The implications of DIY development : a case study in coastal Ecuador on independent development volunteers

(1)

The Implications of DIY Development

A Case Study in Coastal Ecuador on Independent

Development Volunteers

Devin Martens-Olzman

M.S.c. Thesis – June 2018

(2)

1

University of Amsterdam

DIY Development: The Implications of Independent Development

Volunteering

A Case Study in Coastal Ecuador

MSc International Development Studies 2017-2018 Graduate School of Social Sciences

Devin Martens-Olzman 11224509

devinmartensolzman@gmail.com Date of submission: 26 June 2018

Word Count: 28.202

Supervisor: Courtney Vegelin Local Supervisor: David Mota de la Parra

(3)

2

Abstract

As the practice of development continues a process of privatisation and neoliberalisation, new forms of development projects are being born. One such incipient formulation is the Do-It-Yourself Developer, which has thus far been largely neglected in existing literature. While these Independent Development Volunteers (IDVs) are deeply passionate and motivated to do good, their actions also reflect a paternalistic neo-colonial practice which may reify the troubling unequal power dynamics present between the so-called global ‘North’ and ‘South.’ While the ‘global South’ rightfully remains wary of development projects instituted by their northern neighbours, it seems unlikely that these sorts of projects will cease altogether. Furthermore, while critiques of the organisational and discursive problems at the very heart of development are important, at times the personal relationships developed during development in practice are ignored. I advocate for a more nuanced critique of Western development projects through the lens of Chambers’ (1997) ‘primacy of the personal.’ This research was conducted in the Ecuadorian coastal town of Portolibre through participant observation, oral histories, and interviews with community members and workers and volunteers with the United States’ based organisation, Flying Frigates Global Group, a voluntourism organisation. Findings include that although DIY development can perpetuate a discourse of neo-colonialism and repeat the mistakes of the past, the personal relationships with long-term development practitioners can have actionable benefits for both community members and the practitioners themselves. Through an analysis of the personal relationships in ‘development projects,’ we can spy an alternative to development that may allow for a decolonial relationship between the ‘North’ and the ‘South.’ Key Words: DIY Development, Neo-Colonialism, Neoliberalism, Voluntourism, Volunteering

(4)

3

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Matt and Rosa for agreeing to become primary research subjects. I am very grateful for the time they took out of their day and their lives to allow me inside of theirs. Their open and honest communication about themselves and their position in the Portolibre community made this research possible.

Secondly, I would like to thank my supervisor Courtney Vegelin for the time she dedicated to helping me complete this dissertation. Her strong and intelligent critiques on my writing served to help me find the road when I ventured off track. Though it may seem contradictory I must also thank her for trusting me when I did veer off into a new direction, and leading me to finish this dissertation.

Thank you to my local supervisor David Parra, for his skill in cooking delicious vegetarian food and his insights into the practice of development. His intellectual challenges gave me a new lens with which to view the world.

Gracias a las personas de La Colina y Portolibre. Es una communidad que me recibió con abrazos y respeto, y espero que nos encontremos otra vez en el futuro. Thank you also to Camila, Daniel, and Flying Frigates for allowing me the opportunity to write this dissertation. I am grateful for having had the chance to learn from this experience.

Thanks also to Yves, Dennis, and the friends who helped me maintain a healthy work-life balance. Lastly, thank you to Mona, who helped me conceptualise and understand what it was that I wanted to write.

A note on translation: All community interviews were conducted in Spanish. With my local supervisor’s help and my own proficiency in Spanish they have been translated into English for the purpose of this dissertation. Original copies of quotations available upon request.

(5)

4

3.4 SAMPLING STRATEGY ... 30 3.5 RESEARCH METHODS ... 30 3.5.1 Oral Histories with Development Practitioners ... 30 3.5.2 Semi-Structured Interviews with Flying Frigates Personnel ... 31 3.5.3 Semi-Structured Interviews with Community Members ... 31 3.5.4 Document Analysis ... 32 3.5.5 Participant Observation ... 33 3.6 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ... 34 3.7 POSITIONALITY AND LIMITATIONS ... 36 3.8 CONCLUSION ... 37 4. CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND ... 38 4.1 INTRODUCTION ... 38

4.2 PORTOLIBRE, MANABÍ, ECUADOR ... 38

4.2.1 La Colina, Portolibre ... 40

4.3 HEALTHCARE IN ECUADOR ... 41

4.4 DISASTER RELIEF AND RECOVERY CONTEXT ... 42

4.5 PORTOLIBRE AFTER THE EARTHQUAKE ... 44

(6)

5

4.7 THE FLYING FRIGATES GLOBAL GROUP ... 47

4.8 CONCLUSION ... 48

5. TOUCHING DOWN IN AIDLAND ... 50

5.2 FLYING FRIGATES GLOBAL GROUP AND THE (MIS-) REPRESENTATION OF A GLOBAL HEALTH INITIATIVE 50 5.3 THE ILLUSION OF FLYING FRIGATES ... 52

5.3.1 Initial Impressions ... 52

5.3.2 What’s in a name? ... 54

5.3.3 Houses and Medicine ... 56

5.4 THE IMPLICATIONS OF HELPING ... 58

5.5 FLYING FRIGATES: VOLUNTOURISM, OR SOMETHING MORE? ... 61

6. THE MATT AND ROSA SHOW ... 66

6.2 TRUE CONNECTIONS, RICH FRIENDS, OR BOTH? ... 66

6.2.1 Potential for a Reciprocal Relationship ... 70

6.2.2 Refilling the Bucket ... 71

6.2.3 The Daily Walk ... 71

6.3 ROLE MODELS AND COMMUNITY COHESION ... 73

6.4 THE DOERS OF DIY DEVELOPMENT ... 75

6.5 DIY DEVELOPMENT: A POTENTIAL FOR BURNOUT ... 76

7. DISCUSSION ... 80

7.2 MAJOR FINDINGS AND RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS ... 80

7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ... 83

7.4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE ... 85

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 88 ANNEX I: LIST OF RESPONDENTS ... 97 ANNEX II: BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF FLYING FRIGATES’ PROJECTS ... 99 ANNEX III: POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FLYING FRIGATES ... 102 ANNEX IV: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INDEPENDENT DEVELOPMENT VOLUNTEERS ... 111 ANNEX V: INTERVIEW GUIDES ... 119

(7)

6

Acronyms and Abbreviations

IDV International Development Volunteer

DIY Do It Yourself

FF Flying Frigates Global Group

MSP Ministeria de Salúd Pública (Ministry of Public Health)

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1 View of Portolibre Bay from Casa Gorda ... 8

Figure 2 Screenshot of satirical YouTube video by SAIH Norway (2017) ... 15

Figure 3 Portolibre, Manabí, Ecuador ... 38

Figure 4 La Colina ... 40

Figure 5 Portolibre after the Earthquake. Yellow connotes 'affected structures' and red connotes 'destroyed structures' ... 43

Figure 6 A typical empty lot in Portolibre ... 44

Figure 7 Flying Frigates Timeline (own composition) ... 48

Figure 8 Map of Matt and Rosa's walk through La Colina ... 72

Figure 9 Flying Frigates website homepage (blank box inserted for anonymity) ... 83

Table 1: 'Essential Skills' for the ID worker (Adapted from Boan et al. 2016 ... 25

Table 2 Number of Semi-Structured Interviews ... 32

(8)

7

1. Introduction

I’m already dripping with sweat by the time I make it down the craggy dirt road that leads to La Colina1. Matt Howard and Rosa García live in La Colina, and are the only two fulltime workers for the Flying Frigates Global Group. They are also its founders, along with a Master’s student from the United States named Camila Soltero, with whom I was in contact with before embarking on the fieldwork aspect of this research. My face is shielded from the harsh Ecuadorian sun by the scarf I hold over my head. I can hear reggaeton blasting from the expensive-sounding speakers in many of the homes in La Colina, even though it’s only eleven in the morning.

Entering La Colina I can see the mural of Lenín Moreno, the newly elected President of Ecuador, looking regal and powerful in the hot sun. As I turn left the dirt road turns to concrete as I make my way towards Matt and Rosa. Then the dogs start. From a house on the corner, two medium sized dogs with raised hackles rush at me, barking wildly, their owners lounging in hammocks. I raise my fist and rear back in an effort to pretend I have a rock in my hand and this maintains a healthy radius between the dogs’ teeth and my legs. I smile and wave to the owners of the dogs, who yell at their dogs to stop barking.

I continue up the hill walking by a small volleyball court called the cancha. To my left there are workers building a bamboo house. Many men and women are sitting under shade or working on their motos2, and everything is done slowly. Everyone I walk by says hello.

‘¿Hola, como estás?’ ‘Bien, Y ústed?’

‘Tranquilo, suave, no más.’

This response is commonplace in Portolibre, an archetypal coastal town where everything seems to move at a slower pace than the big city. I nod and smile back at the faces, some friendly and others curious. I continue down the cement road until it ends, at which point a steep dirt road veers upwards and to the right. I begin the climb, which takes me past another house or two, and to my right the hill ascends sharply. There are large fences which are meant to secure the unstable hillside in case of an earthquake, but they look fragile. Droplets of sweat fall from my nose as I climb still higher, until finally the hill abates and I reach Matt and Rosa’s home: Casa

Gorda3.

As the ground levels, I can see Casa Gorda in its largesse: A three-story house perched on the very top of the highest hill in La Colina. A volunteer tourism company called Students for the Environment built the house around seven years ago, though they no longer use it. Even though it is much taller than any other house in La Colina—and built atop an unstable hill of mostly topsoil—it withstood the 7.8 magnitude earthquake that destroyed almost every other

1_{All relevant names of people and places have been changed to protect the identities of those involved in the research.} 2_Motorcycles.

3_{Big House.}

4_{Personal Communication respondent 1} 5_Brothel

6_{I volunteered as a first responder in the Syrian Refugee Crisis and as a medical assistant during the liberation of Mosul from} 2_Motorcycles.

(9)

8 house in the community and wrought such havoc on the community two years prior. Matt postulated that it was the use of hardwood — expensive and difficult to acquire in coastal Ecuador (partially due to massive deforestation in the area) — that accounts for its sturdiness, while most the houses below it fell4. There are a total of seventeen beds in the house, and a huge kitchen makes up the lower floor. I can see all of La Colina from the top of the hill while ‘Despacito’ plays in the distance. In a few hours the chongos5 will start to play their own music, sad and mellifluous love ballads to call their customers. I step into the kitchen out of breath, and with my shirt sticking to my back I slowly unlace my shoes. The house is kept clean and Matt and Rosa greet me jovially with a big hug.

We take some coffee and move up to the third floor for our meeting. I’d come to Portolibre two weeks earlier with the intention of seeing how Flying Frigates could use the tenets of social medicine to facilitate their organisation’s provision of health and long-term comprehensive primary healthcare in one of their communities, Barrio Santiago, while considering the health-seeking behaviour of its population. However, upon seeing Flying Frigates in action for two weeks (see Section 5.3), including a group of public health students from the northeast United States who came to volunteer, my focus needed to shift to Matt and Rosa, and Flying Frigates.

Figure 1 View of Portolibre Bay from Casa Gorda

4_{Personal Communication respondent 1} 5_Brothel

(10)

9 We sit overlooking the Portolibre Bay, drinking instant coffee. Matt still has stitches on his nose from a mugging that occurred two weeks prior.

‘There are two stories I can tell here,’ I begin. I describe to them the first story — the proposal I’d been working on for the past three months at university, coupled with some of the first things I noticed about Portolibre, and my first two interviews with community members. I explained to them some of the things I noticed, and reiterated other concepts that Matt and Rosa told me they observed: endemic joblessness, teenage pregnancy, machísmo culture, lack of nutrition, and diabetes.

‘The second story is one close to my heart6_{,’ I continue, ‘and I think yours as well.’} I begin to read to Matt and Rosa from my journal:78

1.1 Problem Statement and Relevance

This dissertation focuses on the implications of a burgeoning and under-researched phenomenon I refer to as ‘Do-It-Yourself’ (DIY) Development. Following McLennan (2017) and Fechter (2011), I refer to DIY developers, or ‘Independent Development Volunteers (IDVs), as mostly Western ‘individuals with no (or limited) links to formal development institutions who voluntarily engage in development activities, often over a long period of time and usually within a tightly defined geographical area.’9 There is a relative dearth of research surrounding the

concept of DIY development.10 The emergence of this phenomenon coincides with a larger rise

6_{I volunteered as a first responder in the Syrian Refugee Crisis and as a medical assistant during the liberation of Mosul from} ISIS in Iraqi Kurdistan.

7_{Journal entry 6/2}

8_{Personal Communication 15/2} 9_{McLennan 2017:881}

(11)

10 of ‘non-specialists’ taking a part in the development industry.11 IDVs also reflect how a wider ‘neoliberal discourse about economic growth, prosperity and well-being’ has subsumed development discourse.12_{In fact, the ‘individualisation’ of development can be seen as a wider} reflection of a ‘post-modern’ story adapted to the ‘dynamics of a globalising society.’13 These new actors in development deserve a place in the academic canon as they navigate a contemporary ‘neoliberal14 development’ agenda.15

Some may argue that these IDVs are not necessarily new actors and they should be considered incipient formations of NGOs that make up the civil society sector.16 However, while some IDVs’ organisations may transform into formal NGOs, I argue that the professionalisation of formal development volunteering17 has also played a role in an increase in ad hoc development programs started by individuals.18 The wider implications of inexperienced individuals starting development projects reflect the reach of a ‘neoliberal compassion economy,’19_{a wider neoliberalisation of development, and a reaction to the failures of formal} development institutions.20

Alongside the emergence of the IDV phenomenon is the growth of the volunteer tourism industry (voluntourism), a form of alternative tourism that is taking an increasingly large portion of the tourism economy. Indeed, every year more than 1.6 million voluntourists from the ‘global North’ spend around $2 billion in the ‘global South’21. While substantial research has been conducted on the implications of voluntourism,22 generally the literature has focused less attention on the hosts, despite the hosts being arguably the most important stakeholder in the voluntourism encounter.23 This research focuses on both the community’s perception of the volunteer tourism organisation as well as those who created the organisation, and less on the voluntourists themselves.

Much of this research centres on the interactions and relationships between the IDVs and the host community, whereas previous literature discusses volunteer perceptions of hosts, volunteer-volunteer, or host-host interactions.24 Existing literature also lacks research about the relationships between volunteers and hosts and the ‘development impact’ therein. This research

11_{Develtere and de Bruyne 2009:913} 12_{Blowfield and Dolan 2014:24} 13_{Develtere and de Bruyne 2009:914}

14_{I follow Pedwell (2012) in defining neoliberalism as the ‘market-oriented logics’ that have come to order and refigure} citizenship, politics, society, and the economy.

15_{Banks and Hulme 2014:191} 16_{Develtere and de Bruyne 2009}

17_{Ballie Smith and Laurie 2011; Simpson 2005} 18_{Develtere and de Bruyne 2009}

19_{Pedwell 2012:165}

20_{Banks and Hulme 2014; Richey and Ponte 2014; McLennan 2017; Develtere and de Bruyne 2009} 21_{Kahn 2014, quoted in Bandyopadhyay and Patil 2017:645}

22_{McGloin and Georgeou 2016; Bandyopadhyay and Patil 2017; Butcher and Smith 2010; Callanan and Thomas 2005; among} others

23_{Wearing and McGehee 2013}

(12)

11 also focuses on Chambers’ (1997) call for the ‘primacy of the personal,’ and hopes to add to literature which shows ‘how and why interpersonal relationships affect development impact.’25

DIY development projects have the potential to increase in size and number for several reasons. Firstly, the increasing dissatisfaction amongst certain Northern populations for a consumerist and neoliberal lifestyle (as evidenced by counter-capitalist movements such as Occupy) may catalyse a migration flow to places ‘outside of the system’ with a perceived better quality of life.26 Secondly, the professionalisation of development in practice and the ‘neoliberal compassion economy’ may lead to inexperienced but eager individuals to try and exact a positive change in the world by starting their own DIY development project.27 Thirdly, the continued weakening of the state apparatus and the increase in a market-led development agenda allows for a space for these DIY development projects to be born.

1.2 Research Question

Due to the iterative and inductive process by which the qualitative data was used to formulate and facilitate the theoretical framework, this methodology was influenced by the nature of the research question designed in the field. Therefore the methodology can be said to have arisen partially in the ‘spirit’ of Grounded Theory, in which ‘method, data collection, analysis, and eventual theory stand in close relationship to one another.’28 As a result of this, the research topic and question emerged from the initial observations made on the ground, and in this way I formulated my research question:

How can ‘Do-It-Yourself’ Independent Development Volunteers (IDVs) provide a long-lasting and positive impact to their recipients, and how have community members made use of the knowledge they received?

Sub-Questions:

1. What are the intentions and goals of Independent Development Volunteers when they move to a community?

2. In what ways do Independent Development Volunteers provide a positive impact for the community?

3. How does the interaction between Independent Development Volunteers and community members affect the ability of IDVs to achieve their goals?

4. How does this interaction affect the well-being of the Independent Development Volunteers?

5. Do Independent Development Volunteers constitute an alternative to development?

25_{Chen 2018:145} 26_{Benson 2013: 320}

27_{Pedwell 2012; McLennan 2017} 28_{Strauss and Corbin 1998: 12}

(13)

12

1.3 Chapter Outline

Chapter Two will outline the theoretical framework of this case study, highlighting relevant aspects and implications of volunteering and voluntourism, and will root this study in the importance of personal relationships in development praxis. Chapter Three will explain the methodology of the research which reflects the change of my research topic after I arrived in the field. Chapter Four will contextualise Portolibre and La Colina as locations which, due to many factors, are ‘prime candidates’ for a development project. Chapter Five will examine Flying

Frigates as an organisation and its impacts in the community of La Colina and Portolibre, and

relate these impacts to the theoretical debates surrounding volunteering and voluntourism. Chapter Six will analyse two Independent Development Volunteers and their relationship with

La Colinians, and highlights the importance of a personal analysis of development. Finally,

Chapter Seven will answer my research question, this study’s implications for future research, and recommendations for policy and practice.

(14)

13

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the theoretical debates on top of which this research sits. Firstly, I will discuss the relevance of the varying paths that actors lead in the world of development, including a brief understanding of relevant terms in order to concretise their meanings for this dissertation. Then I will discuss two ways in which actors practise ‘development’ in the twenty-first century: voluntourism and volunteerism. Finally, I discuss the importance of an understanding and conceptualisation of the primacy of the personal in development. If indeed development projects do continue, this research suggests a nuanced understanding of development as a ‘shared responsibility,’ meaning that development practitioners should temper their excessive optimism and acknowledge the limits of ‘human finitude’ as remember their own health is paramount to positive change.

2.2 Differing Paths in the ‘Development’ World 2.2.1 Neo-colonialism

It will be helpful to define the term ‘neo-colonialism,’ as within the canon of development studies literature this concept is often used without further clarification on its meaning. I understand Neo-colonialism as the continued exploitation by former colonial powers in the realms of the political, cultural and economic.29 While colonialism may have propelled the notion of Western knowledge as panacea, neo-colonialism refers to the continuation of the ‘uneven power relations’ of colonialism despite a formal independence from these former

imperial powers.30 According to Lumumba-Kasongo (2011:246), ‘neo-colonialism is an

ideological and intellectual prolongation of colonialism in a different historical period and a different political context.’ While clearly this term has economic implications, it also highlights the politically and culturally uneven power relationships that leave intact — and even reinforce — the dominant position of the North. Furthermore – and specifically within this context— these forms of domination that included religious missionaries in colonial times may be resurfacing only with different (albeit arguably no less religious) ideals.3132

2.2.2 Alternatives ‘to’ and Alternative Development: Situating the 4th Pillar

Develtere and de Bruyne (2009:912) refer to the ‘fourth pillar of development,’ defining it as a mostly ‘Northern’ citizenry that does not belong to the ‘epistemic community of development specialists’ who nevertheless act as development practitioners and agents in the industry of

29_{Wijesinghe et al. 2017.}

30_{Ibid; Davis 2001, quoted in Wijseinghe et al. 2017}

31_{Escobar 1995; Ferguson 1990; Palacios 2010; among others}

32_{This definition of ‘neo-colonialism’ is closely related to Mignolo’s (2009) term ‘coloniality.’ I have decided to use the former} term as it more overtly shows that this new Western capitalist hegemony, while being based in the history of colonialism, is a contemporary phenomenon.

(15)

14 development. Firstly, while many aspects of this fourth pillar are not necessarily new — and the boundaries between all of these sectors remain porous — their active study within the

development studies academy is underdeveloped.33_{Develtere and de Bruyne (2009:912)}

partition the development sector into the old three pillars: ‘direct bilateral aid,’ ‘multilateral development aid’ and the NGO sector, or what can be described as ‘civilateral’ or private aid. This entire industry spends an enormous amount of money — up to $100 billion a year, despite the notion that some scholars see this as a fruitless endeavour.34

Starting with Escobar’s (1995) seminal work Encountering Development and Ferguson’s (1990) The Anti-Politics Machine, post-development scholars questioned the very notion of development, and Escobar in particular argues it exists as a ‘culturally and historically specific phenomenon’ in the post-WWII era which has created a ‘Third World’ dominated by Western experts and technocrats that failed to ‘fulfil [a] promise of a minimum of wellbeing for the world’s people.’35_{These critiques of the development industry are not limited to critical} theorists, however, as both development insiders and right-leaning radicals condemn it as well.36

The failings of the development industry as exemplified by these writers are also evident in the changes occurring in the practice of development: a reduction of the state in lieu of increasing private sector growth and from primarily North-South relationships to a wealth of financial polarities (eg. South-South (S-S) relationships).37 These changes have also spurned new actors in the development world — such as those belonging to the fourth pillar.38 Businesses and entrepreneurs also have a foot in the fourth pillar, as neoliberalism and structural adjustment policies have created a fertile business ground within a weakened state apparatus.39 It is evident that some roles may be changing, and S-S cooperation is increasing in prevalence.4041 Within the post-development school, thus, scholars are advocating for a change in the ontology of globalisation towards a ‘planetarisation’ in which multiple different worlds of humans can exist and flourish autonomously, instead of one globalised ‘capital modernist’ space.42 Popular examples of these alternatives include returning autonomy to indigenous cosmovisions of the Andean region of South America, the ‘cultural philosophy of Ubuntu’ in southern Africa, and the

Degrowth movement in Europe.43_{However, Western notions of progress remain ubiquitous, as}

does the panacea of economic growth.44 Indeed, Western notions of progress and a desire to alleviate poverty endure while development practitioners on the ground continue to try to do development. In some instances, these practitioners have taken the task of finding forms of

33_{McLennan 2017; Richey and Ponte 2014; Banks and Hulme 2014} 34_{Develtere and de Bruyne 2009:913}

35_{Escobar 1995; 2004:209; Ferguson 1990}

36_{Easterly 2014; Moyo 2009; Stiglitz 2002, quoted in Morvaridi and Hughes 2018} 37_{McLennan 2017; Richey and Ponte 2014, Rudnyckyj and Schwittay 2014} 38_{Rudnyckyj and Schwittay 2014}

39_ibid.

40_{Harrison 2013;}

41_{Although even this notion is contested as China and ‘Arab States’ have been providing aid since the 1950s (Harrison 2013).} 42_{Escobar 2011:139; Holst 2016:217}

43_{Mwaanga and Banda 2014; Demaria and Kothari 2017} 44_{World Bank 2018; IMF Annual Report 2017}

(16)

15 alternative development and alternatives to development within the current globalised ‘capitalist-liberal-democratic’ system.45

This theoretical framework will analyse two such attempted formations of types of development, initiated by people in the ‘developed’ world: volunteer tourism and international volunteering. Lastly, in unravelling the complexities of these activities which scholars refer to as both an alternative development and an alternative to development, I will outline the importance of a nuanced look at development practitioners and the gravity of the ‘personal’ in development studies — what Chambers calls ‘the primacy of the personal.’46

2.3 Voluntourism

Figure 2 Screenshot of satirical YouTube video by SAIH Norway (2017)

As traditional development paths are criticised by both academia as well as popular discourse, new forms of ‘alternative development’ have grown.47 One of these alternatives was born in an unlikely place: the tourism sector. Weaver and Jin (2016) and others48 attest that the criticisms of mass tourism49 have popularised a burgeoning ‘tourism with a development agenda’ sector.50 Voluntourism is not necessarily a new phenomenon: some articulate that it has been going on since 1915, and gap years51 for the purpose of traveling and volunteering are also not unique of the twenty-first century.52 However, the short-term, ‘development-oriented’ volunteer tourism industry has a particular allure to young people in the ‘developed world’ who desire to

45_{Condit and Kavoori 1998} 46_{Chambers 1997:1749} 47_{Vodopivec and Jaffe 2011} 48_{Brown 2005; Ong et al. 2014;}

49_{For more information on the criticisms of mass tourism, please see: Bryden, 1973; de Kadt, 1984; Bramwell, 2004; and Becken} & Hay, 2007. These criticisms include: low-wage local employment, an erosion of a ‘sense of place,’ an inequitable distribution of profits from the industry, and a myriad of environmental impacts.

50_{Vodopivec and Jaffe 2011}

51_{A ‘gap year’ is typically a year between studying and working that young mostly ‘northern’ people take advantage of before} entering the workforce or the academy. Many young people use this year as a time to volunteer and see the world.

(17)

16 exact a positive change abroad.53 Literature around voluntourism is plentiful and illustrates the ambivalent nature of academia’s position towards voluntourism. On the one hand, many argue that volunteer tourism is a neo-colonial ‘white person’s burden’ and its short-term aid does little of value, that it ‘commodifies concern,’ and takes its benefit for granted without analysing the deeper implications of its practice.54 Proponents claim it is an alternative to development which ‘actively subverts neo-colonial binaries and power differentials,’ builds understanding amongst cultures, and can catalyse the economic empowerment of local populations.55 However, I am more convinced by scholars who show how the benefits of voluntourism are swayed too much

toward the northern, young, and mostly white volunteers and the tourism company.56 The next

section will examine literature which argues that voluntourism often perpetuates paternalistic notions towards the ‘Third World’ that reinforce the idea that ‘development’ is something that comes from the ‘North.’

2.3.1 Voluntourism and Neo-colonialism

The viewpoint that voluntourism perpetuates a paternalistic and neo-colonial narrative between the West and the ‘rest’ is compelling. For example, McGloin and Georgeou (2016)’s study on voluntourism in higher education shows how the discourse of voluntourism normalises the unequal power relations between the voluntourist and the community.57 Indeed, they explain that voluntourism is predicated upon the idea that the organisations are sending people to ‘help others in dire need of assistance,’ thereby reducing the agency of those ‘less privileged.’58 Furthermore, much of the ‘profit made from this commercial endeavour stays in the metropole’ as opposed to helping the community, which furthers its parallels to neo-colonialism because profit seems to be the prime motivator for such projects.59

Voluntourism is also predicated upon normalising the ‘developed’ versus ‘undeveloped’ dichotomy — the haves and have-nots — which creates ‘discursive divisions’ by which voluntourists and locals view each other as belonging to different ‘material, social, and epistemological worlds.’60 The voluntourism encounter thus leaves intact ‘a colonial paternalism’ by normalising the hierarchical dichotomy of ‘northern helper’ and ‘southern recipient.’61 This ‘colonial paternalism’ is exemplified by voluntourism marketing material, where the experience is sold as a ‘feel-good experience’ that will benefit the voluntourist and ‘the recipient of her altruism.’62 Furthermore, Bandyopadhyay and Patil (2017:654) articulate voluntourism as a new form of the colonial ‘white woman’s burden’ through an analysis of its

53_{Vodopivec and Jaffe 2011}

54_{Vodopivec and Jaffe 2011; McGloin and Georgeou 2015; Mostafanezhad 2013; Koleth 2014`; Lyons et al. 2012; Simpson} 2005; Stirrat 2008

55_{Everingham 2014; Hammersley 2014; Yang et al. 2009}

56_{Vodopivec and Jaffe 2011; Escobar 1991; McGloin and Georgeou 2015; Mostafanezhad 2013; Lyons et al. 2012; among} others.

57_{McGloin and Georgeou 2016:409} 58_ibid:409

59_ibid

60_{McGloin and Georgeou 2016; Rossi 2006:41} 61_{McGloin and Georgeou 2016:409; McLennan 2017} 62_{McGloin and Goergeou 2016:409}

(18)

17 ‘depoliticised logic’ of saving the ‘Other.’ This process of ‘Othering’ is done before, during, and after the voluntourist encounter, and Vodopivec and Jaffe (2011:125) argue that this ‘discourse’ cements the notion that ‘development’ happens only to ‘Others’ and the West has the answers for

the process of development. While voluntourism organisations are not a homogenous identity,63

it is important to acknowledge the neo-colonial implications of the discursive space of white northerners coming to save ‘starving’ southerners.

Other scholars argue that while there do exist potential pitfalls of paternalistic and neo-colonial binaries within voluntourism, it has a potential to act as a form of ‘alternative development.’64 Namely, Hammersley (2014:857) asserts that voluntourism can reduce the ‘professionalisation’ of development by granting access to it to a wider range of people. This can therefore provide a more ‘humanising response’ to the often technical responses of mainstream development.65 However, these scholars seem to conflate volunteerism and voluntourism, (an important distinction made in section 2.4) and often point to the need for educating voluntourists with a ‘critical engagement and reflexivity,’ and developing an attitude for voluntourism organisations to explain their voluntourists are ‘here to learn’ rather than ‘here to make a difference.66 Since voluntourism is short term67, it would seem difficult to accomplish all these tasks in preparing the voluntourists while also promoting a ‘mutual beneficial’ experience to both host communities and voluntourists, as Butcher and Smith (2010) and Hammersley (2014) feel it does.

Scholars seeing the potential for these programs principally highlight the importance ‘intercultural exchange and mutuality.’68 In order to cast off the spectre of paternalism, Raymond and Hall (2008) suggest that intercultural understanding should be the main goal of voluntourism organisations instead of as a by-product — while simultaneously being careful not to reinforce cultural stereotypes. An understanding that voluntourism should be a two-way street can be transformative, as Lepp’s (2008) study of voluntourists in Kenya led voluntourists ‘to question negative stereotypes of the ‘Other.’69 However, this seems to perpetuate the notion that the experience benefits the voluntourists more than the local community they come to help, whereas often voluntourism companies highlight the positive impact they have in the community above all else.

Everingham (2015:176) and Palacios (2010) advocate that researchers to should see voluntourism distinct from ‘development aid.’ However, this call should be seriously nuanced because voluntourism companies’ marketing material seems to rely heavily on these discourses

63_{It is important to note that voluntourists are not a homogenous identity and therefore it may be unfair to group all voluntourists} — or voluntourist organisations — into this mold. However, the literature shows that it is important to recognise and reflect on the potential harm in participating in a voluntourism practice, and not take for granted a positivist nature of ‘helping’ (Vodopivec and Jaffe 2011).

64_{Hammersely 2014; Yang et al. 2009} 65_{Lewis 2006:11}

66_{Hammersely 2014:868,870}

67_{A distinction that Hammersley also makes in regard to voluntourism.} 68_{Everingham 2015}

(19)

18 of sustainability and alleviating poverty.70 It seems thus appropriate for scholars to make this connection. While scholars may disagree on the ‘development potential’ or the overall ‘goodness’ of volunteer tourism, they do seem to agree that this niche tourism market will only increase in the twenty-first century.71 While the role of neo-colonialism in voluntourism cannot be ignored, some scholars advocate that some of the tactics described above can mitigate these discourses and power dynamics.

2.3.2 Voluntourism and Wealthy Western Wallets

Voluntourism is also argued as a by-product of development’s increasing privatisation, commercialisation, and commodification.72 As the state’s power over development decreases, more businesses are becoming ‘development actors,’ fulfilling new market niches, and voluntourism is one of the fastest growing alternative tourism markets in the world.73 The continued expansion of neoliberal74 policy is problematic as it can lead to the ‘decoupling’ of ‘social policy’ and the ‘nation-state,’ leading to the de facto government practices being carried out mostly by ‘NGOs, private foundations, and voluntary organisations.’75 Within a volunteerism context, this is particularly problematic because it can lead to community members losing trust in the state apparatus.76 Additionally, while scholars like Yang et al. (2009) argue that tourism itself may act as an ‘alternative to development’ by stimulating the economy, this does not challenges the notion spread by the international development community that ‘market-oriented economic growth’ is the only way forward for progress.77

Voluntourism’s focus on goodwill and compassion and its placement within a neoliberal

framework runs the risk of reframing the question of development from one of ‘structural inequality’ to one of ‘individual morality.’78 This neglects and risks simplifying origins of these structural inequalities in the world while depoliticising the problem and making facile assumption such as how the benefits of ‘cultural exchange’ can subvert centuries of inequality. Furthermore, this focus on the individual ‘giving back’ reflects the changes market’s commodification of morality, as Mostafanezhad (2013) and Lyons et al. (2012) point out. Instead of critically reflecting on the potentially nefarious effects of neoliberalism, capitalism, or on the voluntourists’ own positionality, voluntourists can feel as though they are uplifting people out of poverty and making a difference while ‘still having fun and seeing the world.’79

While voluntourism may have the potential to shed normative perceptions of far-away cultures, the wealthy westerners brief relationship with ‘poor’ places and people complicate an

70_{Vodopivec and Jaffe 2011; McGloin and Georgeou 2015}

71_{Ong et al. 2014:688; Hammersley 2014; Vodopivec and Jaffe 2011, amongst others.} 72_{Vodopivec and Jaffe 2011; McGloin and Georgeou 2016; Lyons et al. 2012}

73_{Callanan and Thomas, 2005; Ellis, 2003; Holmes and Smith, 2009; Mintel, 2008; Richards, 2008; TRAM, 2008; Wearing,} 2001, 2003; quoted in Conran 2011

74_{I understand neoliberalism, following Mostafanezhad (2013) and Ferguson (2010:166), as an ‘art of government’ and a} ‘class-based ideological project’ where the market and the individual are privileged over the state.

75_{Ferguson 2010:168, quoted in Conran 2011:1455} 76_{Vodopivec and Jaffe 2011}

77_{Schuurman 2009:846; Duffy and Moore 2010, quoted in Mostafanezhad 2013} 78_{Park 2018:147}

(20)

19 equal relationship exchange. Moreover, voluntourism does little to subvert the neoliberal order. The notion that it benefits the ‘northern volunteer’ over the ‘southern local’80 not only reifies a colonial relationship between the two, it counters the discourse that voluntourism actually helps the people struggling in a cycle of poverty. Lastly, while much of the research centres around the motivations and implications of voluntourism organisations, it is important to include the local people’s response and perception of these volunteers’ work in their community and particularly the relationships between these two actors, which is where this research hopes to add to the academic canon of research examining the nexus of voluntourism and development. As Pink (1998:14) states, ‘the stuff of personal relations and individual agendas’ may be where IDVs can benefit the community in the best manner.

2.4 International Volunteering and DIY Development

There is an important distinction that needs to be made between voluntourism and international volunteering81. While both of these active development paradigms may be situated under the umbrella of Develtere and de Bruyne’s 4th_{Pillar of development, ‘volunteering for development’} tends to be longer term (six months to two years),82 and unlike voluntourism it places ‘development impact at the centre of the endeavour.’83 This next section will elucidate on the prior theoretical discourses surrounding international volunteering, and particularly an under-researched element: so-called ‘Do-It-Yourself’ development.84

While religious organisations have promoted volunteer work for a variety of reasons for centuries, the more formal and contemporary form of international volunteering started around 1915.85 Then, during the Cold War, international volunteerism organisations were mostly state led, (eg. U.S. Peace Corps) and their goals were often to win the ‘hearts and minds of the local people’ in an ideological struggle.86 On the one hand, international volunteering has been lauded as being able to promote ‘international understanding and solidarity’ and transforming the ‘rigid ways of seeing the Other and oneself’ while providing tangible ‘solutions to development in the form of skills and other resource transfers.’87 On the other hand, contemporary volunteers are critiqued as being ‘non-skilled but enthusiastic’ northerners who conceive the ‘developing world’ as a ‘playground for their personal development,’ and whose position in the ‘Global South’ reifies colonial discourse and the encounter with the ‘Other.’88

In the increasingly privatised and individualised development industry89 and with the emergence of new actors therein, the ‘Do-It-Yourself’ developer remains an under-researched

80_{Everingham 2005}

81_{This work focuses primarily on North-South volunteering, but it is important to acknowledge that this is but ‘one component of} a much broader volunteer effort’ in the space of development (Schech 2017:2).

82_{Tiessen and Kumar 2013} 83_{Schech 2017:3}

84_{McLennan 2017} 85_{Brown 2005:484} 86_{Amin 1999:39}

87_{Kambutu and Nganga 2008:949, Gill 2007:176, and Lewis 2006:15, quoted in Brown 2018} 88_{Diprose 2012; Baillie Smith 2013; Brown 2018:103-104}

(21)

20 phenomenon, and these ‘DIY’ Independent Development Volunteers (IDVs) constitute an increasing portion of development in practice, and should not be overlooked in the contemporary

world of development.90_{I define these DIY developers in accordance with McLennan}

(2017:881) with an addition of my own: ‘volunteers who work in a long-term, private capacity outside the development industry’ and who are primarily wealthy individuals from the ‘global North.’ While the ‘DIY development’ sector remains under-researched, a comparison might be made between it and grassroots movements. I would like to briefly dispel this notion as grassroots ‘alternatives to development’ are typically localised ‘in the Third World’ and attempt to ‘reformulate’ development through ‘alternative practices of knowing,’91 while DIY development is conceived as a strictly ‘Northern’ (albeit heterogeneous) enterprise, and are gaining popularity. Indeed, these private initiatives have made their way into policy dialogues as well, which warrants their discussion within academia.92 This research hopes to add to the dearth of literature, and section 7.2 will discuss the potentials of DIY development to act as an alternative to development.

In McLennan’s (2017:885) study on DIY development in Honduras, she explains that many IDVs simply ‘saw a need’ where they felt they could help — and a project was born.93 Fechter (2011) defines these IDVs as people who have little or no links to formal development institutions who partake in development activities for an extended duration within a ‘tightly defined’ geography.94 For these reasons, DIY IDVs are thus quintessential members of Develtere and de Bruyne’s (2009) fourth pillar of development, and they argue it can ‘transcend the North-South divide, and in this and other ways it challenges the old ways of ‘doing development,’ suggesting that this fourth pillar may ‘function as a laboratory for alternative forms of development cooperation.’95 This alternative form is also bereft of the at-times difficult to understand ‘development jargon,’ often meaningless to local community members and non-specialists, and there exists positive potential for the reproduction of concrete development cooperation narratives in this jargon’s stead.96 However, there are numerous challenges to achieving this potentially positive outcome. This lack of knowledge of the ‘development jargon’ and a desire to make their projects successful could lead to IDVs to ‘greenwash’ their incipient projects or organisations in a similar vein to the voluntourism companies described by Vodopivec and Jaffe (2011) and McGloin and Georgeou (2015), and this will be discussed more deeply in section 7.2.

As volunteerism can be viewed as being outside the market and the neoliberal system of increased commodification, some scholars see a potential for volunteerism to be an ‘alternative

to development,’ as a different ‘intellectual and political project;’ indeed, a separate ‘pluriversal’

90_{McLennan 2017:881; Develtere and de Bruyne 2009; Devereux 2008; Fechter 2011} 91_{Escobar 1992:432}

92_{Kinsberger and Schulpen 2009} 93_{McLennan 2017:885}

94_ibid:881

95_{Develtere and de Bruyne 2009; McLennan 2017:882} 96_{Develtere and de Bruyne 920}

(22)

21 path which does not place value on capital accumulation.97 As scholars like Escobar (1995) criticise the professionalisation of development, the position that volunteering can constitute a ‘humanisation’ of development can counter this notion.98_{However volunteerism’s roots with} colonialism (and more specifically the mostly Catholic missionaries therein)99 and the privileged status of most (if not all) international volunteers as white, wealthy, and Western100 further a problematisation of this notion of humanisation. Devereux (2009:358) also defines volunteering as a ‘non-market mechanism’ outside of the neoliberal order which can ‘mobilise people globally for development’ based on ‘trust and understanding’ as opposed to market mechanisms. However, the entrenchment of international development volunteers into ‘official development assistance’ complicates this reading for volunteerism as constituting any sort of alternative to development.101 Despite volunteers not specifically working for compensation, volunteerism’s neoliberal leanings towards individual morality over the ‘complex political context’ of development complicates this alternative notion further.102

Considering the lack of technical training or experience, DIY development can be ‘paternalistic charity’ which perpetuates an inequitable relationship between the ‘West and the rest.’103 Furthermore, this charity can reify stereotypes that the West has the answers for the developing world (cf. the externalisation of development) and can lead to the ‘white saviour phenomenon’ — the idea that it is the role of wealthy white outsiders to save the ‘poor and oppressed in developing countries.’104 105 More pragmatically, this ‘donorship’ can lead to a ‘charity trap’ where the existing structures are subverted by non-specialists trying to ‘reinvent the wheel’ instead of collaborating with existing frameworks.106 This notion brings up a troublesome problematic: while many DIY developers exhibit true passion and compassion that traditional developers may lack, their lack of knowledge, ‘planning, implementation, project evaluation,’ and ability to collaborate institutionally ‘pervades [their] work.’107_{The scientific} adage ‘standing on the shoulders of giants’ is thus of great consequence, as DIY developers risk making the mistakes of the past.

This next section includes why it is important to see beyond the institutional or generalised international volunteer and delve into the personal relationships of both development practitioners and the community members they work to help. These ‘private development initiatives’ reflect not only the ‘impact of growing neoliberalism and globalisation,’ but place the ‘responsibility’ to develop on the individual, the implications of which will be discussed in the next section.

97_{Escobar 2011; Demaria and Kothari 2017; Butcher and Smith 2012} 98_{Lewis 2006}

99_{Mangold 2012} 100_ibid

101_{Schech 2017:4}

102_{Ballie Smith and Laurie 2011} 103_{Simpson 2004; McLennan 2017:883} 104_{McLennan 2017:884}

105_{A similar criticism of voluntourism.} 106_{Develtere and de Bruyne 2009:918} 107_{McLennan 2017:887}

(23)

22

2.5 The Primacy of the Personal

In 1997, Robert Chambers called for development studies to take a more nuanced look at the role of personal relationships in development in his editorial: ‘Responsible Well-Being — A Personal Agenda for Development.’108 In line with the aforementioned tendency for development to be moving towards an increasingly individualistic and privatised sector (see Section 2.4), the role of the personal warrants greater consideration. Since development studies has been placing greater value on agency, particularly on the ‘recipients’ of aid or development, and the development industry is filled with jargon of inclusion, participatory methods, empowerment, agency, and capacity development,109_{this research thus argues that in order to truly come to} terms with development in practice, a nuanced look at both the agency of and personal relationships between local ‘development’ recipients and development practitioners is paramount.

While the personal factor in development remains an under-researched concept in the field,110 there are several reasons for a greater focus on the personal among international development practitioners. Firstly, it is instrumental to a complete understanding of the practice of development: development workers are actors in this process.111 Fechter and Mosse (2011) thus point to an interesting dilemma in development studies: in foregrounding the ‘Other’ and ‘rendering those who deliver aid invisible,’ to a certain extent there is a failure to ‘conceptualise development as a shared responsibility’ (2012b:1476).112_{Moreover, while some argue the state} and bilateral institutions may be losing agency due to neoliberalism’s reach (see section 2.2) in development practice, these gaps are being filled by business, volunteer and voluntourism organisations, and independent development volunteers, so these new actors deserve representation within the academy.113_{Of course, this research does not desire to swing the} pendulum of focus onto development practitioners completely; instead there should be an acknowledgment that the personal lives and relationships of development practitioners are often major factors in the practice of development. Indeed, as Chambers (1997:1749) mentions, many changes development practice are largely determined by personal actions, and the more powerful and wealthy the person, the more influence his or her personal decisions can have. As Long elucidates, ‘the trick of good development practice and ethnography alike is to learn how to turn such subjectivities to analytical advantage.’114 While I am reticent to acknowledge the existence of ‘tricks’ of good development practice, Long’s inference that reflexivity and analysis of the potential colonial pitfalls of development (or other subjectivities) is compelling in creating a world in which development practitioners truly benefit the people for, around, and with whom they work. For better or worse, development workers remain ‘powerful individuals on the local

108_{Chambers 1997:1743}

109_{McLennan 2017; Develtere and de Bruyne 2009} 110_{Stirrat 2008}

111_{Fechter 2012a; Chambers 1997} 112_{see also Blackmore 2009:2} 113_{McLennan 2017}

(24)

23 stage’ due in large part to their access to specific resources (eg. financial) — resources that local community members have less access to.115 In this frame it seems imperative to research the implications of the personal in development — particularly in the fourth pillar, where Independent Development Volunteers are personally motivated to exact a change with their DIY projects.116

Secondly, international aid workers’ lives are often ‘all-encompassing,’ as the job constantly seeps into the social and personal aspects of life.117 This work often has long hours and requires a personal commitment, emotional intensity, and moral dilemmas.118 Being away from friends, family, and culture can also make it more difficult for development practitioners to distinguish between the personal and the professional.119 Furthermore, in calling for an anthropological understanding of the development industry, Stirrat (2008:412) explains that many development practitioners are people with ‘a sense of mission… [and] driven by a sense of duty.’ This combination of estrangement from ‘home’ (in all of ‘home’s’ connotations), the personal sense of duty and mission, and the long hours of work all lead to a largely non-existent work-life balance for development practitioners. Therefore, it is crucial that research about development practitioners does not sweep the personal under the rug. It is worthwhile to acknowledge that ‘development practitioners’ are not a homogenous identity,120 and certainly not all people who work in development are driven by a sense of mission.121 However, the personal can be a valuable insight into many development workers’ relationships with the communities in which they live and work.

The definition of development is constantly changing: from building roads, dams and irrigation systems it is now less tangible and more concerned with abstract notions such as ‘good governance’ and capacity development.122 It is therefore essential for development practitioners to be hyper-reflective in their positionality, and examine the perceptions of the community and these mutual relationships. With the increasing numbers of non-specialists in the development industry, it seems that ‘the stuff of personal relations and individual agendas’ may be the most beneficial assets that development practitioners can provide communities.123 This is particularly prescient for IDVs, who are often considered ‘part of the community.’124_{Considering also that} IDVs often do not plan their ‘development intervention’ but instead are often ‘motivated and concerned expatriates,’ the primacy of the personal seems fundamental to a complete

115_{Pink 1998:14}

116_{McLennan 2017; Develtere and de Bruyne 2009} 117_{Fechter 2012b:1392}

118_ibid 119_ibid

120_{While Stirrat (2008:416) suggests that development reifies the ‘continuation of past efforts by Western agents to change the} rest of the world,’ in the same way that it is wrong to homogenise the ‘rest of the world,’ it is also wrong to homogenise the ‘West.’ Indeed, many people may be escaping their Western roots because they find something wrong in this universalising way of life based on the ‘Hobbsian social contract.’

121_{Stirrat 2008:421} 122_ibid:411 123_{Pink 1998:14} 124_{McLennan 2017:887}

(25)

24 understanding of this new form of development.125 While there exists some literature that advocates for a greater importance on the personal relationships amongst and between development practitioners and ‘aid recipients,’ there still seems to be an apparent reticence for this notion to truly enter into the canon of academic and policy debates surrounding development.126 For development organisations, at times the perceptions of and accountability to the community plays second fiddle to ‘accountability of donors.’127 In this vein it is important to assess not only the personal motivations and attitudes of development practitioners, but also the perceptions of the community on these people’s work.128 In this way development practitioners can reflect on their positionality as developers, helpers, neo-colonialists, ‘professional altruists,’ missionaries, mercenaries, misfits — and in reality a little bit of every stereotype.129 Through this reflection — and honest conversations with the community of which they may have become a part including a realistic understanding of what development practitioners are doing — we can conceive of development not as righteous betterment of the rich to lift the poor out of poverty — but as a ‘shared responsibility.’130

2.6 Shared Responsibility

In preparation for air travel, the flight crew inevitably explains to the passengers before take-off how to put on the oxygen masks in case of a loss in cabin pressure. Near the end of announcement the voice kindly mentions:

~ Be sure to wear and secure your own mask before helping others ~

In order to help subvert the notion that development is an ‘Other-oriented activity,’ Giri and Ufford (2004:20) recommend rethinking development as not only engaging in ‘care of the Other’ but also in ‘care of the self.’ It is thus important that despite all the changes occurring in development (for example the state giving way to the market), an ‘unreflective optimism’ remains concerning development’s ‘capacity to produce desired results,’ and the authors argue for a shift from the perhaps paternalistic discourse of what practitioners ‘must do’ to a more realistic discourse of what can be done.131_{Rethinking of development in practice with a realistic} understanding of practitioners own mental health combined with realistic goals of their work can mitigate the potential nefarious impacts of North-South projects.

While the concept of burnout has been researched for humanitarian aid workers,132 there has been little research examining this specifically in the context of development practitioners (particularly in the context of IDVs). Following Eriksson (2009:672), I operationalize burnout

125_{McLennan 2017; Chambers 1997}

126_{Fechter 2012:b; Eyben 2006; Mawdsley et al. 2005; Hilhorst et al. 2012; Heuser 2012} 127_{Schloms 2003:51, quoted in Dijkzeul and Wakenge 2010:1141}

128_{Dijkzeul and Wakenge 2010} 129_{Stirrat 2008}

130_{Giri and van Ufford 2004:6} 131_{Giri and van Ufford 2004}

(26)

25 into three categories: ‘emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation and detachment from the job, and a reduced sense of personal accomplishment.’ Below is table of ‘essential skills’ for a well-prepared International Development worker to mitigate burnout:

Table 1: 'Essential Skills' for the ID worker (Adapted from Boan et al. 2016

Additionally, Visser et al. (2016) highlight the importance of a work-life balance and trust in management for humanitarian and post-conflict workers for the avoidance of burnout, and Eriksson et al. (2009) advocate that a ‘sense of accomplishment’ and the ‘support of colleagues and friends’ can play a significant, positive role in avoiding burnout.

The concept of shared responsibility—for self and recipient—goes beyond simply care of self, but extends to political responsibility in development practitioners’ home country and overcoming the ‘self-Other’ dichotomy, as Escobar and Ferguson also stress.133_{While critical} development scholars focus on hegemonic and violent relations in development projects, Giri and van Ufford (2004) advocate that there is a responsibility for academia to go beyond this ‘sustained scientific criticism’ to avoid a process of ‘social closure.’ Indeed, it seems the academic criticisms of progress seem to produce mirror, inverse images of the projects they study, while pragmatically both sides change little in the other.134

While ‘shared responsibility’ is also defined as both the practitioner and aid recipient creating capacity and participating in development, I would like to focus these definitions with regard to the Primacy of the Personal. Conceiving development as a ‘shared responsibility’ is not to say that aid recipients are somewhat responsible for their present state. By shared responsibility, I call for an understanding that development practitioners should not conceive

133_{Giri and Van Ufford 2004} 134_{ibid: 28}

(27)

26 themselves as ‘developers’; instead, they should define themselves as human and humane, living in a community in which their own mental health matters in addition to their occupation, and with an understanding of the inhered implications of their role living in a community very disparate from their own – which includes an understanding of the historical colonial past of both traditionally oppressive Western states as well as the more recent past of the Development Era.

As mentioned above, I do not want to minimise the importance of community perceptions in development, only to mention that the tendency to foreground the ‘Other’ tends to render ‘those who deliver aid invisible.’135 This tendency proliferates the aid recipient-deliverer dichotomy, and like Fechter I argue not for an apolitical examination of the aid worker, but for a consideration of the complexities present in the dynamic world of development. An acknowledgement of the power differentials of development and a reflexivity of the development worker’s role can thus lead to improving the delivery of aid and changing the meaning of development in practice.

(28)

27

2.7 Conceptual Schema

This conceptual schema shows the interrelation of the different concepts put forth in the theoretical framework. DIY Independent Development Volunteers create a project and have a dynamic and reciprocal relationship with their neighbours or ‘aid recipients. In searching for transformations through various means (in this case volunteering and voluntourism) the IDVs feel positive and negative impacts to their well being and personal development, which are reciprocally felt by their neighbours.

Conceiving of this process as a shared responsibility in which development practitioners (the IDVs) do not see themselves as needing to save the world can allow them to make small positive impacts to the community. Reciprocally, certain members of the community can make contributions to the well-being and personal development of the IDVs. These events are situated in the ‘fourth pillar’ of development, and the lens with which this process is viewed called the ‘Primacy of the Personal, in which the personal relationships of development practitioners and their recipients are brought to the fore of the analysis.

The Primacy of the Personal

(lens)

T h e F o u rth Pi ll a r o f D e v e lo p m e n t DIY IDVs AID Recipients / Neighbours Volunteering Voluntourism (negative impacts) neo-colonialism dependency / paternalism burnout - well-being community disunity neoliberalism (positive impacts) + well-being + personal development Shared Responsibility An Alternative to Development? ’

(29)

28

2.8 Conclusion

This chapter described the positives and negatives of several burgeoning actors in the development industry belonging to a new ‘fourth pillar’ of development,136 including the voluntourism industry as well as the phenomenon of volunteerism. I particularly delved into the Independent Development Volunteer (IDV) who has little or no relationship with the traditional actors in the development sector, and is categorised as being motivated and enthusiastic, but also inexperienced. McLennan (2017) defines this ‘North-South’ phenomenon as ‘DIY development.’ Finally, I advocate for a framework of development studies analysis that focuses on the personal relationships between and amongst development practitioners and aid recipients. While academia seems to be reticent to embrace Chambers’ (1997) ‘primacy of the personal,’137 in the context of IDVs and DIY development it can provide unique insights into understanding the practice of development in the twenty-first century. The following chapter will describe the methodology of this research.

136_{Develtere and de Bruyne 2009} 137_{Fechter 2012b}

The implications of DIY development : a case study in coastal Ecuador on independent development volunteers