When helping hurts… and data deludes

Today we have access to more data than ever before. Data provides evidence and insights to help us better understand those whom we are seeking to serve and what is and isn’t working to bring about positive transformation in their lives.

Yet the increasing availability and quantity of data is a double-edged sword. It can delude those of us with the privilege of leading and orchestrating research that the presence of data about those we seek to serve equates to the presence of those very people themselves.

"‘Saving lives’ without listening to people isn’t efficient. It’s immoral" - Meg Sattler, Ground Truth Solutions

Deeply listening to and including those we are seeking to serve isn’t a fluffy nice-to-have. Our impact is dependent on it. Too often Christian organisations and churches lie far behind secular counterparts in ensuring that the deeply relational causes of poverty and exclusion are addressed not only through programmes but, as importantly, through the way that these are designed, delivered and evaluated. Why does this matter? Because, as shown in this new briefing from Ground Truth Solutions [1], the current lack of accountability and participation is actually harming people.

Since the 1980s, secular development organisations have come a long way on a journey of self-reflection towards more participatory approaches. Progress has been made in ensuring that the design, delivery, and monitoring and evaluation of policies and programs are both informed by and developed with those living in poverty. Stefan Dercon, former Chief Economist of the UK Department for International Development (DFID), in his recent book, writes about the need for greater humility by outsiders, as "outside actors never changed countries: sensible choices by local actors did" [2]. Thankfully, the centrality of including, hearing, and valuing those we seek to serve as the ones with the knowledge, expertise, and solutions to bring about change is now widely acknowledged within the secular development and humanitarian relief space. Accountability, localisation, and decolonisation are some of the most pressing priorities for donors and development agencies right now. We are slowly seeing some progress being made to shift power back to the poor and marginalised, albeit there is still a very long way to go to move this beyond policy-land rhetoric.

"Outside actors never changed countries: sensible choices by local actors did" - Stefan Dercon, former Chief Economist of the UK Department for International Development

The Church in the Global North has followed a similar (albeit perhaps sadly slower) trajectory. It has come a long way in realising and repenting for its own brokenness in how it views and approaches mission and serving the poor. Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert's book 'When Helping Hurts' has been transformational in calling for renewed humility in these efforts. They warn of the damage caused by good but uninformed intentions that fail to recognise the invaluable resources and capabilities of the poor. However, when it comes to designing programs and evaluating their effectiveness, the theory and practice among Christian development agencies are too often alarmingly far behind their secular counterparts. The poor are notably absent, with perceived knowledge and decision-making remaining in the hands of the churches, organisations, or philanthropists controlling funding and programme decisions. The encouraging drive to better understand and improve impact - that has accompanied a shift in theology and understanding around serving the poor - is sadly often resulting in a contradictory preference for top-down, reductionist approaches to programme design and impact evaluation.

“The poor are notably absent, with perceived knowledge and decision-making remaining in the hands of the churches, organisations, or philanthropists controlling funding and programme decisions”

While the scientific rigor of methodologies such as Randomised Control Trials has a place in certain contexts, solely quantitative and extractive research methodologies are unnecessarily costly and burdensome on communities (and organisations) and often fail to yield actionable research that helps improve programme outcomes. "Right fit evidence" (an approach that maximises actionable learning within the constraints of an organisation’s existing structures and resourcing) and participatory design processes offer churches and Christian organisations opportunities to listen more deeply to and engage more meaningfully with those they are seeking to serve. We fear that without such approaches, we may see more harm than good from the drive towards better impact data.

When we walk together

"Our perspective should be less about how we are going to fix the materially poor and more about how we can walk together, asking God to fix both of us"[3].

To do better, we need to know better. Just as we needed to understand where our helping hurts, we need to know where our data deludes. For churches, mission organisations, and Christian development agencies to remain relevant and impactful in an increasingly complex and challenging world, we could learn a lot from the importance that secular actors now place on ensuring that we're walking together - designing, evaluating, and making decisions with those we’re serving not for them. (As an aside, I'd highly commend Robert Chambers' book 'Can we know better: Reflections for development' [4] if you'd like to read the most recent work from the Godfather of participation in development).

"Our perspective should be less about how we are going to fix the materially poor and more about how we can walk together, asking God to fix both of us" - Corbett and Fikkert, When Helping Hurts, 2012

Working in recognition of existing systems and structures of power within our impact design and measurement work requires us to stop seeing the role of those we serve as people we extract data from but rather as people whom we learn from and walk alongside. We are encouraged and inspired by a recent paper written by David Bronkema (Eastern University) and Rebecca Redfield (Hope International), who advocate for participatory, inclusive, and collaborative research not only for the knowledge it enriches us with but for the intrinsic value - and, as they propose, even the ministry opportunity - inherent in the very process of listening and engagement. Participation is about more than achieving better end outcomes. It’s in the very process of learning to listen, as equals, to the voices, experiences, dreams, preferences, and capabilities of those we are seeking to serve that we’ll really see the most impactful holistic transformation take place - for all of us.

Eido Research exists to help Christian organisations measure and improve their social and spiritual impact. We do this through impact strategy and research services.