> Posted by Joshua Goldstein aka Mr. Provocative
It is time for an impact study on the value of so many microfinance conferences. What drives and sustains this cottage industry, rife with redundancy, terrible for the carbon footprint, a wound to a poor NGO’s bottom line, and arguably a poor use of staff time, especially when said staff is in charge of putting the conference together?
Yes, I know the arguments for attending and/or putting on conferences: networking with newbies and golden oldies; sharing interesting, even industry disruptive ideas; exploring or deepening partnerships with other kin; raising the visibility of the industry through the media that finally this time will give microfinance the coverage it deserves.
And ABOVE ALL, may the gods be merciful, connecting us with the funders to insure the NGO’s future in perpetuity—or at least until the end of the calendar year.
All these are valid and honorable reasons to attend—in moderation.
As for me, I am a guilty regular at the parties among other guilty regulars, who I am quite sure may harbor some of the same doubts about the number of annual microfinance extravaganzas on the docket that I do—all conferences claiming to be the one indispensable conference that no one can afford to miss. Like me, they surely reflect on how the bucks spent on air fare, four star hotels, lavish meals, and other extravagances could be used directly to relieve a thousand human beings suffering in poverty somewhere with a direct cash transfer. And instead are being used to cosset us like the poverty royals that we are.
I have two or three ideas why this conference monster has grown exponentially. They run the gamut from the venal to the heart-rending. The venal reason is that in many organizations status is somehow conferred by keynote speeches, appearances on panels, and even report backs on attendance. Come on, we know there is some truth to that.
The heart-rending reason that we attend so many conferences? To overcome the doubts and insecurity that we feel about the value of our work. A warm hug, a photo, and some inspiring words from Muhammad Yunus or Michael Chu (choose your own guru) reassures us that there is meaning to our work. Then we ride on the updraft of this good feeling until the next conference, when we are reassured of our virtue and significance again. Thankfully, we only have to wait a few weeks at most for the next hug.
So what can be done to convince the powers that be to reduce the number of annual conferences from 200 to, say, 100? Well, to start would be to develop a set of metrics to justify or gainsay the value of a multitude of conferences. Right? Everyone in microfinance pines for metrics these days. No?
So how about going for the gold – a randomized control trial (RCT) to study the benefit of attending a conference. The control group would be randomly assigned to stay in their cubicles or continue their work in the field. The conference goers would be evaluated on such criteria as number of new funders obtained, new ideas incorporated in work plans, and ultimately, how they have gone on to change the world.
Such a study would cost some money, sure, but if all of us high rollers in the industry cancelled just one of our yearly conference rendezvous, that would pay for the study in no time. And if the data proved that cancelling or consolidating conferences led to productivity gains and reduced costs, millions and millions would be saved.
Anyway, for all of us travel addicts, no need to worry in the short-term that our lifestyle will get snipped: the RCT will probably take years.
Image credit: Lebazele/Getty Images
Have you read?
Exploring Unexpected Connections at the Skoll World Forum
Two Possible Futures for Persons With Disabilities
The Difficult Crawl Towards Non-Discrimination – Financial and Otherwise
Facebook
Twitter
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 6, 2014 at 10:27 am
James Militzer
Entertaining post, and you make some good points. But instead of “convincing the powers that be” to reduce the number of annual conferences, why not just decide to go to fewer events? And if cost is an issue, instead of spending a mint on “four star hotels, lavish meals, and other extravagances” – why not choose a budget hotel and a burger? I know this post is tongue-in-cheek, but nobody’s got a gun to your head, forcing you to be a “poverty royal.”
May 6, 2014 at 12:36 pm
John Gitau
Here comes vintage Josh, walking on colleagues corns in sheer daylight bravery. Hope you have your bullet proof on, especially the back side. Shhh!, don’t say it so loudly as big brother still has the pariah handcuffs, though I know you get cowed not by such metal rings, especially if they are mere copper and not gold!
Jokes aside, you are ushering an error of transparency, aren’t you? And for that, kudos my brother!
By the way, we have missed you quite a bit and at one point we thought you have been “bought”. Apologies for that thought!
May 6, 2014 at 5:54 pm
Anon
cute. My vote is the same as above: don’t go to these ridiculous events unless you know you will get some tangible use out of it. That said, they are no more or less wasteful and out of touch, really, with say, academia. An RCT on the effectiveness and costs of academic institutions. How many clients reached per ivory tower PhD in international development or development economics? but, yes, entertaining post for sure.
May 8, 2014 at 9:46 am
Jorge
Josh’s post reminded me of an entertaining poem by Ross Coggins, “The Development Set” (1976)
The Development Set
‘Excuse me, friends, I must catch my jet
I’m off to join the Development Set;
My bags are packed, and I’ve had all my shots
I have traveller’s checks and pills for the trots!
The Development Set is bright and noble
Our thoughts are deep and our vision global;
Although we move with the better classes
Our thoughts are always with the masses.
In Sheraton Hotels in scattered nations
We damn multi-national corporations;
injustice seems easy to protest
In such seething hotbeds of social rest.
We discuss malnutrition over steaks
And plan hunger talks during coffee breaks.
Whether Asian floods or African drought,
We face each issue with open mouth.
We bring in consultants whose circumlocution
Raises difficulties for every solution –
Thus guaranteeing continued good eating
By showing the need for another meeting.
The language of the Development Set
Stretches the English alphabet;
We use swell words like “epigenetic”
“Micro”, “macro”, and “logarithmetic”
It pleasures us to be esoteric –
It’s so intellectually atmospheric!
And although establishments may be unmoved,
Our vocabularies are much improved.
When the talk gets deep and you’re feeling numb,
You can keep your shame to a minimum:
To show that you, too, are intelligent
Smugly ask, “Is it really development?”
Or say, “That’s fine in practice, but don’t you see:
It doesn’t work out in theory!”
A few may find this incomprehensible,
But most will admire you as deep and sensible.
Development set homes are extremely chic,
Full of carvings, curios, and draped with batik.
Eye-level photographs subtly assure
That your host is at home with the great and the poor.
Enough of these verses – on with the mission!
Our task is as broad as the human condition!
Just pray god the biblical promise is true:
The poor ye shall always have with you.’
May 8, 2014 at 12:04 pm
John Gitau
How satiric!
May 13, 2014 at 7:40 am
Alex Counts
Good morning, Mr. Provocative !
While your blog is presumably tongue-in-cheek to some degree, there is a serious point in there. In fact, I have argued that we should evaluate the impact of impact studies on practice. The research community has been silent on that idea. Certainly, being more rigorous in looking at the outcomes of conferences makes sense.
I think we can point to some conferences that have been true watersheds in terms of shaping policy, thought and practice about microfinance. The Microcredit Summit and FI 2020 Global Forum are two obvious examples (not surprisingly, there was considerable work in advance of both convenings). Other conferences have been less noteworthy. Having a conversation about what constitutes a true value-added convening is logical. Too often, it is mainly about brand-building for the host and/or financial sponsor. This influences the speakers lineup too much in some cases.
One criticism of conferences is that they represent “preaching to the converted”. Which made me think a little bit. What exactly is wrong with “preaching to the converted”? I note that the world’s major religions have been doing it for quite some time! In fact, it is an integral part of keeping their faiths vibrant and growing. The reality is that doing things like applying the ideas of user-centered design within bureaucratic microfinance institutions, or applying the ethical principles of religions like Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism or Islam is really quite difficult. It requires regular reinforcement as well as a constant stream of new ideas about how to do it more effectively. It also is aided by a kind of peer accountability that comes from learning in a group setting what can and should be done. I think these regular conferences with many of the same people in them creates a kind of informal peer accountability to put evolving sound practices and standards into force, despite predictable resistance from the “old guard” which exists in all institutions.