Is development studies becoming too brainy? A comparison of World Development Reports

Mine Sato

Development in Practice, 2019, vol. 29, issue 2, 220-229

Abstract: This article argues that two types of “brainisation” hinder development studies researchers in their phronetic understanding of poor people’s realities. It first provides a literature review on two types of knowledge and their differences, as well as two types of brainisation and how they prevent development studies scholars gaining a holistic understanding of the marginalised. Subsequently, a comparative analysis is conducted on two World Development Reports. Finally, alternative scenarios are outlined for the “debrainisation” of development studies and researchers’ mind-sets by learning from the fundamental features of human life.

Date: 2019
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09614524.2018.1538321 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:cdipxx:v:29:y:2019:i:2:p:220-229

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/cdip20

DOI: 10.1080/09614524.2018.1538321

Access Statistics for this article

Development in Practice is currently edited by Emily Finlay

More articles in Development in Practice from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().