Comments

Thankyou Andrea. Happy to engage with the blogs and share some of our learnings about adaptive programming. Looking forward to more discussions.

Thank you Margaret. It was interesting to read that some of the challenges you discuss in the Zambia context- research fatigue, helicopter researchers with preconceived ideas, and over researched communities - resonate with the PNG context. Thank you for sharing it.

Thank you Alice. I hope it helps. The more people I speak to I realise that this is something many researchers think about so it's good to know we are not alone.

Thank you Anna for your kind words. Still so much more we researchers can do to share our research with communities. Tenkiu tru

Hi Oliver, Thank you. I agree with you that simplicity is best. Glad you like these ones although I do wish I had the time to translate it as well as more time to workshop the research findings. I left several copies with different people and at the school and hope they will be used. I also left lots of paint and canvases at the school and hopefully the students might do some of their own posters - this, I would have loved to spend more time with. The Port Moresby GIS maps were prepared by the very excellent ANU CartoGIS team. Cheers, Michelle

Hi Elizabeth, Thank you. Interestingly village courts were only mentioned in very few cases). The table fees that women mentioned are mainly in reference the settlement komitis. The relationship between the various services is important and I think there is much more to be understood. We are hoping to get a few more emerging results out soon. I think there is a need for more understanding on how women navigate between the different services.

Hi John! I’m really pleased that you’re engaging with the blogs. You are one of the people we are learning from about the value of adaptive programming in PNG. The way you work and the results you get when you are able to be flexible and respond to changes in context on the ground is really impressive. I hope we can engage with you more to learn from your approach (including the challenges you face in working adaptively and how others can support these ways of working).

Have been following adaptive programming with interest, and this is another great article from the 3. I work in the front line of implementation in aid program in PNG for many years now, and can attest that programming which is informed by proper research and learning always has a place, but unfortunately never given the proper place and space to grow. The diversity of PNG provides a challenge in aid programing, but it also provides a great research and learning environment, so as other diverse contexts in other countries I would think . Positive deviants from aid programs are also many, as well general learnings from implementations, something that can be nurtured, promoted, and importantly inform policies and aid thinking and approaches. This can be done through a solid research and learning strategy that forms an integral part of a given aid program. Adaptive programming approach provides a conducive research and learning environment, and also provides the opportunity to do 'development differently', and is promising.

Very interesting article. M&E and L is an integral part of programming. Adaptive programming just took it further, and try to make M&E and L more realistic and relevant, I believe. With multiple sources of data collection and analysis, and at various points and levels, should provide an holistic picture of the change story, and value for money- something donor programs are pressed to account for in an adaptive and complex environment. Also agree that Logframe approach is limiting in evaluating human interactions and social change, in which 'context' plays an important role, and use and application of, 'thinking and working politically', and political economy analysis, among others are necessary.

Thanks Steve and Lavinia, I think your comments point to a similar issue: the political environment to enable these ways of working is often not present and, I think in DFAT's case, is often closing. As aid budgets shrink and political concerns about demonstrating easily understood, tangible 'results' take hold, the space for taking risks on new ways of working closes. This is despite a commitment to 'innovation' - and despite some in DFAT demonstrating genuine commitment to these ways of working (including in the Effective Governance strategy). Perhaps the adaptive programming approach should explicitly brand itself as 'innovative' to tag onto government commitment to this? That could give adaptive programming some political cover. But taking such an instrumental approach does worry me as trends like 'innovation' invariably wax and wane. So that aside, I think it's about finding spaces to work differently. This may be at Posts where there is leadership committed to working these ways. It may be in small programs where there is less concern about 'failure' and concerns about the bilateral relationship do not crowd out efforts to do aid well. Or it may be under the radar working with people interested in working adaptively and making their own institutional structures accommodate this. I realise that's not an ideal answer! If we are to change the wider political environment longer term it has to be about making the case for why adaptive ways of working can deliver better results; as well as recalibrating the domestic discussions about how aid works to get away from the unhelpful simplistic results agenda. But that's all hard, long term stuff and so I suspect we're going to be focused on finding the spaces for now. Andrea might have other thoughts...

Hi Steve, I hope we didn’t give the impression that this is easy! I think implementation is really testing adaptive approaches and theories. But we are seeing some genuine interest in adaptive programming . Whether or not it can gain traction within the existing political economy of aid programs is still to be seen. But I am heartened by interactions I have with frontline program staff who intuitively want to adapt and that some of the theory behind this approach holds true for them. The challenge is helping them work this way within the current constraints (and not lose their sanity!) and convincing those further away from the front line of delivery of its value.

Thanks for your comment Lavinia! I am just finishing Jack Corbett’s excellent book on ‘Australia’s foreign aid dilemma’ which is helping me to understand the pressure on donors from domestic constituencies. I know foreign aid doesn’t enjoy broad support from the public and hence there is pressure for ‘value for money’ and efficiency from donors, but that doesn’t seem to translate to supporting learning about what works and what doesn’t and why and not repeating past mistakes. I certainly understand the challenges faced by those trying to communicate and justify aid spending to a domestic audience, and am not fooled by simplistic calls for evidence based policy, but I do think that reasearch and learning can help VFM and other donor objectives in both the short and long term.