Baker Institute Promises and Pitfalls (original) (raw)

Participatory Development

The now familiar critique of mainstream development goes like this: community development by multinational organizations after World War II was driven by the knowledge and decisions of experts. The experts were, almost without exception, western white men with common conceptions about the recently post-colonial populations that they sought to develop. "Development" for these experts meant becoming more modern, rational, and industrial and westernized—even if at high cultural or environmental costs. The ideas behind development plans changed from time to time, but the power, money and expertise remained in the hands of the rich countries. The backlash against this model of developmental decision-making advocated for the alternative of participatory approaches to development. The most visible early promoters of participatory techniques in development and research were CHAMBERS (1983, 1997) and FALS-BORDA and RAHMAN (1991). Drawing on popular models like those of FREIRE (1970), the promoters of these methods were vociferously opposed to the existing "top-down" approaches of institutions. They claimed that utilizing their participatory methods made the development process more empowering, democratic, just and effective. Their methods promoted power-sharing in the research and planning phases of development through the incorporation of the perspectives of local residents. The intended result was a levelling of power imbalances between development professionals and local residents. The "empowering" results of this process were touted as having far-reaching effects in the lives of the participants. [2] The participatory approach has gained acceptance in international development. The incorporation of "local knowledge" in development projects is now commonplace. What was initially a radical critique of development has relatively quickly become a staple of international development practice. With its widespread adoption, concerns have periodically been raised about the degree to which these participatory methods are living up to the claims of their promoters. One concern is that the development agencies are implementing participatory practices in ways that serve their own agendas. A more sweeping critique sees the idea of participatory development as flawed, idealistic or naïve. This strain of criticism is most thoroughly developed in COOKE and KOTHARI (2001) Participation: The New Tyranny. 2. Critiques of Participation Participation: The New Tyranny challenges the pervasive belief that participation is unequivocally good. In eleven chapters written by academics and practitioners who have extensive experience in international development, the authors provide analyses, supported by detailed descriptions of development fieldwork, to support their assertions. These contributions, drawing from psychology, sociology and critical theory, assert that participation in practice is nowhere near the participatory, bottom-up, open process that it is commonly held to be. [4] The New Tyranny demonstrates that the theoretical ideal of participation is often not functioning as the tool for liberation and distribution of power that its rhetoric suggests. Instead, efforts embracing participation are described as largely maintaining existing power relationships, though masking this power behind the rhetoric and techniques of participation. This masking, therefore, represents the tyranny of participation. [5] The tyranny of decision making and control COOKE and KOTHARI, in the opening chapter, identify three types of tyranny. First, the dominance of multinational agencies and funders exists just beneath the rhetoric and practices of participation. This tyranny addresses the enduring decision-making control held by agencies and funders.

Using a community-based participatory approach to research and programming in Northern Uganda: two researchers’ confessional tales

Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 2013

ABSTRACT Background: African immigrants are a rapidly growing segment of the U.S. population, with diverse health needs and lifestyles. Little is known about the health profile of this population. Upon arrival in the U.S., African immigrants seem to have a health advantage over their American counterparts and other non-African immigrants. However, this health advantage diminishes with increased duration of residence in the U.S. This decline in health may be linked to Westernizationincluding a sedentary lifestyle and unhealthy diet and subsequent increased risk for chronic disease. Additional research is needed to identify the health needs and best ways to address these needs. Objective: To use a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach to identify perceived health needs and barriers/enablers to meeting these health needs among African immigrants. Methods: Community Advisory Committees (CAC) in Pittsburgh, PA (6-members) and Silver Spring, MD (9-members) comprised of African immigrant community leaders convened and met three times over a 1.5-month period to discuss and identify perceived health needs and barriers/enablers to meeting these health needs. Results: CACs identified chronic disease, mental health, HIV/AIDS, and stress as major health concerns. Shame/secrecy/stigma, cultural factors/spiritual beliefs and employment/immigration status were identified as barriers to health needs; social and faith based community events and social-networking/media outreach were suggested as enablers to meeting health needs. Conclusion: A CBPR approach is an essential tool for mobilizing and empowering African immigrant communities to identify and address their health needs. Identifying community partners and gatekeepers is instrumental to the success of CBPR in this population.

Impact pathways of a participatory local governance initiative in Uganda: a qualitative exploration

Development in Practice, 2018

The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), established in 1975, provides evidence-based policy solutions to sustainably end hunger and malnutrition and reduce poverty. The Institute conducts research, communicates results, optimizes partnerships, and builds capacity to ensure sustainable food production, promote healthy food systems, improve markets and trade, transform agriculture, build resilience, and strengthen institutions and governance. Gender is considered in all of the Institute's work. IFPRI collaborates with partners around the world, including development implementers, public institutions, the private sector, and farmers' organizations, to ensure that local, national, regional, and global food policies are based on evidence.

Participatory Research Methods: Importance and Limitations of Participation in Development Practice

World Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2022

Since more than four decades ago, the need to adopt participatory approaches in development planning, budgeting, implementation, monitoring and evaluation has increased exponentially. More precisely, there has been a demand by both state and non-state actors to undertake development interventions using both top-down and bottomup approaches to promote a balanced participation and empowerment of various stakeholders including the marginalised poor. This article espouses the importance and limitations of participation in development practice. In order to achieve that objective, the study takes a critical consideration of participatory research methods. The case made herein is that 'participation' is crucial for any development process-it increases efficiency and sustainability of interventions; leads to empowerment; enhances achievement of development goals; and it also transforms the development actors' paradigms. Conversely, the study also argues that participation inasmuch as it possesses clear benefits and empowering effects, it is without disadvantages. Some contentious viewpoints are that participation lacks proof to cause empowerment and sustainability; it fails to resolve the power relations problem; and that it only works well with small projects while another view is that PRA tools are usually over praised. Regardless, this study recommends that i) participation should be considered as a strong alternative to development; ii) participation must draw its boundaries clearly; and iii) participation should also be taken as a catalyst for knowledge and skills transfer.