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

206
Thus, in the field of international development, taking the unexpected
into account is at the heart of dialogue. One can easily imagine how hectic it
would be if multiple parties with conflicting interests incessantly changed
their plans. In a situation with this dynamic, a pre-planned schedule cannot
work. To be effective, practitioners must remain flexible, adjusting to accommodate
dynamic situations. But what is the impact on flexibility when
a donor asks practitioners to submit a project plan and schedule for implementation
in advance?
Clearly, practitioners must submit a proposal to get funding for a project.
At this early stage, practitioners hope that a project can be implemented as
planned. Soon after a project is launched, however, practitioners face a
number of unexpected problems. Some can be minor yet others are too
significant to ignore. Facing critical problems, practitioners are challenged to
make changes. We cannot always foresee what problems will emerge, but
we know that unforeseen problems can emerge at any time and require us
to make changes in our project.
From the beginning, practitioners have to prepare themselves to change
their plan and schedule as a project unfolds. Moreover, when they deal with
a donor, they should communicate honestly with the donor about possible
changes that may result from the unexpected before they actually begin the
project.
In the case of IIRP, I did not prepare myself to change the schedule. I did
not even think of changing it until I was criticized by the islanders. Nor did
I talk with the executive director about possible changes. Had I prepared
myself to change the project plan, would I have explained the possible
change to the executive director in advance? I do not think so. My close
relationship with the study group members as well as the Ishigaki islanders
distanced me from the executive director, who appeared to be observing
my behavior sceptically. I had opportunities to develop a relationship with
him in ordinary daily situations, but I did not dare to do so, and instead
avoided the opportunities.
This case suggests that it is advisable that the relationship be built before
the unexpected emerges. Dialogue cannot occur if a practitioner has a prejudice
against others. Whether the other is a donor or a recipient, a practitioner
who humbly and honestly communicates with them has a better
chance of developing the relationship. That relationship is the foundation
that enables dialogue to take place even in situations involving conflict.
With dialogue, we learn from each other; and only with dialogue can our
development endeavors bear fruit we can all enjoy.