Dialogue in Pursuit of Development - Are you looking for one of ...

202
supposed to be accountable to MOFA. As a researcher with FASID, I did
not have direct contact with MOFA, but had to be accountable to my immediate
superior as well as to the executive director, who in turn were
directly accountable to MOFA.
On the other hand, as a representative of the study group, I was accountable
to other group members who trusted that the study attempted to benefit
the NGO community. The research site selection was an opportunity to
demonstrate my accountability to the group members. Most members
showed a strong interest in visiting Ishigaki and that was indeed a major
reason for selecting the site. Although I did not have any intention of exploiting
Ishigaki, I definitely prioritized the group’s interests over the interests
of the Ishigaki islanders, whom we had not even met at the time. In the
face of pressures from MOFA and the executive director, I perceived the
field selection as an opportunity to strengthen our solidarity as a group.
While MOFA, FASID and our study group members all had their own
concerns and interests regarding IIRP, the Ishigaki islanders also had their
own concerns, which our group did not consider until I visited and listened
to them.
A practitioner inevitably not only faces but also must deal with different
interests. As the IIRP case demonstrates, a practitioner is inclined to deal
with issues that directly influence him or her. Tensions derived from
stakeholders who have direct contact with a practitioner are near enough to
occupy his or her time, mind and energy. A practitioner would consequently
pay less attention to unidentified or uncertain issues, such as the interests of
the Ishigaki islanders, although attention to their interests may be critical
for dialogue to occur.
When a practitioner prioritizes proximity over importance, he or she may
pay less attention to an important developmental issue in the field due to
the lack of its direct impact on him or her. But inattention to issues in the
field can marginalize a recipient and severely hinder reflections from the
field. For dialogue to occur, a practitioner must pay particular attention to
accountability to recipients (Chambers, 1983).
Making the best use of opportunities for change
Any practitioner confronts opportunities to bring about change. Even if the
change that a practitioner can cause at a given time is negligible, its ultimate
impact may be significant. Working under a given project scheme, a practitioner
often feels powerless, unable to do anything creative and confined to
mechanically implementing a project as planned. However, this feeling does
not necessarily reflect the reality. A practitioner can indeed take a different
course of action if he or she can take a risk and assume the responsibility it
entails. The question of bringing about a change is a question of taking risks.
If a practitioner gives up hope for change and fails to seize the opportu-