Re-conceptualizing Development Terminology from a Relational Approach: Perspectives from Two Case Studies in South Africa

Abstract

This article uses a relational approach to re-conceptualize development concepts, measures, and practices. It explores how participants in the development sector construct and make sense of their lived realities and how they perceive and act on development initiatives as part of a social process. This is a qualitative study that uses a case study of two organizations in the development sector of South Africa working with individuals and households in communities that are in precarious circumstances. The organizations are small but rich in understanding what it means to be present, to learn, to negotiate, to allow for choices, and to do so within a sustainable view of development relationships. The insights from these contexts and the ethos from which they derive provide us with an opportunity to rethink the ethos that guides the broader development discourse.

Introduction and Background

The purpose of this study is to re-conceptualize how we think about development by asking how knowledge is constructed within development contexts and how it shapes the kinds of meanings, understandings, actions, and behaviors of people and groups. This research explores the meanings that people attach to their development practices within a relational approach, where the primary focus is on relationality.

Over the past few decades, there have been significant changes in methods of research and practice in development toward more contextually relevant studies (Chambers, 1997; Read, 2014; UNDP, 2018). Research and development practices have become more sensitive to how individuals and groups within development communicate, interpret, and construct knowledge as part of sensemaking and in understanding and shaping their lives and social realities. Some of these methods include semiotics and structuralism, which examine how signs, symbols, and underlying structures convey meaning and social relations in a specific context (Layton, 2006). Pragmatism focuses on the context where meaning is conveyed through emphasizing practical problem-solving, flexibility, and responsiveness to the needs and conditions of a given context (Kelly & Cordeiro, 2020). Discourse analysis examines discursive practices, power relations, and social constructs that shape development processes within a specific context and social practices and relationships (McGregor, 2010). Phenomenology focuses on subjective interpretations, lived experiences, and meaning-making processes of individuals and communities within a specific context (Teherani et al., 2015). Social constructionism highlights the social, cultural, and historical processes through which meanings, identities, and social realities are constructed within specific contexts (Carroll et al., 2008).

The challenge is that what is contextually relevant is difficult to quantify, which means that “buzzwords” become more prevalent to try and encapsulate the kinds of development actions and interventions that are required. Buzzwords refer to terms, phrases, or concepts that are trendy or popular as they are developed from broader societal and political discussions that get adopted and employed in development discourse, policy, and practice. They encapsulate complex ideas, can signal the alignment of certain ideologies of approaches, and can also shape development priorities, actions, and research according to prevailing trends and agendas. So-called “buzzwords” are important in capturing growing challenges and framing solutions, but they risk becoming vague and meaningless or falling into development orthodoxies that become apoliticized and result in one-size-fits-all development recipes and formulas (Cornwall & Brock, 2005).

Buzzwords also risk oversimplification because they fail to capture the contextual nuances of developmental concerns on the ground. They can perpetuate dominant narratives, power imbalances, and inequities in development practices, or their original intent and meaning can be distorted or diluted. With the use of two contemporary development policy instruments, the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), Cornwall and Brock (2005) show that the terms used in development are not neutral and acquire meaning as they are turned into policies. Take, for example, the terms “participation,” “empowerment,” and “poverty reduction,” which are used in international development policies and framed in different configurations as a “seductive mix” to justify particular kinds of development interventions.

The promotion of more participatory and collaborative approaches in development does not always go far enough in developing the necessary language, instruments, methods, and measurements that consider the relationships that shape and form development practices. Words such as “participation,” “empower,” and even “bottom-up approaches” have become so vague that they do not translate to development and change. Debates on the diversity of human experiences and aspirations and developing more context-specific approaches continue, but people themselves are not part of shaping what these terms mean practically. The hypothesis is as follows: if success and failure of development projects are drawn contextually and from lived experiences, then development practices, as they stem from or are rooted in a particular ethos, are an opportunity to rethink the ethos that guides the broader development discourse from which buzzwords come.

Conceptual Framework

In development theory, relationships are often broadly defined as social connections, ties, and interactions among individuals, groups, and institutions that can affect development outcomes. These networks, alliances, partnerships, and other forms of collaboration can be formal or informal and are based on mutual trust, understanding, respect, reciprocity, and mutual benefit to play a role in social, economic, and political development (Narayan, 2002; Schroeder et al., 2019). Several approaches to study development from more relational perspectives include social capital, social network analysis, participatory action research, feminist approaches, critical development studies, and actor-network theory (Borgatti & Foster, 2003; Putnam, 1993; Reason & Bradbury, 2001). These approaches provide lenses and frameworks to study development, by focusing on the relational aspects, power dynamics, and social interactions that shape development processes and gaining deeper insights into the interdependencies, complexities, and social relations within development contexts.

Relational thinking’s definition complements the above and highlights factors that are essential preconditions for close and trusting relationships. This includes mutual understanding between individuals or groups; mutual respect, fairness, and participation; and the alignment of values and goals. The Relational Proximity framework (RPF) was developed as a measure with indicators and questions to allow for a more dispassionate exploration of how individuals and organizations are functioning relationally (Ashcroft et al., 2017). It was developed by Team Focus and the Relationships Foundation, a social reform think tank in the UK, as a means by which to analyze reasons for the falling levels of “social capital” or assess the strength of stakeholder relationships in an organization. It includes comprehensive indicators to measure (quantitively and qualitatively) both organizational and interpersonal perceptions of the proximity or distance of relationships between people or organizations. These indicators are broken down into the following descriptors, with aspects that drive the relationships toward certain outcomes:

Communication (directness): The presence in the relationship is mediated by time, technology, and/or other people, which influences the quality of the communication and experience of connection. Encounter: do the ways you communicate (face-to-face, email, text, etc.) help avoid misunderstandings and create a sense of clarity and connection?

Time (continuity) is the sequence of interactions over time that builds stories. Storyline: do the various interactions over time build a sense of momentum, growth, stability, and ultimately a sense of belonging and loyalty?

Information (multiplexity): How information gained enables the breadth of knowledge, allows effective interpretation and management of the relationship, and instills a sense of being known and appreciated. Knowledge: consider the types of contexts that shape how we are known and our ability both to read a person and to manage a relationship. Do both of you know enough about each other to manage the relationship effectively and with predictability and understanding?

Power (parity)” Distribution and use of power influences. Fairness: consider power and how it is used and experienced in relationships. Is authority used in ways that encourage participation, promote fairness, and convey mutual respect?

Purpose (commonality): Consider the depth, breadth, and clarity of the alignment of purposes, values, and goals and the degree to which they are shared in ways that bring synergy and motivation to a relationship. Alignment: when examining the purposes of an organization and its people, how deeply rooted are their intentions, or are the two parties pulling in different directions?

The relational approach is then the assumptions, methods, and data collection tools that inform this research and its analysis. Underlying a relational approach are four presuppositions about the nature of human beings. First, all human life has intrinsic value and dignity. Second, interpersonal relationships are of primary importance to both individual and societal well-being. Third, healthy relationships depend on the presence of both obligation and choice in the social structure. Fourth, a healthy relationship is to be understood primarily from a moral point of view (Schluter & Lee, 1993).

This article contributes to re-conceptualizing how we think about development practices by using a relational lens to analyze and explore how actors view certain concepts and practices in development to frame development within its relational context.

Methodology

This research uses a case study of two organizations in the development sector of South Africa. The focus is to deepen the understanding of how organizations, which are deeply embedded relationally in their work, speak about development from a relational approach. The objective of the case studies is to provide new insights into the way in which development is understood, to reshape the meaning given to development, and to examine the kinds of indicators that should be considered in measuring the so-called success of development interventions.

Organization A is a Pretoria-based NGO in South Africa that provides coaching, counseling, and other socioeconomic support to vulnerable households. It also partners with other community-based initiatives that also work with child-headed households. The organization suggests that they have deep and innovative practices and ideas to create a much larger care economy by promoting capital exchanges in society toward addressing issues such as poverty, inequality, and unemployment. Organization A started its own small care program in the early 2000s, with a number of households taken into their care to teach them how to do holistic household-based care. They soon realized how complicated and expensive it was and decided to build into their funding model, rules of engagement, and dispute mechanisms that allow for negotiations and conflicts between “givers” and “receivers” of resources and conditions that are influenced by other relationships to ensure that it is sustainable.

So, the money we get is not donor funding … it’s actually money given as an expression of care by sponsors. They give their money under certain conditions. They give it because they trust our judgement, and they know we are not going to give it to a family, and they can go to the bottle store and use the money. The money must be used for certain prescribed purposes. So, there are limits, and those limits is where the boundaries are, and those boundaries is where it creates stress. (March 16, 2019 focus group)

Remarks such as spending the resources on “certain prescribed purposes” are often used in development practices, but Organization A’s willingness to acknowledge and deal with stress and conflict in the relationships between “giver” and “receiver” is what makes this NGO an interesting case study. They recognize the need to negotiate care as a process of learning and understanding different interests instead of claiming to have the answers as caregivers and professionals. Organization A has both a transactional and a transformational component to their care. They view the relationship as the critical bridge between transactions and the difficult choices (made by both household members and caregivers or care organizations). The choices are made with limited resources and capacity, as well as conflicting interests and disputes that should be carefully managed. The transformational component is also embedded in the values of the organization, which include “being present, listening, questioning, having compassion and standing in solidarity” (founder interview, March 29, 2019).

The second case, Organization B, in the west of the city of Johannesburg, has been practicing what it calls “alternative economics” for the past three and a half years. It describes this as being rooted in “community,” and its mode of operation is centered on “sharing” the resources that it has as a group. It does not do this on a salary basis, but each group member gives 2% of their monthly income (when they are employed) to share with people in their relational networks who need financial and other support. This creates a sense of ownership and responsibility for each member. The group uses an online platform to facilitate their activities, including the sharing of needs, discussions about the distribution of resources, and voting on priority areas. Through WhatsApp, members of the group share identified needs (their own or those of someone they know), discuss these, and decide together which needs will be responded to and in what way.

Organization B developed from an organization that has been present in the city and the surrounding informal settlements for more than 12 years with community-based partners who are positioned to assess needs and help connect the group’s funds to those who may otherwise “fall through the cracks.” The organization has intentionally focused on its relational aspect of their organization, through developing community-based partners who can identify needs, communal structures that can assess and prioritize those needs, and a transparent, accountable platform to administer funds (focus group, April 18, 2021, Randburg).

The research used qualitative methods, including an interpretivist approach that seeks to understand the experiences, meanings, and interpretations of a subjective social phenomenon (Saunders et al., 2016). The objective was to uncover the subjective experiences and interpretations of relationships and how social actors express their experiences rather than to confirm a predetermined theory. However, the microscopic focus of the research provides insights into and understanding of what happens in broader development.

The inquiry falls within the RPF, as described in the conceptual framework, which produces indicators, questions, and reflections that highlight how participants explain proximity or distance between various actors in the development sector. Prior to the focus groups, participants were asked to complete the RPF questions. The questionnaire posed a positive and negative statement for each question, with a rating from 1 (very poor/negative) to 6 (very good/positive). The participants gave a rating on the scale, depending on whether they associated more closely with the positive or negative statement. This questionnaire can be completed online and takes about 30 minutes to complete. The data from the RPF informed the focus group discussions. The results were workshopped further to get an overall sense of how the group interpreted the relational indicators in a group setting.

The two organizations were selected purposively due to their prioritizing their relationships as critical components of defining development and their intent on creating sustainable development models without large donor funding. Therefore, they established intentional practices and language that are sensitive to those that they support. Since both organizations prioritize relationships in their care models, they offer a model to test some of the key tenets of relational thinking. The researcher is involved in Organization A as an embedded researcher, which has helped to develop networks and relationships with other organizations. The role as an embedded researcher poses a potential risk of bias, but it also presents an opportunity to examine relationships and how language is used by participants in embeddedness. Embedded research refers to the researcher’s affiliation with an institution while providing a critical assessment of the research subject or “in-betweenness” and adhering to critical subjectivity (Reason, 1995; Vindrola-Padros et al., 2017).

The participants of the study were selected through purposive sampling by collaborating with the organizations to carefully decide the selection to ensure that the data provided a comprehensive view of the relationships within the organizations. Both organizations were asked to complete an RPF on how they relate to others in the organization. This is not a comparative case study, but rather applies the RPF to the different cases and analyzes what emerged from both.

For Organization A, seven young adults were purposively selected from three households under the care of the organization. The participants have been part of the organizational care for a period ranging from 10 to 16 years and are responsible for their households, with whom they relate through high levels of interdependence and relational proximity. Additionally, three personnel from Organization A were chosen given the constant interaction with the households under support. Participants were asked to answer relational questions to get a sense of how the organization views their relationship with household members and vice versa. The results were taken into a focus group discussion, which followed and focused on gaining a deeper understanding of the participants’ reflections, responses, and perceptions of their relational proximity.

Organization B does not have a distinction between personnel and members under care since they formed a group that contributes a percentage of their income to support others in the group. One of the leaders of the group sent out an invite to group members to participate in the research. Of those, six people responded and answered the questionnaire in relation to the organization as a whole. The same group of participants were invited to the focus group, but due to Covid-19 and other challenges, as well as time constraints, only three people attended the focus group.

A thematic content analysis was used to interpret what emerged from the qualitative data to explore how the themes fit together and inform the meaning of language in development from a relational perspective (Yin, 2016). The researcher was careful not to draw unwarranted inferences owing to the small size of the sample. Instead, approaches, tools, models, and principles were suggested based on the results of further support, testing, and comparisons in subsequent research. The five themes used to guide the data collection and analysis are the five relational indicators listed in the conceptual framework. The focus groups were analyzed by reviewing the language, ideas, and practices that were described by participants to highlight how they view development. It includes the language and explanations that participants gave in terms of their challenges, objectives, and approaches as well as what kinds of relational indicators they use to describe development.

NGOs have been described as reflecting the power relations in the societies in which they operate where there is a difference in socioeconomic, racial, gender, and other inequalities between the organizations and those they claim to serve (Fowler, 2013). As researchers, we face similar risks as urban, educated, and middle-class people, which influence the researchers’ interactions with different parties within the organizations. Steps have been taken to minimize the researcher bias through rigorous research containing numerous data collection and analysis techniques. The researcher did not benefit materially or otherwise from conducting this research and has no conflict of interest. The RPF is also useful to minimize researcher bias since it is conducted confidentially, participants are encouraged to answer it honestly, and the report produced focuses on the relationships and not on someone in particular. The research adhered to the university’s ethical requirements, including the use of consent forms and ensuring that the research was done honestly and transparently without covert or deceptive methods.

Findings and Analysis

The section draws from the lived experiences, thinking, and practices of two organizations in the development sector to rethink the ethos that sometimes guide development discourse. The key focuses are the real sense of agency participants have because of the way in which they have built their development models, the freedom to challenge concepts and terms based on their experiences, and reframing what success means.

Re-evaluating Genuine Agency and Choice: “I Am Also Shaping”

A prominent facet of the focus groups was how levels of equality and fairness were created with the internal group setup, but there were challenges to maintain agency as they engaged with others who had the resources but not the contextual understanding. To exercise agency, Organization B has built a model where each group member provides 2% of their income. It does not matter how much it accounts for, but it does give each member equal voting rights based on who they believe needs support. The group is diverse and from different backgrounds and can suggest a name or household in need of support that is in close relational proximity to the person who brings the recommendation to the group. It is then for the group to decide, through voting, within the limited resources that they have, whom to support and what their most pressing needs are. Due to the relationships built over a long period, this model has worked well and has intentionally tried to move away from creating a model where people are dependent on a salary to run the organization. The primary focus is on how best to distribute group resources to others in close proximity to the group.

However, during the outbreak of Covid-19 and subsequent lockdowns in 2020, which restricted the movement of people, the need for people in crisis increased exponentially. Organization B made the difficult decision to receive more resources from sponsors and donors who were not part of the group but kept voting rights within the group. Participants in Organization B shared their frustrations with how development is set up in a way that enhances the gap between those with resources and those in need of resources.

Most of the people in our group have experienced what it is to be a victim of charity and how dehumanising it is. So, we just said … that’s the thing, back to the purpose … there is a genuine feeling of agency … I am not just a receiver here even if I am getting from the group, I am also shaping the group … and that was a crisis … are we now putting ourselves back into that victim of charity position. (focus group, April 18, 2021, Randburg)

The above frustrations are reflected in the development studies literature, where donors’ conditions on funding can impose development efforts that are not aligned with local needs and priorities, undermining local autonomy and sovereignty, and focusing on short-term goals and quick results instead of long-term sustainable development. These frustrations support the literature that emphasizes the importance of genuine agency as recognition of local communities’ own knowledge, values, and priorities to take ownership of how they use resources to build capacity and take control of their own development processes (Cooke & Kothari, 2001; Narayan, 2005).

One of the participants jokingly said when referring to big donors, “I was going to say bitches, but that’s not right.” The participant followed later with another joke saying, “We don’t take corporates, those we call super bitches” (focus group, April 18, 2021, Randburg). Even as a joke, calling corporates “bitches” not only expresses frustrations in the participants’ experience of working with corporates and big donors but also conveys how important it is to understand context, relationships, and delicately working with people. Organization B has experienced the difficulty of large amounts of resources coming into areas lacking resources without sufficient understanding of the context or working with people who are already providing support in those communities. When large corporates and donors want to partner with Organization B, they take immense time to explain who they are:

It is relationship but also it is formal.… There is a general understanding of how the group operates which happens through a lot of conversation.

There is a relational exchange where Organization B expresses what they mean and what they have built consensus on as a group:

If we tried to say, this is who we are, here is a public campaign to be a part of it … we wouldn’t be able to communicate who we are well. It would get lost, I think. We know, we have to sit down and say, “this is what we do” and then the person said, “it’s like this” and then you say “no it’s not like this, it is like this” and then they eventually get that picture. We had to do that ourselves as a group to figure that out. (focus group, April 18, 2021, Randburg)

The group is very intentional because it understands what it takes to create something special and is frustrated when this relational context is not understood. Members have intentionally set up the group to promote equality through a model that places ownership and responsibility with those who have some level of capacity and resources while in close proximity with those in need of resources. It also changes the conditions and outcome-driven expectations toward much greater attention to what is just, fair, and integral within a relational setup. The above text provides insights and supports literature that pays careful attention to how organizational ethos and ethical considerations can challenge dominant development discourse and practices (Mosse, 2005; Narayan, 2005; Rifkin, 2009). Organization B’s strong ethos keep them centered and focused on working as a group to have a carefully considered and relevant response to people’s needs, while taking considerable time to communicate with people on the outside what they need to ensure that resource distribution is owned and guided by those who are closest to their lived experiences and realities.

Similarly, Organization A has a strong ethos of being present in suffering and willing to deal with the stress, conflict, and confrontation that are inherent in the relational dynamics between everyone involved in the care of households. During the focus group discussion, those who received care were willing to speak openly about what had been difficult in their relationship with Organization A. One of the heads of a household attached the word “beneficiary” to negative experiences with Organization A and described it in purely transaction terms:

Normally I feel that we communicate only when it is beneficiary [emphasis added]. It is either when someone wants something to happen or if someone wants you to do something. (focus group, March 16, 2019)

The use of the term “beneficiary” is problematic and suggests a more “top-down” and unrelational approach despite efforts by the organization to build relationality. It is used widely by governments, multilateral organizations, NGOs, civil society, and development experts to describe those who lack resources and receive financial or other benefits. However, the word carries many assumptions and biases. It assumes that beneficiaries will benefit from development projects and that “development workers” supposedly know what is needed. Consequently, it leads to an overestimation of the importance of development workers while underestimating the knowledge, understanding, and solutions of “recipients” in their reality. It also creates a sense that people are passive recipients of handouts (Eyben et al., 2015).

Another household member commented that “there’s a lot of respect we are showing, and fairness is good, but less boldness” (focus group, March 16, 2019). The participant response highlights that Organization A and household members show respect and treat each other fairly, but they lack the “boldness” to be completely honest and open with the organization. The risk is that those with more power (in terms of resources and setting the terms and conditions) may encourage participation, promote fairness, and convey respect (Ashcroft et al., 2017), but those who are receivers of resources may still not feel in a position to participate due to power and resource differentials.

However, the willingness to acknowledge and deal with the stress, conflict, and confrontation makes this NGO an important case to study. During the focus group, the founder of Organization A reflected on power, choice, and the complex exchange that occurs between so-called receivers and givers of care who are in closer proximity to each other:

It’s about power and the power is what is the problem. Where does the control lie? I think for me the revelation was that the family sits with the power, we don’t sit with the power. They think we have the power, but the truth is they have the power because the power lies in their choices. They can ruin the relationship, or they can build it by the choices that they make and we’re victims in their choices. We are either success partners or we are victims, there is no in-between. So, I can invest all my life in a child and in a family and in the end, they can choose to destroy their lives and I go through the pain and the horror of that, and I am a passenger in that car. I’m not the driver, I don’t have control, I’m purely present. (focus group, March 16, 2019)

This ties into broader discussions in development, especially as it relates to the complexity of agency, choice, and promoting partnerships rather than a one-sided power dynamic between development actors and those on the receiving end of the resources (Mosse, 2005; Narayan, 2005). The above also points to the significance of the ethos of organizations that have undergone critical reflection and learning due to the confrontation of their relational and power dynamics to arrive at the conclusion that choice is a critical component of their model as part of understanding power. Organization A has realized it needs to carefully consider interventions and actions that support recipients in the kinds of choices that they make, but they also need to make those choices. The organization has limited resources, which means the investment needs to create value and allow people choice. Organization A has started to implement a formation and coaching development model that meets individuals, groups, and households where they are while supporting realistic change and formation by focusing on essential building blocks.

Reframing the Word “Success”: “We Try to Ask What Does It Mean to Be Faithful”

In all the above, both organizations highlighted that it is not simply about the outcomes but about the “right” response. In Is Good Policy Unimplementable? David Mosse (2004) argues that the concept of “success” in development is often based on unrealistic expectations and assumptions about the nature of development interventions. Mosse argues that there need to be more nuanced and critical approaches to understanding the complex social and economic processes that underlie development outcomes. Throughout the focus group discussions, there was little mention of words by participants such as “reaching targeted individuals,” “empowering,” “vulnerable,” “success,” and “outcomes.” Much more emphasis was placed on having a “right” response, making better choices and decisions, respecting each other, and creating a sense of safety, belonging, family, and relational value. These are not terms that can easily be quantified or reported on, but it is important to consider how to report not only on the amount of “targeted individuals” reached but, from a more relational approach, also on how many people are experiencing better ways of communicating, interacting, engaging, understanding, respect, and commonality within and between so-called receivers and givers in development.

When asked about how successful Organization B feels it has been, the group was uncomfortable with the word “success” and took a long pause before agreeing it prefers the word “faithful” and staying true to its ethos. One of the group members said,

For me … what does success mean when people are still hungry and struggling and dying. So, I think one of the successes is that we try to ask what does it mean to be faithful? We were given so little in those first three years, but we said we are giving what we can, and we are not waiting for someone to save us … what can we do? … we still kept those values intact; we have not lost it. So even if we had more households but lost it then we would have failed. (focus group, April 18, 2021, Randburg)

In light of this, from the data, we get a sense of what participants identified as critical to the “success” of development, which deepens our understanding of what sustains development interventions. This, in turn, can inform the language associated with the concept of success and what is measured as part of success. One of the main threads in Organization A and Organization B was that success implied whether a relationship could be sustained during a crisis. Below are two illustrations from both organizations.

Organization A

Organization A has learned that relationships develop and emerge in a crisis, and the health of relationships is not necessarily dependent on the success of the intervention but on whether the relationship can be sustained in a crisis. This translates into relational language such as the levels and frequency of contact, continuity, knowledge, power and participation, and commonality between different parties. The interactions between those who provide resources and the recipients also involve different levels of responsibility, who carries the burden, and what the “pain” and investment involved are. The organization uses the word “pain” as part of its development philosophy and practice:

At a transformational level I care about you no matter what you choose to do.… But how you actually live that out organizationally is a whole learning that we don’t know yet.… We got it right to build family. Another thing is to stand in solidarity, that’s what we’re learning. It means that you are actually hurting. You go through the pain.… And each person in this room has caused me enormous pain and I’ve caused them pain. And we’ve caused pain because of choices made and trust.… But the commitment is long-term, it’s for life. (focus group, March 16, 2019)

The pain is something that “you’ve got to go through … because it has to be budgeted” and it is made within a long-term commitment, “not to fix” but to be there and “allow for the choices to be made.” The pain relates to continuity and consistency over a long period of time. That does not take away accountability, and there are still contractual agreements on how resources are spent, but the response is not solely based on certain determined outcomes. The budget is not simply a financial one, but “pain” is also budgeted.

A practical example in the organization is when one of the household members fell pregnant as a teenager in 2007, despite the interventions and care from the organization (e.g., in terms of physical needs, educational support, and other emotional, psychological, and spiritual support). Organization A was unsure how to respond since it questioned whether the interventions made a difference. But one of the board members of the organization convinced it to not reject a child based on the choices they make and rather continue its support since she is now more vulnerable. More than a decade later, in 2019, Organization A and the household member scored categorically positive (80% and above) on the RPF, which suggests that both parties are satisfied with the levels of directness, continuity, multiplexity, parity, and commonality in the relationship. Both parties are satisfied with the quantity and quality of contact and continuity in the relationship and share a sense of mutual respect, participation, fairness, and alignment of goals.

However, this was not an easy journey; after becoming pregnant, there was still great difficulty in the relationship. Organization A and the household member decided that she would move to Pretoria to rewrite her matriculation to provide better support for her and her baby. Her time in Pretoria was significant in building a deeper relationship with Organization A, but it also led to conflict and disappointment between the two parties. She never fully adjusted to the environment, but she managed to pass her matriculation. The increased contact strengthened the relationship, but it was also the closer proximity that led to disappointment and distancing due to the stress of the relationship. The founder reflected, “I didn’t want to see her because I was tired, disappointed and I felt that she was making bad choices.” This strong relational dynamic is different from the relational dynamics in Organization B and has a more paternal sense of added responsibility, which ties into the idea of power and parity but not in the traditional sense. The break in contact had interesting implications and was significant as this household member found an internship and got her driver’s license during this time, and the conflict was resolved after six months. She found a job and has displayed high levels of confidence and resilience.

The response from both parties has been critical during a crisis, which has been significant in the so-called success that both parties are experiencing in the relationship. The organization’s relationship with this household member has been strong enough to endure many crises because the health of the relationship lies in the connection, the shared story, roots, trust, mutual appreciation and respect, understanding, and shared purpose in the relationship. The success in development is not determined solely by human development results, but whether relationships are strong enough and able to hold up under the pressure of a crisis and the different choices made in the crisis. It is also evident from the above that a crisis has a ripple effect, and one response may lead to another, which can have either positive or negative implications on relationships and a person’s development. Responses and outcomes change as the relational interactions unfold in the choices that the different parties make, and they are always different, unique, and within a cyclical process of development instead of a linear movement from point A to point B. This suggests that there is no “one-size-fits-all” in relational development, which has also been argued extensively in the literature (Cooke & Kothari, 2001; Cornwall, 2017).

Organization B

Similarly, participants from Organization B have also been careful in their response to difficulties in the group. The group is quite vulnerable and open in how it makes decisions, and members have also drawn strength from each other and not only from so-called experts who come in with skills and resources. One of the leaders explained,

I accept that I am the facilitator of that space, and the group accepts that I can, or they expect me to set up space. I am not allowed to control the spaces, but I am expected to set them up. So, when you are traumatised and depressed yourself you uhm … I just think of [name of the group member during Covid-19] having a baby by herself … then I got strength to say, well we can try … but I think that was only in the beginning. So, once I got through that depression, it became a gift and a source of belonging and a source of expressing love for one another in very concrete terms. How do you create space where you are despairing yourself and depressed yourself and you are traumatized yourself? That was my challenge. (focus group, April 18, 2021, Randburg)

The emphasis in Organization B leans much more toward outcomes that result from more equal and relational ways in which decisions are made than setting targets with certain expectations. The significance for the group lies in the relationships that create safe spaces for people to have support and respond within those spaces. When one of the group members was in debt due to “not making good decisions,” the group focused on its response rather than its actions and results. The group saw the need to then be “honest about it in a community,” even though it meant answering “uncomfortable questions.” One of the members added that, as a result of the open dialogue,

the person who took that risk gave a huge gift to the group. [Name of the group member] was willing to allow us to develop that directness, she was willing to put herself out there and you see the positive impact of that trajectory. (focus group, April 18, 2021, Randburg)

The member was able to resolve her debt through the support and engagement of Organization B. It was apparent that it was difficult for her to be vulnerable, but

it created a whole new space for us to be more direct. She had to be willing to take that risk and say, “here’s all the debt, here’s all the payments I’m making and let’s talk about it.” It was a huge risk.

The language participants use is nuanced and allows for much richer understandings of the complex social and economic processes that underlie development outcomes (Mosse, 2004).

Conclusions and Recommendations

This research was conducted through a relational approach and framework since it shifts the focus to the ethos of development organizations and how their lived experiences can shape a broader development discourse. For researchers, policymakers, development practitioners, governments, businesses, and various stakeholders, relational approaches to development emphasize the importance of relationships and social interactions in shaping development outcomes. By actively listening to these voices and incorporating them into development planning and implementation as part of a multi-sectoral and interdisciplinary approach, practitioners can ensure that their interventions are more responsive, effective, and sustainable (Rifkin, 2009). Designing development processes that have built into them practices of inclusion, respect, fairness, and other relational aspects is an important outcome in and of itself, even before deciding the outcomes of a development project.

The organizations in this research are small and lack major results and outcomes in terms of the number of people “reached.” However, in their philosophies and practices, there is a richness in understanding that development and the relational dynamics between givers and receivers of resources should include in words what it means to be present, to learn, to negotiate, to allow for choice, and to do so within a sustainable view of development relationships. The insights from these particular contexts and the ethos from which they derive provide us with an opportunity to rethink the ethos that guide broader development discourse. The participants intentionally moved away from language such as “beneficiary,” “empowerment,” “targeted individuals,” and “numbers reached” toward “responding faithfully,” with pain as part of it, focusing on the transformations that are happening internally and how this speaks differently to expected outcomes. Therefore, success or failure can be drawn contextually from the lived experiences of those involved in these development projects rather than more broadly. Buzzwords attempt to encapsulate development actions that are complex and difficult to capture. They often also lose their meaning and become vague, with one-size-fits-all attempts and recipes. Researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders will be in a much better position to respond to societal challenges by measuring and investing in processes and responses that place relationships central to their ethos and are careful to choose certain outcomes over others that are more sustainable within their contexts.