Teaching and Learning Guide for: Participatory Development: From Epistemological Reversals to Active Citizenship
Authors: Mohan Giles 
Published: August 2008

Author's IntroductionMany people across the world are frustrated with the ways in which policy is formed and implemented. They feel shut‐out of the process, even in nominally democratic societies, and so are seeking to increase participation in the development process. Participatory development is a term to describe approaches to policy and action that place the marginalised at the centre of decision‐making.Participation has become a feature of approaches in both the global South and global North, and is one of the few occasions where learning appears to have travelled from the South to the North. Its universalisation over the past two to three decades reflects a frustration with the ways in which approaches that target the marginalised through ‘formal’ political channels and ‘top down’ policy processes have in fact ignored their views and needs. Through a range of techniques for engaging with marginalised communities, participatory development promises a more engaged form of social transformation. But like many radical approaches that potentially upset established power relations, participatory development has been co‐opted and tamed by some organisations so that ‘participation’ is relatively thin and meaningless.The article explores the rise of participatory development and sets out what is meant by participation. It raises some criticisms of ‘mainstream’ participatory development and then sets out a suggested means by which participation could be more meaningful. This centres on accountability and citizenship, although these concepts are not unproblematic either.Author Recommends1. Agarwal, B. (2001). Participatory exclusions, community forestry and gender: an analysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework. World Development 29 (10), pp. 1623–1648. PII: S0305‐750X(01)0066‐3This is a useful article that sets out a typology of participation, which is used in the Geography Compass article. There are other typologies of participation, but this one is useful in giving it a specific gender slant and looks at the ways in which women are denied participation. As such, it links nicely with Mosse's article given below.2. Brett, E. A. (2003). Participation and accountability in development management. Journal of Development Studies 40 (2), pp. 1–29. London: Frank Cass.This is great article, which argues that any democratic system must be accountable. Brett argues that it does not matter so much if you call it participatory or not so long as those affected can hold power holders to account. He goes on to argue that accountability need not be only through state institutions but also civil society and market‐based organisations. The article sets out an agenda that others have recently taken up on social accountability.3. Chambers, R. (1994a). The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development 22 (7), pp. 953–969.4. Chambers, R. (1994b). Participatory rural appraisal: analysis and experience. World Development 22 (9), pp. 1253–1268.5. Chambers, R. (1994c). Participatory rural appraisal: challenges, potentials and paradigm. World Development 22 (10), pp. 1437–1454.These three articles by Robert Chambers, the guru of participation, cover much the same ground as his book ‘Whose Reality Counts? Putting the first last’ (1997, London: Intermediate Technology Publications). Although quite old they set out clearly the evolution of participatory rural appraisal (PRA), its main applications and some of the future avenues for research and practice. They are really clearly written and have lots of examples and illustrations.6. Cornwall, A. (2002). Making spaces, changing places: situating participation in development. Institute of Development Studies (IDS) Working Paper No. 170. Brighton, UK: IDS. ISBN: 1 85864 472 0Cornwall works with Robert Chambers at the IDS (see websites below). She is an anthropologist who has theorised participatory development and been instrumental in the move towards embedding it in citizenship concepts. The team at IDS have pioneered the linkages between participation and space, and in this article Cornwall sets out the idea of ‘invited’ and ‘claimed’ spaces of participation and uses Bourdieu to look at concepts of place and social action. It is really well written, clear and alongside the web materials provides a lot of good material for students.7. Fung, A., and Wright, E. O. (2001). Deepening democracy: innovations in empowered participatory governance. Politics and Society 29 (1), pp. 5–41. doi: 10.1177/0032329201029001002This is an introductory article to a special issue on deepening democracy. While they welcome experimental citizenship action, they are clear that it does not lie outside of state agendas but has to link to them to empower the marginalised. As such, it resonates with the citizenship ideas mentioned elsewhere. What is great is that it sees these issues as global insofar as they pertain to ‘Western’ societies as much as those in the global South. The other articles in the special issue are also very useful for deeper consideration and cover Kerala, Brazil, the USA and South Africa.8. Hickey, S., and Mohan, G. (eds) (2004). Participation: from tyranny to transformation? London: Zed Books. ISBN‐10: 1842774611; ISBN‐13: 978‐1842774618The book arose from a conference which was in response to Cooke and Kothari's Participation: The New Tyranny? which argued that participation stifled political development. While broadly agreeing the editors of this follow up collection sought out work on more politicised forms of participation. Much of this, especially the introductory chapter, informs the Geography Compass article's section on citizenship. These ideas are also available in Hickey, S., and Mohan, G. (2005). Relocating participation within a radical politics of development. Development and Change 36 (2), pp. 237–262.9. Kapoor, I. (2005). Participatory development, complicity and desire. Third World Quarterly 26 (8), pp. 1203–1220. doi: 10.1080/01436590500336849Quite a tough read, but has a really useful set of suggestions on how to promote more radical forms of participation. The author is really interesting in his use of postcolonial and psychoanalytical literature and is one of the few people to actually theorise participatory development.10. Mosse, D. (1994). Authority, gender and knowledge: theoretical reflections on the practice of participatory rural appraisal. Development and Change 25, pp. 497–526.This is a ground‐breaking article, which was one of the first to critique the practices of PRA. As an anthropologist, Mosse undertook long‐term ethnographies on a programme in India, and in the article reflects on the problems of PRA, especially how in ‘open’ group situations women's voices are marginalised.Online Materials1. Power tools for policy influence in natural resource management http://www.policy‐powertools.org/ This website introduces a range of what they call ‘Power Tools’. They are ‘how‐to’ ideas that marginalised people and their allies can use to have a greater positive influence on natural resources policy. A policy tool can be defined as a mechanism for influencing decisions and decision‐making, in this case about natural resource management. The essential feature of a tool is that it is transferable, able to be taken from one context and utilised elsewhere. This does not mean that every tool is an ideal blueprint, appropriate to every challenge. Policy tools are instead sets of ideas that can be discovered and developed in one setting and then extracted and adapted to other contexts.2. PLA (Participatory Learning and Action) Notes http://www.iied.org/NR/agbioliv/pla_notes/index.html Participatory Learning and Action is the world's leading series on participatory learning and action approaches and methods. The journal provides a forum for all those engaged in participatory work – community workers, activists and researchers – to share their experiences, conceptual reflections and methodological innovations with others. The PLA Notes series is informal and seeks to publish frank accounts, address issues of practical and immediate value, encourage innovation and act as a voice from the field. While recent issues have to be paid for there are free back issues starting from about 3 years back, but they are still very relevant and accessible. Find them at http://www.iied.org/NR/agbioliv/pla_notes/backissues.html#free3. Governance and Social Development Resource Centre http://www.gsdrc.org/ This is an information portal funded by the UK Department for International Development and has lots of material on the politics of development. Specifically, the Governance and Social Development Resource Centre supports the knowledge needs of the international development community in relation to governance, conflict and social development. In one section, there are good case studies of participatory development and has links to the actual articles since they have acquired copyright clearance. Find them at http://www.gsdrc.org/go/topic‐guides/monitoring‐and‐evaluation/participatory‐tools‐and‐approaches#tools4. Institute of Development Studies Participation Team http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/particip The Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex has long been a leader in research around participation. Its Participation, Power and Social Change Team explores concepts and methods of ‘participation’ and how they can be used to improve the complex interactions between society and policy. Focusing on research, innovation and learning in rights‐based and participatory approaches, they work in partnerships with diverse collaborators from around the world to generate ideas and action for social change.5. Citizenship Development Research Centre http://www.drc‐citizenship.org/ The UK's Department for International Development has funded a number of research centres on development topics. One of these is the Development Research Centre on Citizenship, Participation and Accountability (Citizenship DRC), also based at the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex. The Citizenship DRC is an international research partnership exploring new forms of citizenship that will help make rights real. It involves a network of researchers and practitioners working with research institutions and civil society organisations located in seven different countries – Angola, Bangladesh, Brazil, India, Nigeria, South Africa and the UK.Sample SyllabusThe article could be used in two sorts of syllabi.undergraduate and generalThe first is a general undergraduate course on approaches to development, of which participatory development might be a one or two week topic. Here, I would use the article alongside those given above as ‘author recommends’, especially those with an asterisk.Week 1: Introducing Participatory DevelopmentParticipatory development has become new development orthodoxy. But where did this approach come from? What does it involve? What does it promise? Reading Mohan., G. (2007). Participatory development: from epistemological reversals to active citizenship. Geography Compass 1 (4), pp. 779–796. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00038.xChambers, R. (1994a). The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development 22 (7), pp. 953–969.Chambers, R. (1994b). Participatory rural appraisal: analysis and experience. World Development 22 (9), pp. 1253–1268.Week 2: Problems, Pitfalls and Ways ForwardParticipatory development promises much, but suffers from some limitations. Some seem more intractable and throws into question the entire development process, while others are being addressed through new techniques and political approaches. Reading Brett, E. A. (2003). Participation and accountability in development management. Journal of Development Studies 40 (2), pp. 1–29.Kapoor, I. (2002) The devil's in the theory: a critical assessment of Robert Chambers’ work on participatory development. Third World Quarterly 23 (1), pp. 101–117.Kapoor, I. (2005). Participatory development, complicity and desire. Third World Quarterly 26 (8), pp. 1203–1220.Mosse, D. (1994). Authority, gender and knowledge: theoretical reflections on the practice of participatory rural appraisal. Development and Change 25, pp. 497–526.postgraduate and detailedThe second is focused solely on participatory development and would more likely be a Masters’ level course in a more practically oriented development studies programme. Here, the article would be used as a general introduction to the topic, and subsequent weeks would develop much more detailed application and critique.Weeks 1 and 2: Introducing Participatory DevelopmentParticipatory development has become new development orthodoxy. But where did this approach come from? What does it involve? What does it promise? Reading Mohan., G. (2007). Participatory development: from epistemological reversals to active citizenship. Geography Compass 1 (4), pp. 779–796. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00038.xChambers, R. (1994a). The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development 22 (7), pp. 953–969.Chambers, R. (1994b). Participatory rural appraisal: analysis and experience. World Development 22 (9), pp. 1253–1268.Weeks 3–7: Approaches, Techniques and Case StudiesMuch of this would be from the above web sources especially things like PLA Notes. Students will want to get some experience of ‘doing’ participatory development and/or reflecting on their prior experience of it. I think a practical exercise over a number of weeks would be ideal for this.Weeks 8–10: Critiques and ResponsesParticipatory development promises much, but suffers from some limitations. Some seem more intractable and throw into question the entire development process, while others are being addressed through new techniques and political approaches. Reading Brett, E. A. (2003). Participation and accountability in development management. Journal of Development Studies 40 (2), pp. 1–29.Kapoor, I. (2002). The devil's in the theory: a critical assessment of Robert Chambers’ work on participatory development. Third World Quarterly 23 (1), pp. 101–117.Kapoor, I. (2005). Participatory development, complicity and desire. Third World Quarterly 26 (8), pp. 1203–1220.Mosse, D. (1994). Authority, gender and knowledge: theoretical reflections on the practice of participatory rural appraisal. Development and Change 25, pp. 497–526.Weeks 10–12: The New Politics of EmpowermentThis would examine questions of citizenship that are emerging. Reading Cornwall, A. (2006). Spaces for change? The politics of citizen participation in new democratic arenas. London: Zed Books.Optionalfocus questions

Why has participatory development become such a central feature of contemporary approaches to social policy?
How can participation be understood?
In what ways does ‘participation’ function as an ideological smokescreen?
What are the potential pitfalls for participatory epistemologies?
How might participatory development be made more meaningful for the poor and marginalised?
How does ‘place’ help us understand the dynamics of participation?
In what ways is citizenship an alternative to participation?
How can participation be made more accountable?

Seminar/Project Idea1. Group exercise: a quick and dirty PRA exerciseParticipatory development emerged from methodologies for finding out with the poor and marginalised. One of its epistemological assumptions is that due to cultural differences and levels of education the poor might be better representing their ideas visually. Such visual diagrams also take people out of their ‘normal’ ways of seeing the world and so may throw up new insights. This exercise aims to expose students very quickly to such issues.The learning outcomes are:

to get experience of doing a participatory research exercise
to appreciate the advantages of diagramming methods in group decision‐making
to critically analyse the cognitive assumptions and group dynamics bound up in participatory approaches

The exercise: mental mapping The activity is around mental mapping, but the websites listed have many more ‘tools’ and ‘techniques’ that you may wish to use. The idea is to create an active learning experience around a participatory method and then discuss it critically. It should last about 90 min, but can be expanded over hours or days. Tutors could:

Split the class into single sex groups of five.
Explain to them that they are to produce a mental map for a hypothetical planning exercise (e.g. to improve campus safety). Do not spend ages explaining what mental maps are, but give them enough of an idea what they should do.
Give them large sheets of paper, some coloured marker pens, and a few ‘Post it’ notes.
Ask them to produce a single mental map per group of the campus showing the main routes they take and to highlight where, if at all, they feel ‘at risk’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘threatened’, etc. Likewise ask them where they feel ‘safe’, ‘relaxed’ or ‘at ease’. Give them freedom to use the resources as they see fit. Let this run for 30 min.
Hold a plenary to compare the maps of males and females and draw out any similarities and differences. Get the students to expand on the differences and come out with an agreed set of recommendations to improve campus safety.
Also use the plenary to reflect on the whole participatory process. This could link to the next activity, but some prompt questions could be: Did they feel part of the map drawing process? Was it a refreshing way to think socially and spatially? Did anyone dominate?

References on diagramming Spatial information can be analysed through diagrams, maps and models. The techniques are pictorial or symbolic representations of the world. The purposes of diagrams are to:

represent objects and processes
facilitate mutual education and information exchange
stimulate an open discussion
provoke effective group work
assist in decision making
help remember important points
help in monitoring and evaluation

The Open University has an open source teaching repository called OpenLearn, which contains packaged teaching exercises in its LearningSpace. One is on diagramming and is a useful introduction for teachers and students. Find it at http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=1290. References on mental maps For more on mental maps see the following websites:

http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/crs/geog165/maps.htm
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/xpeditions/standards/02/index.html
http://geography.about.com/od/geographyglossarym/g/ggmentalmap.htm

2. Individual or group project: analysing development interventionsThe idea of participation is contested and with it the possibilities of participatory development. Most people are aware that there are different forms and degrees of participation. This exercise aims to get students analysing ‘real‐world’ examples of participatory approaches.The learning outcomes are:

to appreciate the different meanings and degrees of participation
to apply a typology to a concrete case

The exercise: applying Agarwal In the Geography Compass article and on the recommended readings is an article from 2001 by Bina Agarwal. In it, there is a discussion of different types of participation. There are many other typologies of participation that you might want to use, but the idea is to ‘apply’ a typology to a concrete case. Tutors should select a case that is relevant to them, or they could combine this with the previous group mapping exercise.

Typology of participation.

Form/level of participation
Characteristic features

Nominal participation
Membership in the group

Passive participation
Being informed of decisions ex post facto; or attending meetings and listening in on decision‐making, without speaking up

Consultative participation
Being asked an opinion in specific matters without guarantee of influencing decisions

Activity‐specific participation
Being asked to (or volunteering to) undertake specific tasks

Active participation
Expressing opinions, whether or not solicited, or taking initiatives of other sorts

Interactive (empowering) participation
Having voice and influence in the group's decisions

Source: Agarwal, 2001, p. 1624.

The idea is to become familiar with Agarwal's typology, summarised in the table above, and apply it to a case study. The ‘characteristic features’ can be turned into questions when analysing the case study.3. Individual and group activity: engendering citizenship – the notion of social citizenshipRecent approaches to participatory development are tying it to a more open concept of citizenship. But this can create similar problems of how does one enable citizenship – a universal status – in the context of racial, gender and bodily differences? The Open University has an open source teaching repository called OpenLearn, which contains packaged teaching exercises in its LearningSpace. One is on engendering citizenship and can be found at http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=3099. Students could work through this in their own study time and then use it as a basis for tutorial discussion.