Thanks for the comments on the blog and appreciate the enthusiasm for HCD. As one of the authors, I want to reiterate that I am someone who ardently believes in the value of HCD, and I am very happy to have you engage in a debate. The title may seem like a full critique of HCD in International Development, but the paper does delve into exactly what you say--- "what has worked and what hasn't" and yes, how practitioners plan and execute HCD in international development. So yes, exactly, it is not meant to dismiss or praise HCD as a design process in itself, rather, find trends in how it has been applied and what has worked and not worked at this stage - admittedly (as we mention in the paper quite candidly), we were not able to review every existing project or program, and we don't claim for this to be a review of everything.
In terms of evidence, metrics, and empathy. I would continue to assert that empathy is central to HCD, and that by saying empathy is critical, we are not excluding evidence as important. And I agree that HCD as an investigative methodology is extremely useful in tackling large-scale poverty and international development issues. We don't say that it can't solve wicked problems, rather that it has not yet to date been super successful at that for a few reasons, including - lack of ability to connect HCD "the process" to longer-term metrics of success, as well as the inability of the sector / organizations to fully invest in the process (these are not the only reasons). Again, we focus on practical ways it has been applied to date.
We are simply stating that there have been short-falls in how it has been applied and that we should investigate, talk about these, discuss them and change the way we plan international development + HCD projects, so that we can leverage the full potential of HCD processes. You say a lot "when done right, HCD has the potential to..." and I agree, it has high potential, much of what we state in the first section of the paper. And what we wanted to do, is reflect on how it has been practiced, and understand if there are better ways to practice it to get to the outcomes we want.
And perhaps the blog reports "nothing new to you" in terms of the "series of well-known best practice guidelines" you state, as you might have a more advanced understanding of HCD, but again, we are simply stating that we shouldn't "drink the juice of HCD" and keep putting tons of funding into HCD projects, without being aware of these shortfalls in the experience to date and looking for ways to overcome them.
Finally, we are not asserting that HCD "was invented" by the private sector, rather it was popularized by them in various ways, especially tech firms, which became mainstream enough to be picked up by development organizations as a way to think outside the box.
I would like to point out that this type of debate is healthy for refinement of our thinking around HCD. HCD is amazing, but it is not always the answer/silver bullet, and has to be implemented correctly. Would love to continue a healthy debate and discussion as we are able to. Hoping your collar is less hot! :)
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the comments on the blog and appreciate the enthusiasm for HCD. As one of the authors, I want to reiterate that I am someone who ardently believes in the value of HCD, and I am very happy to have you engage in a debate. The title may seem like a full critique of HCD in International Development, but the paper does delve into exactly what you say--- "what has worked and what hasn't" and yes, how practitioners plan and execute HCD in international development. So yes, exactly, it is not meant to dismiss or praise HCD as a design process in itself, rather, find trends in how it has been applied and what has worked and not worked at this stage - admittedly (as we mention in the paper quite candidly), we were not able to review every existing project or program, and we don't claim for this to be a review of everything.
In terms of evidence, metrics, and empathy. I would continue to assert that empathy is central to HCD, and that by saying empathy is critical, we are not excluding evidence as important. And I agree that HCD as an investigative methodology is extremely useful in tackling large-scale poverty and international development issues. We don't say that it can't solve wicked problems, rather that it has not yet to date been super successful at that for a few reasons, including - lack of ability to connect HCD "the process" to longer-term metrics of success, as well as the inability of the sector / organizations to fully invest in the process (these are not the only reasons). Again, we focus on practical ways it has been applied to date.
We are simply stating that there have been short-falls in how it has been applied and that we should investigate, talk about these, discuss them and change the way we plan international development + HCD projects, so that we can leverage the full potential of HCD processes. You say a lot "when done right, HCD has the potential to..." and I agree, it has high potential, much of what we state in the first section of the paper. And what we wanted to do, is reflect on how it has been practiced, and understand if there are better ways to practice it to get to the outcomes we want.
And perhaps the blog reports "nothing new to you" in terms of the "series of well-known best practice guidelines" you state, as you might have a more advanced understanding of HCD, but again, we are simply stating that we shouldn't "drink the juice of HCD" and keep putting tons of funding into HCD projects, without being aware of these shortfalls in the experience to date and looking for ways to overcome them.
Finally, we are not asserting that HCD "was invented" by the private sector, rather it was popularized by them in various ways, especially tech firms, which became mainstream enough to be picked up by development organizations as a way to think outside the box.
I would like to point out that this type of debate is healthy for refinement of our thinking around HCD. HCD is amazing, but it is not always the answer/silver bullet, and has to be implemented correctly. Would love to continue a healthy debate and discussion as we are able to. Hoping your collar is less hot! :)
Thanks so much and happy HCD'ing!
Cheers,
Rathi