CDJournal-Vol-30-2-Prokopy.pdf

Journal of the Community Development Society Vol. 30 No. 2 1999

1999, The Community Development Society

PARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT:APPROACHES FROM THE

GLOBAL SOUTH ANDTHE UNITED STATES

By Joshua Prokopy and Paul Castelloe

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we take some of the lessons learned from six different approaches to participatorydevelopment, drawn from both the Global South and the United States, and use them to create a setof practice principles that can be applied by nonprofit organizations interested in making theirdevelopment programs more participatory. We begin by briefly reviewing each of the sixapproaches to participatory development. We then make some of the issues raised in this reviewmore concrete by presenting two contrasting illustrations of participatory development projectsfrom Thailand and the United States. In the final section, we use the lessons learned from both thereview and the illustrations to develop a set of principles that nonprofit organizations can apply tothe practice of participatory development.

INTRODUCTION

Rural development is the participation of people in a mutual learningexperience involving themselves, their local resources, and externalchange agents and outside resources. People cannot be developed,they can only develop themselves by participation in decision andco-operative activities which affect their well-being. People arenot being developed when they are herded like animals into newventures (Nyerere, 1968; cited in Oakley et al., 1991, p. 2).

As Julius Nyerere suggests, participatory development refers to the activeinvolvement of people in the planning, development, implementation, andevaluation of projects and activities that affect them (Midgley, 1986; Steifel &Wolfe, 1994). Currently, a great deal of emphasis is being placed on participation,

Joshua Prokopy is studying for a Masters in Social Work and is employed by the Chatham CountyHousing Authority, Pittsboro, NC. Paul Castelloe is co-executive director, Center for ParticipatoryChange, North Carolina.

214 Journal of the Community Development Society

at least in rhetorical form, across the spectrum of development practitioners,from large funding agencies to small grassroots organizations all over the world.

Many different approaches to community development emphasize citizenparticipation (e.g., Christenson & Robinson, 1989; Coe, 1990; Daley & Angulo,1990; Moen, 1995; Smith, 1998). In this paper, we start by outlining six ofthese approaches, and make them more concrete by presenting two illustrationsof participatory development practice from Thailand and Virginia. We then usethe information gleaned from both the overview of the approaches and from theillustrations to create a set of practice principles that can be applied by nonprofitorganizations working in the area of community development.

Our review of approaches to participatory development is divided intotwo parts. In the first part we look at approaches from the Global South; in thesecond part we look at those from the United States. There are two basic reasonsfor dividing our review in this manner. First, within the U.S., most developmentpractitioners and academics tend to focus exclusively on either domestic orinternational development. This division of labor is natural since the issues in awealthy country like the United States differ totally from those faced bypractitioners and academics working in the Global South. The division betweenthe two foci extends even to the terms used for development organizationsi.e., nonprofit organizations in the U.S. and non-government organizations inthe international arena. We have simply chosen to adhere to this pattern in thisarticle.

Second, while we recognize that there is a great deal of overlap betweenthe approaches to participatory development in the United States and the GlobalSouth, there are also some important differences. For example, one of the U.S.approaches that we will be looking at here is known as community organizing.This approach is common throughout the Global South, but in the U.S. it hasbeen heavily influenced by the work of Saul Alinsky, which gives it a uniquelyNorth American flavor. Similarly, the other two U.S. approaches that we discuss,popular education and participatory research, also had their origins in the GlobalSouth but have since developed a flavor that is unique to the United States.Because of this, these approaches need to be separated from those practiced inthe Global South.

PARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT:APPROACHES FROM THE GLOBAL SOUTH

Participatory development, also called alternative or people-centereddevelopment, has its roots in both colonialist development efforts such asAnimation Rurale and the anti-colonialist movements of the 1950s and 1960s(Carmen, 1996; Hettne, 1995). In the 1970s and 1980s, partly in response tothe failure of expensive, top-down, large-scale development projects

Prokopy and Castelloe 215

(implemented by both capitalists and socialists), participatory developmentbecame an established approach to development, especially among small non-government organizations.

Participatory development can take many forms, ranging from the voluntaryor even involuntary contributions which people make to predetermined projects,to participation as community empowerment (Oakley et al., 1991). In its idealform, participatory development is founded upon this last, most radical form ofparticipation: participation as empowerment. In this form, participatorydevelopment begins with the experiences, knowledge, and priorities of thosewho have been marginalized and oppressed by mainstream development practices(e.g., the poor, minorities, women, youth, and children); further, developmentoccurs when marginalized individuals realize that they share common concernsand then decide to undertake collective action to address those concerns(Brohman, 1996; Chambers, 1983, 1997; Eade, 1997; Oakley et al., 1991;Rahman, 1993). One of the conceptual foundations for this model is MahatmaGhandis concept of antyodaya, the idea that true development puts first thosethat society puts last (Durning, 1989). Another conceptual foundation is thepopular education theory of Paulo Freire (1970, 1974). In popular education,facilitators use small-group dialogues to help people critically analyze the social-political systems in which they live by reflecting on their everyday experiences(a process called conscientization). Through this process of reflection andanalysis, people may ultimately come to realize that they can work collectivelyto change the system.

This section briefly introduces three interrelated approaches toparticipatory development: Animation Rurale, the external change agentapproach, and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA). Animation Rurale wasdeveloped by French colonialists in the 1950s and adopted by socialist Africangovernments in the early 1960s; it faded away a few years later, however, withthe political dismissal of several African leaders (Carmen, 1996; Friedmann,1992; Gellar, Charlick, & Jones, 1980). In Animation Rurale, an indigenouschange agent (an animator) attempted to animate (i.e., blow breath or life intothe heart of) a community in order to spur it to collective action for communityimprovement (Friedmann, 1992). Animators were indigenous communitymembers who traveled to a regional center to receive periodic training, whichwas always brief enough to enable them to remain enmeshed in local socialnetworks (Gellar et al., 1980). The success of Animation Rurale was based ona nucleus of animators, a centrally located village or township functioning as afocus for development strategies, and a development program planned as a jointventure by an animator and community members. While Animation Ruraleitself is no longer practiced, the use of indigenous change agents withinparticipatory development is still quite widespread throughout the Global South.

The external change agent approach is similar to Animation Rurale; theprimary difference is that development is animated through the work of external


(rather than indigenous) change agents (Burkey, 1993). Oakley and colleagues(1991, p. 213) and Burkey (1993. pp. 73-75) have outlined the components of ageneral process associated with this model: (1) the change agents entry into,participation in, and exposure to village life (e.g., spending an initial period in acommunity doing little but listening and learning); (2) conscientization (e.g.,bringing small groups together to reflect upon and critically analyze theirexperiences of marginalization); (3) problem analysis via dialogue betweenchange agent and community members and among community members; (4)development and strengthening of community-based organizations throughorganizational training (e.g., training in group dynamics, proposal writing,meeting facilitation, accounting); (5) identification and training of traditionalleaders; (6) collaboration in the planning, implementation, and evaluation ofdevelopment activities which address community members priorities; (7)developing links to outside resources, building alliances, expanding to othersites, helping community members access funding; (8) exchanges of experiences(i.e., arranging visits to and exchanges with similar groups); and (9) helping thelocal organization develop the capacity to function autonomously. In carryingout these roles, external change agents emphasize the importance of workingwith community members as subjects rather than objects, as co-creators of changerather than passive targets of change (Burkey, 1993).

Although Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) overlaps with both modelsoutlined above, PRA places particular emphasis on collective inquiry as a catalystfor participatory development (Blackburn & Holland, 1998; Chambers, 1997;Guijt & Shah, 1998; Holland & Blackburn, 1998). According to Chambers(1997, p. 102), PRA is a growing family of approaches and methods to enablelocal people to share, enhance and analyse their knowledge of life and conditions,and to plan, act, monitor and evaluate. Its extensive and growing menu ofparticipatory methods include community mapping, wealth and well-beingranking, daily time-use analysis, Venn diagramming, matrix ranking, and trendanalysis. These methods are generally facilitated by external change agents,outsiders who are not members of the community or group with which theywork. Although PRA is more a collection of participatory methods than an actualapproach to participatory development, these tools are often used in a stepwisesequence (with room for improvisation) which moves from analysis and appraisalto planning, action, and monitoring and evaluationeach step being based onthe participatory methods associated with PRA. As an example, Chambers (1997,p. 140) described a case from Kenya, where a village social map provides anup-to-date household listing which is then used for well-being or wealth rankingof households which leads in turn to focus groups with different categories ofpeople who then express their different preferences, resulting in discussion,negotiation, and reconciliation of priorities.

A Feminist Critique of Participatory Development Approaches.Participatory development approaches such as the ones outlined above have


been used to discern womens concerns (Guijt & Shah, 1998). Despite theusefulness of participatory methods, however, Gender and Development (GAD)theorists emphasize the need for special techniques to ensure the participationof poor women in development activities (Guijt & Shah, 1998; Mayoux, 1995).Mayoux (1995) critiqued participatory development approaches on the groundsthat poor women are likely to be unintentionally excluded from fully participatingin activities, and that this is mainly the result of two factors: (1) the assumptionof shared community priorities, or the failure to recognize that womens prioritiesmay differ from mens; and (2) a lack of attention to the costs of participation.The costs of participation may be particularly important, especially for poorand disadvantaged women. Mayoux noted that womens participation in decisionmaking and management within development programs is often confined towomen with high education levels and/or women from relatively wealthy families.Women with less formal education and from poorer families cite a lack of timeand resources as their major reasons for not participating.

PARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT:APPROACHES FROM THE UNITED STATES

In the United States, the approaches that are closest in spirit to theparticipatory development approaches outlined above are those associated withpopular education and participatory research. Also relevant is the substantialbody of literature on community organizing.

Popular Education. Although popular education is a major force in U.S.participatory development, it has its roots in the Global South, in the theory andpractice of the Brazilian educator Paulo Freire (1970, 1974). Popular education,which usually occurs outside of formal teaching institutions, is education forcollective action and social change (Arnold et al., 1991; Castelloe & Watson,1999; Freire, 1970; Nadeau, 1996). The practice of popular education is basedon two processes: learning from experience and dialogue (Castelloe & Watson,1999). A contemporary model of popular education, the spiral model (Arnold etal., 1991), makes these ideas more concrete. In the spiral model, a facilitatorgoes through the following process: (1) Start by asking participants to talkabout experiences in their everyday lives; (2) work with them to make connectionsamong their experiences; (3) introduce new or outside information to complementtheir own knowledge; (4) practice skills and knowledge learned; and (5) formstrategies for action, take action, and return to the group to reflect upon thataction.

Participatory Research. Like popular education, participatory researchalso is practiced in the U.S. yet has deep roots in the Global South (Fals-Borda& Rahman, 1991). Participatory research integrates research, learning, and action(Cancian & Armstead, 1992; Maguire, 1987; Park, Brydon-Miller, Hall, &


Jackson, 1993; Reason, 1994). According to Williams (1997, p. 1), participatoryresearch (PR) is:

. . . an organizing strategy used by community-based organizationsto challenge political and economic power, effect social change,and democratically develop communities. PR breaks down thetraditional barriers between knowing and doing by putting peopletraditionally thought of as research subjects in charge ofinvestigating and transforming their own world. PR links concreteinformation about the world developed by those who experience aproblem with popular education and grassroots mobilizationtechniques.

Lewis (Hinsdale, Lewis, & Waller, 1995) extended this definition by presentingfive characteristics of PR: (1) It is problem-centered, addressing a specificissue that a community has identified as relevant for them; (2) it is educationalfor both the researchers and the community (i.e., both parties learn and bothcontribute); (3) it develops theory and analysis starting from peoples experiencesin their everyday lives; (4) its goals and outcomes originate in the communityrather than the university or research center; and (5) organic intellectuals (i.e.,intellectuals whose wisdom is derived from life experiences rather than academicabstraction) arise from the process.

Community Organizing. Community organizing refers to theorganization of citizens for the purpose of capacity building (e.g., enablingcommunity members to develop skills in organizing, problem analysis, leadership,etc.) and systems change (e.g., changing the social, economic, and politicalsystems that lead to the oppression of certain groups) (Bobo, Kendall, & Max,1991; Kahn, 1991; Rivera & Erlich, 1995). In terms of practice, organizers areinvolved in writing action pamphlets, doing door-to-door canvassing, engagingin action research, participating in interagency collaborative groups, providinggrassroots leadership training and community education, lobbying, runningmeetings and conferences, and working on community economic developmentprojects (Rubin & Rubin, 1992). In the U.S., many of these organizing practiceshave been built directly or indirectly on the work of Saul Alinsky (Alinsky,1969, 1971). Alinskys original approach was based on the idea that aprofessionally-trained organizer would come into a marginalized community tofocus on a specific issue, mobilize people around that issue, build strongorganizations, direct actions and conflicts, and win concessions from elitesthen leave the community (Fisher, 1994). These organizing methods are oftenused in community development work, and certain approaches to communitydevelopment especially emphasize participation (e.g., Abrahams, 1992; Coe,1990; Daley & Angulo, 1990; Moen, 1995; Ross & Usher, 1986).


SUMMARY OF PARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT APPROACHES

Table 1 briefly summarizes the six major approaches to participatorydevelopment outlined above: Animation Rurale, the external change agentapproach, Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), popular education, participatoryresearch, and community organizing. One variable in this table that is particularlyimportant in distinguishing these approaches from one another is the degree towhich they emphasize the use of indigenous versus external change agents. InAnimation Rurale, popular education, and participatory research, indigenouschange agents initiate the work of facilitating positive community change(although they may receive training or services from outside organizations). Inthe other approaches (i.e., the external change agent approach, PRA, andcommunity organizing), an external change agent typically enters the communityand acts as a catalyst or spark for positive community change. Although theultimate goal in these models is still for the community members to bring aboutchange on their own, that process is initiated by an outsider with few ties to thecommunity. This is discussed further in the section on practice principles. First,however, we present two brief illustrations of participatory development fromboth the Global South and the United States, which provide some context forbetter understanding the difference between the indigenous and external changeagent approaches.

PARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH:AN ILLUSTRATION FROM NORTHERN THAILAND

In 1994, one of the authors spent several months studying nonprofitorganizations in Northern Thailand. The following illustration is based on datagathered in a village, which we will refer to by the pseudonym Ban Thawan. Asmall nonprofit organization, which we will refer to as the Organization forRural Development (ORD), came to Ban Thawan in 1982. It utilized an externalchange agent approach to participatory development in the community. Thestaff from ORD spent the first six months simply living and working in thevillage. Their goal during this period was to learn about the local culture, identifythe communitys traditional leaders,1 collect informal data, and get to know thevillagers by talking with them about their lives, their needs, their problems, andthe resources available to them.

Through this process, the staff also attempted to establish a relationshipwith the villagers and gain their trust. This was vital since external changeagents have to build up their relationships with people from scratch, and thevillagers of Ban Thawanlike people the world overtended to distrustoutsiders. In fact, when the ORD staff first arrived the villagers suspected themof being communists, and it was only after many months of living and workingin the village that this attitude began to change.


After this initial period, the staff began to work with the people whomthey had identified as the communitys traditional leaders. They engaged thevillagers in informal conversations about their problems and needs, helping themto focus on their most serious problems and what could be done to address them(like most Thai nonprofits ORD did not make extensive use of more structuredPRA exercises). Out of this process, they found ten villagers, many of themtraditional leaders, who were interested in addressing the food shortages whichaffected so many of the people in their community during the agricultural off-season. ORD took them on a study tour to three villages which had alreadyestablished rice banks to combat this problem.2 This was important because thevillagers were able to learn from people just like themselves. They were able tohear what other villagers from their own province had done to solve this problem,what obstacles they ran into along the way, and how they had benefited as aresult of their work.

These villagers then returned home and organized a series of meetings inBan Thawan in an effort to convince others to join them in establishing a ricebank. Fifty families agreed to work with them, and together they formed a bank.By the end of the first year, it had proven so successful that fifty more familieshad joined, and within three years all 400 families in the village were members.

Over the next twelve years they established ten more community groups,including a savings group, a cooperative store, a day-care center, a cattle bank,a medical cooperative, a funeral fund, a housewives group, and a communityforestry project. Each group was run by a small elected committee made up ofbetween five and nine villagers. They ran the group on a day-to-day basis, andannounced their more important decisions at meetings of the full membership,where they could be open to discussion and debate. Although ORD helpedinitiate most of these projects, each activity group ran itself and organized itsown meetings. The villagers even organized certain projects, such as thecommunity forestry program, entirely on their own.

Despite all of these successes, however, the women of Ban Thawan hadvery little involvement in making decisions about community development. Thisis not unusual in Thailand, where women often share in economic decisionswithin the family but play little role outside of the home (Sookasme, 1989).Only one activity group was run by the women. It was known as the housewivesgroup, and was established for the sole purpose of providing food at communityevents. There were more than 300 women in the group, but because it did notmeet any of their needs the turnout was often so low that the chair had to do allof the cooking herself. Women played only a minor decision-making role in thevillages other activity groups, none of which had more than one or two femalemembers on their five- to nine-person governing committees. The same patternheld true for meetings of the full membership of each activity group. Whilealmost everyone in the village was a member of groups like the communitystore, rice bank, or savings group, most people joined them as a family, and


were represented at the meetings by the head of the household, who was usuallya man. At a meeting of the savings group, for example, there were 150 peoplein attendance, but only 30 of them were women, and there were no womenamong the people who spoke up at the meeting. Despite the fact that womendid not participate in the decision-making processes, however, they did receivemany concrete benefits from projects like the rice bank, the day-care center, andthe savings group.

PARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNITED STATES:AN ILLUSTRATION FROM SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA

This section illustrates the use of participatory research and populareducation methods in a U.S. context. For this illustration, we briefly review thecollaborative work of Helen Lewis and the Ivanhoe Civic League. At the timeof this work (the late 1980s), Lewis was a sociologist and popular educator atthe Highlander Research and Education Center in New Market, TN. Highlanderhas a rich history of facilitating participatory development throughout Appalachiaand the southeastern U.S. (Glen, 1996). The Ivanhoe Civic League is acommunity-based organization in Ivanhoe, VA. We chose this as an illustrationbecause the work in Ivanhoe is thoroughly documented both by Lewis and by agrassroots leader in the Civic League (Hinsdale et al., 1995).

For most of the 20th century, Ivanhoe was a mining town. In 1981, thelast major mine in the town closed down. In September 1986, the countygovernment decided to sell an overgrown and abandoned mine site in Ivanhoe.Since the people of Ivanhoe felt that the mining company had left the propertyto the town, they were enraged by the countys decision. Within hours of findingout about the decision to sell the land, a group of citizens met to discuss howthey might prevent the sale. From this meeting, the Ivanhoe Civic League wasborn.

For a year, the Civic League worked to bring industry to the town. Underthe charismatic leadership of Maxine Waller, the group spoke out at countygovernment meetings, held community rallies, developed spin-off groups,conducted parades, and even visited the governor to put forth demands. Thegroups purpose was clear, and they were dogged in its pursuit: they wanted anindustry, a factory. After a year of hard work, they had begun to rebuild theircommunity, but they still did not have an industry.

It was at this point that the Ivanhoe Civic League began its relationshipwith the Highlander Center. In early 1987, Maxine Waller took part inHighlanders Southern and Appalachian Leadership Training (SALT) program,a popular education program designed to build the capacities of grassroots leaders.Through the SALT program, Waller and other Civic League members metgrassroots leaders from community-based organizations across Appalachia; theyalso visited other communities and learned first-hand about community-based


economic development projects. Following a community celebration and clean-up of land along the New River in Ivanhoe, Waller and the Civic League beganto see the possibility of a community-based tourism enterprise, rather than afactory, as a catalyst for economic development. The Civic League began toshift its focus from industrial recruitment to locally based development, andfrom economic development per se to both social and economic development.As they made this shift, the Civic League saw the need to reflect upon theirassumptions about economic development. Later in 1987, they asked HelenLewis to come to Ivanhoe to facilitate a series of economics education discussionsessions.

Lewis facilitated seven of these sessions in Ivanhoe, all of which werebased on popular education and participatory research methods. The methodsused included oral histories; community-based surveys (175 surveys representing467 people, all conducted by Civic League members); community mapping anddrawing; decision makers interviews; videos and readings on other attempts atcommunity-based development; and brainstorming and feasibility studies (Lewis& Gaventa, 1990). These methods can be conceptualized as formal methodsbecause Lewis developed a plan for each session and a curriculum for the set ofsessions. Yet within each method, there was a commitment to building an analysisof the local economy (and its links to the global economy) by reflecting on theparticipants experiences.

In addition to the economics education discussion sessions, the IvanhoeCivic League implemented many other projects over the next few years. Theseinclude GED classes; a youth group; plans for a community-based tourism facility;an oral history project that eventually resulted in two published books; a theaterproject; a series of Bible study discussion groups; and a series of cultural activitiessuch as parades, pot-lucks, bluegrass bands, cloggers, and choirs.

The work of the Ivanhoe Civic League shows how indigenous changeagents can determine the course of a participatory development effort. TheCivic League formed and grew on its own its first year, without outsideintervention. It was only after a year that the members began to look to outsideorganizations for further support and training (e.g., Highlanders SALT programand Lewiss economics education sessions). Recall too that Helen Lewis wasasked to come to Ivanhoe to facilitate the economics education discussionsessionsher work was initiated by the community, controlled by the community,and planned in collaboration with Civic League members.

PRINCIPLES FOR PROMOTINGPARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT

The following principles are drawn from both the participatorydevelopment approaches outlined above and the two illustrations (Thailand and


Virginia). These principles can be used by practitioners considering a moreparticipatory approach to development. They focus on several of the strategicchoices that such practitioners will have to address: using indigenous or externalchange agents; adopting a formal or an informal methodology; focusing onbuilding community consensus or sub-group specific development; and thinkingabout the importance of peer learning.

Participatory development can be promoted through both externaland indigenous change agents. Each of these approaches has strengths andlimitations. The decision about whether to use indigenous or external changeagents is most appropriately based on the context in which the developmenteffort occurs. First, the indigenous change agent approach is generally limitedto situations in which such change agents already exist, or in which a communitymember is willing to participate in periodic training workshops. This was thecase in the Virginia illustration, where the Ivanhoe Civic League had formed onits own and worked for a year before the Highlander Center and Helen Lewisbecame involved with them. Where no such change agents exist, as was thecase in the Thai illustration, the intervention of an external change agent likeORD can act as a catalyst. If these external agents make use of participatorydevelopment methods they can promote a high degree of involvement in decisionmaking and bring concrete benefits to many members of the community. But, asthe Thai illustration also makes clear, it can be difficult for external changeagents to catalyze the more traditionally marginalized members of a community,like women and the poor.

Because indigenous change agents are often recognized communityactivists, they can sometimes be more effective at facilitating participation withinthese marginalized groups. This was the case with the Ivanhoe Civic League,which was run largely by the communitys women. In certain situations, however,activist indigenous change agents may occupy an extreme position in thecommunity. This can raise the costs of participation for marginalized communitymembers by inciting the opposition of local elites, or by distancing them fromtheir less activist peers.3 In such a situation, external change agents may be in abetter position to play a mediating role between elites and marginalizedcommunity members.

More fundamentally, the indigenous change agent approach can be usedby nonprofit organizations seeking to respond to requests for aid fromcommunities which have already begun to organize themselves (as was the casein the Virginia illustration), whereas the external change agent approach is usedby nonprofits seeking to initiate community organizing efforts (as was the casein the Thai illustration). This implies a basic difference in outlook betweennonprofit organizations which believe in the capacity of poor communities toinitiate their own development, and those which believe in the need for an outsidecatalyst to spark the process of eventual community self-development.

Organizations promoting participatory development can make useof both formal and informal methodologies to assist people in developing a


critical awareness, prioritizing needs, determining resources, and buildingcommunity. Formal methods include those such as Participatory Rural Appraisal(PRA), popular education, and participatory research, all of which are oftenused in participatory development efforts. For example, numerous handbooksoutline PRA (e.g., Leurs, 1996; Pretty, Guijt, Scoones, & Thompson, 1995;Theis & Grady, 1991) and popular education methods (Arnold et al., 1991;Hope & Timmel, 1995; Lee & Balkwill, 1996; Nadeau, 1996). Recall thatformal methods (e.g., community mapping, community-based surveys, oralhistories) were put to considerable use in Helen Lewiss work with the IvanhoeCivic League. Such formal methods have several benefits: they are visual ratherthan verbal (so that those who talk a lot dominate less); they promote groupformation and group building (rather than working with a series of individuals);they are flexible, rapport-building, and fun; they are based on reversals of learning(i.e., outsiders learning from community members); and they are founded on thepremise that outsiders must hand over the stick (or pen or chalk), and thatcommunity members can and should generate knowledge and create plans foraction on their own (Chambers, 1997).

The Thai illustration provides an example of more informal methods. Inthis example, the process was informal in the sense that ORD (the Thai nonprofit)did not use any formalized techniques for facilitating participation, such as PRA,popular education, or participatory research. Instead, ORD sent people out tolive in the community and establish a relationship with the local residents byworking alongside them in the fields and talking with them both singly and insmall groups. This was successful because the community members came totrust and accept the ORD staff. They came to view ORD as a group that wasgenuinely committed to working with them. This is a vital step in the externalchange agent process, and the relatively informal method of living in thecommunity has often proven to be a successful, if time- consuming, method ofinitiating participatory development within this approach.

Both formal and informal methods have their advantages, and they alsocan be used fruitfully in combination. Formal methods are generally moreefficient than informal ones; they also are useful for structuring as muchparticipation as possible into the development process. Informal methods, incontrast, are much more time-consuming but they are also a more effective meansof building trust between external change agents and community members overa long period of time. When external change agents are involved over a shorterperiod of time, however, it may be more efficient and effective for them to useformal methods.

Participatory development can be focused on either the promotion ofcommunity consensus or the participation of marginalized groups within acommunity. There is a longstanding, and still unresolved, debate about whethercommunity development work should be carried out within homogenous (bygender, social class, or occupation) or heterogeneous (involving the entirecommunity) groups (Bowden, 1990). The community-consensus approach which


was used by ORD in the Thai illustration emphasizes the importance of workingwith the community as a whole in order to reduce the potential for conflictsamong the heterogeneous groups within it, and to facilitate the establishment ofcommunitywide organizations that can be of some benefit to everyone. Chambers(1997) proposed that this process is facilitated through the identification ofcatalytic issues which tap into a communitys shared interests and hence canbring community members together. In the Thai illustration, ORD found thatthis approach enabled them to unite the communitys leadership around numerousprojects that have been of benefit to women and the poor (e.g., the rice bank,savings group, and day-care center). The needs that these projects addressedrice shortages, lack of savings, lack of childcarecan be viewed as catalyticissues. Taking this approach even further, one nonprofit organization workingin Bangladesh found that the best way to raise the status of women in the villageswas to work with both women and men (Oxfam USA, 1995). Its argument wasthat real change cannot occur unless the men also are willing to change. Becauseof this, the external change agent, with his or her potential to act as a communitymediator, may be more appropriate for promoting this style of development.

On the other hand, advocates of a subgroup-specific approach toparticipatory development, which was used by the Ivanhoe Civic League,maintain that working with the whole community makes it more difficult formarginalized groups such as women and the poor to become active participants.As discussed above, Gender and Development (GAD) theorists have writtenextensively about the need to focus attention on poor women in order to helpthem become active participants in the development process. In a recent bookon gender issues in participatory development, Guijt and Shah (1998) notedthat participatory development efforts are often based on what the books titlecalls the myth of community, which is the myth that communities are cohesiveentities characterized by universally shared interests and needs. As the authors(1998, p.1) put it:

This mythical notion of community cohesion continues to permeatemuch participatory work, hiding a bias that favours the opinionsand priorities of those with more power and the ability to voicethemselves publicly. In particular, there is a minimal considerationof gender issues and inadequate involvement of women . . . . It is thetheme of this book that the language and practice of participationoften obscures womens worlds, needs and contributions todevelopment, making equitable participatory development an elusivegoal.

The community consensus and subgroup-specific approaches are notmutually exclusive. One could precede the other, or they could both occursimultaneously. In the Virginia illustration, for instance, both occurred


simultaneously. According to Lewis (Hinsdale, Lewis, & Waller 1995), theIvanhoe Civic League served as a structure for the communitys women to givevoice to their worlds, needs, and contributions to the development process.In this sense, the Civic League can be interpreted as a subgroup-specific approachto participatory development. However, the issues raised by the Civic Leagueand the projects that it implemented (e.g., GED classes, community-basedeconomic development) were catalytic issues which tapped into the communitysshared interests and hence brought community members together. Thus theVirginia illustration can be viewed as an integration of both the subgroup- specificapproach and the community consensus approach.

But it is important to keep in mind that integrating these two approachescan be difficult. For example, in the Thai illustration ORDs work had longbeen based upon the community consensus approach. After ten years theydecided to try to carry out an income-generation project with the women of thevillage. The project failed, however, because ORD was not attentive enough tothe specific needs and concerns of this marginalized group of women.

In sum, while it may be challenging, it is still possible for participatorydevelopment organizations to integrate the community consensus and subgroup-specific approachs. As Chambers (1997, p. 187) noted, in participatoryprocesses the challenge is to sequence and balance a coming together aroundcommon interests, and recognize and support diversity, complexity, and multiplerealities to empower those who are weaker and excluded.

Organizations promoting participatory development can work tofacilitate peer learning and help people value their indigenous knowledge.Peer learning and exchange visits are crucial for both the initiation and diffusionof participatory development interventions (Eade, 1997). Recall from the Thaiillustration that the Thai villagers were considering establishing a rice bank astheir initial development project. To initiate the project, staff from ORDconducted exchange visits to enable village leaders to learn from the experiencesof other villages that had already established successful rice banks.

Similarly, once a village had successfully initiated several projects, ORDwould wait for neighboring villages to hear about the success of the interventionsand look for information about them. When this occurred, ORD would ask agroup from the village that was implementing these interventions to travel to theneighboring village and help people there to discuss their priorities, plan foraction, and implement interventions which fit their needs. With this kind ofpeer learning, it is the villagers themselves, with their indigenous and experientialknowledge, who play the role of trainers for communities that are initiating newdevelopment interventions. Through this process, community members cometo value their indigenous knowledge as a foundation for participatorydevelopment.

A similar form of peer learning and exchange occurred in the Virginiaillustration. Recall that Maxine Wallers participation in the Highlander SALT


program exposed the Ivanhoe Civic League members to other grassroots leadersand community-based organizations throughout Appalachia and the southernU.S., and that this peer learning originally sparked the Civic Leagues interest incommunity-based economic development (as opposed to industrial recruitment).Recall, too, that Waller and other Civic League members visited communitiesthroughout Appalachia that were implementing community-based economicdevelopment projects. In this way, as in the Thai illustration, peer learningenabled the initiation and diffusion of development interventions.

Organizations promoting participatory development can askthemselves a series of questions to ensure that participation is real ratherthan rhetorical. As Friedmann (1992) noted, the rhetoric of participatorydevelopment can mask inequalities and conflicts of interest within the community.Thus, it may be important for a nonprofit organization to regularly ask itself aseries of question such as the following: Who initiates a development project?Who participates in the analysis, project planning, project implementation, andevaluation? Who defines the purpose of a project? Does a project address theinterests or needs of its constituents? Whose priorities are taking precedence indecision making regarding the project?

CONCLUSION

In this paper, we reviewed six approaches to participatory developmentcreated in both the Global South and the United States, and presented illustrationsof participatory development from Thailand and Virginia. We then used theseapproaches and illustrations to develop a series of principles for promotingparticipatory development that can be adapted by nonprofit organizations in theU.S. By basing their work on both the approaches and the principles, developmentorganizations can help to ensure that everything they do will be more fullygrounded in the experiences, hopes, visions, and priorities of the communitieswith which they are working. As Julius Nyerere suggests in the quotation thatopened this paper, effective development can only occur when people participatein the decisions and activities that affect their quality of life. The approachesand principles outlined here will provide development workers with somepractical guidance for helping to facilitate this kind of participation in thedevelopment process.

NOTES

1. The power of traditional leaders is based on respect, tradition, and informal socialnetworks. A villages traditional leaders often differ from its official leaders, whose power is basedon their elite economic status and official government authority.


2. A rice bank is a cooperative enterprise in which the villagers donate rice to a commonpool. When a family does not have enough rice to eat, they can borrow from the bank at a muchlower rate than they would have to pay to a private lender, and the interest which they pay ensuresthat the banks supply of rice will continue to grow.

3. This distancing happened to some degree in the Ivanhoe Civic Leagueseveral peopleassociated with the organization felt that potential grassroots leaders were driven off by thecharisma, level of commitment, and leadership style of Maxine Waller (Hinsdale et al., 1995).

REFERENCES

Abrahams, C. 1992. A social development model for community development. Journal of theCommunity Development Society 23(2): 103-115.

Alinsky, S. 1969. Reveille for Radicals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Alinsky, S. 1971. Rules for Radicals. New York: Random House.Arnold, R., B. Burke, C. James, D. Martin, & B. Thomas. 1991. Educating for a Change. Ontario,

CA: Between the Lines / Doris Marshall Institute for Education and Action.

Blackburn, J., & J. Holland. 1998. Who Changes? Institutionalizing Participation inDevelopment. London: Intermediate Technologies Publications.

Bobo, K., J. Kendall, & S. Max. 1996. Organizing for Social Change: A Manual for Activists inthe 1990s (2nd ed.). Santa Ana, CA: Seven Locks Press.

Brohman, J. 1996. Popular Development: Rethinking the Theory and Practice of Development.Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Bowden, P. 1990. NGOs in Asia: Issues in development. Public Administration and Development10: 141-152.

Burkey, S. 1993. People First: A Guide to Self-Reliant Participatory Rural Development.London: Zed Books Ltd.

Cancian, F. M., & C. Armstead. 1992. Participatory research. In E. F. Borgatta & M. Borgatta(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Sociology 3: 1427-1432. New York: Macmillan.

Carmen, R. 1996. Autonomous Development: Humanizing the Landscape: An Excursion intoRadical Thinking and Practice. London: Zed Books.

Castelloe, P., & T. Watson. 1999. Participatory education as a community practice method: A caseexample from a comprehensive Head Start program. Journal of Community Practice, 6(1):71-89.

Chambers, R. 1983. Rural Development: Putting the Last First. Harlow: Longman.

Chambers, R. 1997. Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. London: IntermediateTechnology Publications.

Christenson, J. A., & J. W. Robinson, Jr. (Eds.). 1989. Community Development in Perspective.Ames, IA: Iowa State University.

Coe, B. A. 1990. Open focus: A model of community development. Journal of the CommunityDevelopment Society 21(2): 18-27.

Daley, J. M., & Julio Angulo. 1990. People-centered community planning. Journal of theCommunity Development Society 21(2): 88-103.

230 Journal of the Community Development SocietyDurning, A. 1989. Poverty and the Environment: Reversing the Downward Spiral. Worldwatch

Paper 92. Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute.

Eade, D. 1997. Capacity-Building: An Approach to People-Centered Development. London:Oxfam Publications.

Fals-Borda, O., & M. A. Rahman (Eds.) 1991. Action and Knowledge: Breaking the Monopolywith Participatory Action-Research. New York: The Apex Press.

Fisher, R. 1994. Let the People Decide: Neighborhood Organizing in America (2nd ed.). NewYork: Twayne Publishers.

Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.Freire, P. 1974. Education for Critical Consciousness. New York: Continuum.Friedmann, J. 1992. Empowerment: The Politics of Alternative Development. Cambridge, MA:

Basil Blackwell Publishers.

Gellar, S., R. B. Charlick, & Y. Jones. 1980. Animation Rurale and Rural Development: TheExperience of Senegal. Special Series on Animation Rurale, No. 2. Ithaca, NY: RuralDevelopment Committee, Cornell University.

Glen, J. M. 1996. Highlander: No Ordinary School (2nd ed.). Knoxville: University of TennesseePress.

Guijt, I., & M. K. Shah. 1998. The Myth of Community: Gender Issues in ParticipatoryDevelopment. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Hettne, B. 1995. Development Theory and the Three Worlds: Towards an International PoliticalEconomy of Development. Essex: Longman Scientific & Technical.

Hinsdale, M. A., H. M. Lewis, & M. Waller. 1995. It Comes from the People: CommunityDevelopment and Local Theology. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Holland, J., & J. Blackburn. 1998. Whose Voice? Participatory Research and Policy Change.London: Intermediate Technologies Publications.

Hope, A., & S. Timmel. 1995. Training for Transformation: A Handbook for CommunityWorkers (Rev. ed., Books I-III). Gweru, Zimbabwe: Mambo Press.

Kahn, S. 1991. Organizing: A Guide for Grassroots Leaders. Washington, DC: NASW Press.Lee, B., & M. Balkwill. 1996. Participatory Planning for Action: Popular Education Techniques

to Assist Community Groups to Plan and Act. Toronto: CommonAct Press.

Lewis, H., & J. Gaventa. 1990. Participatory Education and Grassroots Development: CurrentExperiences in Appalachia, USA. Interpreting Participatory Development: Voices andReflection Series 1(4). Honolulu, HI: Participatory Development Project, East-WestCenter.

Leurs, R. 1996. A Resource Guide for Trainers and Facilitators of Participatory Learning andAction (PLA). Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham Development AdministrationGroup.

Maguire, P. 1987. Doing Participatory Research: A Feminist Approach. Amherst, MA: TheCenter for International Education.

Mayoux, L. 1995. Beyond naivet: Women, gender inequality, and participatory development.Development and Change 26: 235-258.


Midgley, J. 1986. Community participation: History, concepts, and controversies. In J. Midgely(Ed.), Community Participation, Social Development, and the State. London: Methuen.

Moen, J. K. 1995. Integrating theory and practice: Leadership and community development in theDakotas. Journal of the Community Development Society 26(1): 93-109.

Nadeau, D. 1996. Counting Our Victories: Popular Education and Organizing. NewWestminster, BC, Canada: Repeal the Deal Productions.

Nyerere, J. 1968. Freedom and Socialism. Dar es Salaam: Oxford University Press.

Oakley, P., et al. 1991. Projects with People: The Practice of Participation in RuralDevelopment. Geneva: International Labour Office.

Oxfam USA. 1995. Community. Boston: Oxfam USA

Park, P., M. Brydon-Miller, B. Hall, & T. Jackson (Eds.). 1993. Voices of Change: ParticipatoryResearch in the United States and Canada. The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education,Toronto, Canada: OISE Press.

Pretty, J. N., I. Guijt, I. Schoones, & J. Thompson. 1995. A Trainers Guide for ParticipatoryLearning and Action. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.

Rahman, M. A. 1993. Peoples Self-Development: Perspectives on Participatory ActionResearch. London: Zed Books.

Reason, P. 1994. Three approaches to participative inquiry. Pp. 324-339 in Norman K. Denzin& Yvonne S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.

Rivera, F., & J. Erlich (eds.). 1995. Community Organizing in a Diverse Society (2nd ed.). Boston:Allyn and Bacon.

Ross, D. P., & P. J. Usher. 1986. From the Roots Up: Economic Development as if CommunityMattered. Croton-on-Hudson, NY: Bootstrap Press.

Rubin, H. J., & I. S. Rubin. 1992. Community Organizing and Development. Boston: Allyn andBacon.

Smith, B. C. 1998. Participation without power: Subterfuge or development? CommunityDevelopment Journal 33(3): 197-204.

Sookasame, K. 1989. Womens development. In S. Prasith-Rathsint (Ed.), Thailands NationalDevelopment: Social and Economic Background. Bangkok: Thai University ResearchAssociation.

Stiefel, M., & M. Wolfe. 1994. A Voice for the Excluded: Popular Participation in Development.Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Zed Books.

Theis, J., & H. M. Grady. 1991. Participatory Rapid Appraisal for Community Development: ATraining Manual Based on Experiences in the Middle East and North Africa. London:Save the Children and IIED.

Williams, L. 1997. Grassroots Participatory Research: A Working Report from a Gathering ofPractitioners. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Community Partnership Center.

Documents

CDJournal-Vol-30-2-Prokopy.pdf