionals should never judge cultural practices acceptable or unacceptable.

Disagree                         Agree

1        2        3        4        5                 I don’t know         N/A

Sustainability Module

CORE QUESTION: How should sustainability be understood in a development context?

  1.       1. Sustainability is not uniformly understood in development organizations.

Disagree                         Agree

1        2        3        4        5                 I don’t know         N/A

  1.       2. Actions to address environmental sustainability are anthropocentric.

Disagree                         Agree

1        2        3        4        5                 I don’t know         N/A

  1.       3. The concept of sustainability only makes sense in a western paradigm.

Disagree                         Agree

1        2        3        4        5                 I don’t know         N/A

  1.       4. Sustainability requires the equal moral consideration of humans and non-humans.

Disagree                         Agree

1        2        3        4        5                 I don’t know         N/A

  1.      5. Sustainability should be limited to the equitable distribution of resources for present and future generations.

Disagree                         Agree

1        2        3        4        5                 I don’t know         N/A

  1.      6. Sustainability for development projects must be understood within an ethical framework.

Disagree                         Agree
1        2        3        4        5                 I don’t know         N/A


  1.         This was taken from a presentation given by Dr. Shashi Motital in September 2019 at a HDCA pre-conference event;
  2.         Goulet, Denis. “A New Discipline: Development Ethics, International Journal of Social Economics,” Vol. 24, No.11 (1997) :1160-71; Crocker, David. Ethics of Global Development, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008); Nigel Dower. “The nature and scope of development ethics,” Journal of Global Ethics, 4:3 (2008):183-193, DOI: 10.1080/17449620802496289; Penz, Peter, Jay Drydyk, and Pablo Bose, Displacement by development: ethics, rights and responsibilities, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011); & Serene J. Khader, Adaptive Preferences and Women's Empowerment, Studies in Feminist Philosophy, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
  3.         Des Gasper. The ethics of development: from economism to human development, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2004). 
  5.         Gustavo Esteva. Development, in The Development Dictionary, ed. By Wolfgang Sachs. (London: Zed Books, 1992).
  8.         Des Gasper. The ethics of development: from economism to human development, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2004):37
  9.         Mohanty, Chandra. “Under Western eyes: feminist scholarship and colonial discourses” in Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism, eds. C.Mohanty, A.Russo and L. Torres (Bloomington:Indiana University Press,1991).
  10.         Serene J. Khader. “Neoliberalism, Global Justice, and Transnational Feminisms” in The Routledge Companion to Feminist Philosophy, eds. Ann Garry, Serene J. Khader, and Alison Stone (New York: Routledge, 2017); Sandra Harding & Anna Malavisi.”Women, Gender, and Philosophies of Global Development,”  in The Routledge Companion to Feminist Philosophy, eds. Ann Garry, Serene J. Khader, and Alison Stone (New York: Routledge, 2017).
  11.         Sandra Harding, Feminism and Methodology, ed. Sandra Harding, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987); Serena Parekh, & Shelley Wilcox.  (2018). Feminist Perspectives on Globalization. _The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy_ 2018.
  12.         David Crocker. Ethics of Global Development, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008); Penz, Peter, Jay Drydyk, and Pablo Bose, Displacement by development: ethics, rights and responsibilities, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011)
  13.         Gustavo Esteva. Development, in The Development Dictionary, ed. By Wolfgang Sachs. (New York: Zed Books,1992); Osvaldo De Rivero. The Myth of Development, (New York: Zed Books, 2001); Vandana Shiva. The Violence of the Green Revolution, (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 2016).  
  14.          Noam Chomsky.  Hopes and Prospects. Chicago, (Illinois: Haymarket Books, 2010): 5.
  15.          Paul Collier, The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done About It. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).
  16.          Thomas Pogge. Politics as usual, (Cambridge:Polity, 2010).
  18.            Anna Malavisi. A critical analysis of the relationship between southern non-government organizations and  northern non-government organizations in Bolivia. Journal of Global Ethics, Vol.6, No.1. (April 2010):49.
  19.         Malavisi, 2010
  21.         The Millennium Villages Project comes to mind, but one of the authors had other more personal experiences in Bolivia.
  22.          Hugo Slim. Humanitarian Ethics, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).
  23.          Slim, 2015
  24.          Slim, 2015
  25.          Michael Barnett. Empire of Humanity: A History of Humanitarianism, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2011).
  26.          Slim, 2015
  27.          Slim, 2015
  29.         James Dawes. That the World May Know, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007).
  30.            Hugo Slim, 2015:3
  32.         Chin et al, The Origin of the Haitian Cholera Outbreak Strain, The New England Journal of Medicine, 2011, 364: 33-42; Hendriksen RS, et al. 2011. Population genetics of Vibrio cholerae from Nepal in 2010: Evidence on the Origin of the Haitian Outbreak, mBio 2(4): e00157-11. Doi:10.1128/mBio.00157-11.
  33.         Louise C. Ivers. A Chance to Right a Wrong in Haiti, Retrieved 5//1/14.
  37.         Denis Goulet. A New Discipline: Development Ethics, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 24, No.11, 1997, 1160-71.
  38.           Denis Goulet. The Cruel Choice, (Atheneum, 1973):335
  39.          David Crocker. Ethics of Global Development, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008).
  40.          Crocker, 256
  41.         Richard W. Miller. Globalizing Justice: The Ethics of Poverty and Power. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). Print.
  42.         Thomas Pogge. Politics as usual, (Cambridge:Polity, 2010).
  43.         Sylvia Chant, “The 'Feminization of Poverty' and the 'Feminization' of Anti-Poverty Programs:Room for Revision” in Nalini Visvanathan, Lynn Duggan, Nan Wiegersma, and Laurie Nisonoff (Eds.) The Women, Gender and Development Reader, (New York: Zed Books, 2011).
  44.             Richard Miller. “Global Power and Economic Justice” in Global Basic Rights, ed. Charles R. Beitz and Robert   E. Goodin, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).
  45.         ibid
  46.          Linda Alcoff  & Elizabeth Potter, eds. Feminist Epistemologies, (New York: Routledge, 1993).
  47.          Sandra G. Harding. The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies. (New York: Routledge, 2004). Print.
  48.         Miranda Fricker. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)
  49.         For a further analysis on epistemology and development see: Anna Malavisi. Epistemology. Ed. Jay Drydyk & Lori Keleher, Routledge Handbook of Development Ethics, (London: Routledge, 2019).
  50.         Evelyn Brister and Robert Frodeman, Digging Sowing, Building: Philosophy as Activity in A Guide to Field Philosophy: Case Studies and Practical Strategies, edited by Evelyn Brister and Robert Frodeman, Routledge, 2020
  51.           Robert Frodeman and A. Briggle.  Socrates Tenured: The Institutions of 21st-Century Philosophy. (Lanham, MD:  Rowman & Littlefield, 2016).
  52.           Graham Priest, What is Philosophy? Philosophy
  53.         Denis Goulet. The Cruel Choice, (Atheneum, 1973).
  54.         Jonathan Wolff. Ethics and Public Policy: A Philosophical Inquiry, (Routledge, 2011):202
  55.            Michael P. Nelson. “On Doing Helpful Philosophy,” Science and Engineering Ethics, (2008) 14: 612
  56.            Nelson, 612
  57.            S.D. Eigenbrode, Vasko, S. E., Malavisi, A., Laursen, B. K., O’Rourke, M. Future directions for the Toolbox Dialogue Initiative. In G. Hubbs, M. O’Rourke, and S. H. Orzack (Eds.). The Toolbox Dialogue Initiative: The Power of Cross-Disciplinary Practice. Boca Raton, (FL: CRC Press, 2020).
  58.         Michael O’Rourke,  Stephen Crowley. “Philosophical intervention and cross-disciplinary science: The story of the Toolbox Project.” Synthese (2013)190:1940
  59.         Graham Hubbs, Michael O’Rourke., Steven H. Orzack, Eds. The Toolbox Dialogue Initiative: The Power of Cross-Disciplinary Practice. (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2020).
  60.          Eigenbrode, S. D., Stephanie E. Vasko, Anna Malavisi,  Bethany K. Laursen, Michael O’Rourke. “Future directions for the Toolbox Dialogue Initiative.” In G. Hubbs, M. O’Rourke, and S. H. Orzack (Eds.). The Toolbox Dialogue Initiative: The Power of Cross-Disciplinary Practice. (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2020).



Anna Malavisi & Michael O'Rourke, Global Development, Humanitarian Aid, and the Toolbox Dialogue Method



We would love to hear what you think! Please share your thoughts with us by logging in to comment, or join our community by signing up here!