WE ARE SWARMED BY TOO MANY STATISTICS AND DATA THAT, AT THE END OF THE DAY, PROVIDE LITTLE VALUABLE ACTIONABLE INFORMATION THAT MAKES A CHANGE .
-These days, we do not say or do anything that does not have numbers attached (statistics); judgment comes from the latter (so this can be called the ‘politics of data’). More numbers, more graphs, more histograms with a percentage on the top and history thrusts forward defying anyone who contradicts…
-Beware: Indicators only indicate, they do not explain; they can be seen as snapshots of a small part of the reality.
TS Eliot said in his pageant ‘The Rock’: ‘Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?’ Numbers are useful as long as they do not master us. (G. Cannon)
In the words of Marshall McLuhan, over millennia, we have progressed from hunter-gatherers to (uncritical?) information gatherers. There has simply been an exponential increase in often profoundly disruptive information. Too bad, because right now, statistics have often become “human beings with the tears wiped off”. Information may be power, but it is not knowledge, it certainly is not wisdom.
One of the barriers to progress in our public health nutrition work, it is contended, has been that statistical agencies around the world are run by economists and statisticians… and they are not always people who are comfortable with human beings or with a focus on nutrition as a human rights. The selected national measures they employ tell us a good deal about the economy, but almost nothing about the specific things in people’s lives that really matter to them. We thus have to stop acting as if just more/better ‘any-data’ will make a difference.
As opposed to people’s direct testimonies, data represent people only to a certain degree. Be reminded that, occasionally, small numbers tell a big story. On the other hand, the plural of testimonial evidence is not ‘data’…But, again, live anecdotes indeed complement ‘tears-wiped-off statistics’ and, many times, we will have to do with just testimonies until better information is available. This, because, as said, available information covers only a fraction of the relevant factors in any particular location, especially about human rights issues.
What is being said here is that one cannot expect quantitative indicators to tell the whole nutrition, nourishment and meals story (or in Urban Jonsson’s words, the nutrition-in-society issues). Moreover, even where we do have local data, we will always need an intelligent analysis of the broader context –and the perceptions of those directly affected is key for such an intelligent analysis!
Looking at nutrition from the human rights perspective, we should use all indicators in their negative connotation, i.e., what is the percentage of those whose indicators fall below the norm, i.e., whose right to nutrition is thus still being violated. We do this with anthropometric indicators, but not with all health indicators. For instance, when the vaccination coverage rate of under one year olds is 85%, we should say that the right to immunization of 15% of the under ones is till being violated. For public health nutrition activists this implies that we are not out there just to document impact, but impact pathways, impact processes and shortcomings.
So, the evolution of indicators-as-data is supposed to be monitored, right? Yes, but it is argued that we too often fall into the trap of monitoring what-is-being-done for whom (corresponding to equality of opportunity) when we should be monitoring what-has-been-achieved (corresponding to equality of results).
Setting verifiable and time-bound benchmarks of any kind may indeed be necessary, but not sufficient for the progressive eradication of malnutrition. That is because we ultimately need benchmarks to monitor progress in disparity reduction (i.e., the more accurate term for poverty alleviation and for the fulfilment of the right to nutrition of all).
It is widely considered best to have one body in charge of nutrition monitoring with a clear mandate. Only then will monitoring processes help ensure the most marginalized groups get involved and contribute to a genuine participatory programming process. The selection of indicators and their monitoring must thus be a joint effort. As needed, existing indicators must be ‘tweaked’ to be first and foremost more disaggregated (gender, race, age. religion, etc), as well as human rights-based.
Let us be clear: More data for the usufruct of the few does not help the public health nutrition cause.
-The root of the word evaluation is value! It is supposed to measure change
–positive change– but what is considered positive is usually left to interpretation.
(Not often enough considered in evaluations are questions like: Did the intervention(s) reach many or few of the right/intended people? Which social class benefited most and which the least…?).
If we find and report an increase in the number of reported violations of the right to nutrition, this will clearly indicate regression in the realization of this right. This is self-evident, isn’t it? –and, we all know, regression is an absolute taboo for any state. But we do not document these violations: It is not in the interest of the powers-that-be. (Moreover, you and I know politicians always pick the data that suit them best). It is not enough for people to find incentives to engage; the critical question in this regard is if policy and decision-makers are listening or are even willing to listen as they look at ominous statistics.
In last instance, ‘what we measure affects what we do’, and better right to nutrition-based measurements will lead to better decisions, or at least different decisions. To begin with, gaps in human rights-based indicators have to be established so that their adoption can help direct information gathering activities and ultimately commensurate corrective actions.
It has been said that the right information and statistics are a powerful tool for creating a culture of accountability. The question is: What information…? This flies in the face of the generic argument that (any) measurement will lead us to better decisions.
The ultimate challenge is to translate the power of numbers and of words into the power of action in the direction of the progressive realisation of the right to nutrition.
-Perhaps we need to be reminded that the basic tool to
manipulate reality (or the truth) can, not only, be the misuse of
statistics, but also the manipulation of words.
When it was discovered that information was a business, truth lost some of its importance. For us this means that we have to be more courageous and rigorous.
I am afraid that ad-hoc surveys more often deform than really measure public opinion…? Think about it. Barbara Tuchman spoke of the superficiality and frivolousness of public opinion, and the famous cartoonist Quino said that fortunately for some, public opinion had not yet realized that it opines what the private opinion wants them to.
Much of the academic and official research that generates statistics primarily focuses on excellence, on method, on reputation and on ranking and not on its social relevance. The challenge for us is to translate social research and surveys into appropriate, field-adapted, affordable and accessible models of addressing food insecurity and malnutrition in a holistic way, including what some of you may consider far-fetched measures like land reform, income generation activities for women and youth, etc.
What this boils down-to is that we must use indicators that will provide us with evidence:
- of involvement/coverage of marginalized groups;
- of fair and equal representation of claim holders and duty bearers;
- of technical assistance that has been provided to traditionally excluded groups in building their capacity to participate in decision making;
- of the percentage of resources spent on making information accessible to excluded groups (e.g., money spent on translations to local languages);
- of public expenditure on the neediest groups;
- of strengthened capacity of claim holders to claim and of them actually claiming their rights (same for duty bearers, in terms of their capacity to actually fulfil their duties).
Furthermore, what this boils down to is translating the sense of awareness and knowledge of people into them understanding the structural issues behind inequity and inequality, and then into them getting actively involved in claiming their rights.
Bottom line, at the risk of being accused of courting controversy, as you see, it is not about yet further interpreting the reality we observe through statistics; it is about changing and transforming it. (does this sound like Marx?)
Epilogue:
Documentation/information work is always very important, not least than for claim holders to be able to unmask those who knowingly lie. And when lies become fact, compromise is compromised, neutralizing the truth. As a matter of fact, there is a need to create governance mechanisms that formally or institutionally require that people’s voices and contributions be part and parcel of key decision-making processes, especially those that will have direct impact on the nutrition and actually lives of those most affected.. In principle, active participation should not be optional nor should it be up to the good will of any policy/decision-maker. If we are really serious about empowering people to participate, then we also need to address the challenge of information for empowerment.