Development NGOs and Languages

For decades now NGOs have faced a battery of criticism from development scholars for perceived failings in delivering their missions of empowerment and social justice. It is widely held that NGO strategies and activities are distorted by donor priorities, often in ways that directly undermine their supposed mission and erode their credibility in the target community. This chapter looks at the ways in which the voices of these local communities and the encounters between Northern NGOs and Southern groups are represented in contemporary development scholarship. Communication, it argues, is a two-way process in which listening to the ‘other’ is a vital, but as yet largely unexplored, component. The chapter addresses this gap by drawing on research in fields outside Development Studies and International Relations—Listening Studies, Cultural Studies and Translation Studies—in order to propose a new theoretical framework, ‘The Listening Zones of NGOs’, as a structuring principle. By adopting the Listening Zones framework, the book aims to position languages and cultural awareness as key elements in addressing an alleged disregard for local communities on the part of NGOs.

This chapter investigates the listening histories of three major post-1940 NGOs, each with rather different historical roots: OxfamGB, which emerged in 1942 from a committee of concerned individuals, Christian Aid, which was created in 1943 from a coalition of British and Irish churches, and Tearfund, which was founded much later in 1968. In the cases of Oxfam and Christian Aid, evidence is drawn from the institutional archives of the NGOs, whilst Tearfund has produced its own history on the basis of primary material, which is supplemented in this study by interviews conducted with former members of staff. The relational geographies of these three NGOs are examined to provide answers to two questions. Firstly, how did perceptions of the distance from/proximity to the foreign ‘other’ emerge over time in the NGO’s imaginary? Secondly, how were the exchanges in transnational encounters between Northern anglophone INGOs and Southern communities, the listening to and learning from the ‘other’, enacted and supported over time? In the concluding section, the chapter underlines the relevance of these historical imaginaries to the ways in which NGOs today construct their listening zones.

This chapter analyses how language shapes the way that a major donor engages with the Listening Zones of development, using the case study of the UK. It focuses on the Ministry for Overseas Development and the Overseas Development Administration (ODM/ODA 1964–1997) and the Department of International Development (DFID 1997–2018). It uses constructivist institutionalism to understand the deep-rooted ideational dynamics that guide and frame development policy in relation to language. It argues that policymakers and officials have long assumed, explicitly or implicitly, that local languages have little relevance in achieving the UK’s international development goals. Insofar as language has been a focal point in aid, it has been in connection with a long-term commitment to promote English language teaching (ELT), mainly during the ODM/ODA years. English was associated with modernisation, and ELT-related aid was understood to serve the national interest and meet Britain’s moral obligations to the poor. Aid for ELT declined during the DFID years, but a generalised neglectful attitude towards local languages has persisted. There is little systematic, in-depth reflection within DFID about the role of language in the relationships between communities and the NGOs that they fund. Local languages are treated as an issue of low salience.

This chapter interrogates the listening practices of NGO workers in headquarters and in-country today. On the basis of a wide range of interviews with NGO staff working for four UK-based INGOs, it examines the role of languages and cultural knowledge in the construction of NGOs’ listening efforts. It records the voices of NGO staff as they describe their listening experiences and the challenges and uncertainties they face as actors at the core of development projects who attempt to listen to a complex mix of voices, including those of local communities, partner organisations, NGO colleagues and international donors. The chapter examines NGO workers’ responses to questions related to listening as they emerged in interviews: firstly, listening as an institutionalised practice, linked to accountability, monitoring and evaluation, mainly taking place in English, and secondly, listening as an informal practice that takes place outside paper-based frameworks and in a mix of languages and through informal translation practices. The chapter underlines the relevance of the framework of the Listening Zone, which enables a conceptualisation of listening as a complex and hybrid process, in which various actors listen in a variety of languages, motivated by a range of different aims.

This chapter explores the place of the translator and interpreter in international development programmes. By drawing on INGO policy documents related to language and translation and interviews with translators/interpreters as well as other NGO staff, the chapter aims to extend current understandings of translation and interpreting practices in international NGO programmes. It presents an overview of the most common translation/interpreting practices and profiles encountered in the Listening Zones data. One of its findings is that translators/interpreters in development contexts are expected to have different skillsets than those of professional translators/interpreters working in Western contexts: instead of competence in using translation tools, or adhering to codes of professional conduct such as neutrality, NGO staff emphasised the importance of local embeddedness, understanding the culture and realities of local communities, and knowledge of NGO work and development terminology. Finally, the chapter includes a brief comparison with the state of current practices and research in humanitarian settings and argues that both in development and humanitarian settings, much work remains to be done to raise awareness of the important role of languages and translation.

Based on interviews with workers from organisations including INGOs, SNGOs and CBOs, this chapter investigates the Listening Zones in Malawi. A key theme of the interviews is the influence of asymmetrical power on listening relationships. The communication between donor and NGO was characterised as unidirectional: the NGO listens and responds to the donor’s agenda but there is little reciprocity. Projects are funded and conceptualised by donors and framed in terms of English development buzzwords that are not easily translatable to the local languages. NGOs are compelled to adopt the language of the donor to access funds and to comply with reporting requirements. Thus, the foundation is laid for the creation of a Listening Zone between NGO and community that is highly distorted and exclusionary, where the purpose of listening and the language used largely reflects the donor’s agenda. Fieldworkers who interact with communities find it challenging to accurately explain the meaning of projects to communities, and they have to make copious use of locally appropriate euphemisms, idioms and metaphors. Participants claim that failing to listen and communicate in a culturally appropriate way can be a key factor in project failure because it impedes relationship building with the community. However, the financial power of donors over NGOs inhibits the latter from offering honest feedback about the implications of underfunding translation/interpretation work.

On the basis of interviews with SNGO and INGO workers in Bishkek and Osh, this chapter investigates listening practices and experiences in Kyrgyzstan, firstly in English to international donors, and secondly through local languages to local communities. For SNGOs, who often lacked English skills, donor listening was impeded by donors’ insistence on English in project applications and reporting. In addition, SNGOs reported problems with the pervasiveness of development terminology, as many of the development concepts did not exist in the local languages and cultures. In terms of listening to communities, those SNGOs who were based in Bishkek and were monolingual Russian reported enhanced language barriers when aiming to work with rural communities, who were described as increasingly Kyrgyz speaking. Overall, the chapter depicts the voices of those working in the Kyrgyz NGO sector as arguing that language barriers are a daily reality in their work, but that the majority of international donors and INGOs without a country office tended to overlook the importance of language and translation needs. This oversight, participants argued, frequently led to development projects that were decontextualised in their focus as well as in the language chosen for communication.

In Peru, the changing international aid architecture provides specific challenges and opportunities for the NGO sector, as does the official multilingual status of the country. On the basis of interviews with SNGO workers in Lima, Arequipa and Cusco, this chapter investigates listening experiences on the ground, firstly in relation to external donors, and then through SNGO contacts with their local communities. It argues that the absence of interlingual translation in donor/SNGO encounters creates a decontextualised development reality dominated by global ‘developmentspeak’ English, in which relationships are unequal, and where the responsibility to learn and adapt lies largely with the agencies in the South. In contacts between SNGOs and their communities, attenuated forms of these donor/SNGO development realities can often be replicated. Whilst SNGOs seek to establish dialogic relationships in face-to-face dealings with various groups, evidence suggests that such efforts are generally unidirectional, without much encouragement for mutual learning and exchange. In these Listening Zones in Peru, interlingual translation, both by its absence in donor/SNGO relationships, and in the characteristics of its presence in SNGO/community meetings, is a key creator of development realities and power relationships.

In this chapter, we discuss the implications of our research for the ways that scholars in International Relations and Development Studies understand NGOs and their language and listening practices. We identify the key themes in NGO scholarship, and suggest ways in which our findings invite an expansion of the research agenda. We argue for the importance of integrating within IR and Development Studies a more linguistically informed understanding of international encounters. We then discuss what the implications of the research might be for the other disciplines involved: Listening Studies, Intercultural Studies and Translation Studies. Finally, we offer some critical self-reflections on the challenges involved in researching multilingually.

The research on which this volume is based was originally stimulated by conversations with practitioners during a workshop held in January 2014 on the theme, ‘Do NGOs need a languages policy?’ At the end of the discussion, practitioners called for some evidence-based research which would raise awareness of these issues and contribute to vital policy change. Whilst the research was taking place, NGO colleagues contributed in an Advisory Group, and in well-attended open workshops. They also commented on ongoing papers from the project, so that the recommendations in the final report, ‘Respecting communities in International Development: languages and cultural understanding’ were directed, as they requested, at raising awareness of languages and stimulating changes in policies and practice. This chapter will outline these recommendations for donors and for INGOs. As writers of this book, we see discussions around the role of languages and cultural understanding in development as part of an important ongoing conversation in the sector, and the chapter will briefly outline what immediate responses there have been to the recommendations since the publication of the report in June 2018, and what directions conversations might conceivably take in the future.