PNEUMERIC
Enhancing Impact Communication
Ecosystems Through Art-Based Research
TIME FRAME
LOCATION
3 Months
(May 2023 - August 2023)
London, UK
CONTEXT
Master's Thesis
at LSE
SCOPE OF INQUIRY
Impact communication,
research methods,
art-based research
ABOUT
My thesis explored the possibility of art-based research interventions within the impact communication ecosystem. This inquiry was born out of the need to understand where impact communication is falling short, and how qualitative-centric, visual-based interventions can provide a contextualized understanding to promote a collective awareness of developmental progress. The thesis resulted in an impact research framework that utilizes art-based methods for data collection and dissemination, creating alternative avenues for impact communication.
PROBLEM
STATEMENT
How might we create a more inclusive impact communication ecosystem through art-based research methodologies?
SETTING THE CONTEXT: IMPACT COMMUNICATION
Defined as the positive shifts in the status quo of people as a consequence of the efforts of individuals, companies, NGOs and governments (Hadad et al, 2014), ‘impact’ is an umbrella term used to describe positive, measurable outcomes made to people’s lives and the environment. Impact communication can further be defined as communicating about social impact and generating social impact through communications.
For the purpose of this paper, the development ecosystem has been divided into three broad categories of stakeholders: Enablers, Beneficiaries, and the General Public. This distinction has been made to simplify and generalise the nature of interaction between entities.
Above: An overview of the developmental impact ecosystem.
SETTING THE CONTEXT: NEED FOR INTERVENTION
1. The prevailing definition of 'development'
The existing 'dominant paradigm of development' (Rogers, 1976) has predominantly been influenced by the Global North's perspective on progress. This perspective advocates for linear growth models, heavily reliant on quantitative metrics, often neglecting the historical and cultural contexts of beneficiaries. This impact definition approach has resulted in a fragmented impact sector, creating growing gaps among stakeholders—beneficiaries, development enablers, and external observers of the impact ecosystem. This results in projects and impact metrics that work towards a decontextualised unilinear notion of growth.
2. Decolonising Beneficiary identities within research narratives
Decolonising is understood as ‘the eradication of long-term patterns of power and inequality that originated in colonialism that continue to persist beyond the strict limits of colonial administrations’ (Ndlovu, 2015). Research outcomes, often tailored for a Global North audience reshape beneficiary identities, project paths, and impact metrics to fit post-colonial norms, neglecting authentic community experiences. Beneficiary identities are thus lost in the noise of tailored communication standards and are not considered central in the planning and development of projects.
Above: The prevailing linearity within the existing development ecosystem. The linearity encompasses the nature of how projects unfold, how decisions are made and how feedback from these projects are taken into consideration.
SETTING THE CONTEXT: NEED FOR INTERVENTION
3. Impact is contextual and qualitative
Impact is highly contextual in nature, where the outcomes of interventions and projects can vary greatly according to the target individuals and the diverse lives they lead. However, The need for ‘digestible’ information has resulted in the standardisation of impact measurement, which translates to a bias toward a quantitative-heavy focus within impact evaluation. Quantitative methods help describe and predict relationships, whereas qualitative research contextualises these relationships, (Garbarino et al, 2009) thus producing avenues for a more holistic inspection of the impact knowledge creation process. Qualitative data, however, is often looked at as an addition to data narratives, leading to a reduction in resources invested in capturing it. (Budzyna, 2022)
SNAPSHOT OF RESEARCH FINDINGS
SETTING THE CONTEXT: SCOPE FOR INTERVENTION
1. The impact ecosystem is disconnected:
There is a need for a greater sense of connectedness among all stakeholders of the impact ecosystem. The research outcomes offered a panoramic view of how the actions of stakeholders reverberate across the system, directly affecting each other. However, stakeholders haven’t yet grasped the extent of this intricate web of reliance and the potential gains of its recognition.
2. First-hand involvement of communities:
The findings shed light on the importance of including Beneficiaries in the planning, execution and evaluation of impact. This nature of inclusion extends beyond Beneficiary feedback, to including them as actors with a greater sense of ownership over the trajectory of programs.
3. Impact narratives need to be more engaging:
Present mediums of communicating impact have reached a saturation point, as they don’t align with contemporary models of information consumption. There is a need to create media-driven impact narratives that extend beyond the direct impact communication between Enablers, including Beneficiaries and the General Public.
While the aforementioned concerns demand immediate attention, an even broader condensation of the gaps in the impact sector suggest the presence of larger systemic dissonance that contribute to the current state of the impact ecosystem.
4. DUALITY OF THE IMPACT SECTOR
The broad and most important takeaway was that the impact sector is a product of binary dynamics. These binaries are in the form of several components making up the ecosystem, such as Enablers and Beneficiaries; Global North and the Global South; Quantitative and Qualitative impact assessment. There is a lack of cohesion between perceptions, entities, as well as methods of impact generation, causing friction as well as stagnancy in the nature of growth within the impact sector.
There is thus a need for a reassessment of how we approach impact. The current system exists in silos, where stakeholders' view of impact is restricted to their immediate environment. Stakeholders have limited and curated access to eachother, preventing a macro view on how impact unfolds.
DESIGNING RECOMMENDATIONS:
SCOPE FOR INTERVENTION
1. Perception of Impact, where we reexamine the systems that govern our perception of what impact really means. Impact facilitators' perspectives shape the nature of interventions, while recipients' perceptions influence their trust in facilitators and willingness to participate in projects. Together these determine how stakeholders choose to interact, shaping the trajectory of the impact interventions.
2. Systems of Exchange within the Impact sector where we reexamine how impact, specifically impact communication, travels across stakeholder groups. Systems of exchange are the mediums and messages through which impact travels across stakeholder groups.
DESIGNING RECOMMENDATIONS:
THE (IMP)ACT OF GIVING
To address the aforementioned need to foster a shared vision of progress, this paper pitches the idea of gift-giving as a lens for viewing the impact sector. This lens has been inspired by the work of Lewis Hyde’s The Gift; How the Creative Spirit Transforms the World, where he talks about how the notion of a gift is considered to be one that ‘is kept alive by its constant donation.’ and ‘must always move’. The interpretation of a gift as a form of communication opens up avenues for communication to move forward from a two-dimensional, written and verbal, linear entity, towards a larger model of communication that relies on context, space, and time. The nature of this communication extends beyond the idea of an ‘exchange’, into a continual flow of reciprocity, nurturing a sense of value through ongoing circulation.
The proposed gift-giving lens introduces a transformative aspect to communication within the impact sector. It addresses the aforementioned gaps of Perception and Systems of Exchange in two ways.
First, it encourages us to relook at the nature of interactions between stakeholders, and reanalyse their assigned roles in the ecosystem. This critical analysis of roles opens up avenues for newer forms of interaction to take place, thus addressing long-standing structures of power. Second, it shifts the nature of ‘Systems of Exchange’ from a static exchange model to a dynamic and continuous circulation of resources, ideas, and value. By suggesting a potential shift in the impact sector’s paradigm from isolated exchanges to interconnected and sustained interactions, we foster a more holistic and inclusive ecosystem of sharing.
DESIGNING RECOMMENDATIONS:
THE (IMP)ACT OF GIVING: Changing Perception
There is a need to create an accessible, shared vision that contextualises stakeholders in regard to themselves and each other. By exposing them to a diverse spectrum of viewpoints, extending beyond their current perspectives, we lay the groundwork for an approach to impact that is comprehensive, patient, and iterative. We advocate for this transformation through the introduction of 'Shared Sight' within the impact ecosystem. This perspective reexamines the dynamics between 'The Observer' (typically Enablers) and 'The Observed' (Beneficiaries), fostering a harmonized vision of progress that remains accessible to every stakeholder in a democratic manner.
DESIGNING RECOMMENDATIONS:
THE (IMP)ACT OF GIVING: Changing Systems of Exchange
We further pitch for systems of exchange that would actualise cohesiveness within the ecosystem. We advocate for this through circular models of communication within the impact ecosystem, as compared to presently prevailing linear flows of information. A circular viewpoint on communication transforms the concept of fixed information destinations for feedback into dynamic loops, where information continuously evolves parallel to real-time feedback. Additionally, this creates more transparency within the communication cycle. Research is the medium ...
DESIGNING RECOMMENDATIONS:
THE (IMP)ACT OF GIVING: Art Based Research as a Medium of Exchange
a. Research as a Medium
Presently research is employed for the creation and betterment of interventions. However, we pitch for research to go beyond a static point of communication within the impact chain, towards being the medium of communication itself.
Research acts as a shared language between stakeholders. It creates avenues for both parties to learn about the other and dictates how new structures of execution can be created.
Additionally, the nature of research at the moment is linear. Enablers decide the when, why, and how of studying Beneficiaries. Beneficiaries are then cut out from the outcomes of this research, and reintroduced only if and when their feedback is incorporated into the intervention. These linear flows further take away agency from Beneficiaries to communicate outside of the context of being subjects of research. By exploring research as an avenue for communication intervention, we address power structures that enable the dominant paradigm of development.
b. Art as a Medium
In line with viewing the impact communication ecosystem through the lens of ‘gift-giving’, art presents itself as a new and exciting way to establish meaningful dynamics between stakeholders. This further pushes us to look at the impact ecosystem as a living entity that grows with the increased involvement of its stakeholders. Additionally, art plays the role of a language and presents an authentic reflection of its creator. It provides a personal insight into the psychological, intangible undertakings of the mind and a more intimate channel of communication between the artist and the art’s observer. In this sense, art is a strong candidate for creating context.
Moreover, art is as political as it is personal. It has been used as a powerful medium to subvert structures of power. Interestingly, the suppression and restriction of art have been used as a method of asserting authority by those who have the ability to regulate the distribution or expression of artistic content. As John Berger said, art from any era tends to align with the ideological agendas of the dominant class. This citation reinforces us to equate access to art with notions of power, suggesting that those capable of sharing their art hold a certain measure of influence.
INTRODUCING THE
SHARED-SIGHT RESEARCH MODEL
The model is a byproduct of converging the needs of new perceptions and systems of exchange. The crux of this model is that research within impact is an ongoing process, and different facets of information call for different mediums of inquiry.
In this context, we seamlessly incorporate art as one of the mediums through which impact research finds expression.
Shared-Sight Research Model: Contextualization, Involvement, and Integration through Art-Based Methodologies
The devised impact framework introduces a synthesis of art-based research methodologies, built upon three pivotal components:
1. Contextualization:
In this initial phase, the stakeholders are situated in relation to each other. It informs the other of the true contexts they come from, providing nuance and intangible forms of data they would otherwise not have access to. Stakeholders are intricately woven into the broader landscapes that define their roles. Art-based tools, predominantly encompassing mediums like photography, films, and documentaries, serve as potent vehicles for this process. These mediums empower stakeholders to connect with their larger environments while articulating the nuanced facets of their individual experiences.
2. Involvement: The "Involvement" facet provides stakeholders with more points of access to each other, through communication-based interventions. It advocates for collaborative co-creation between impact initiators and recipients. Furthermore, it advocates for the adoption of a shared impact-tracking medium that is accessible to all stakeholders. This shared medium, rooted in artistic interventions, serves as a tangible manifestation of collaborative efforts and outcomes of all parties involved. By intertwining creativity with impact assessment, this segment nurtures a culture of joint ownership and transparency.
3. Integration: The third tier, "Integration," opens up the impact ecosystem to a wider audience, where research narratives and impact outcomes are subject to open observation as well as feedback. It propels the impact sector beyond conventional boundaries, inviting a third dimension—the public—into the narrative. This phase advocates for a communal platform showcasing impact trajectories. This shared space materializes as an amalgamation of diverse art projects, each documenting various facets of projects.
OUTCOMES OF ART-BASED IMPACT RESEARCH
This model of research enables avenues for new interventions within impact communication:
1. A means of establishing an ethical standard of research
Since this methodology is rooted in community mobilization, it offers a distinctive vantage point for studying Beneficiaries and valuing their identities, environments, and cultural contexts. By doing so, it inherently establishes a foundation of respect and mutual trust for participants. Consequently, this approach paves the way for institutions to adopt ethically sound research practices while also empowering them to effectively communicate this adoption as part of their development intervention.
2. Impact narration as an art and cultural experience
This research methodology extends research beyond the confines of academia and written documentation, into the broader public sphere where a wider audience can engage with it. Moreover, utilizing art as the conduit for access has the potential to spark a cultural shift, introducing novel realms of interaction within impact. This paradigm shift reevaluates the traditional roles of the 'observer' and 'observed,' establishing a reciprocal dynamic where both sides are mutually engaged in observing each other. "Shared Sight" thus has the capacity to evolve into transformative art movements that amplify identities and foster innovative channels for self-expression.
3. Opensourced research templates
As the research model is employed across diverse contexts, numerous opportunities arise to adapt and customize it. The inherent flexibility of the framework empowers individuals to align it with their specific requirements. With increased utilization, several practical applications may emerge.
CONCLUSION
This paper was built on the belief that impact belongs to the people it was created for.
Consequently, methods for evaluating and conveying impact are intrinsically entwined with the active participation of our primary stakeholders and should not exist outside of their involvement.
This paper proposes we go a step ahead of ‘listening’ to Beneficiary voices, and involve them deeply in the process of creation, to foster a profound sense of ownership. Art, in this context, not only facilitates attentive listening but also offers a medium for creation, thereby becoming universally accessible to all stakeholders.
Secondly, a primary concern at the outset of this study was navigating the tension between qualitative and quantitative data within this research methodology. The discovery however lies in recognizing the research process as inherently significant as the research itself. Having flexible mediums of knowledge production can produce information that extends beyond the binaries of qualitative and quantitative silos of stagnant data, towards narratives that are constantly evolving, creating room for more growth and reflection.