Month: May 2021

On Minimalism in Writing and Other Forms of Communication

Posted on | by BIGDAdmin | Leave a Comment on On Minimalism in Writing and Other Forms of Communication

Minimalism is not about having less; it’s about making room for more of what matters.

–Melissa (Simple Lionheart Life)

 

Minimalism is a philosophy that we can apply to any aspect of life. It is about consciously nurturing what is essential and pruning what is not. Minimalism helps us focus on achieving our goals and fulfilling our lives.

Dead leaves and branches sap vital energy from a plant and produce nothing. When they are pruned, a plant can focus on producing fruits and flowers. Similarly, if we could consciously remove the useless—unnecessary stuff from our homes, toxic relationships from our personal lives, and mindless internet browsing from our digital lives—we could direct our time, energy, and resources to things that are meaningful and soul-nourishing.

 

Following minimalism in communication has no alternative. Our audience, whoever they are, do not care about what we know or do, nor should they. We get their attention only when we say something that interests them. If they do not find anything interesting easily and quickly, they get frustrated or bored, and we lose their attention. Following the principles of minimalism, we can become mindful of what is essential to our audience, and therefore be more effective in our communication.

In a world where we face a constant barrage of information in all possible forms, practising minimalism in communication is ever more critical if we want to be effective. Time and attention are becoming rare commodities. In this era, only if we can remove all that is non-essential in our communication—writing, graphic designing, audio-visual presentations, and speeches—and focus on what is relevant to our audience, we stand a chance in getting our message across.

Apart from effectiveness, minimalism in communication has other appeals. It is aligned with the sense of aesthetics. We tend to choose thoughtfully when there is a limit on how much we can choose, self-imposed or otherwise—and it is hard to produce something tasteless when you are working with only a handful of elements. Minimalism can also help us express humility. It makes us conscious about avoiding exaggeration, extravagance, and the use of flowery language.

 

At BIGD, we follow minimalism in our communication.

 

You will find countless resources online on how to practice minimalism in writing and other forms of communication. But here are some examples:

In Writing

Avoid all unnecessary words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, and sections. Consciously evaluate whether every word is necessary—adding new information or insight, creating the desired emotion, or taking your writing forward. If not, delete them. The goal is to express your ideas with the fewest possible words.

Write as simply as you can—for example, avoid unwieldy passive structures, replace a difficult word with a simpler one, and avoid nominalization as much as you can.

 

I am not saying you cannot use complex structures and difficult words, but only when you need them to express your message precisely and produce the desired emotional effect. Besides, using complex structures in writing requires superior writing skills; otherwise, writing becomes confusing and prone to undetected grammatical errors.

Choose your words consciously. Every word has many synonyms; some are common and easy while others are difficult and lesser-known. Whenever possible, we should use simple words. But synonyms often have specific nuances, and if used in the right place, a difficult synonym can convey an idea more effectively. For example, you can be surprised by a friend’s unannounced visit who lives in the same town, but to be flabbergasted, your friend must pay his unannounced visit from the other side of the world after 20 years. Learning about these nuances enables us to use words in their rightful places and become effective and minimalist.

 

In Graphic Designing  

Try to keep your design clean. We need to use photographs, colours, and shapes to bring life to our design and highlight our messages. But we always need to ask ourselves what is needed. Do we need so many colours? Do we need so many lines, squares, and other shapes? Are we using a photograph to signify something or to fill the space? How can we integrate negative space in our design?  How can we achieve our desired goal of designing with as few components as possible?

The concept of data-to-ink ratio, popularized by the data visualization guru Edward Tufte, aims to generate the greatest information content for the least amount of ink used for visualization, on print or in digital media. In other words, it guides us on how we can express what we intend to with the least amount of text and graphics. This is a crucial concept for guiding our practice of minimalism in graphic designing as well as writing. But again, it is just a principle, not a commandment. We need to use our judgement to decide exactly what we need to use for most effectively expressing what we wish to.

Practising minimalism in communication does not imply that we assume our audience to be unintelligent or ignorant. It is about being respectful of their time and mental energy, making sure that they can focus on what they need—not on trying to make sense of convoluted sentences and difficult words or sifting through unnecessary information.

 

Nusrat Jahan is the Head of Business Development and Knowledge Management at the BRAC Institute of Governance and Development (BIGD), BRAC University 

From Sulla to the world: Happy birthday, Abed bhai

Posted on | by BIGDAdmin | Leave a Comment on From Sulla to the world: Happy birthday, Abed bhai

Sulla, the location of BRAC’s very first project initiated in 1972, would lay the cornerstones of what would become the world’s largest and fastest growing development organisation. Remembering Abed Bhai on his 85th birthday, we look back on BRAC’s beginning in Sulla and reflect on the many lessons to be carried forward.

One thousand hammers, eight-inch screwdrivers, shovels, handloom weaving tools, a hundred one-inch and half-inch chisels, thirty measuring tapes, pliers, saws, and a heart heavy with agony but full of conviction and indomitable hope. Anguished, because the people in his country were in ruins from an atrocious war, but convinced that history would soon be re-written, a nation labeled a ‘basket case’ would emerge from the ashes. With this conviction, Sir Fazle Hasan Abed and his team of dedicated volunteers made their way to Sulla on 17 January 1972 with these supplies to take part in repairing and building a nation that would become one of the fastest-growing economies in the world in a matter of decades.

Understanding Sir Abed’s vision and how he created BRAC is to understand the role of volunteer movements in rebuilding the nation, the firm defiance in the face of suppression, and the dream to self-reliance. We collectively experienced the genocide and fought for our victory, and this collective experience was instrumental to building the new-found nation.

It had also brought forth conditions of possibility and a call for change. A manifestation of which may be linked to BRAC’s formation, as reflected in the Executive Director’s report for Sulla in 1972:

Rural Bangladesh with slight regional variation remains wielded to her primitive ways. But the struggle for liberation has brought about a new climate, a new awareness and desire for change. Exploitative rural leadership is being constantly challenged and a new and forward looking potential leadership awaits in the sidelines to be trained and inducted to their future roles. The people so long groping in mistrust are now receptive to new ideas and institutions which would help them to break away from centuries old subsistence economy. (BRAC, 1972: 1)

Sulla was an extremely vulnerable community. The village had an illiteracy rate of 90%, was prone to natural calamities, and faced targeted violence in the liberation war. The population of Sulla predominantly consisted of Hindu and the jele (fishermen) communities, who were subjected to extreme violence during the war. Their houses were burnt down, women were raped, and families were made to flee.

Numerous families from Sulla fled the country during the war because of the fear of persecution and returned to find their homes in ruins. BRAC’s decision to start working from Sulla, thus, reflects Sir Fazle’s intention to support the communities that are most vulnerable, not just economically but also socially.

BRAC’s selection of Sulla’s population, one of the worst-affected communities in the early years of 1970, and its continuous experimentation with how to support them reflect the early and sustaining nature of Sir Fazle’s approach—reflective, empathetic, keen on adapting based on knowledge and experience, and quick to change as and when necessary. BRAC would implement programs, study impact while models were being implemented, and adapt to the response of the community members.

The idea behind BRAC was defined by a strong and determined vision paired with a rigorous culture of learning. No development model works in a vacuum; it needs to be tested in the context and adapted to realities on the ground. This is what Sir Fazle believed. BRAC never took even an established model for granted, rather placed at the forefront the subjective conditions of the rural community it worked with. The use of a cut-paste approach had never been in its nature.

BRAC had started with a volunteer-led rehabilitation program but soon adopted a community-centric development model and took a more targeted approach to address the challenges faced by people who were living in the most vulnerable conditions. BRAC methodically identified and targeted the most disadvantaged groups, and not only supported them to improve economically but also enabled them to have a critical awareness of how their position in power structures prevented them from having a dignified life and how they could try to overcome the hindrances.

Sir Fazle’s BRAC was grounded, empathising with and listening to the people it intended to work with and eventually adapting the programs based on their needs.

We draw on BRAC’s decision to mobilise volunteers and understand the community’s housing needs in the early 1970s and simultaneous emphasis on securing the villagers’ buy-in before starting the construction. This sheds light on how each community intervention was done through the active participation of the people themselves. As reflected in the Sulla report:

In most cases, traditional grouping within the village had to be encouraged to work together for the common goal of Gonokendro construction in order to have the widest possible village support (…) age old feuds between groups had to be settled before construction could be undertaken in the village. As a result, Gonokendro construction was followed by an upsurge in community spirit (…) which is considered to be a precondition for any concerted action for development. (BRAC: 1974: 4)

BRAC’s measurement of success was not limited to its numbers or rates but in its ability to empower groups to such a level that BRAC presence would no longer be necessary, as mentioned in the document, “The number of cooperative societies however is by no means indicative of success to this field. The ultimate measure of success can only be the extent to which the societies are able to generate group actions to solve their problems and increase the productivity of their resources” (BRAC, 1972: 12).

Self-reliance of target groups was core to all activities and measures, even if that meant a delay in the process:

(…) quick return and immediate material benefits have been postponed (…) in favour of developing human resources to participate, guide and manage all economic and social development activities with little or no outside help. (BRAC, 1972: 2)

Sir Fazle’s single-mindedness about self-reliance also helped BRAC avoid some of the major weaknesses of the predominant development models of that time. For example, BRAC was careful not to create a condition of dependence. In other words, BRAC avoided a relief-based model and instead focused on creating independent human institutions. This philosophy is reflected in the explanation why BRAC would not freely distribute seed:

Any contrary policy would lead to the damaging psychological dependence of the beneficiaries. Relief approach must not apply in the field of economic activity – credit management must be brought to the realm of everyone, work ethic must be inculcated, otherwise development would elude us. (BRAC, 1972: 16)

For the same reason, BRAC never wished to become a permanent part of the power structure in a community, rather empower the communities to negotiate their rights and secure necessary resources themselves. Thus, education and training programs alongside self-generating cooperatives were the twin pillars of the Sulla project (Phase II) (BRAC, 1972: 1).

Sir Fazle Hasan Abed’s vision of empowered, independent people charted the path BRAC navigated in its formative years. For BRAC, the experience in Sulla was the foundation of the unique institutional culture and values—empathy, self-reliance, cost-effectiveness, and critical self-reflection. As we celebrate his 85th birthday, we need to critically reflect on where it all began, all that was learnt, and all that ought to be carried as we continue our effort to uplift, advance, and empower communities around the world.

This is a story of audacity of possibility that we need to craft forward, from Sulla to the world.

Sumaiya Iqbal is a Research Associate at the BRAC Institute of Governance and Development. 

Historicising BRAC is an ambitious project that aims to meticulously document the evolution of BRAC in the context of changing socio-economic and political realities and understand and relate the role of Sir Fazle’s vision, philosophy, and leadership in its evolution. The project also aims to develop theories on BRAC’s success.

This blog was originally posted in The Good Feed.

5 Reasons for More Rigorous Qualitative Work on the Intersection of WEE and DFS

Posted on | by BIGDAdmin | Leave a Comment on 5 Reasons for More Rigorous Qualitative Work on the Intersection of WEE and DFS

Photo Courtesy: BRAC

Women’s Economic Empowerment & Digital Financial Services 

In September 2020, the WEE-DiFine initiative was launched with the publication of the Initiative’s white paper, which aimed to identify gaps in the study of the causal mechanisms between access to digital financial services (DFS) and women’s economic empowerment (WEE). The pathways through which DFS impact WEE are complex, often context-specific, and sometimes even occurring through reverse causality (i.e., an increase in WEE can lead to DFS adoption). 

While there is a clear and immediate need for more rigorous evaluations on the impact of DFS and WEE, this post presents five reasons — and five ways — to utilize qualitative work to explore this subject area. Alloatti (2020) argues that the subjective measurement of WEE, using qualitative methodologies, should not be compared to quantitative methods, in part because there is much to gain, including context-specific learnings, from qualitative research.  Therefore, I don’t take a comparative approach. Rather, the post highlights the added value to the field of using qualitative work either alongside quantitative research or independent of such work. 

#1 To Understand Context Through Formative Work 

J-PAL’s guide to measuring women’s and girls’ empowerment is a must-read for anyone interested in WEE. Glennerster, Walsh, and Diaz-Martin outline four steps to measuring WEE in impact evaluations. Their first recommended step is to conduct formative research to understand the context at hand, as empowerment and gender dynamics look different in different places. Focus group discussions (FGDs), interviews, or direct observations are three typical research methods used in formative research. They state, “Good formative research creates repeated opportunities to listen to people living in the communities in which we are working.” In order to adequately measure empowerment, which is a process by which change takes place, we must first understand what changes we seek to be realized.

#2 To Adapt Existing Measures

FinEquity recently published a mapping of WEE measurement tools for researchers and practitioners in the financial inclusion sector. Even well-established WEE measures may need to be adapted to meet the needs of new studies. An excellent article by Laszlo et al. (2020) outlines direct and indirect measures of WEE in intrahousehold settings. The authors argue that the success of measuring WEE is dependent on the relationship between how the researchers conceive of empowerment, the measures they’ve selected, and the data they are able to collect. Included in FinEquity’s mapping are Ipsos’ WEE indicators which are intentionally flexible. Ipsos encourages researchers to adapt and test the indicators in communities of interest and local languages. Therefore, there is value in carefully selecting and adapting measures, as necessary, to new contexts and investigations. 

#3 To unpack or contextualize quantitative findings

While measuring outcomes allows us to systematically gauge the effect of DFS on WEE, if the processes by which the effect is taking place are not clear, we need to further unpack those dynamics. Therefore, qualitative work alongside quantitative studies can be used to further unpack processes and dynamics. A recent example of qualitative research used alongside quantitative research can be found in Burke, Rabinovich, and Schaner’s (2020) study on the relationship between financial services and women’s lives in Kenya. The research team coupled a quantitative analysis of secondary data with qualitative interviews, finding similar themes through both approaches. With that said, the qualitative data revealed that the quantitative data did not capture important outcomes such as a woman’s self-worth or self-efficacy — themes that emerged from the qualitative analysis that were not included in the quantitative data collection. 

#4 To dig deeper 

When dealing with complex questions, research teams should consider trying new tools and methodologies. Activity-oriented questions in FGDs may elicit deeper insights than traditional interview methods. These can include decision trees, picture pile sorting, and role-playing, to name a few. While these activities require advanced planning and well-trained moderators, success from public health provides evidence that these approaches can improve interviewing in low-income settings “by encouraging respondents to reflect on their behaviour and by provoking gut reactions that uncover hidden reasons for behaviours and reduce social desirability bias.” The authors conclude that utilizing activities like these in FGDs can increase engagement among participants and yield richer data.

#5 To Build New Measures 

Although there is no shortage, per se, of measures of access to DFS, WEE, or digital literacy, as we further home in on the pathways between access to DFS and the outcome of WEE, we may need to conceptualize some mechanisms differently. For example, Garz et al. (2020) call for improvements in the measurement of bargaining power as well as new measures aimed at capturing the effects of DFS at the household level. Qualitative research, using interviews and FGDs, can be used to determine what “everyday language” people use, which can be incorporated into new measures. FGDs can also be used to test new measures before they are fielded to a larger sample. 

While I argue that there are a host of reasons to utilize qualitative research to explore the intersection of WEE and DFS, I also support maintaining rigour, including skilled qualitative researchers, and mobilizing qualitative research findings to further build the evidence base. When in doubt, consult an expert. 

Jenna Grzeslo is the Program Manager for Research & Learning at BRAC USA where she supports the WEE-DiFine initiative – an initiative devoted to funding rigorous research on the intersection of WEE and DFS.