Emerging Methods in Research Participation and Empowerment

146 Occasional Papers

EMERGING METHODS IN RESEARCHPARTICIPATION AND EMPOWERMENT

PROCESSES IN NEPALPhilip Tanner'

IntroductionTIus paper is divided into two discussions. Firstly, it

traces the development of participatory processes and policy inNepal's development evolution over the past 40 years.Secondly, it exanunes, briefly, the developments in internationalsocial research and emerging knowledge on the subject ofparticipation and empowerment concepts that may influence thedirection of social research in Nepal.

The Emergence of Participation in NepalAt the time of Nepal's emergence onto the global scene,

over 93% of its population earned its livelihood from the land.The new rulers, after 1951, were eager to project themselves asthe champion of the poor, the downtrodden and the oppressed(Lohani, 1978) and discussion of "democracy" abounded.Struggling to develop a comprehensive development plan, it wasclear that most effort had to focus on rural and agriculturaldevelopment programmes. However, by 1979, a study onNepal's agrarian problems described the strategies andprogrammes for their solution as "merely a survival strategy"(Blaikie, M, Cameron, J & Seddon, D., 1979). Clearly, theefforts of the state were not directly manifest in field practice.Generally, there was acceptance in Nepal's academic andgovernment community that rural development efforts

Indigenous Resource Afanagement Systems Amongthe Tibetan-speaking Herders in Western Nepal.Research Report Submitted USAID Nepal Mission,Kathmandu, Nepal.

Ecology and Habilal Utilizalion of Blue Sheep inNepol. Biological Conservation. 21 :55-74.

People's Participation in Range Management: TheCase ofMuslang, Nepal. Unpublished MS Thesis inRural Sociology. University of Philippines at LasBanos.

McVEigh,C.1994

Nepals' Social, Economic and AdministrativeHislmy Ratna Pustak Bhandar, Katlmlandu, Nepal.

Von Furer-Haimendorf, C.1975 Himalayan Traders. John Murray, London.

Wilson, P.1981

Upadhaya, S.R.P1995

Thapa, M.B.1990

Dr. Philip Tanner worked for UNDP in Nepal from 199()'92 andsubsequently carried out extensive research in Nepal during the period of1993-1997 on the relationship of Empowennent and Participatorydevelopment concepts in NepaL He is now working in a development INGOin Nepal. This is the first in a series of articles on empowemlllet theory inthe Nepali context

148 Occasional Papers Tanner P. 149

(principally through RD and IRD approaches) had failed to showpositive results (UN, 1990). Large influx of monetary supportand development assistance realized success in isolated pocketsbut there was no "breakthrough". For the first two decades inNepal's development programme, therefore, something wasclearly missing.

The investigation into Nepal's basic needs strategy, byIntegrated Development Systems/Nepal at Tribhuvan Universitysuggested that programmes must aim to provide the deprived andpoor with the means to escape from their deprivation andpoverty... through their own involvement in the process ofdevelopment. ..and control over the conditions under whichdeprivation and poverty are generated (Integrated DevelopmentStudies, 1985). The authors were not only pointing out thedeficiency in Nepal's development programme (there being,untIl recently, very little tradition or history of planning in Nepal,before 1951 - Shrestha, 1989) but were also pointing a finger atthe limited commitment of the Nepal government to this type ofapproach (Blaike et al., op cit:25).

Blaikie et aI., centred on Marxist dependency theory inan effort to point out the exploitation of the peripheral regions ofNepal by Kathmandu, asking the question, "will the centrepermit villagers to enter into the development process (Ibid,1979:42). Shepherd (1982) raised similar questions and pointedout the principal failure of participation as the absence of rapportand understanding between local people and the officials ingovernment. While the rhetoric was relatively new, the notionof "participation" has not been a recent phenomenon in Nepal;although it has been manifested in varying ways. Nepal'splanning era began in 1956 and has had 8 planning periods of 5years that have emphasised rural development, localdevelopment and participatory planning, to varying degrees. It ishelpful to look at the early evolution of participatory planningand policy in Nepal, between 1956 and 1980 (lookingspecifically at the 5-year plans) and then the changes between1980 and the present, which paved the way to Nepal's modempractice of democratic and decentralized development policy.

Policy ChangeSome of the critical paths taken in participatory methods

and pohcy, strode hang-in-hand with both academicdevelopment around the world and current political andacademic trends in Nepal, itself. These developments wereparticularly evident through the first 5 development plansundertaken in the Kingdom. As early as Nepal's firstdevelopment plan (1956/61), there was also the first officialstatement that separated "village development" from a macrodevelopment strategy for the country as a whole and emphasisedthe active involvement and cooperation of the people in ruraldevelopment. Rural development (RD) plans were set intomotion and co-operatives were, in particular, stressed asimportant to the RD objectives. However, the achievement ofthe first plan was considered very poor, viewed as ambitious andwith no clear objectives and policy (pokbarel, 1980). Pokbarelreferred to the plan as an "arm-chair plan," with no facts andfigures and no field research to evaluate progress. By the secondplan (1961/65), a radical political change had occurred in thecountry. The King had assumed all political powers anddIssolved the parliamentary constitution. It was at this point thatthe Panchayat system was introduced together with a greaterdegree of control of organizations and institutions throughout thecountry. Rural development ceased to be treated as a separateentity and was, instead, considered synonymous with agriculturaldevelopment. In essence, this shifted the emphasis from aprogramme-oriented area approach to the sectoral approach ofrural development. People's participation was again on theagenda, although tightly controlled by the government. Thevillage panchayats, heavily politicized, were the local institutionsavailable for local people, acting as the political anddevelopmental unit at the grassroots level. In 1962 theconstitution had specifically supported "participation", statingthat "development of the country is possible only ... with theactive co-operation of the whole people, and embodying theprinciples of de-centralization" (Shrestha, 1981: 172). Theconstitution sought, in theory, to "make the general publicvigilant and conscious through gradual de-centralization and to

150 Occasional Papers

provide for maximum participation in the economic uplifting ofthe country (Joshi, 1983:85).

The Third Five Year Plan (1965/70:273) focussed thenotion of "people" even more clearly. It stated that, "all citizensmay have equal opportunities and faciliues to develop theirpersonality and to enhance their economic progress." ThePanchayat system was maintained as the best vehicle for peopleto achieve this goal and necessary for the political, social andeconomic growth of the nation (pokharel, 1980). Ruraldevelopment again took a side-line to the overall plan, makingreference only to "regional development" (no doubt a prerequisite for rural development), "boosting food production inthe Terai" "horticulture in the hills" and "animal husbandry" inthe moun~ins. The Panchayats were entrusted to conduct localdevelopment throughout the nation.

It was, perhaps, during the Fourth Five Year Plan(1970/75), that the most serious changes in rural developmentand people's participation occurred. It was during this periodthat one of the flfSt Integrated Rural Development (IRD)programmes was introduced in the form of the "JiriMultipurpose Development Project.: a package of mputs toimprove the economic and social life of the rural poor (Lahani,1980:4,h Plan:263). The fourth plan placed high emphasis onregional planning without specific reference to ruraldevelopment. It mentioned people's participation in the policysection, stating that "attempts will be made to get the panchayatsof various levels involved more effectively in the process bothfor plan formulation and implementation, in order to make theparticipation of the people in the local development work moreactive and dynamic (4'h Plan:254).

The Fifth Plan (1976/80) was aimed at utilizing humanresources, placing renewed emphasis on people's participati~n

and calling for the involvement of the local people mdevelopment projects (controlled and conducted by the localpanchayats) However, in the absence of a well-definedinstitutional framework to enlist the participation of thebeneficiaries, the various rural development efforts did not

Tanner P. 151

successfully achieve the desired results (UN, 1990: 19; Joshi,1980, in Rising Nepal Newspaper). Since 1976, several IRDP'shad been implemented across the country, leading to increasedinvolvement of people in infrastructural projects, skills trainingprogrammes, distribution and experimentation. However, by1985/86, the National Planning Commission (NPC) indicatedthat 43% of rural poor were still below the poverty line andmalnutrition remained a serious problem. The principal reasonsfor the failure of IRDPs was (a) the government did not allow thepanchayats to determine local priorities, (b) beneficiaries werenot aware of target activities, (c) while de-centralizationsupported local institutions (in theory), the policies and prioritiesand budget were determined at the centre and dictated, (d) poorcompletion of technical projects, chosen by the poor, created asuscpicion in rural communities that the government wasingnoring their demands and (e) the benefits of developmentwere being exploited by the powerful (particularly thoseinvolved with the panchayat institutions (UN, 1990). The basicpremise, therefore, was that while participation was growing inthe official rhetoric, there was no real chance of seeking fullparticipation in the present political climate of the country. Inparticular, low-caste farmers were reticent to antagonize highcaste farmers. While the government spoke of closercooperation between the panchayats and local people,insufficient power was given to them and what little power theyhad, they tended to wield over the poor rather than facilitateimprovements for them (Gautarn, 1987).

Until the end of the Fifth plan (1980), several keypolicies had been implemented, despite their apparent deficiencyis addressing the key issues related to local development and andparticipation. These were: the Local Administration Act of1966 the District Administrative Plan of 1974 and the IntegratedPanchayat Development Design of 1978. The latter defined"rural development" under the auspices of "PanchayatDevelopment" (Shrestha, 1981), and emphasised popularparticipation and exploitation of local resources. This was thefirst policy implementation which laid out the objective ofparticipatory involvement in development affairs and a new


position of Local Development Officer (LDO) was created tofacilitate development at the grassroots level. However, at thistime, the government was reluctant to concede de-centralizationas a means to the purpose of local development (Poudyal, 1987).It was not until the De-centralization Act of 1982 that the twonotions were pulled together into a singular policy initiative(Ibid., 1987: 16) The Act aimed to ensure participation indevelopment initiatives and to maintain and improve capabilitiesfor the institutionalization of development activities (poudyal,1991) However, that is not to imply that participatory activitiesdid not exist before the De-Centralization Act. Indeed, casestudies can be found in the literature concerning various hillirrigation projects which involved fanners in the development,operation and maintenance of irrigation systems (See, Martin &Yoder, 1983: Case-studies "Thu10-Khola" Irrigation System,Halling and others; Integrated Development SystemslNepal,1986). It was not until the de-centralization act, however, thatthe government recognized that people's participation was both amethod and an objective (means and end) of rural developmentprogrammes in Nepal and that it can be facilitated through apolicy of de-centralization (Shrestha, 1981: 171).

Academic Rhetoric - The Local ReactionIncreased activity by Nepal academics was also

indicative of the country's recent emergence into the globalcommunity and modem development practice. The poor use offield research and practical study was a hinderance togovernment policy as there was little local, academic resourcesupon which to draw. As late as the mid-1970's, sociologicalresearch in Nepal was often described as "patchy and sketchy"(Bista, 1972). Speaking at a conference in 1973, Bista remarkedthat up to the mid-1970's, anthropology was totally unknownand few empirical works had been done. In addition, localstudies had tended to focus on central and Eastern Nepal, leavingthe greater part of the Western Region largely unknown andunexplored (Furer-Haimendorf, 1973). While geography andtopography played a role in this selection, some Nepali scholars(Bista, 1973; Shrestha, 1971; Mishra, 1984) suggested that there

was also influence due. to inherent biases between groups inNepal, which often mhiblted Nepali scholars (most of whomwere High caste) from studying in communities that constitutedpredominantly low caste groups. The 1973 conference concededthat there was, at that time, more benefit to be attained fromforeign researchers transcending cultural and traditional normsand carrying out this type of scholastic work. However suchresearch did not get underway until well into the late 60:s andearly 70's and even then, Nepali researchers complained that theresults of the research were often taken away from the countryand provided very little feed-back or useful data that may havebeen applied to policy or implementation initiatives (Thapa,1973). In addition, foreign research brought its owninterpretations and biases to Nepal.

Academic Rhetoric - The Foreign ReactionThe claims of neo-classical economists that they could

theoretically demonstrate efficiency, equity and stabilityoutcomes from the operation of market forces, were central tothe 1980's practice of the IMF globally, and more importantlyfor Nepal, the World Bank and many bilateral officialdevelopment agencies (Cameron, 1994; Lipton, 1987) playedkey roles. The Nepali state was primarily seen as a problem to,not an agent of development. Intervention by the Nepalese statein restricting the operation of free market forces (some neoclassical economists suggested) was arguably the primaryobstacle to the Nepalese people finding their natural position inthe global economy. However, limitations on the neo-liberalismof the late 80's revolved around the replacement of the nonmeasurable goals such as quality of life and human development.These goals were consigned to the subjective judgement, notaccessible for policy consideration (Cameron, 1994). Theselimitations are discussed extensively by O'Connor (1987),Blaikie, Cameron and Seddon (1979), Higgins (1987) and Sen(1987). The popular struggles in the 1980's and early 1990's,therefore, brought a sense of opportunity and optimism to thepost-modernists. The alternative approach, arising in global andlocal forms, expressed disatisfaction with the methodologies and


epistemological framework of earlier debates. Fragmentation, asan approach to social reality in the 1990's, was celebrated, ratherthan the previous totality theories (Cameron, 1994:78). Thisapproach essentially set the stage for theoretIcal debate andpractice on "specific issues, localised expenences, culturaldimension and power relations (Cameron, 1985). .

Nepal has certainly felt the pressure and has expenencedthe change of shifting international fashIOns 10 developmenttheory over the past 20 years. Cameron (Ibid.) describes. thesechanges as altering the "development focus", glvmg a new Imageto Nepal. The progress through the early 1980's, he states, hasbeen more "sound and fury" than particularly useful. However,the changes in Nepal's political and social environment since themid-80's is significant and it's impact on the role of people In

their own development is equally impressive.

Policy Meets RhetoricUnder the new system of de-centralization, from 1982,

participation in Nepal began to be recogniz.ed as an ~~veprocess, meaning that the groups In questIOn could takeinitiatives or assert their autonomy to do so" (Rahman, 1981 :3).80th the academic world and policy makers were becomingmore vigilant about participatory rhetoric in the 1980's and anumber of local studies began addressing the defiCIenCIes 111

people's participation, despite the wide-sweeping refonns, andalso suggested remedies (Lahani, 1980; Pokharel, 1980; Joshi,1983; Gautam, 1987; Shrestha, 1981). 8y 1984, it wasbecoming apparent to foreign and Nepali academics andofficials that participation was a process that accelerated If thepoor b"';ome conscious of their rights and privileges and couldbuild up faith and confidence in themselves. IntegratedDevelopment SystemslNepal, 1985; Shrestha, 1989). In otherwords, success would be based on democracy and decentralization of power (Malhotra, 1990). By the end of the1980's period, the literature on Nepal reflected that fordevelopment to be self-sustaining, initiatives 111 ruraldevelopment must come from within the communities (Ibid.,1990: 10). However, until democracy, in 1990, there was httle

institutional support to nurture the process that had struggled toemerge through the last 15 years of development efforts in thecountry.

Hobley (1996) indicates that practical experience in theforestry sector of Nepal shows the close relationship between theemergence of democracy as a form of governance and thegrowing demand for its application to the management of forestresources (see also, Lohani, 1978). She goes on to state that"forestry" is significant in illustrating the 3 major trends in Nepalwhich have lead to true and equitable participation. First, therewas systematic alienation of the general population. Second, theenvironmental degradation became extremely severe and led thegovernment to exclude people and implement strict protectionistand nationalization policies (Hobley, 1996; Op. Cit., 1978: 146).Thirdly, lack of control over the resources and an inability toresolve the environmental problems under the centrallycontrolled regime, led to an accommodation between the stateand the people (see also, Bartlett, 1991and Ingles & Gilmour,1989). In short, participatory programmes would involve thepeople and yet allow a level of government involvement in theprocess. This final stage, leading to participatory involvement, ischaracterized by (a) an assertion of people's rights, (b)institutionalized expression of these rights and (c) a challenge tothe current development paradignl, where demand for rights is apursuit of power but linked to responsible land use. This wasalso pointed out by Dunsmore (1988), concerning mountainenvironmental management in the Arun River Basin of Nepal.

In a wider context, throughout the 1970's, however,concern was raised over finite global resource availability andnotably non-renewable energy sources after a sharp rise in oilprices. The prioritisation of the ecological dimension alsopromoted examination of value systems and thus, the culturaldimension of development (Cameron, 1994:76). According toCameron, these concerns altered the agenda for North-Southdiscussion on development as well as for national developmentstrategies, notably for Nepal which scored high on all theecological vulnerability indices. Project documents outlined theneed for participation, user-groups and local institutions, for


successful environmental management and sustainableproduction. However, the success of the institutions in Nepalnow depends on equitable, participatory relat.lOnships, which canonly be sustained in a democratic and responsive polItIcalenvironment. Beneficiaries, it is recognized and accepted by thegovernment, should be involved in the decision-ma~ng process.This was stated as a major cause of faIlure In the SwayambhuArea Development Project in 1986 (MalIa & Rajbhandari, 1986).Despite the massive infusion of foreign aid, it became acceptedthat this aid would not result in development unless theindividual farnler decided that it would (Miller, 1990) Inessence, therefore, King Mahendra's speech in December of1981 was being put into action; decision-making should be givento the "lowest units of our social structure".

Recent TrendsWith the introduction of a democratic constitution and

constitutional monarchy in 1990, parliament passed the "laws oflocal governance". In May 1992, democratic multi-partyelections were held for local authorities and 45,000 persons weredirectly elected to village and town councils throughout thenation. Since that time, the process has continued to strengthenand develop with the support of the government and financialbacking of many development agencies, giving the mass ofpeople the opportunity to make locally-based decIsionsconcerning development matters. There appears to be a generalacceptance in the government for the principle of "voice" and"choice", as operational norms. Voice referring to the nght tocriticize the government's handling of development design andimplementation. Choice referring to the lIberalIzatIon ofdevelopment, providing people with alternative optIOns tochoose external assistance as well as to implement projects (e.g.government or non-government sources of assistance). .

The official justification for decentralIzatIon m Nepalhas been to increase local participation in planning andimplementing development strategies, to mobilize .. localresources and to increase accountability of officials to citizens.The phrase commonly used in agency project (Tanner, 2001)

documents is a variation on the theme of "empowering" localpeople by enabling their right to participate freely in decisionmaking processes. Officially, this is accomplished through thedelegatIOn of power to local administrative agencies. However,due to weak cooperation among ministries at the national levellocal rural development policies are often undermined and localparticipation, according to Beinen et al. (1990) is stillparticipation controlled by the higher levels of authority.

The devolution of power to local authorities is stronglysupported at the present time. Under the country's eighth plan(HMG 8th Plan, 1992-97: 652), the government recognizes thata centralized approach to development planning has not beeneffective and is not the best way to achieve economicdevelopment in Nepal. Instead, HMG has outlined very clearlythat the public should be mobilized for participation and beallowed to implement programmes at their own pace; includingopportunities for decision-making. "The local people themselvesneed to be involved more actively both at the planning andexecution level" (op cit.:575). Through a strategy of delegatingauthority to popularly mandated village and district authorities,the government hopes to (I) promote sustainable economicgrowth, (2) alleviate poverty and, (3) obtain regional balance.The main activity is to implement a sustainable and participatoryapproach to rural development encompassing "economic,political/governmental, social, cultural/religious, and educationaldimensions". In HMGs 8th Plan (op cit: 579), the fifth objectivefor local development is:

"To create a base for sustainable development bymaximizing peop-Ies' participation in rural development works."

The districts that have the support of agencies like UNDP,have been institutionalizing a participatory and multi-sectorialoriented planning and monitoring system for management ofdistrict developm ent (e.g. Management Infonnation Systems andGeographic 1nf01011ation Systems). The apparent success inthese districts has been reflected in the promotion of improvedmformation sharing from the local level up to the national level.The planning approach has created an environment for bettercoordination of sectoral efforts and resource management in


which (a) needs are identified by the communities themselves(through local institutions, preferably) and, (b) projects areselected through a process of prioritization. These actiVItIes arecoordinated by the DDC in collaboratIon With the sectoralagencies. One of the first of-springs of this plan was marufestedin the "Build-Your-Own-Village" campaIgn, tntroduced m 1995with a budget of three million Nepalese Rupees (USD 53,571)per annum to each VDC. The purpose of this progranune was to(I) reduce the dependency of the VDC development processfrom the "central-oriented" control of the DDCs, (2) prOVIdemoral support for more effective participation of the VDCs m thedeliberations of the District CouncIl (3) enhance local leveldecision-making, (4) use local skills and resources and (5) bongabout a much needed awareness that the people should take alead in their own development. Ideally, this budget was not"tied" and VDC committees could use it in any manner Withoutthe consent of higher bodies. Although the amount of fundsallocated may not be sufficient to make substantIalimprovements in entire VDCs, it does create a psychologtcal"perception" of control within the .VDC development regtons.While we will not discuss the pOSitIve or negatIve Sides of thisscheme, it is important to note that this "perception," perhaps,has contributed the most to empowerment of these regtons. Inaddition, small projects and rehabilitation schemes could beundertaken without the bureaucratic requirements associatedwith most development initiatives. .

Since the beginning of the 1990's, the focus of commumtydevelopment and social work literature has shifted to theindividual as "subject" of mvestlgatIon. Nepal has been noexception to this trend. Pokharel (1980) and Manandhar (1992)had argued that the "outside view of vtllagers IS different fromthe inside view of themselves", Shrestha (1989) discussed theneed for giving a "voice" to individuals, Pokharel (1980)introduced the concepts of "faith", "confidence" and"effectiveness" building in order to solve local problems andMiller (1990) discussed the importance of understandmg theprocess of decision-making for "heads of households'~in o:der tograsp the roots of decision-making Withm an mdlvldual sand

household's life-space' Integrated Development SystemslNepal(1985:4) published an article which called for studies in Nepalthat "seek to complement the de-centralized efforts and to raisepeople's awareness of opportunities," describing consciousnessas a "function of action. ,,2 Manandhar (1992:35) went further toexplicitly state that the main task of development in Nepal mustbe to "nurture the individual," encouraging involvement andparticipation. The individual, he states, should be at the"centre. "

Manandhar's philosophy on the individual stemmed fromthe early rhetoric of Mahatma Ghandi, which had great influenceover much of the Hindhu populations. Ghandi argued in favourof self-reliance, through peaceful activism. His ideas, inparticular, targeted the "individual" and his "community." Thedevelopment of India, he said, was supported by thedevelopment of thousands of small villages across India. Togovern the individual, is to govern the community, is to governthe region, which is to govern the state (in, Manandhar,1992:35). However, Ghandi was similarly influenced by theeven earlier movement of Swara), which was based on thepremise of beginning with the "individual" and moving to the"state." To tllis end, some academics within the newlydemocratic environment of Nepal, have initiated studies whichexamine "attitudes". "priorities" and "perceptions" of individualsin village communities. In addition, there has been an obviousshift in the changing roles of technical expertise from outsideand in Nepali experts and, in the methods employed to conductfield research. Findings indicate (Chambers, 1991) that ruralpeople can manifest greater analytical capabilities and can effectpositive developmental change. The technology now mostneeded is "methodological" - to change personal attitudes,demeanor and methods. There is a wealth of literature on thissubject, furthering the notion that the individual stands firmJy atthe centre of development policy and initiatives.

I TIle latter work is a somewhat earlier version of Friedman's (1992) discussionofhousehold economies and empowennent structures.


Future DirectionsIt could be said that the advent of capitalism and

modernity replaced all structures that were based on"subjective. 1I or "irrational, II elements, with "objective" and"rational" science (Vandergeest & Buttel, 1988). However, thisview is changing in both rhetoric and practice. Many schools ofthought have firmly centred on the methodology of the"individual" as the object of social inquiry. Weber stated that itwas only the individual who could be studied "meaningfully".This is evident in his method called Verstehen (parkin, 1982)The premise of Verstehen, which centres around social actorswho are faced with choices, was proposed as a means ofunderstanding historical events through the eyes of the actors inan empathic maimer. In this way, the researcher identifies whycertain paths are followed based on a reconstruction ofsituational choices and constraints that face individuals (see alsoFriedman, 1995). The decisions that are taken are based on theactor's perceptions that are weighed and assessed as the researchprogresses. In "profit-maximization", there is both a behaviouralcontent (motivation of the household) and technical- economiccontent (farn1 economic performances as a business enterprise).However, the former is usually only inferred throughinvestigation of the latter (Ellis, 1988:64)

Parkin (1982) points out that Weber's Verstehenproceeded from the principle that people are generally aware oftheir perceptions and subjective thoughts. If these perceptionsare truly integral to social conduct, then, as Parker asserts, theymust be accepted as "givens" in their own right (Berger andLuckman, 1966, describe them as "social facts"). This does notappear to leave room for Marx's concept of a falseconsciousness. Marx stated that true perceptions and meaningsare largely congruent with an individual's class interests but thatdue to the intrusion of the bourgeois ideology, the averageindividual's perceptions tend to be quite faulty. Thus, viewingreality through the actor, in the way posited by Weber, wouldprovide a false or twisted version of that reality.

Durkheim differs from Weber (as does Marx) in that heemphasizes the need to study the collective. He states thatstudying the individual motives and perceptions, as principalobjects of inquiry, would be to forfeit everything of sociologicalinterest (parkin, 1982). Weber, in contrast, feels that it is therole of social science to penetrate the subjective understandingsof the individual, to get at the motives for social action.Collectives, he feels, must be treated solely as the resultants andmodes of organization of the particular acts of individualpersons. To put it more simply, the process might be comparedto a chemical reaction in which one party views the resultantcompound as important in itself, while the other party examinesthe importance of the ingredient elements.

The New Sociology of Knowledge - Methods inResearch

Lewin (1946) recognized, 50 years ago, a need for anovel approach to research in the social sciences which wouldsimultaneously solve problems and generate new knowledge.These ideas have helped initiate the new field of applied socialpsychology, action research and more recently, participatoryresearch; which now play an important role in helping us todefine social issues (Yeich and Levine, 1992) and which appearto take issue with the traditionalist school of development theory.This approach to sociological research emerged as a result of twobroad forces: (I) researchers found that the classical researchparadigm was insufficient, oppressive and elitist (Gaventa, 1980;Hall, 1981); lacking the necessary insight and sensitivity tohuman issues which is increasingly characteristic of the newdiscourse, and (2) recognition of the continuing potential forexploitation of the many, caused by the monopoly of knowledgeby the powerful few (Toffler, 1990).

Knowledge has rapidly emerged as a significantinfluence in the new paradigm. In the past, concentration ofknowledge in the hands of the few has led to the occlusion ofpower from disenfranchised groups. With the advent ofalternative development methods, we are now seeing the reversalof this trend, placing emphasis on knowledge in the hands of

those suppressed groups and bringing such knowledge to"awareness"; thus allowing people to become conscious that theyindeed have the necessary skills and insight to exert themselvesand become self-sufficient. Friere (1973) made a significantcontribution in this regard, maintaining that marginalized peoplewill remain dependent on others for as long as they fail to beconscious of their own power to address problems. In addition,he emphasizes that these people are capable of critical thoughtand can engage in the dialogue surrounding their owndevelopment. This latter assertion has become an importantassumption in the discussion of empowerment theory andsupports the notion that the individual is an important subject ofinquiry and social action. Illich (1976:148) argued that theconcept of underdevelopment, In addition to "physicalimpoverishment", was also a state of mind. Many would agreethat understanding underdevelopment at that level is important tobringing about change. A commitment to contemporaryprocesses, such as "Participation", arose out of the changes in thelast several decades, requiring, implicitly, attention to theconstraints and contextual barriers facing the resource-poor - italso implies "powerlessness" or an inability to exert influence toshape one's livelihood.

Empowerment Emerging from the New DiscourseThe "project", as most field officers who were

interviewed reported, tries to breathe "empowerment" into thecommunity. This does not mean that the project empowers thecommunity but ratller that it facilitates approaches that leadindividuals to become empowered. TI,e struggle to re-designdevelopment programmes to address these concerns continueswith heavy emphasis on the role of the resource-poor in thedevelopment process. The classical thoeries of development arenot discardded but are modified in order to envelop concerns thathad hitherto been inferred or ignored.

Since the 1980's, theories have arisen which retain studyat the individual level but with a new premise and methodology.In addition, case studies have assisted in the construction of amore

coherent view of empowerment that takes into account, (a)community issues, (b) structural! institutional aspects and, (c)individual-community dynamics. These studies have led to thedevelopment of what has been called, Learned HopefllinessTheOly, demonstrating that people can work towards socialchange despite seemingly insurmountable obstacles. The latterwork examines the process of mobilizing individuals and groupsfor purposes of creating socio-structural change to benefitoppressed people (Yeich & Levine, 1992). This notion implies arecognition of structural forces which affect, if not cause, socialproblems, instead of resignation to an oppressive environment bythe masses. The objective is to identify the problems within andoutside ti,e community (Yeich & Levine, 1992; Zimmerman,1992; Zimmerman, 1990; Wandersman, Florin, Rich & Chavis,1990). This latter objective may direct the focus of research tothe positive consequences of exerting control (throughparticipation). Examination could also be made of the process oflearning and utilizing problem-solving skills (acquired duringparticipation), which result in the achievement of furtherperceived or actual control. Studies indicate that efforts to exertcontrol through participation, should increase one's sense ofempowerment through a responsive framework; in other words,enhancing the individual's ability to understand and increasehis/her control over the environment through interaction.

It is critical, when considering the above statements, tonote that the process goes beyond traditional notions of humandeficits. The principle goal of complete empowerment researchtoday - an essentially psychological state in its primordial form _should include (a) developing an awareness of a .social constructof reality' in the actors, (b) a recognition of the oppressive natureof the social construct, (c) an acknowledgment of the necessityfor skills and tocl development to effect change and, (d) anawareness of the multiple layers of interaction which occurwithin and outside the community which will affect the way thatits members relate and participate within that community.

The methodology described above is based on severaladditional key assumptions and provides a platfonn upon whichthis research is based:

163Tanner P.Occasional Papers162


I. People generally know what is best for them (cf., also,Oakley, 1983). .

2. All people are experts in certain areas of their lives(including Indigenous Technical Knowledge).

3. All people have strengths on which to build.4. All people have skills to be learned and shared (often

through local institutions). (Torre, J989; Zimmerman &Rappaport, 1988)

5. People have the ability to think critically about worldaffairs (including local, regional and national ISSUes) andto ascertain their own position within their envHonment(Friere, 1970).

6. People can take reflective action, directed towardresponsible social change. "This lDvolves thedevelopment of necessary skills to interact and respond,in relation to the political and economic environment.

In general, it is evident that empowerment and learnedhopefulness theory revolve around several important themes.The latter theory relates to (a) people's ability to develop andtheir ability to become educated, (b) the nature of educationwithin the development process, (c) the importance of personalassociations, formed either purposely or by happenstance (theseassociations have been referred to as mediating structures andcollectives; Torre, 1989), (d) the relationship between personalassociations and macro system structures (political, economIcand social systems) and finally, (e) the nature and use of powerwithin the empowerment process. It should be acknowledged, ofcourse, that not everyone adheres to the "Frierian" notion of an"educational" prelude to people being able to look after theirown destiny. Others have argued that people are perfectly ableto express needs and do something about them, If given tt:eopportunity (see Curtis in Neilson & Wngbt, 1995). Fnere sconcept of education is widely held in non-governmental Circles,however and it is in this circle that much of the "alternativedevelop';lent" literature and concepts are revived andimplemented.

In short, the goals of empowerment have changed fromthe deficit-oriented methodology of learned helplessness, to a

fuller understanding of how an individual's perceptions/cognitions interact with events in hislher environment toenhance or inhibit hislher control over the "factors" that affecthislher life (Zimmerman, 1992). These latter may range fromcoping with personal problems and decisions affecting thehousehold to those wider activities relating to community orstate issues. The described goals relate directly to the way inwhich individuals, communities or ethnic groups attempt toexpress themselves or exert their influence within theirenvironment. Most important in the notion of empowerment andlearned hopefulness theory is the protection of the valuableknowledge already extant in the individual or group to (a) ablossoming awareness of that knowledge, and finally (b) "puttingthat knowledge to work" (through positive and non-violentinitiatives)

CommentsAt present, there are limited reliable or tested means by

which participatory and empowerment project implementationand the new subject of study (the individual) can be evaluated;particularly in "subjective" project planning and implementation.With the evolution from strict "blue-print" guidelines for projectimplementation (in which "rigidity" does not allow for flexibleproject planning and hence, tools), to a more "process-oriented"approach, development tools to monitor and evaluate every stepwithin the project freamework, becomes ever more important(Tanner, 2000).

It was noted earlier that much research is conducted tothe benefit of the researcher. Nepali scholars, also, have notedthat this has been a difficult problem in their country (Bista,1973; Thapa, 1973). Pure research often does not involve peopleand it contributes only a little sympathy and interest in the hostcountry or for the community(ies) studied. For the most part, thepeople in the sample groups do not understand what is beingdone and have no direct part to play in the process or endproduct. It is a fault of many aspects of research, in general.The results of many studies are not obviously relevant to afarmer's way of life, nor is it always apparent how slhe is


Bienen, H., Kapur, D., Parks, l, Riedinger, l1990 Decentralization in Nepal. World Development, l]!,

No. I, p.p. 61-75, 1990.

Peter Burger and Thomas Luckman.1966 The Social Construction ofReolity: A Treatise in the

Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY:Doubleday, Ursinus: 30 I.0 I1B453s.

Bista, K.B.1973 State of Anthropology in NepaL Tribhuvan

University. Kathmandu, NepaLBlaikie, M.P., Cameron, l & Seddon, D.1979 The Struggle for Basic Needs in Nepal. Paris,

Development Centre of the Organization forEconomic Cooperation and Development, p. 42.

based upon the backs of individuals: Understanding theIndi VIdual helps us to understand the community, which helps tounderstand the reglon and thus, the state. In the same vein thestudy Into empowerment and participatory activities may' notbegIn WIth the assertion of macro-empowerment dynamicsalthough these levels exist. Instead, it begins with the individuaiand then branches out to the household, the community, theregIOn and the state.

Nepal, as a nation, has generated invaluable data toadvance the discourse in methodology and projectImplementatIOn addressing participatory planning andempowerment of people. However, much of this data isexternally driven and influenced by the pressures of outsideschools of thought. There is a wealth of experience and data,though, that may be tapped and utilized to generate theory orpartIal theory by Nepalt scholars and to contribute to the corpusof knowledge already extant in the international literature.

REFERENCES

Le Culte de Kuldevata au Nepal en particulier chezcertains Ksatri de la vallee de Kathmandu ParisEdition Nove. . ,

Bista, K.B.1972

Within the above framework, it is clear that theimportance attached to "scale" is important, because it breaksfrom the reductionist presumptions of conventional science thatthe whole is simply made up of its parts. Instead, wholes shouldbe seen in relation to their parts, which are themselves wholes tobe viewed in relation to their own part, and so on. This is notdissimilar to Ghandi's proposition that India's development is

involved or may benefit from either the process or results of astudy. However, this should not nullify or preclude the need forresearch to advance methodology. Rather, it should place theonus on the researcher to determine the studies purpose andresult; whether it is geared to mobilize people, achieve specificoutputs, is the basis for future policy, or makes somecontribution to the corpus of knowledge on a given subject,which may lead to any of the above.

Social research may not always lend itself to immediate,practical usefulness but the results do point to critical areas thatcould be of interest to policY-makers or those involved inexperimental processes. In areas where scientific-style researchcan not offer complete explanations for the sources of dynamicand change within social relations, the need for social researchobviously increases. The ultimate questions, therefore, todetermine where ideas, values and idealism, altruism andcooperation, come from are, perhaps, beyond scientific reach.As Uphoff states, they have elements of both randomness andorder, much the way market [commodity] price patterns orpolitical conditions have. How individuals relate to theircommunity and vice versa will create a cause and effectrelationship, which create outcomes that are both predictable andindeterminate. However, they are not completely random. Ifthey were, there would be no point in acting purposefully and nopoint in studying the area. Perhaps, therefore, the best that onecan hope for is to understand the dynamics of behaviour withinthe limited framework of the "new (social) science". We acceptthe inherent "chaos" (Uphoff, 1992) in the patterns studied andattempt to apply qualitative and quantitative approaches totriangulate an approximation or probability of behaviour.


Quiesience andValley. Chicago:

Institution-building and Rural Development inNepal: Gadkhar Water Users' Committee. HMGUSAID-GTZ-IDRC-Ford-Winrock Project. NaturalResource Management Paper Series. No.8.

Power and Powerlessness:Rebellion in on AppalachianUniversity of Illinois Press.

People Participation in Housing Development. TheJournal of Development and Administration Studies.Vol 5(1), 1983,pp. 69-lll.

Participotory Research, Popular Knowledge, andPower: A Personal Reflection. Convergence, 14,6-17.

People's Participation in Management andPerJormance oj Irrigation Resources: Acomparative assessment of government-operatedand farmer-operated systems in Parsa District,Kat1nmandu, Nepal, pp. I-liS.

Participatory Forestry: The Process oj Change inIndia and Nepal. OD! Rural Development ForestryStudy Guide 3.

Economics and Ethics in the New Approach toDevelopment, Philosophy in Context, 7.

Non-governmental Institutions and Processes forDevelopment in Nepal. IDS, Katinmandu, Nepal, pp.l-lli.

Celebration ojAwareness: A Call Jor InstilutionalRevolution. Pelican Books, p.p. 1-156.

People's Participation and Rural Development.The Rising Nepal, October 22.

Illich, I1976

Hobley, M.1996

Higgins, B.1987

Gaventa, J1980

Gautam, U1987

Hall, B.1981

IDS1986

IDS1985

Joshi, J1983

Joshi, J1980

Farm Households andCambridge University

Preliminary Report on Anthropological Researchin Western Nepal. SOAS. Univesrity of London.March, 1973. (unpublished).

Peasant Economics:Agrarian Development.Press, UK.

Mountain Environmental Management in Ihe ArunRiver Basin ojNepal. ICfMOD Occasional Paper,no. 9. Kathmandu, Nepal.

Empowerment: The Polilics oj AlternativeDevelopment. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge,MA (USA), 1992, P.P. 1-189.

Nepal's Development Thinking: Twenty year son inTheory and Practice. The Economic Journal ofNepal. Vol. 17(2), issue No. 66.

Pedagogy oJthe Oppressed. New York, N.Y.: TheContinuum Publishing Corporation.

Complexity, Diversity and Competence: TowardSustainable Livelihood from Farnling Systems inthe 21" Century.: Journal of Asian FarmingSystems Association, Vol. 1(1), pp. 79-89.

Getting Involved: communication for participatorydevelopment, Community Development Journal, 27,pp.259-271.

Destilute Allowance vs Family Assistance: ConflictOver Welfare Labels in Fiji, in Geoff Wood (ed),Labelling in Development Policy: Essays in honourof Bernard Schaffer, Sage.

Education Jor Critical Consciollsness. New York,N. Y.: Seabury.

Furer-Haimendorf, C.V.

1973

Freire, P.1973

Ellis, F.1988

Dunsmore, JR1988

Freire, P.1970

Friedman, J.1992

Chambers, R.1991

Cameron, J1994

Boeren, A.1992

Cameron,]1985


Experience of Training Jor De-CentralizationPlanning in Nepal. Public Administration andDevelopment. Intemational loumal of Training,Research and Practice. Vol 11 (2), pp. 171-179.

Extension and Rural Development Centre,University of Reading, UK.

Semantic Anthropology; Academic Press, London

The Meaning of Crisi.\C A Theoritical IntroductionBasil Blackwell.

Participotion ofthe Rural Poor in Development, No.I, pp. 3-5.

Nepal: Projecl Planning and ImplementationExperience under De-Cen/rali:ation (3 Reportsublnitted to tile Asian Development Bank),Kathmandu, Nepal (Unpublished).

Peoples Participation and Rural Development: AStudy of Three Village Panchayats in Gorkha(Katlunandu: Centre for Economic Developmentand Administration.

On Etllics and Economics, Blackwell Oxford.

Thakuri of Diyar Gaun. Royal Nepal Academy,Katlunandu, 1971.

Planning and Development in Nepal:, in: Malia,K.P. (Ed, 1989). Nepal: Perspectives on continuityand change. Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies.Tribhuvan, Nepal, pp. 192-213.

Local level Planning in Nepal - Survey, Analy,·isand General Guidelines. Ministry of Panchayat andLocal Development, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Parkin, David1982

Poudyal, L.P.1987

O'CoJUlOr, l.1987,

Pokharel, T.P.1980

Poudyal, L.P.1991

Rahman, M.A.1981

Sen, A. I987

Shrestha, B.K.1971

Shrestlla, B.P.1989

Shrestha, D.K.1981

A critique and aNepalese Studies.

111 Development.Economic Development

Self-Reliance in Small Communities. MohanPrimlani for Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., 1992.P.P.2-279.

Decision-Making in Village Nepal. Sahayogi PressPvt. Ltd. Tripureshwar, Nepal, pp. 1-168.

The Monitoring and Evaluation of Participation inRural Development. For FAO, Rome. Agricultural

People's ParticipationKatlunandu: Centre forand Administration, 1980.

People's Participation in Development. Kathmandu,Centre for Economic Development andAdministration, Tribhuvan University.

Limits ofPrice Policy for Agricullure: Which Wayfor the World Bank", Development Policy Review,Vol. 5, Sage.

Miller, c.l.1999

Lohani, P.C.1980

Mislua, Chaitnya1984

1978

Manandhar, R.1992

Oakley, P.1983

Malhotra, R. C.1990

Social Research in Nepal:Proposal. Contributions toVolume 11(2), pp. I-ll.

Neilson, N. & Wright, S.1995 Power and Participotory Development TheDlY and

Practice. Intermediate Technology Publications,London, ~995, p.p. 1-200.

Lohani, P.c.

Lipton,M. A1987

A People-Oriented Proposal. Himal: ForDevelopment and Environment. May/lune, 1990, p.10.

Malia, B. C. & Rajbhandari1986 People's Participation in Development: A Case

Study of Swayambhu Area. Centre for EconomicDevelopment and Adlninistration, Nepal, pp. 1-95.


Taking Aim on Empowerment Research: On theDistinction Between Individual and PsychologicalConception. American Journal of CommunityPsychology, 18, 169-177.

Zinunerman, M1990

Zimmerman, M1992 Empowerment Theory: Psychological,

OrganizatIOnal and Community Levels ofAnalysis.The Handbook of Community Psycholgoy. ((In J.Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), New York:Plenum Press)

Zimmerman, M, & Rappaport, J.1988 Citizen Participation, Perceived Control and

P,ychological Empowerment. CommunityPsychology.

An AnalyticalWest Harford,

Sahayogi Press,

Powershif/: Knowledge, Wealth and Violence at theEdge of the 21st Century (3rd ed.). Washington:Bantam Press.

The Development ofSociology in Nepal. TribhuvanUniversity. Kathmandu, Nepal.

Life Among the Mogars.Kathmandu, pp. 241-247.

Samaj: Journal of Sociology and Anthropology.Volume 1. Tri-Chandra Multiple Campus,Kathmandu, Nepal. P.p.25-27.

1990

Locol Institutionol Development:Source-book with Cases,Connecticut: Kumarian Press.

P. Vandergeest and F.Buttel1988 Marx, Weber, and Development Sociology: Beyond

the Impasse., World Development, 16 (6), pp.683695.

Shepherd, G.1982

Empowerment: Structured Conceptualization andInstrument Development. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, Cornell University.

UN Interagency Conmlittee on Integrated Rural Development for Asiaand tile Pacific.Participatory Rural Development in SelectedCountries, Bangkok, pp. 19-30.

Uphoff, N.1992

Thapa, T.S.1973

Toffler, T.1990

Tanner, P.2001

Torre, D.1989

Wandersman, A, Florin, P., Rich, R., & Chavis, D.1990 Benefits, Costs, Incentive Management and

Participation in Voluntary Organizations.Community PsycholQgy.

Yeich, S., & Levine, R.1992 Participatory Research',· Contribution to a

Conceptualization of Empowerment. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 22, 1894-1909.

FACULTY OF THE DEPARTMENT

I. Rishikeshab Raj Regmi, Professor and Chairperson, Department ofSociology/Anthropology; Ph.D. (Anthropology), University ofCalcutta.

2. Kailash Nath Pyakuryal. Professor and Fonner Chainnan andDean, Institute of Agriculture and Animal Sciences; Ph.D.(RwalSociology), Michigan State University. .

3. Chaitanya Mishra, Professor and Fonner Chamnan; Ph.D.(Sociology), University of Florida. .

4. Ganesh Man Gurung, Professor and Fonner Chamnan; Ph.D.(Sociolob'Y), Banams Hindu University. . .

5. Ram Bahadur Chhetri, Reader, Ph.D. (Anthropology), Umversltyof Hawaii.

6. Kiran Dutla Upadhya, Reader, M.S.(Rwal Sociology), Universityof the Philippines (Currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program insociology at West Bengal University).

7. Krishna Bahadur Bhattachan, Lecturer and Fonner Chainnan;Ph.D. (Sociology), University of California, Berkeley.

8. Padam Lal Devkota, Lecturer; Ph.D. (Anthropology) DelhiUniversity.

9. Om Gurung, Lecturer and Fonner Chairman; Pl~D. (Anthropology), Cornell University.

10. Phanindreswor Paudel, Lecturer; M.A. (Sociology); BanarasHindu University.

II. Laya Prasad Uprety, Lecturer; MA. (A11thrOpology), TribhuwanUniversity, M.S. (Social Development), Ateno De ManilaUniversity, the Philippines (Currently enrolled in the Ph.D. programin Anthropology at Tribhuvan University, Nepal).

12. Tulsi Ram Pandey, Lecturer; M.A. (Sociology), TribhuvanUniversity. M.S. (Social Development) Ateno De ManilaUniversity, the Philippines (Currently emolled in the Ph.D. programin Sociology at Dellu University, India).

13. Prabhakar Lal Das, Lecturer; M.A. (Sociology) BhagalpurUn.iversity.

14. Bhanu Bhakta Timsina, Lecturer; MA. (Anthropology),Tribhuvan Un.iversity.

15. Youba Raj Luilel, Lecturer; M.A. (Sociology), TribhuvanUniversity, M.S. (Gender studies) at Institute of Social Shldies, theNetherlands.

16. Surendra Mishra, Lecturer; MA. (Sociology), TribhuvanUniversity.

17. Saubhagya Shah, Lecturer; MA. (Sociology), TribhuvanUniversity, Enrolled in the Ph.D. Program in Anthropology atHarvard University.

18. Binod Pokharel, Lecturer; M.A. (Anthropology), TribhuvanUniversity.

19. Pralibha Gautam, Lecturer; M.A. (Anthropology), TribhuvanUniversity (On Deputation in Padma Kanya Campus).

20. Keshab Kumar Shrestha, Lecturer; M.A. (A11thrOpology),Tribhuvan University, (Currently enrolled in the Ph.D. Program inAnthropology at Tribhuvan University).

21. Sawira Luitel, Lecturer; Ph.D. (Sociology), Edminton University,Canada.

22. ChinL, Mani Pokhrel, Lecturer; MA.(Anthropology), TribhuvanUniversity.

PART TIME FACULTY

23. Dilli Ram Dahal, Professor, Ph.D.(A11thrOpology), University ofHawii (part Time from CNAS).

24. Sunita Upreti, (Banstola), M.A. (Sociology), Tribbuvan University25. Janak Rai, Assistant Lecturer; M.A. (Anthropology), Tribhuwan

University (part Time from Tri-Chandra Campus)26. Uddav Rai, M.A. (Anthropology), Tribhuvan University, M.S.

(Applied Social Research), University of Manchester, London.27. Suresh Dhakal, MA. (Anthropology), Tribhuvan Uluversity,

M.Phill.(A11thropology), University of Bergan, Norway.28. Pasang Sherpa, Assistant Lecturer; M.A. (Sociology), Tribhuvau

University (part time from Trichandra Campus)29. Man Bahadur Khatri, MA. (Antluopology), Tribhuvan

University, M.Phil.(Anthropology), Uluversity of Bergan, Norway.30. Madhu Sudan Sharma, M.A. (Sociology) Tribhuvan University,

M.Phil. (Anthropology), University ofBer,..n.31. Shambhu Katlel, M.A. (Sociology)" Tribhuvan University,

M.Phil.(Antluopology), University of Bergan.

ADMlNlSTRATIVE STAFF

1. Sulochana Thapa - Assistant Administrator2. Prem Shrestha - Accountant3. Krishna Karki - Office Assistaut4 Ram Bhakta Karki- Peon.

OCCASIONAL PAPERS PUBLICATIONS

VOL. 2

. I d Anthropology· An Emerging Field of Study in NepalSOCIO ogy an .Om Gurung .The past and Future of Sociology III NepalBishnu Bhandari in the EasternSome Sociological Reflections on DevelopmentHimalayas

~~~:~:~~d:'~tion in a Chepang Village in Nepal Ganesh Man

g= and Resource Mana£l'ment for Subsistence : AnAnthropological PerspectiveBhanu Tirnseena I Mid Hills ofA Socio-eeonomic profile of the Porters in the Centra -Nepal

~~~o~~~~~Conditions and Mode ofLiving : The Case ofNepali Watchmen in Bombay

VOL. 4

I. Anthropology, Development and Public PolicyGerald D. Berreman

2. Development Issues Raised during the "People's Movement" of 1990Krishna B. Bhattachan

3. Anthropological Perspectives on Grassroots Development in NepalPadam La! Devkota

4. Deforestation and Rural Society in the Nepalese TeraiRishikeshab Raj Regmi

5. The Current Socio-Economic Status of Untouchables in NepalThomas Cox

6. Group Process for People's Participation in Rural Nepal: Reflectionsfrom a Micro Level StudyYouba Raj Lunel

7. Sherpa Buddhists on a Regional Pilgrimage: TIle Case of MaratikaCave a HalaseEberhard Berg

8. Book ReviewHemant Hwnar Jha

8. Television and the Child in Nepal: An Assessment of ViewingPatternsDyuti Baral

9. Mercantilism and Domestic Industry in West-Central Nepal:Significance for Anthropological Study of the CommWlityStephen L. Mikesell and Jamuna Shrestha

Vol. 3

I. Forestry and Famting System in the Mid-Hills of NepalKiran Dutta Upadhyay

2. Socia-Economic and Cultural Aspects of Aging in NepalRishikeshab Raj Regrni

3. Reli!:,>1on, Society and State in NepalDipak Raj Pant

4. Community Development as Strategy to Rural DevelopmentKailash Pyaklll)'al

5. National Integration in NepalGanesh Man Gurung and Bishnu Bhandari

6. TIle failure of Confidence MechanismTulsi Ram Pandey

7. Building a New American Academic AnthropologyTom Cox

8. Afro-American Sociologists and Nepali EthnographyStephen L. Mikesell

9. Case Studies on Domestic Servants: Reflection on Rural PovertySaubhagya Shah

PreliminaryA

Nepal School of Sociology/AothropologyDor Bahadur Bista h Need fNepalSociology and Anthropology Curriculum and t e S 0

Krishna Bahadur Bhattachan. thr I., " nd Development" in Nepalese An opo ogy"RomantIcism aJames F. Fisher . . The Case ofMigration, Adaptation, and Soc.o-Cultural Change.the Thakalis in PokharaRam Bahadur Chhetri.Native Strategies for Resowce ManagementOm Prasad Gurung . . S· TuI·Natural Causes and Processes of Poverty U1 Micro ertmgs 51

Ram Pandey . . . . R IA . ted with occupational SoclolizatIon 1D uraFactors SSOC13

NepalKiran Dutta UpadhyayDevelopment and UnderdevelopmentSociological PerspectiveChaitanya Mishra

4

5.

6.

7.

3.

l.

2.

7.

8.

6.

5.

4.

3.

2.

1.

VOL.!

VOL 5

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

VOL 6

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Ethnicity and Nationalism in the Nepali ContextA Perspective from EuropeUwe KievelitzThe issue ofNational Integration in NepalAn Ethnoregional ApproachKrishna B. BhattachanKailash N. PyakuryalBheja as a Strategic Cultural ConventionCommunity Resource Management in the Barba Magarat

Suresh DhakalThe Rajbanshis ofRajgadh. .Community Adaptation in the Envuoment of Eastern TeTalHari P. BhattaraiKunna Kola and Kuri as COmnllUlity ConceptsPatriliJ;eage. 'Deities, and Inside-Outside Dichotomy among the RanaTharusGanesh M. GunmgTove c. Kittelson

Forest, People's Participation and Conflicts in NepalDr. Rishikeshab Raj Regmi .Restoration of Democracy and People's Empowennent m NepalProf Kailash N. Pyakuryal .people-centered Development in Nepal: an InnovatIve ApproachDr. Padam Lal Devkota . .Ftulctions of an Organization in a Indigenous lITigation System: ACase Study from a Hill Village in NepalLaya Prasad Uprety .An Analysis ofThe Rural Poverty From People's PerspectIves: ACase Study from Amarpur VDC of Panchthar DistrictBinod Pokharel .Environmental pollution and Awareness in Pokhara Crty: ASociological PerspectiveDr. Biswo Kalyan Parajuli . .An Anthropological Perspective on Shifting CultIvatIon: A CaseStudy ofKhoriya Cuhivation in the Arun Valley ofEastern NepalSuresh DhakalSocial Engineering Approach to Air Quality Challenge: The Case of

KathmanduRamesh C. Arya

NOTES TO CONTRIBUTORS

Occasional Papers ill Sociology alld Anthropology publishes articles, originalresearch reports, review articles, book reviews, diSSCl't1l1ioo abstracts, professionalannouncements, and ether information of intere& in the areas of the sociology andanthropology of Nepal and ether Himalayan regions. BcXb. the Nqlalese and foreignscholars may submit their articles.

Materials submitted should be in English. Authors mu5t take fullresponsibility for the originalily, cootents, and opinioos expressed in their articles. Thecopyrigpted material whim is to be reproduced in the articles must be suitablyacknowledged.

Contributors are reque&ed to send, if possible, their materials on computerlloppy disks using mM compatible word processing programs. They may, however, soodcopy ofthe rnanusaipt separately. The te.xt, netes, and references should be typed double-spaced. All pages Slould be numbered The title of the p3per, author's name, afliliatioos,and complete address should appear 00 the rim. page.

The anthropological 5tyle of refaoocing is preferred Texts mould refa tonotes numbered cmsecutively. All noles tuld foctnolcs should appear at the cud of thepaper. Book reviews should not, however, cmtain foetnotes. AU references should beincorporated in the text itself.

CiUltim in the text should include the author's surname, year of publication,and page number. e.g. : (Socokin, 1978:49). lfthe publication to be cited is authoced bymore than two persons, then use the surname of the rim. aU1hoc, to be followed by et aI. Ifthe same reference is cited moce than ooce continuously, use ibid after citing the fullreference once, but giving the relevant page number if it is differcut.

Entries for the bibliographicalli5t should follow the follo....>ing order: author'sname (Immamc, followed by full rrrst name or initials), year of publication, the title ofpublication along \vith its edition number, place of publication, tuld publisher's name. Ifthe rcferooce for an article from an. edited book, then give the name of the author assugge&ed above, year of publication, the title of the article, the title of the book, editor'sname, place ofpubliC3tiw, mId publisher's name; e.g. Greenwold Stqlhm, 1978. "TbeRole of the Prie& in Newar Sociay·. Himalayan Anthropology. ed James Fisher. TheHague: Moutw.

lfthe reference is from a periodical, give the name ofllie author as suggestedabove, YC3J" of publication, the title of the pL'1iodical with its volume numbL", and pagenumber: e.g: Gray John, N. 1980. MHypergamy, Ca1>te and Kinship amwg the Cbhetrisof NepalM, Cmtributicns to Indian Sociology, 14: 1·34.

lf the year and the place of publicatim are mi5.'tmg use n.d. and D.p.respectively. The bibliograpbicallist. should preferably include wly the \.\'cd:s cited Usedouble quote nmrks (M .) while qucting Saltences and single qu~es (' ? foc a singleworkJphrase. Use r,pelling.'ll us followed in the New Web&er Dictioo.ary or OxfordDictionary. Contributors arereque5ted to maintain crusi5tcncy throughout their articles.

All corre!>"poodwces related to editorial and !>ubscriptioo should be addressedto:

lbe ChairpersonCentral Departmtnt of Sociology/AnthropologyTribhuvan UniversityKirtipur, Kathmandu

Documents

Emerging Methods in Research Participation and Empowerment