methods and mindsets: towards an understanding of the tyranny of methodology

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT, VOL. 14,323-338 (1994)

Methods and mindsets: towards an understanding of the tyranny of methodology

SIMON BELL School of Development Studies, University of East Anglia

SUMMARY This article attempts to examine familiar things through a different comparative focus. The results given here are preliminary and intended for comment and further development. The article takes as its basis the tradition which has arisen from the export of methods to developing countries in all manner of scientific and technical development projects. In the area of global development the traditions of technology transfer and development intervention by donor agencies and their related consultancy groups is well documented. Not so well covered in the literature is the related issue pertaining to the export of the methods which accompany and, to some extent, confer respectability upon all manner of technology, intervention and work towards nation building. The article is concerned with what might be called the ‘tyranny of methods’, which, it is argued, are applied often uncritically in development work. The mindsets which are invoked by traditional western scientific methods are reviewed using a psychological model. Following from this, the article investigates two areas of existing experience in the adoption of methods and then goes on to develop a critical perspective of one particular form of information systems development method, drawing on the experiences related. The article briefly investigates traditional, linear methods and makes links to the experiences of farming systems research and rapid rural appraisal. Although no definitive conclusions are made, observations relating to an action plan are provided. The core of this relates to self-analysis and points to be conscious of in the export of any method.

INTRODUCTION

It needs to be made clear at the outset that this is an exploratory article arising from a close personal review of the experience of information systems development in the UK and in countries in both Africa and Asia. The manner in which this point has been reached will be discussed first. Following from this, some of the salient features of technology transfer and methodology transfer will be developed. Finally, the subject of dominant modes of thinking will be introduced.

An important point to make at the outset is that the article bases the comparison on a small number of selected cases and authors. Although it can be dangerous to choose a minimum set of papers as examples of genres or movements, the intention here is to draw stark comparison and to further develop debate upon the issue of methodology in technology transfer.

This article is critically interested in the exportability of methods to developing countries. The background to the issue of this export is no doubt related to the

Dr Simon Bell is Computing Adviser at the School of Development Studies, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ.

CCC 027 I-20751941040323-1 6 0 1994 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

324 S. Bell

evidence suggested by authors such as Checkland (1981) and Bell and Wood-Harper (1992) that some methodologies can be severely restricting and limiting when applied in contexts for which they were not originally intended. Context and who defines it would seem to be of particular importance when discussing the introduction of any technology from industrialized countries to the developing countries.

This article constitutes a preliminary attempt to bring into the discussion of technology transfer and methodology transfer a model derived from developmental psychology. It is focused specifically upon the dominant cultural mindset of what can be called a ‘western scientific tradition’. The article explores the principles behind this tradition and draws out the major features. Following from this the experience of agricultural research and rural development planning in the developing countries are reviewed and compared against the model. The next section develops this theme in the experience of information systems (IS) methodology development. Finally, implications of the experience of the imposition of the western scientific tradition are drawn out and a prototype model for unitive/holistic thinking is set out.

The nature of technology transfer

It is not the purpose of this article to go into great depth on the history and political economy of technology transfer (TT). Rather, the interest in this section is in discussing some of the major features of this phenomenon as it affects information technology and therefore information systems. TT has been discussed in depth elsewhere (see for example Stewart, 1977, 1990; Jenkins, 1987; Enos and Park, 1988; Cyranek, 1992). In terms of information technology, we are used to hearing about ‘solutions’ and technical ‘fixes‘. Experience indicates that the path of TT is far from trouble free. At this point I want to draw out some of the major issues which arise in TT as related to information technology.

Cyranek (1992), drawing on the work of Odedra (1992), sets out reasons for failure following TT and causes of this situation. Table 1 is drawn from his work and provides an overview of these issues.

Table 1 .

Issue Observations on the issues

Issues in technology transfer

Feasibility Automation

Consultants

Training Know-how

Software

The discovery that projects are not feasible once embarked upon Context would indicate that the area under automation is not amenable

These are usually Westerners and are unsympathetic or ignorant of local

Local staff are not able to deal with the technology being brought in Sufficient only to run the system but not to develop it (e.g. issues relating

Not available in the country

to such a procedure

context issues

to maintenance and extension of functions)

The core issue, which is returned to in one way or another many times in the Cyranek article, is that of context and, crucially, the meaningfiul understunding of the requirements of context in which technology is beingpluced. This will be the main issue which is developed further in the next section.

Methods and mindsets 325

Culture and methodology transfer

Technology is not culturally neutral

‘Information technologies are both a by-product of the socio-cultural environment within which they evolve as well as a substantive and strategic sub-system of that environment’ (Elmandjra, 1992, p. 14).

It is the analysis of the implications of this statement that will occupy the main part of this article. Elmandjra is indicating that it is essential to recognize that technology comes with cultural packaging. Further, this packaging will include assumptions relating to the nature of society, of development and of the function of technology itself. The ‘quick-fix’, ‘solutions’ approach of much of western information technology may well generate problems in non-western contexts. Elmandjra goes on to argue:

‘for change to be effective it must start from an endogenous environment and not count on the blind and automatic transpositions of development models which are the products of value systems which have emerged in other non-imitable environments’ (Elmandjra, 1992, p. 16).

This concern over the potential differences between ‘development models’ has been highlighted by Lind, (1991) in the final paragraph of his book where he notes:

‘The way to more effective computer usage must start here, with the development of models that reflect local needs and conditions. This development must be based on reality rather than on foreign models as long as the foreign models do not correspond with the actual reality and, in particular, as reality tends to be set aside as soon as formal theory is adopted’ (Lind, 1991, p. 157, emphasis added).

Much of this article will be dealing with the nature of the ‘foreign models’ and with a mainly psychological interpretation of how they can be extended and sensitized to developing country context.

Tyranny of methods

This article makes use of some strong language in describing its focal interest. Defini- tions might be of assistance, e.g. tyranny: ‘exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigour not authorized by law or justice’ ( Webster s New International Diction- ary). Tyranny defies both law and justice in its impact upon its subject. The key factor here is the idea that methods, as they are presented in the related export of technology, are often not justified by context (without adaptation). They are imposed in an arbitrary fashion without regard to what would be just or lawful. They are exercised with immense power over a population that has little capacity to either reject or modify them. This section looks in more detail at this interpretation of tyranny and its potential linkage to the dominance of some elements of what might be called the ‘western tradition’ and its effect on methodology transfer. The key feature of this section is the linkage made between the western culture, its use

326 S. Bell

Western cultural tradition

Various contexts

Reductionist science

produces a range of imposed inflexibly in

Methodologies

Figure 1. The western scientific tradition impact

of a certain type of scientific tradition (related to reductionism) and the way in which science provides methodologies in its own image (Figure 1).

Features of the western tradition

One respected view of the subject of science arises from the work of Checkland (1981). In describing the subject historically he refers to scientific endeavour as being primarily one of enquiry. Building upon this he suggests that the Greeks provided us with rational thought, mediaeval clerics added the experimental approach and the Newtonian age supplied the unification of empiricism and theoretical explanation. Primarily the results of science must be seen as being provisional, to be tested through reduction, repeatability and refutability.

Checkland indicates that science-based upon the structures given above-has problems when dealing with complexity. This may well prove to be the major issue in the following discussion.

For the purposes of summing up, the main features of science could be composed as follows:

The enquiring logical mind, through a process of theoretical abstraction and experimental empiricism, sets about understanding by reducing complexity to a manageable set of variables and then, by repeatedly testing hypotheses, their provisional validity is proved or refuted.

This may be considered to be the underlying theoretical basis for the discussion concerning the ‘export of method’ which will follow. The next concern is to set this model in the context of another view taken from psychology.


Another look at the tradition-a unitive perspective

A view discussed and developed in this article pertains to that originating in developmental psychology and then developed as unitive thinking models by McArthur (1990). Although primarily a lexicographer and editor of English Today, McArthur has worked for some time on the potential of unitive thinking. He describes this as:

. . . allowing yourself enough ‘elbow room’ by accepting alternative views as valid. Unitive thinking moreover, is waking from sleep of ordinary perception to the infinite possibilities of reality (McArthur, 1990).

The key point for this article is seeing how this type of approach can lend another view to the issue of the tyranny of scientific method. McArthur (1990) suggested a six-point scale for thinking about how human thinking develops (see Table 2). It would be incorrect to envisage this stage model as being related only to children or as being linear. McArthur says

I also suspect that we do not simply pass from stage to stage . . . Rather we take all our baggage with us, much as, in transactional analysis, Eric Berne and Thomas A. Harris have indicated that we take all the baggage of Child and Parent with us as we seek to become Adult. We also retrogress too, and oftener than we would like to admit-sliding back to the basics of Stage 1, enjoying or terrified by the fantasies of Stage 2, and being as illogical as we like in the incomplete world between Stages 3 and 4 (McArthur, 1990, p. 81).

Table 2. The 6 stage model

Stages of the Piaget-Koplowitz model Key features of the stage

Stages 1-3 Senses, experiential and emergent logical

Stage 4 Logical/rational

Stage 5 Systems

Stage 6 Holistic

Sense perception of the world, experiences related and built upon, logical models developed and redeveloped. Incomplete mental structures

True logical abstraction attained and applied related to single objects of interest

Multiple areas of interest, interconnectedness and complexity admitted

Reflections on the subjectivity of the views from the earlier stages

This model of the development of thinking will be applied throughout the remainder of this article-to the scientific method itself, to the practitioners of agricultural research and rural development planning in developing countries, and finally to information systems planning and development. The model is adapted to the form set out in Table 2.

328 S. Bell

Implications for and weaknesses of the western scientific approach

From the consideration of points made so far it could be said that the traditional western culture, from the point of view of technology and the transfer of this technology, is dominated by the scientific tradition pertaining most directly to the three Rs-repeatability, reducibility and refutability. This in turn can be seen as being based primarily upon the empirical method. Both Checkland and McArthur indicate that the potential weakness of this approach is its myopia and confusion when con- fronted with complexity and the systemic nature of reality. Historically, the response of science has been to retreat into the comparative reductionist safety of isolating variables to be measured. This in turn could be said to lead to a form of methodologi- cally enforced tunnel vision whereby that which pertains to wider concerns than that of the variable under direct study is left for later study at best or ignored alto- gether at worst. Further, among the ‘scientific community’ this type of approach is often seen as being the only one that is viable and ‘correct’.

This view will now be examined in the light of some current experiences. If we relate the basics of the three Rs to the Piaget-Koplowitz model, Table

3 can be produced.

Table 3. The 6 stage model and the western scientific tradition

Stages of the Piaget/Koplowitz model

Stages 1-3 Senses, experiential, and emergent logical

Cross, correlation to the model of western scientific tradition

The basis of the western tradition-the growth of logical thinking drawn from experiential sense perception. The evidence of the experience of science is that fantasy and logic are in constant interaction*

Stage 4 Logicalirational

Stage 5 Systems

Stage 6 Holistic

The central ground of the tradition-Checkland’s three Rs. A dominant approach which tends to see the world in its own terms, perceiving other ways to be flawed.

specifically there are contradictions here for the reductionist aspect of science. Complexity is traditionally dealt with by reducing this to one or two measurable variables

Difficulty for traditional science-most

Contrary to the tradition

~~

* Feyerabend (1988) goes further in arguing that science fools itself into believing its own objectivity: ‘On closer analysis we even find that science knows no “bare facts” at all but the “facts” that enter our knowledge are already viewed in a certain way and are, therefore, essentially ideational. This being the case, the history of science will be as complex, chaotic, full of mistakes as the ideas that it contains, and these in turn will be as complex, chaotic, full of mistakes, and entertaining as are the minds of those who invented them. Conversely, a little brain washing will go a long way in making the history of science duller, simpler, more uniform, more “objective” and more easily accessible to treatment by strict and unchangeable rules’, (Feyerabend, 1988, p. 11).

This article will review those who expound the transfer of method from the dominant model pertaining to stages 1 to 4 to the more sympathetic and empathetic territories of stages 5 and 6.

Methods andmindsets 329

A view of the experience of farming systems research

This part of the article looks at the problems encountered in the transfer of knowledge and technologies related to farming systems research (FSR) in developing countries. This area is reviewed not as a definitive overview of the farming systems experience but as a metaphor, one example of how researchers can see researchers making mistakes in their interaction with the clients of their work. It should be noted that other authors (e.g. Gibbon, 1992) provide a more optimistic view of FSR. For this brief and far from definitive analysis the work of Biggs and Farrington (1990) is used.

The background to the farming systems research scenario

Biggs and Farrington were mainly concerned with the effects of FSR, which is one of the major forces for introducing new farming technologies into developing countries. In their review Biggs and Farrington came up with a number of ‘dilemmas and paradoxes’ for FSR. These are represented here in Table 4.

Table 4. Problems with FSR

Dilemma Comments

1 . Exclusive language FSR tended to make commonplace ideas appear new and uncommon through the use of new terminology or jargon

2. Boundaries

3. Interest groups

4. Assessment

5. Quantification

FSR tends to ignore that boundaries cross many

FSR tends to ignore that many interests lie within the

This is conducted by and for an external audience yet

Assessment is usually based on quantitative issues,

disciplines

study domain (e.g. ignores political economy)

its self-analysis value is undervalued

missing other issues

6. Quality issues

7. Causality

8. Science

Rarely looked at in assessment

Is FSR responsible for all the changes it claims for itself?

FSR does not question mainstream sciences premises

From an appraisal of Table 4 it would seem that FSR has conformed fairly rigidly to the traditional, western, scientific model, being focused on the products of science (mainly quantitative) and having difficulty with the systemic nature of much of the subject matter related to farming in developing countries. Although the situation in FSR is now changing, the important lesson from this section of the article is that scientists working with new technology adoption in developing countries, even when working explicitly in a ‘systems’ area, can tend to be rigid in terms of expression.

In summary, and relating the results of Biggs and Farrington’s review of FSR to the Piaget-Koplowitz table, the conclusions in Table 5 can be drawn.

Table 5 indicates that FSR shows classic characteristics of the western scientific tradition and, therefore, it can be argued that the methods and culture of that tradition

330 S. Bell

Table 5. The 6 stage model and FSR

Stages of the Piaget-Koplowitz model Cross correlation to the model of farming systems research

Stages 1-3 Senses, experiential and emergent logical


Stage 5 Systems

Stage 6 Holistic

Constant questioning of the logical boundaries

Within narrow, predetermined scientific enclaves (’ragged edges’ as Biggs puts it)

FSR is a ‘systems’ approach by definition. However, the authors note the ‘parochialism’ and ‘top-down’, elite nature of much FSR. This strongly militates against the principles of the systems movement

but dominant mindsets imply that the ‘scientific view’ predominates

An item which Biggs implies is given lip service

are being implanted within farming systems development in developing countries. This provides evidence, which it is recognised is far from conclusive, that FSR expresses the symptoms of the tyranny referred to earlier. The next example selected is rapid rural appraisal and participatory rural appraisal.

Are rapid and participatory approaches a solution?

Biggs and Farrington indicate weaknesses in the intellectual approach of FSR, sug- gesting that it falls foul of inherent weaknesses in the scientific tradition. Chambers (1981) noted some similar problems in the field of rural appraisal in developing countries. In attacks on traditional forms of appraisal he has argued:

Social anthropologists perpetuate their ritual immersion in alien cultures; sociologists and agricultural economists plan and perpetuate huge ques- tionnaire surveys . . . generating huge mounds of data and papers which are likely to be an embarrassment to all until white ants or paper shredders clean things up (Chambers, 1981, p. 97-98).

Rapid rural appraisal (RRA) and participatory rural appraisal (PRA) arose from the recognition of the problems which this situation continued to produce.

Background to rapid and participatory approaches

The problem of overlengthy and overdetailed approaches to planning have been identified by Chambers as being problematic. He argues that RRA is ‘fairly quick and fairly clean’. It requires the planner to ignore the ‘hegemony of the statisticians’, and to focus on the twin issues of ‘optimal ignorance’ and ‘proportionate accuracy’. This in turn shows a tacit recognition of the fallibility of methods and the need to compromise in terms of acceptable levels of ignorance. The Chambers approach focuses on qualitative and quantitative information (hard and soft) but in the context of time available and taking into account the views and perceptions of the recipient in a participatory fashion.

Methods andmindsets 33 1

Fundamentally the approach has the following five aspects:

0 optimize trade-offs (‘relating the cost of learning to the useful truth of infor-

0 offset biases (listening not lecturing); 0 make use of triangulation (variety of methods applied to double and triple

0 attempt to operate by learning with people; 0 involve people in learning rapidly and progressively.

mation’);

check information-providing a multitude of views of the context);

From much of the above it would seem that RRA and PRA are attempting to combat some of the weaknesses of the methods discussed in the previous section, and these twin and linked approaches have become quite dominant in the field, achieving a largely uncriticized hegemony.

Critique of RRAIPRA

The question which arises in the summary of RRA is: Does the approach offer a real, meaningful alternative to the traditional scientific approach or does it offer more of the same but dressed in different language? As noted above, there is little critical literature related to RRA and PRA. However, Mosse (1993) has tentatively set out some counter arguments. These arose from very specific research but can be summarized and generalized as shown in Table 6 .

Table 6. A critique of PRA

Element of RRAPRA Comment

Rapid use Advocates suggest that a rapid approach is possible. Mosse (1993) argues that same RRA/PRA sites are developed by agencies with previous years of experience of the context prior to the intervention

Usually this is from the point of view of the outsider, not the villager

This is a culturally specific notion. ‘Informal’ behaviour from the point of view of scientist is often seen as being ‘suspicious and deviant’ (Mosse, 1993, p. 6) by villagers

The approach is not open to participation from all. Dominant social groups will tend to impose their agendas

The result of interviews is often to produce generalized, nonnative answers (what ought to be rather than what is). This also produces an impression of consensus which is false (reducing complexity)

Mosse (1993) observed that women had a marginal role in RRAfPRA (scientists tend to talk to men about women)

PRA/RRA is ‘technique led’. This means that exponents tend to set out with prechosen techniques, irrespective of the needs of context

Situation description

Informality of approach

Participation

Generalization

Gender

Techniques

~~ ~~

From Table 6 it can be argued that the application of PRA (in this case) is far from being uncontentious. If the ideal of the PRA approach is to bring in diversity

332 S. Bell

Table 7. The 6 stage model and PRNRRA

Stages of the Piaget/ Koplowitz model

Stages 1 to 3 Senses, experiential, and emergent

logical

Cross correlation to the model of RRA and PRA

Part of the appeal of PRA is the re-thinking of view in the light of local requirements (the point of participation). Mosse indicates that situations are often described and the studies set up using the dominant midsets of the outsiders and men

Stage 4 Logicallrational

Stngr 5 Systems

Stage 6 Holistic

Triangulation should help to ensure that conclusions are rational from a number of perspectives. This should help to encourage the rationalism of the approach

Again, triangulation should help to achieve a systems perspective. RRA should be focused on achieving a view of the complexity of rural contexts which, for example, FSR tended to down-play. Mosse provides some evidence that the dominant mindsets evident in his experience of PRA might militate against this ideal in practice

conditioning’ should become evident and be counteracted. Mosse again implies that this is not the case in all circumstances

This is the central concern of the approach - ‘cultural

of view and local knowledge and to avoid the forms of method imposition (through ‘informality’) noted in previous sections, it would seem that Mosse suggests some worrying deficiencies. In summary, compare the RRAJPRA situation with the six- stage model already discussed (Table 7).

From Table 7 it seems evident that RRA and PRA are only as untyrannical, eductive and locally sympathetic as the context and the scientist are prepared to be or, perhaps more meaningfully, are able to be given the limitations of their own culturally based view of their own methods. Much of this seems to relate to the self-knowledge, appreciation and understanding of the practitioner. This in turn indicates the extreme subjectivity involved in the application of the methods by practitioners and the related problem of indicating broad policy notions which would somehow set the situation to rights. This is a theme which will be developed later.

IS and development-the current situation

Two models for intervention in developing countries have already been introduced- FSR and RRA/PRA. The emphasis here is to see if IS in its approach (at a generalized level) recognizes the value of‘ the recipient-offering systems and participation. On the other hand, is it, like FSR and to some extent the Mosse view of PRA, espousing holism but producing fixes for highly selective areas of activity?

A traditional method of IS development

In terms of information systems planning, many models can be discerned. Here we will investigate in brief some of the features of traditional structured approaches,


e.g. the Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method (SSADM) as developed by the CCTA (e.g. CCTA, 1990a, 1990b, 1990c and Ashworth and Goodland, 1990) and the approach developed by Lucas (e.g. 1973, 1976,1982,1985).

Lucas describes a system as:

an organized, interacting, interdependent and integrated set of components or variables (Lucas, 1985, p. 5 ) .

In a similar vein, he describes organizations as:

a rational co-ordination of activities of a group of people for the purpose of achieving some goal (Lucas, 1985, p. 13).

These definition are limited, providing a rationalistic theme to systems and organizations. Arising from this, Lucas indicates that his interest is in the area of ‘formal information systems’, which he defines as the information which can be processed on computers. To this end he makes extensive use of appropriate tools and techniques. The view of system, organization and information come together in analysis and design, in what Lucas describes as a ‘conventional’ view, as follows:

We begin at a high level of abstraction; for example, the first conceptuali- zation of the system may be as general and broad as saying that we are dealing with inventory control. At each subsequent stage more and more details are developed. The lowest level of detail is the computer program and manual procedure level (Lucas, 1985, p. 89).

The metaphor of the clock with all its working cogs and wheels seems applicable in describing this view of systems. The resulting analysis and design is centred primarily on ‘top-down’, hard, formal, conventional organization aspects.

Problems with traditional, structured approaches

It needs to be reiterated that there are numerous views of information systems development and that they are not mutually exclusive. The range of views can be said to underline a range of possible discourses or tendencies within systems analysis which extends from metaphysics to mechanics. The Checkland and Scholes (1990a, 1990b) view is strenuous in distancing itself from systems thinking as a matter of working directly with reality. These authors see the systems approach as being involved with making models which are useful for organizing thinking that is relevant to reality. They are concerned with constructing and comparing models based upon perceptions derived from reality. This view, characteristic of the soft approach, can be criticized in turn for its lack of objectivity and susceptibility to personal prejudice on the part of the researcher. On the other hand, the traditional view suggests that the components of systems are seen as mechanistically operating together. This view would suggest that there is little difference between the reality that we perceive and the real world; models are, if professionally and diligently constructed, accurate and true.

The point that underlines this comparison is that information systems as objects

334 S. Bell

of study can be seen as being remote or proximate, as metaphors or as reality, as practical tools or as abstract qualities, as open and all embracing or as narrow and fixed on a specific point. There is no reason why these views cannot be held concurrently by the same information systems scientist or systems analyst. Each view carries with it assumptions about the world and assumptions about the nature of human action.

As with the previous two examples, the thinking evident in the review of approaches are cross analysed with the Piaget/Koplowitz model as shown in Table 8.

Table 8. The 6 stage model and IT analysis and design

Stages of the Piaget-Koplowitz model IS methods

Cross-correlation to a traditional, structured model of

Stages 1-3 Senses, experiential, and emergent

logical


Stage 5 Systems Stages 6 Holistic

As with the traditional scientific method, the view seems predominant that formal techniques are the valid form of analysis

analysis. Abstraction in highly integrated to specific information problems

Systems outside rigidly demarcated boundaries are not of interest

Not seen to be an important consideration

The approach strives for rational and measurable

Likely problems of this approach are similar to those pertaining to the scientific tradition as a whole. The traditional model can be seen as expressing some of the weaknesses of the FSR model and to have little correspondence with the participative and eductive approach espoused by the practitioners of RRA and PRA (although this can be seen to be changing, e.g. see CCTA, 1993).

From the overview given above it is possible to argue that at least some of the IS approaches to systems development show symptoms of the tyranny mentioned earlier.

The literature does not provide conclusive evidence indicating the nature of the IS approach applied by systems researchers and consultants. However, as argued by Cyranek (1 992), there is evidence that technology based information systems are not working well in the developing countries. The supposition of this article is that much of the difficulty related to IS development in developing countries can be traced back to the approaches of the IS consultants.

The next element of this article will investigate alternative approaches to the scientific reductionism which has been shown to be at the root of FSR, RRA and one form of information systems development.

THE NEED TO THINK DIFFERENTLY

The reality of the developing country context is that methods are being exported and that these methods are, by and large, limited to a western cultural scientific


Method gy preferen

soft HarI 0

0 I lhgh LOW

Figure 2.

Level of technical sophistication

Self-analysis via a matrix of three indicators

tradition. Although this tradition can and is successfully transferred to developing countries and does contain many virtues-most specifically objective ‘scientific’ method-it also has considerable weaknesses when dealing with unfamiliar contexts (as seen in the sections on farming systems research and rural appraisal). The chal- lenge set out in this section is for scientists and those involved in all manner of TT be prepared to think differently. The practitioners of RRA may have indicated one possible alternative. However, as can be seen in the work of Mosse this approach can also be severely limited.

Going back to the ideals of systemism and holism as portrayed in Table 1, the results of the reviews of FSR, RRA/PRA and information systems development can be reviewed.

336 S. Bell

Systems thinking. Individuals appreciate the interconnectedness of things and of multiple systems. This takes us beyond causes and effects. McArthur (1990) notes that ‘Conventional science assumes that cause and effect can be clearly separated and does not reach the level of Systems Thinking’ p. 80).

Holism. ‘in which people become aware of their own social and cultural conditioning. In it they appreciate that the way in which we perceive external world is only one way’ (McArthur, p. 80).

Each of the areas of scientific study which have been reviewed in the previous sections makes some attempts in these areas but with varying degrees of success.

Yet, it would seem that for useful, context-relevant methodology export to occur, that methodology would need to be fundamentally orientated towards the interconnectedness of things (for example developing countries’ economies capacity to sustain complex information technology-based systems) and the social and cultural conditioning of developing country contexts as compared with the industrialized countries. (This is not to suggest that the industrialized countries will not have their own variability as well. It is not the intention of this article to attempt to build universal models, but research in the area of technology and methodology export within industrialized countries may well provide similar findings to those which are set out here.)

The result of the analysis of this article implies that current methods are based upon a narrow conception related to ‘scientific methods’ and that these approaches have to some extent been exported with technology and may have been related to the failure of some of this transfer.

This leads to the question: ‘How can such systemism and holism be encouraged?’ This article will not attempt to answer this question in any definitive manner,

specifically because it is the intention of the author to contribute to the discussion of this point; however, in coming towards an understanding of the current situation it is hard to overemphasize the importance of self-analysis for researchers, scientists and consultants. This is important in understanding the relative level at which they are operating (in terms of the Piaget-Koplowitz model). Such a self-review would, of necessity, require an action plan. In other places (e.g. Bell, 1992; Bell and Wood- Harper, 1992; Bell and Mayhew, 1994, and also in a forthcoming book by Bell, (Routledge, 1994) the author has indicated that IS professionals would do well to undertake self-analysis, in terms of personal methodology preference and preanalysis, in terms of the level of risk in the environment in which the researcher is to work and the level of technical sophistication of the system envisaged, prior to intervention in work in developing countries. A model for undertaking this self-analysis for information systems analysts is shown in Figure 2. This is more fully discussed in Bell (1992). Briefly, the researcher considers his or her own position in relation to the three axes of the matrix. This results in the selection of an octant indicating the mix for the content and potential inconsistencies. This in turn leads to an action plan pertaining to both further considerations for the approach of the researcher and the compatibility of the researcher in the context.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this experimental article has concentrated on the tyranny of the traditional scientific approach to various areas of work in developing countries. It is argued that IS professionals can learn a great deal from the experiences of colleagues


working in other fields in terms of learning to adapt their approach in order to avoid

0 applying the traditional approach piecemeal to developing countries, and more

0 passing on the approach to others in an unconsidered manner. dangerously;

One potential way of developing alternative strategies, it is suggested, is to undertake self-analysis, with a view to seeking systemic and holistic tendencies and applying them in areas which have long been poorly served in this regard.

An ironic result of this analysis is the understanding that any review and rebuilding of methods will, of course, result in new methodologies and probably new tyranny.

REFERENCES

Ashworth, C. and Goodland, M. (1990). SSADM: a Practical Approach. McGraw-Hill, London.

Bell, S. (1992). ‘Self-analysis and pre-analysis: lessons in the application of systems analysis in developing countries’, in Cyranek, G. and Bhatnagar, S. C. (eds) (1992). Technology Transfer for Development: The Prospects and Limits of Information Technology, Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi, pp. 151-164.

Bell, S. and Mayhew, P. (1994).‘Lessons in the application of systems analysis in developing countries’, a paper prepared for an International Conference at Nijenrode, Holland, 1994.

Bell, S. and Wood-Harper, A. T. (1992). Rapid Information Systems Development, McGraw Hill, Maidenhead.

Biggs, S. D. and Farrington, J. (1990). ‘Assessing the effects of farm systems research: time for the reintroduction of a political and institutional perspective’, Journal of Asian Farming Systems Association, 1 (l) , 11 3-1 31.

CCTA (1990a). SSADM Version 3 and Capacity Planning. CCTA, Norwich. CCTA (1990b). Guidance on the use of SSADMin an ISStrategy Environment. CCTA, Norwich. CCTA (1990~). SSADM Version 4: an introduction. CCTA, Norwich. CCTA (1993). Applying Soft Systems Methodology to an SSADM Feasibility Study, HMSO,

Chambers R. (1981). ‘Rapid rural appraisal: rationale and repertoire’, Public Administration

Chambers, R. (1992). ‘Rural appraisal: rapid, relaxed and participatory’, Institute of Develop-

Checkland, P. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, Chichester. Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. (1990a). Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Wiley, Chichester. Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. (1990b). ‘Techniques in soft systems practice. Part 4. Conceptual

model building revisited’, Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 17, 3943. Cyranek, G. and Bhatnagar, S . (eds) (1992). Technology Transfer for Development, Tata

McGraw Hill, New Delhi. Elmandjra, M. (1992). ‘Impact of the socio-cultural environment on the development of infor-

mation technology’, in Cyranek, G. and Bhatnagar, S . (eds), Technology Transfer for Deve- lopment, Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi, pp. 14-19.

Enos, J. and Park, W. (1988). The Adoption and Diffusion of Imported Technology: The Case of Korea, Croom Helm, London.

Feyerabend, P. (1988). Against Method, Verso, London. Gibbon, D. (1992). ‘The future offarming systems research in developingcountries’, in Raman,

K. V. and Balaguru, T. (eds) Farming Systems Research in India: Strategies for Implemen- tation, National Academy of Agricultural Research Management, Hyderabad.

London.

and Development, 1,95-106.

ment Studies Discussion Paper No. 31 1, Brighton.

Jenkins, R. (1987). Transnational Corporations and Uneven Development, Methuen, London. Lind, P. (1991). Computerization in Developing Countries: Model and Reality, Routledge,

338 S. BelI

Lucas, H. C. (1973). Computer Based Information Systems in Organisations. Science Research

Lucas, H. C . (1976). The Implementation of Computer Based Models, National Association

Lucas, H. C. (1982). Coping with Computers: A Managers Guide to Controlling Information

Lucas, H. C. (1985). The Analysis, Design andlmplementation oflnformation Systems, McGraw-

McArthur, T. (1990). Beyond Logic and Mysticism, Quest, Wheaton. Mingers, J. (1990). ‘The what/how distinction and conceptual models: a reappraisal’, Journal

of Applied Systems Analysis, 17,21-28. Mosse, D. (1993). ‘Authority, gender and knowledge: theoretical reflections on the practice

of PRA’, Overseas Development Institute Network Paper No. 44, ODI, London. Odedra, M. (1992). ‘Is information technology really being transferred to the African countries?

in Cyranek, G. and Bhatnagar, S. (eds), Technology Transfer for Development, Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi, pp. 47-58.

Associates, Palo Alto.

of Accountants, New York.

Processing, Free Press, New York.

Hill, New York.

Stewart, F. (1977). Technology and Underdevelopment, Macmillan, London. Stewart, F. (1990). ‘Technology transfer for development’, in Evenson, R. and Ranis, G.

(eds) Science and Technology, IT Publications, London, pp. 301-324.

methods and mindsets: towards an understanding of the tyranny of methodology

Documents