Accountabilities between INGO and partner organizations. An analysis of reconfigurations in practice

Over the last decades INGOs have, in spite of a strong rhetoric for downward accountability, been predominantly accountable to donors. This however seems to be changing; there seems to be a growing tendency to invest in accountability to beneficiaries. Indeed, over the last decade pioneering organizations have been launching a variety of initiatives which focus on giving beneficiaries a voice about the work and functioning of the INGO. Some organizations have, for example, developed participatory planning and review and reflection processes (Action Aid, 2006). Others have initiated Listening Projects (Jacobs & Wilford, 2010), developed beneficiary feedback systems (e.g. Constituent Voice) or installed complaints and response mechanisms. The interest of our research project lies in these new initiatives as enablers of accountability between INGOs and beneficiaries. This research interest can be translated into three research objectives. A first research objective is to understand the constitution of these little researched beneficiary feedback processes. We want to know the building blocks and relations that are constitutive for beneficiary feedback. Second, we want to understand if and how beneficiary feedback initiatives affect the 'rules of the game' of the INGO. Accountability processes that focus on donors have been claimed to have a strong effect on the INGOs and their work. We want to know if and how beneficiary feedback processes - which can be interpreted as countermoves against (the effects of) the strong focus on donor accountability but paradoxically also seems to increasingly be a requirement of donors (like World Bank)- also influence the INGO and its work. We are curious if these beneficiary feedback processes contribute to other ways of working and learning within the INGO. A third more theoretical research is twofold. We want to contribute to the further theorization and conceptualization of accountability between INGOs and beneficiaries. Next to that we want to theorize about the social pedagogical relevance of accountability between beneficiaries and the INGO. Adopting a relational practice theoretical research perspective, (Shove, Pantzar, Watson; 2012), we ask the following research questions: 1. How do beneficiary feedback processes work? 1.a What are the elements (materials meanings, competences) that sustain these processes? 1.b How, under which conditions, do these elements integrate into a practice? 2.a With which practices, and through which shared elements, are beneficiary feedback processes interlinked? 2.b To which extent is the process of beneficiary feedback a central or peripheral practice within INGOs? 3.a How, on the basis of the empirically grounded answers to the above research questions, can we conceptualize accountability between INGOs and their beneficiaries? 3.b How does accountability between beneficiaries and the INGO (not) do justice to the social pedagogical character of the INGO? In order to respond to these questions, we will adopt a multi-sited praxiographic research design.

Publication year:2019

Accessibility:Open