Modes of Knowing in International Aid: The Quantitative Heuristic and Sectoral Categorical Thinking in INGOs in Southeastern Turkey
Date of Award
Spring 2023
Document Type
Dissertation
Degree Name
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
Department
Sociology
First Advisor
Adams, Julia
Abstract
This dissertation examines prevailing thought styles—a predominant quantitative heuristic and sectoral categorical thinking—in international aid to Syrian refugees in southeastern Turkey. Instead of taking these number-focused and sector-oriented thought styles for granted, I ask: What are the key organizational and institutional factors that made these modes of thinking possible across INGOs in the region? What are the central characteristics of these cognitive orientations? How are they reproduced, and at times challenged, through organizational processes and daily practices within INGOs? Through twelve months of ethnographic study (mainly in 2019), and participant observation in one of the prominent INGOs in southeastern Turkey, I argue that these prevalent thought patterns can be traced back to the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) tools and practices of the INGOs and that they make possible powerful and distinctive cognitive orientations and sense-making mechanisms for aid workers. I demonstrate that supported by general business logic and actively reinforced by donors—which provide funding to the INGOs in the region—two predominant modes of knowing constitute a particular epistemic culture and negatively influence the quality of project implementation.The first empirical chapter examines an established M&E tool, namely quantitative indicators, and taken-for-granted practices around it. Such indicators are numerical measures used by donors and multilateral organizations to hold INGOs and aid-receiving countries accountable, make them more transparent, and track and evaluate their progress. Here, I identify three distinct local quantification practices which make such indicator production possible: (1) translation, where interpretations and discussions of what to report for a certain indicator take place; (2) data collection, where a complex story or experience of a beneficiary is transformed into a number, and (3) conversion, where the captured number remains intact while being aggregated under different indicators on a national, regional, and global level. I show that these local quantification practices systematically disregard and make irrelevant qualitative information that cannot be expressed in numerical form. This makes possible the quantitative heuristic as a powerful cognitive orientation and sense-making mechanism for aid workers in INGOs. The quantitative heuristic affects what actors pay attention to and what is relevant for aid work. It creates a tendency within organizations to approach quantitative data as the most accurate and valued way to conduct monitoring and evaluation, and the most reliable measure to show project quality and success. The second empirical chapter turns to a narrative-based M&E tool, namely case study. Through the analysis of related case study documents and the field notes on the interactions with, reactions to, and discussions around case study generation, I show the ambiguous reference to two different types of case studies. I suggest that the uses of case studies in international aid can be analyzed as both (1) communication material and (2) evaluation tool. I demonstrate that capsule communication stories reinforce sectoral categorical thinking with their emphasis on a significant change in one salient aspect of beneficiaries’ lives in isolation from others. These short success stories follow the neoliberal era storytelling characteristics: portraying agents as rational and active, inspired by entrepreneurship and self-reliance, while invoking the emotions of the audience at the expense of critical thought. On the other hand, evaluation case studies, which aim for a comprehensive understanding with thick description and analysis of a complex instance, require a holistic and relational approach, clashing with the sectoral categorical thinking. I demonstrate that evaluative case studies have the potential to expose the prevalent thought patterns of sectoral categorical thinking and the quantitative heuristic, while success stories consolidate them as sense-making mechanisms for aid workers. The third empirical chapter investigates institutional factors that made the prevailing thought styles possible across INGOs in the region and explores the consequences of these modes of thinking in terms of how they affect project implementation, lowering its quality. I demonstrate that incorporating business practices into aid organizations, and the expectations and restrictions of the donors—which provide funding to the INGOs in the region—reinforce the quantitative heuristic and sectoral categorical thinking. Under institutional pressures, INGOs—as intermediary organizations between donors and beneficiaries—prepare two distinct yet related products: (1) project implementation and service provision for beneficiaries and (2) documents and numbers for donors, which I call the knowledge product. I find that as donors primarily rely on approximate quantitative measures to monitor INGOs and evaluate their progress at a distance, regional INGOs displace their attention and efforts towards those measures and prioritize the knowledge product. The donors also restrict INGOs’ actions with predetermined sector-specific activities and expenditures while not allowing others. This reinforces sectoral categorical thinking as a cognitive shortcut through which aid workers rapidly assess whether a certain refugee can be their organization’s beneficiary, i.e., whether the refugee’s needs can be helped with expenditures on certain activities that the organization is allowed to perform in a specific sector. Yet my findings also demonstrate that even under the crushing pressures of business logic, donor limitations, and the prevailing thought patterns of the quantitative heuristic and sectoral categorical thinking, a quality-focused approach to aid is still possible in the region, though circumscribed by aid personnel’s choices and actions. According to my interlocutors’ accounts, working with a spirit of volunteerism—i.e. working with enthusiasm and caring for the beneficiaries—enables a quality-focused approach to aid. When unpacked and analyzed, their quality-oriented examples evince opposed attitudes to the prevalent modes of knowing. They highlight (1) taking non-quantifiable yet crucial actions into account to reach project objectives, and (2) thinking relationally and holistically, not merely in terms of sectors. My findings also show that even though organizational epistemic culture is dominated by the quantitative heuristic and sectoral categorical thinking, a dedicated manager can create a subculture in which holistic and relational thinking is recognized and supported. There is no structural mechanism to create such subcultures within the INGOs, however, or to ensure that managers learn a quality-oriented approach to aid work.
Recommended Citation
Ugur, Dolunay, "Modes of Knowing in International Aid: The Quantitative Heuristic and Sectoral Categorical Thinking in INGOs in Southeastern Turkey" (2023). Yale Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Dissertations. 929.
https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/gsas_dissertations/929
