Browsing by Subject "Concepts"

The way the field of Global Development Studies treats the concept of development” is far from consistent. Furthermore, with the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals the focus of Global Development Studies has become even more divided. There is particularly a gap in the literature when it comes to examining the current definition of development in Global Development Studies. This thesis tries to bridge this gap by exploring how development is defined in contemporary development studies journals and institutes. This thesis follows the notion that meaning imposed on concepts make a difference, thus, concepts cannot be employed freely without perpetuating some type of mental structures. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to review how contemporary scholars in Global Development Studies infer meaning on the concept of development through their academic articles. The study was conducted as an integrative literature review and thoroughly explored the implicit meanings given to development. The material used as data for the study were articles published by two institutes, the Global Development Studies research unit at the University of Helsinki and the International Institute of Social Studies at Erasmus University Rotterdam, and in three key journals, Development and Change, Globalizations, and World Development. The analysis was carried out in two stages, a primary deductive analysis on the abstracts of 259 articles, and a secondary inductive analysis on 19 representative articles read in their entirety. Using the theoretical framework of Nightingale (2019) on Narratives of Sustainable Development, eight narratives of development were formulated and utilised as a framework in the primary analysis. The results show that most scholars in Global Development Studies employ the concept of development freely, without explicit consideration given to its meanings. The narrative of development as Freedom is most frequently contributed to in the articles, and a focus on human capabilities is prevalent throughout most of the articles reviewed. Whereas alternatives to development is present as a recurring narrative, the classical approach to development, particularly as something done in favour of the Global South and with a focus on economic factors, is still more salient in the results. Additional studies on this topic with a larger scope and a more open search strategy would be welcomed. Future research should also be conducted on other areas of importance to development, such as the working papers produced by multilateral organisations, to further inform our understanding of how the meaning of development is constructed.