the questions and the answers
Reid Harvey - Sunday 21 May 2006questions and answers
Q: People talk about sharing knowledge, yet when the opportunity presents itself, much knowledge and information is not shared. Why? What can you suggest to stimulate sharing?
I'm sorry to say that the question begs a bit of pop psychology, so please bear with me. Sometime ago a friend dropped a pearl of wisdom on me, that it is only the insane who do not have neurosis, so I picked up the classic book on the subject, authored by Karen Horney. The author explained that the only way to rid ones self of neurosis concerned the extent to which that person could become truly objective. I am not so sure that I personally succeeded at this (otherwise might I be insane!?), however I did manage to adopt the approach of "I'm okay, you're okay," becoming more accepting of neuroses in others. I found that this is simpler when we're talking about individual neurosis, but then we also have neuroses of groups, nations, bigger groups, regions, etc. So we get really complicated.
Q: People talk about sharing knowledge, yet when the opportunity presents itself, much knowledge and information is not shared. Why? What can you suggest to stimulate sharing?
This gets back to the capacity to be objective. We have kicked around the worthwhile notion that people pick and choose what they will share, closely guarding what is of greatest value to them. However, in my experience when people do share something of value, others do not want to listen, so they do not respond Valuable ideas can also be threatening.
Q: What HWTS products are the participants in this E-Conference using? Which do you like best?
While in Nepal a couple of years ago, my family used the pottery filter of the IDE Nepal project. Now, however, being in the U.S. we use 'piped water from a pure source.' Lots of others in IDE Nepal have been using their 'Safa filter,' and apparently this was found within the user group of a UNICEF Nepal study to be 'the most popular.' (I'm sorry to say that when one of the organizers here cited the location of the study I did not take immediate note, and looking back in the discussion I cannot readily find this. Neither can I find this in a search.)
I'm trying to get around the nuances of my own neurosis, one of which concerns the right mix of immodesty versus objectivity, so I can't deny that that pushing this pottery filter system to the forefront is self serving. However, the product is also highly effective, when introduced properly. And part of the user acceptability may well be the low price, US$5.00 to $7.00, at the time of our field study, upto last year.
A question I could pose is, how are the technologies of HWTS compared with each other? Does there not tend to be a kind of a leveling approach, in which the limitations of the technologies are overlooked, so that these may be conveniently compared with each other? For example, I would think that careful attention would have been paid to the specification of a colloidal silver treated filter, wherein this was rated for 2.5 liters per hour, and not more.
Q: Can organizations working to improve access to water also promote HWTS without sending a confusing and conflicting message to their communities?
Rolled into this question could be another, also concerning confusing signals, regarding the conflicting approaches of dependence upon, 1. HWTS technology, and, 2. Behavioralism. There are those organization focused on watsan that are avidly promoting the idea that solutions to our problems are all about behavior change, to do with hygiene, hand washing, etc. There are also those organizations that take a middle road, pursuing both schools of thinking, to some degree. I believe that 90% of the problem is related to hygiene education, but that the first 10%, the technology must be present, and it seems that the majority in the e-forum and the Network feel the same way. It's tempting to think that this issue is self evident, a part of the process, but consequences do crop up. For example, donors are confused.
Q: What boggles my mind is how to convince donors, governments and the private sector to finance opportunities for knowledge sharing and what approaches would work better on top of this E-conference. I expect no silver bullets but love to hear stories and hints.
I believe that donors deserve a lot of sympathy, since they are bombarded with many high-pressure approaches, which need sorting out. It's all about verification. There is little doubt that verification must be a deliberate, careful process, and when the verification does happen and the information is disseminated, then the donors and humanitarian organizations should be less skeptical. It is also challenging that donors are being told that the problems of watsan are all about behavior. From the stand point of technology I do believe that there are silver bullets and that these will be found in the verification. But I do not wish to be contrary in any way.