But how do these two realities of the aid organisation and the aid worker co-exist? As you’ve said elsewhere Ben, organisation is a label for a powerful conversation between tightly social related individuals. As such the meta-narrative at headquarters is in a dynamic relationship between the plural narratives of aid workers at the country level. When aid administration fails, even on its own terms, it is perhaps because the conversation descends into a slanging match where no one is listening and parallel worlds of practice emerge that no longer connect. What is promising though, building upon Coyle and your analyses, is that “the framework for the use of social media technologies” doesn’t have to come as an outright challenge to the traditions of aid administration. Rather we can see it as a move to recognise and empower the subaltern tradition of engaged aid workers, one that has always been much more open and participative than the meta-narratives of aidland would allow us to say. Aid work will still need to evolve, in particular the who and why of knowledge mediation between the local and the global will have to see a big power shift. The risk though is though that headquarters continue to see their role as managing social media. What this blog and the wider field of complexity suggests to us is that an emergent system of social aid will not have levers and logics that can be grasped from afar.