Abstract
International development organizations increasingly use “participatory development” approaches to improve the effectiveness of their programs. Participatory frameworks are commonly limited in scope and funder-driven; these top-down approaches to participation have proven to be both ineffective, and at times, contradictory in their impacts. This article describes Malawi’s Participatory Action for School Improvement (PASI) project, which was an effort to transform participatory development approaches in international development education by engaging communities as full partners in the school improvement process. By acknowledging our own ideological intentions and attempting to work with community leaders to shift power dynamics within communities and between communities and funding bodies, PASI fueled significant positive changes in school functioning at a very small cost. The article concludes that PASI might represent a generative community-level cash transfer approach to participatory development.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See Bartlett 2010 for more about the pedagogical implications of this model.
Certainly, in any given project there may be fundamental principles that everyone agrees must be met (for example, building designs that do not pose a hazard of collapse), but even in such cases, there is seldom a chance for all parties involved to reach a negotiated agreement on these principles.
The World Bank would categorize PASI as a “community-driven” development project instead of “community-based” one (Mansuri and Rao 2003). “Community-based development” can be understood as a broad term that encompasses an array of projects that include the intended project beneficiaries in both the design and management of the program or intervention itself. “Community-driven development” is a more recent term that takes the idea of “community-based development” a step further to give beneficiaries’ direct control over critical project decisions including design, management, and importantly, funds themselves, when possible.
All of the groups included at least one person who could write and read the list. We were concerned, however, that literacy skills and control of the writing and reporting processes would create inequities within groups, and there was some indication that this occurred.
We recognize also that PASI was very limited in its duration, and short-term development project timelines are a significant issue in and of themselves. For example, a number of researchers have now shown that participatory development processes may over time show increased engagement of marginalized community members, even without additional steps taken (e.g., Sangina et al. 2006, Classen et al. 2008).
References
Angeles, L. & Gurstein, P. (2000). Planning for participatory capacity development: The challenges of participation and North–south partnership in capacity building projects. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, XXI (special issue on participatory development), pp 447–478.
Berner, E., & Phillips, B. (2005). Left to their own devices? Community self-help between alternative development and neoliberalism. Community Development Journal, 40(1), 17–29.
Chambers, R. (1983). Rural development: putting the last first. New York: Longman.
Chambers, R. (1994). The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development, 22(7), 953–969.
Classen, L., Humphries, S., FitzSimons, J., Kaaria, S., Jiménez, J., Sierra, F., & Gallardo, O. (2008). Opening participatory spaces for the most marginal: learning from collective action in the Honduran hillsides. World Development, 36(11), 2402–2420.
Cleaver, F. (1999). Paradoxes of participation: questioning participatory approaches to development. Journal of International Development, 11, 597–612.
Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (2001). Participation: the new tyranny? London: Zed Books.
Cornish, F., & Ghosh, R. (2007). The necessary contradictions of ‘community-led’ health promotion: a case study of HIV prevention in an Indian red promotion: a case study of HIV prevention in Indian red light district. Social Science & Medicine, 64, 486–507.
Cornwall, A., & Brock, K. (2005). What do buzzwords do for development policy? A critical look at ‘participation,’ ‘empowerment’ and ‘poverty reduction.’. Third World Quarterly, 26(7), 1043–1060.
Fanon, F. (1968). The wretched of the earth. New York: Grove.
Ferguson, J. (1990). The anti-politics machine: ‘Development’, depoliticization, and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.
Fritzen, S. (2007). Can the design of community-driven development reduce the risk of elite capture? Evidence from Indonesia. World Development, 35(8), 1359–1375.
Goulet, D. (1989). Participation in development: new avenues. World Development, 17(2), 165–178.
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hayward, C., Simpson, L., & Wood, L. (2004). Still left out in the cold: problematising participatory research and development. Sociologia Ruralis, 44(1), 95–108.
Kendall, N. (2007). Education for all meets political democratization: Free primary education and the neoliberalization of the Malawian school and state. Comparative Education Review, 51(3), 281–305.
Kendall, N. (2008). “Vulnerability” in AIDS-affected states: Rethinking child rights, educational institutions, and development paradigms. International Journal of Educational Development, 28(4), 365–383.
Keough, N. (1998). Participatory development principles and practice: reflections of a western development worker. Community Development Journal, 33(3), 187–196.
Khan, A. R. (2006). Community mobilization through participatory approach: A critical assessment. Pakistan Economic and Social Review, 44(2), 245–258.
Kothari, U., et al. (2001). Power, knowledge and social control in participatory development. In B. Cooke (Ed.), Participation: the new tyranny? (pp. 139–152). London: Zed Books.
Leys, C. (1996). The rise and fall of development theory. Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Leal, P. (2007). Participation: the ascendancy of a buzzword in the neo-liberal era. Development in Practice, 17(4/5), 539–548.
Mansuri, G., & Rao, V. (2003). Community-based (and driven) development: a critical review. Development research group. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Mitchell, T. (2002). Rule of experts: Egypt, techno-politics, modernity. Berkley: University of California Press.
Nyamugasira, W., & Rowden, R. (2002). New strategies, old loan conditions: do the new IMF and World Bank loans support countries’ poverty reduction strategies? The case of Uganda. Kampala: ActionAid.
Pantham, T. (1983). Thinking with Mahatma Gandhi: beyond liberal democracy. Political Theory, 11(2), 165–188.
Peet, R., & Hartwick, E. (2009). Theories of development: contentions, arguments, alternatives (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
Rahman, M. (1995) Participatory development: towards liberation and co-optation? In: G. Craig and M. Mayo (Eds.) Community empowerment: a reader in participation and development (pp. 24–32). London: Zed Books
Rahnema, M. (2010). Participation. In W. Sachs (Ed.), The development dictionary (pp. 116–131). London: Zed Books.
Rowlands, J. (2003). Introduction. In D. Eades (Ed.), Development methods and approaches: critical reflections (pp. 1–20). Oxford: Oxfam Professional.
Sanginga, P. C., Tumwine, J., & Lilja, N. K. (2006). Patterns of participation in farmers’ research groups: lessons from the highlands of southwestern Uganda. Agriculture and Human Values, 23(4), 501–512.
Sioh, M. (2010). The hollow within: anxiety and performing postcolonial financial policies. Third World Quarterly, 31(4), 581–597.
Tandon, R. (2008). Participation, citizenship and democracy: reflections on 25 years of PRIA. Community Development Journal, 43(3), 284–296.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the TAG Philanthropic Foundation, which made this work possible through their funding of the PASI project. We also thank Rachel Silver and Miriam Thangaraj for their thoughtful feedback on drafts of the article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kendall, N., Kaunda, Z. & Friedson-Rideneur, S. Community participation in international development education quality improvement efforts: current paradoxes and opportunities. Educ Asse Eval Acc 27, 65–83 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-015-9210-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-015-9210-0