“Inclusion” as a theoretical interest and as a value is very personal to me. For the last five years or so, my focus, as a scholar and practitioner, is how to use data to achieve social, political, and economic outcomes. My work at the Jakarta Lab previously, the data empowerment blog that I co-host and co-author with Andi Pawelke, my previous work with the Australian DFAT in Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu, and the ones I did in the Philippines and Indonesia for GIZ as well as the ADB, are all part of this obsession, if you like.
As a student of development, I try as much as possible to question my assumptions about how I view the world and how I do my work within it. My journey towards inclusion is one which is conditioned by my own practice. I thought it was enough to say that it’s not about the data, that it’s about the people that you want to experience the benefits of reform. I thought it was enough to say that you need to understand context, that you need to know who are you interacting with, that people needs to participate and be consulted on things that impact them. Then I realized that even with avenues for participation, if you do not address underlying power dynamics, oftentimes those who shouts the loudest, the noisiest, are the ones who get to be heard.
As a “marginalised” person myself, I began to understand that it takes a lot of courage for me to speak in big fora or symposia. I have to check my English, or I have to contend with the feeling that probably somebody else has a better idea – I am a person of color from the south, I have not read enough – these people are the experts in this field. (At the same time, despite my being “marginalised”, I acknowledge that I also am in a position of privilege.) Even within seemingly homogenous groups, the ability of people to actively participate and benefit from a discussion is differentiated, conditioned by their education, religious beliefs, upbringing, experiences, among others. So I realized that inclusion is a critical element in ensuring that even those seemingly included stakeholders are really participating in and benefitting from any development project that I design, or help implement.
But what do we mean by inclusion? The common understanding of inclusion typically refers to social inclusion, which is defined here by the UN as the process of improving the terms of participation in society, particularly for people who are disadvantaged, by enhancing opportunities, access to resources, voice, and respect for rights. I would argue that in literature, this remains a contested concept. Even examining the UN definition, it is evident that inclusion extends beyond social aspects. People’s participation and their rights are inherently political. Furthermore, it is not only about opportunities, access to resources, voice, and respect for rights. For instance, access to resources and opportunities alone are insufficient for a small entrepreneur in Padang, Indonesia, to benefit from contracting opportunities in a landscape characterized by monopolistic competition and intertwined political and business interests.
Nevertheless, in practical terms, we understand what it means. For example, someone told me that inclusion starts from the acknowledgement that, “men and women learn differently, and that depending on our background, we have different skills; that professions, ages, and locations will impact how we view the world and understand open contracting, and some need more resources and tools than others.” Because of this, we need to “ensure a diverse range of voices and stakeholders are involved in project and process design, including ultimate end users or beneficiaries, and find ways to make sure smaller actors can participate in and benefit from development processes. ” In the case of intentional inclusion, we recognize the necessity to include marginalized communities in initiative design; we must ensure that marginalized and underrepresented groups are involved in planning and monitoring to achieve better outcomes.
In my view, alongside Francois van Schalkwyk, good friend and collaborator, inclusion occurs through the incorporation and active participation in networks by those who are often excluded. That’s the first level. Second, we believe it is important to highlight that inclusion also takes place through improvements in the positions of those already within networks, particularly in relation to central nodes where decision-making is concentrated. The first type of inclusion I mentioned is accompanied by the recognition that, despite all our attempts and due to resource limitations, not everyone can participate at the same discussion table every time. In reality, some groups are continually underrepresented and habitually excluded, hence this preferential option, this additional focus. The second type of inclusion involves recognizing that within networks of actors, there are those who hold more power than others. So for me, what is critical and important is to ensure that those included from the peripheries due to certain endowments deficit – lack of skills, connections, political clout, among others – are able to reconfigure those power relationships and are able to advance their agenda.
I saw this first hand. Without our awareness, exclusionary processes can occur even within a climate of openness and inclusivity. In an open contracting experiment in Indonesia, I observed how a group of civic technologists and the government ICT agency discussed the user interface of a proposed online platform, while the women we invited, who initially provided input on what they needed to access and understand contracting data, were left to their own devices. In another instance, I noticed how a government official at a forum answered all questions from older participants, either intentionally or unintentionally ignoring questions from the teenagers present.
So what have I learned from my journey so far?
First, in the design of development interventions, it is very easy to ignore differences in context, needs, and vulnerabilities. Thus, understanding context is key. For me, inclusion starts with recognizing the systems that have created (or been built on a foundation of) exclusion—as these systems have shaped institutions, policy, and cultural norms. I believe development initiatives that understand the influence (both historical and present) of racism, sexism, ableism, classism, etc. can then build approaches that help correct for them. Technical artefacts and solutions can cross contexts easily, but encouraging use requires context-responsive interventions. We need to build not only technical skills but also trust capacities – to relate, to network, to enhance credibility, to foster relationships.
Second, roles we ascribe to the different stakeholders we involve impacts how they take part or benefit from our initiatives and actions. So if we are dead serious about inclusion, we need to make those whom we want to include part of every process, from design, to implementation, to monitoring and evaluation. Consultation is not inclusion. Tokenistic involvement is utterly disgusting, even when it is initiated by well-meaning people. What matters is how development interventions are shaped by the people we want included.
Third, intention is nothing when not acted on. Oftentimes we see organisations putting out policies to be inclusive, but it will not bear fruit when not matched with proportionate action. Thus, if the inclusive intent is not matched by an operationalisation process that challenges existing power structures that are protective of the interests of the powerful, then it will likely fail in being inclusive. The operationalisation process does not have to come from above, it can be demanded from below, by people like you and me who believe in its power.
Michael "Miko" Cañares 