Power, Process and Participation: Tools for Change

Participation in context:
key questions
CHAPTER 3
Dianne Rocheleau and Rachel Slocum
Participation, like development, means vastly different things depending on who
defines it and uses it, and to what end, where, when and how. Past experience
suggests that participatory development can bring about both negative and positive
change.' Much depends on the relations of power embedded in the broader social
context as well as in the participatory process itself. We acknowledge the need for
significant change in social, economic and political institutions in order to address
the deep rooted problems of poverty, unequal relations of power and environmental
degradation. However, we will focus here on the practice and process of participa-
tory research, planning and governance in the context of community development.
We suggest careful consideration of six sets of key questions as a checklist against
some of the common pitfalls of participatory development:
Why is this participatory process needed? What ends does it serve?
What are the relations of power at play in the local community, in the larger
social context and in the specific activities planned?
Who is involved? Whose interests are at stake? Who is in control of the pro-
cess?
What is the most appropriate time frame for the problems to be considered, the
process itself, and the plans and actions to follow?
What are the appropriate spatial and organizational scales for analysis, for
action, for advocacy, for policy change and for follow-up? How can participa-
tory efforts scale up to influence regional and national policy?
Given the answers to the first five questions, how should a participatory process
17

proceed? What methods, in what sequence, and under whose direction will best
serve the interests of the people involved?
We explore each of these points in the sections which follow.
Why a participatory Process?
The importance of defining the ends served and making them explicit in collabora-
tive work should not be underestimated. While it seems a simple question, facilita-
tors and planners can better serve the interests of communities if they ask ‘why?’
at all the stages of participatory development efforts. The ends of participation
include those of the planners and facilitators as well as the objectives of the
participants. It is helpful to both groups to make their reasons explicit and then to
attempt to reconcile differences, rather than to proceed on the assumption that all
parties involved have no agenda or subscribe to a single general goal. Participa-
tory exercises can then be tailored to the various ends which the group decides to
pursue.
Participation as a means to specific ends
One possible end is the instrumental use of people and their participation by
outsiders for the achievement of some implicit or intentionally concealed aim.
More often than not, it is an end that the initiators believe to be the best or neces-
sary objective. Hand in hand with instrumentalism is mobilization, which in this
sense means getting certain people to do something, even if it undermines their
interests. Whatever action is being taken, it is probably not on the terms of the
women and men involved. A good example of instrumentalism is the promotion of
widespread local participation in the design and construction of rural reforestation,
water management or soil conservation structures that serve the interests of urban
water supply authorities or electric power generators. When they find that partici-
pation is used in such an instrumental way by outsiders, the intended participants
may withdraw, or they may welcome the opportunity to negotiate for an exchange,
including benefits for their community or for individuals.
Some people targeted by development have also used externally directed
and designed ends that do not suit their immediate needs or interests as a way to
gain something potentially useful later. In one specific case in Burkina Faso,
researchers found that people allowed themselves to be mobilized by a land
management project, calculating that it would be a way to get services that they
really wanted later.2 If nothing else, making such ends explicit at the beginning
18

opens up possibilities for more honest - and perhaps more mutually beneficial -
collaborative arrangements.
different ends. Outsiders often seek to help or to mobilize, while people in local
communities participate or resist in order to survive, to thrive or to change some-
thing for the better. People find ingenious ways both to get what they want from
outside initiatives and to protect themselves from unwanted development. In some
cases, in spite of all efforts to the contrary, people are unable to re-orient or resist
inappropriate interventions, and projects are perpetrated upon them rather than
being designed and carried out by and for themselves. Participatory process,
combined with an explicit treatment of the objectives of the process itself, can
prevent such abuses.
Within local communities there may be many distinct objectives for
participation, including hopes of personal profit from the resulting actions; a
platform for voicing needs of marginalized groups; a means of capturing resources
for the poor from local elites (or vice versa); or an attempt to control the damage
from an unwanted intervention. Facilitators will rarely find all of these groups
ready and willing to declare their intentions, for obvious reasons. However, they
may be able to address the implicit or submerged objectives of each group, and
their own. As the process unfolds, they should be attentive to signals about these
unstated agendas.
Development relationships between donors and ‘recipients’ usually involve
Participation as an end in itself
Development agents or local participants may also value participation for its own
sake. It implies that men and women are learning, organizing, deciding, planning
and acting, whether quickly or slowly, easily or painfully, and with or without a
specific end. In some cases the end is participation for its own sake in a first
phase, so that people are in a position to define their own goals and to act on them
in a second phase.
Participatory research
In the context of research, the objective of participatory approaches may be simply
to extract information from people - the more common approach. On the other
hand there are many participatory research efforts which place outside researchers
at the service of local communities or popular social movements. Other options
include collaborative efforts ranging from documentation of local experiments and
innovations by professional scientists to farmer participation in outsider-designed
agricultural and forestry experiments.3 Environmental, agricultural and develop-
19

ment researchers who claim to engage in participatory research often mean that
‘we’ (the researcher) allow ‘them’ (local people) to participate in ‘our’ research.
For community organizers or rural communities, it may mean that ‘they’ allow
outsiders (us) to take part in local experiments. What we all imply, but seldom
discuss, is that we propose to join together people and institutions with very
distinct traditions of acquiring and testing knowledge, and often, very different
needs and uses for knowledge.4
Participation and relations of Power
It is important to recognize and address uneven relations of power in local context
and in the participatory process. The workings of power pervade all of our deal-
ings in everyday life and we ignore them at our peril. There is no reason to assume
that they do not influence even the most carefully designed participatory process.
To promote social change through participatory development it is essential to
understand better and to address the way that power is distributed and wielded: in
local communities; in the internal operations of development agencies; in their
relationships with each other, the state and the local community; and in specific
participatory initiatives. In order to do this facilitators need first to identify the
multiple actors within communities, as well as those who work within and between
communities and others whose decisions affect local development from afar.
Several critics of development (including Patricia Stamp, Wolfgang Sachs,
Arturo Escobar, `Sonia Alvarez, Gustavo Esteva, and Vandana Shiva) have pointed
out the cultural arrogance and the everyday abuses of power within much of
development practice.5 Likewise many feminist scholars and activists have
examined the workings of power not only between men and women but also those
based on class, ethnicity, religion, race, nationality and ideology. It is crucial to
consider the insights of both groups in the process of participatory development, in
order to navigate through the complex relations of power between outside actors
and local communities as well as between and within communities and between
and within development organizations.
Central to any development process is an understanding of power relations
embedded in the culture and social structure within local communities. Facilita-
tors of participatory exercises need to consider carefully their choice of partners to
organize and plan activities, whose interests to address and whom to include in any
given event. Local authorities, political leaders and business people often present
themselves as collaborators but may represent a very narrow range of experience,
based on their wealth and social status (including gender, age, religion, race, caste,
lineage, education and other factors).
It is often advisable to acknowledge and include official leaders along with
representatives of the various social groupings which people themselves recognize
20

in the community.6 For example, facilitators might meet with women’s groups,
landless people’s groups, a smallholder farmers association and a group of herders
in a given community in order to identify members of each group to serve on a
planning or oversight committee. These same groups could provide guidance as to
what kind of format and procedure would be suitable for them to speak and discuss
openly both among themselves and in combination with other groups and officials.
The relationship between outside development agents and local insiders is
also framed by parameters of power. An outsider may be from a national or
international NGO, a government extension service, or a bi/multilateral aid agency.
The more specific identities that precede organizational affiliation - nationality,
gender, race, ethnicity, religion and ideology - also influence whether someone is
perceived as an insider or outsider, and further whether they are perceived as friend
or foe. As noted by Ian Seoones and john Thompson,7 there is no essential at-
tribute that makes someone an insider or outsider. These terms are relative by their
very definition and depend upon context. However, there is a general trend toward
powerful outsiders wielding influence in local communities through participatory
initiatives by a variety of institutions, including NGOs.
develop a relationship with local communities that is best described as dictator-
ship.8 Because of the power that comes from the simple fact of having funds, and
the assumption that all participatory efforts are inherently good, the NGOs may
overlook the question ‘Did anyone invite us, and if so, who?’ With their substan-
tial power, outside development agents can justify their presence and dictate the
ends and means of participatory development. Financial assistance made too
easily available can crush local initiative and undermine existing initiatives,
corrupt accountability, and ruin the viability of local organizations. Some critics,
such as Lecomte, contend that ‘the main enemy is the supporting institution with
its keenness to assist, to provide funds, to solicit needs and convert them into
projects.9 Outside organizations of all stripes need to be sensitive to the power
that they wield and to carefully apply both their resources and their own priorities.
International and national NGOs, despite all intentions to the contrary, can
Whose interests, whose voices,
whose actions?
Development practitioners often speak of communities as if they are undifferenti-
ated wholes. They may assume that a project will bring equal benefits to all (and
have equally shared negative or unintended side-effects). This assumption renders
invisible the situation of women, whose distinct interests, perspectives, and posi-
tion in society have been largely ignored or subsumed under community within
even the most participatory initiatives. Class, ethnicity, race, age, religious group
21

and caste may also become homogenized within the term ‘community.’
essential category such as women vs. men, Christian vs. Muslim, poor vs. wealthy,
or other easy dichotomies. None of these is a homogeneous group. Individuals
may identify more or less strongly with gender, class, ethnicity or religion, depend-
ing on their own experience and the current context. These attributes also interact.
For example, a poor, lower caste Hindu woman in India may define and experience
gender very differently from a wealthy Muslim woman in Morocco, and African-
American, Latina and Euro-American women in the United States may likewise
have very different notions of gender. Women and men are also more or less
powerful relative to each other depending on the culture, situation, place and time.
Both genders have many dimensions and distinct sources of identity and some-
times different power relations accompany each. There is also more to gender
relations than power and conflict - gender divisions of work, knowledge, and
authority may include conflict, competition, co-existence, complementarity and
active co-operation.10 Other kinds of groupings are embedded in similarly com-
plex circumstances.
The tendency to focus on identity, whether single or multiple, also fails to
address the way that people group together based on more flexible criteria, such as
shared interests on a specific issue, coalitions between very distinct groups with a
common goal or broader affinities among groups and between individuals. This
implies that groups will shift on the basis of the context and the issues at stake,
which requires a highly sensitive and flexible approach by NGOs and government
agencies. Facilitators need to grapple not only with difference, but with a multi-
tude of different possible groupings and, beyond that, a shifting constellation of
groups with flexible boundaries. For example, groupings such as those listed in
Gendered Resource Mapping (reproduced opposite) often help to define distinct
land user groups as participants in a resource management project. They are based
on identity, land tenure status, occupation, and membership in various types and
scales of organizational affiliation.
tives and interests of diverse groups, they must also confront the question of how
actively they will promote the participation and follow-up actions of the less
powerful groups. For example, participatory efforts that challenge restrictions on
women’s or other groups’ access to decision-making power often draw criticism
and provoke debate over respect for cultural norms. However, culture and social
relations are not static with respect to gender, class, race, caste or other dimensions
of difference. Creative practitioners who care about the position of women in
society have in many cases found ways to raise the awareness of men and women
and to support women trying to claim the power to decide and act. In the case of
Philippine land tenure reform programmes, facilitators in some districts have
helped communities to register household lands in both women’s and men’s
The opposite trap consists of grouping people based on one fixed or
Not only must facilitators explicitly attempt to include the distinct perspec-
22

Subdivision of land user groups (from Gendered Resource Mapping)
Land users by activity
Producers
Gatherers
Hunters
Herders
Farmers
large/small
paid/unpaid
Farmworkers
Processors
Market vendors
Consumers
Land users by rights of access and ownership
(Applies to trees and/or land)
Owner (state, group, individual, de jure or de facto)
Tenant (rent paid)
User by permission or exchange agreement
Continuous
Regular
Occasional
Squatters, ‘poachers’ (illegal users, occupants)
Land users by management unitfunit of analysis
Individuals or household sub-groups
Households
Communities and community groups
Companies and co-operatives
Administrative units
Women, men, children; age group members
Managed by men, women; small/large; young/old; rich/poor
Families, clans, self-help groups
States, districts, villages, neighbourhoods etc.
23

members of a given community, where ‘local people’ and officials engage in
planning discussions about local problems and proposed development solutions.
However, participation can take place in national policy discussions and legislative
process as well as in small, quiet meetings between family members, neighbours,
or members of particular groups based on occupation, class, race, ethnicity, gender,
religion, or other bases of identity and difference. In fact, close attention to the
appropriate scale of problem definition, analysis and action can make a major
difference in the quality of participation, the rate of Participation, and the represen-
tation of all groups involved in a given process. The scale of these participatory
efforts can also dramatically influence the outcome, both overall and for particular
groups.
Nested, sliding scales of access, use, control and management
Scale matters because problems that manifest at one level may be caused at
another and may contribute to additional problems at a smaller or larger scale. To
address the problems of one community group at a given time and place may
require a much broader look at the regional and national context, as well as a
closer look at the daily lives and landscapes of individuals and particular groups.
For example, the actions of three large-scale farmers and two groups of herders in
one upland location may affect the availability and quality of water in nearby
downstream water points as well as the sedimentation of a hydro-electric dam
further downstream. In the case of the nearby downstream water points, a partici-
patory planning and problem-solving exercise might focus on a specific kind of
degradation to be addressed locally by the individuals directly involved as causal
agents, and/or as consumers and resource users. A community level organization
or a local government agency might also act to address the problem at the commu-
nity or village scale. However, in the case of dam sedimentation, there would be a
need for the co-ordination of responses by a number of actors across communities
if this problem were repeated elsewhere. The local actions might be quite distinct
for upstream and downstream communities, while a single policy at district or river
basin level would be needed to guide these diverse actions toward a just and viable
conclusion for all the land and water users in the area. Participation in such a case
would need to begin with multiple scale analyses of the problems and potential
solutions and would need to occur at several levels. While many activities could
feasibly take place at community and small group level, others would be best
conducted at household, individual or regional level.
tory research, planning and action. The first is the exploration of problems and
opportunities at multiple scales, always looking at larger and smaller-scale pro-
cesses that influence or are influenced by any given problem. The second is the
We suggest careful attention to scale in three specific areas of participa-
26

process, with special attention to the size and nature of the social unit of resource
users and stakeholders and the size of the landscape units involved in various
stages of participatory initiatives. Third, the size and nature of the landscape area
and the social units for follow-up action will vary with the type of problem and the
context. Careful attention to the scale of both social organization and ecological
units can improve the quality and outcome of each of these stages of participatory
activity.
Multiple scales and multiple interests
Facilitators need to pay careful attention to choice of size, composition and format
of groups for research and planning activities and to the choice of the scale of
organization to act on decisions and plans. It should be noted that these will often
not be the same. Even though the problem affects a group at one scale, the analy-
sis may need to involve larger and smaller groups and the solution may need to be
addressed by national or regional as well as local agencies.
Most people participate in resource use and environmental practices from
a number of distinct but overlapping perspectives. They use and manage resources
as individuals, as members of a group (based on criteria ranging from clan to caste
to church affiliation, from political party to gender-specific self-help organization
to social movements) and as legal residents of a given administrative unit such as a
village, town or district. That is, as land users or Stakeholders, they may be mem-
bers of several different groupings, as illustrated in the partial list on page 23.
Regardless of the number and size of stakeholder groups, facilitators will
also need to consider the appropriate scale of participant groups for various
activities. Participation extends well beyond group meetings, whether to learn, to
plan, to make decisions, or to discuss points of conflict and to search for consen-
sus. Every activity, in a given geographical and historical context, has a particular
set of opportunities and limits with respect to the nature, size and number of
groups that can readily take part. These activities may include everything from
research planning to detailed documentation of local history to work parties to act
on specific solutions already identified. The appropriate size and nature of partici-
patory groups will vary with the outsiders and local residents involved and their
respective facilities/preferences for working in small or large group settings, with
men or women, with homogeneous or diverse groups or with individuals. There is
also the issue of whether always to work with groups as they are already organized
and defined on their own terms or whether to convene special meetings to work
with other groups that suit the topic and situation at hand. Good reasons for doing
this might include allowing the poor, minority racial and ethnic groups, or women
to voice concerns not readily raised in a larger, more diverse forum controlled by
members of more powerful groups.
22

Nested and multiple land units and ecosystems
Most environment and development issues are enmeshed in a web of political,
social, cultural, economic and ecological relations that encompass two or more
scales of organization, and which often include problems which are caused at one
level and expressed at another. For example, a local scarcity of a particular fodder
grass might be linked to national policies affecting the grazing practice of a
transhumant pastoral group that moves over a broad savannah region. Likewise,
the crop-raiding behaviour of a particular form of wildlife may be related to the
eviction of that species from a forest or park site some distance away. The original
habitat and migration routes of the animal would be relevant spatial units for
wildlife management, while the individual farm holdings would be appropriate
units for design of protective measures.
Some problems have multiple causes originating at many different scales,
with distinct expressions and consequences of the problem appearing at yet other
scales. The case of a watershed is one which is most clear with respect to the need
to look at nested watershed units of different scales to address the causes and
effects of, and solutions to, water quality and availability problems. For example, a
watershed with serious erosion problems could include farm level causes of
hillslope erosion in croplands and farm level problems such as crop yield decline.
Overgrazing and subsequent compaction of hillslope grazing lands at community
scale could lead to farm level problems such as malnutrition of livestock as well as
watershed problems such as rapid and excessive drainage of rainfall into local
streams. National land use and agricultural marketing policies would also influ-
ence farmers’ decisions to use particular cropping methods or to keep more or less
livestock. The net result of all this could create a serious national watershed
management crisis with respect to water supply and hydroelectric power genera-
tion. Such a problem would require a network of participatory efforts across many
communities and a regional or national co-ordinating body, to negotiate settlement
of differences within and between various communities as well as between local
and national interests in watershed management.
What are your means?
The overall approach and the particular process employed often reflect the pre-
disposition of the outside organizations and the individual facilitators who initiate
such a process. This is not entirely wrong, since the ability to carry out such
activities rests partly on past experience and acquired skill. However, the five
previous points can guide the choice of both approach and techniques to better fit a
given situation and the preferences and needs of the participants. Planners and
28

facilitators can find a variety of activities to suit the objectives of organizers and
participants; the spatial and time scale of problems, opportunities and potential
actions; the diverse groups in the place; the relations of power and affinity within
and between them; and the situation of the facilitators with respect to a given
community.
If a group is interested in consciousness-raising or becoming organization-
ally stronger, a facilitator will use tools in ways that are different from those used
if the goal is mobilization. If a problem exists at one scale but an institution is able
to address it only at another, that may influence the choice of methods for both
discussion and analysis. An understanding of group power relations may suggest
bypassing some people and listening to others, or gathering information in differ-
ent ways to get all sides of a story. This might also lead facilitators to air and
resolve conflicts, or to negotiate a settlement where resolution proves impossible.
One would employ different means for a group beginning to think about doing
something and one that has already joined together, chosen leaders, and (to use a
Southern US social action expression) ‘wrestled with the alligators.’
It is also important to reach a consensus among the people involved about
the role of the facilitator. They can point out problems at a conceptual or proce-
dural level and suggest what kind of process, formats and activities may work best.
For example, many peoples have a strong oral tradition. Histories and other
knowledge have been passed through generations in this way. Opting for visual
tools because people cannot read or write may overlook the strength of the oral
tradition and the value of detailed narration or lively discussion. People may have
other methods that planners and facilitators have not yet imagined. It may also be
interesting to mix methods, such as drawings by both participants and researchers
based on narratives by skilled oral historians. This is simply a note of caution to
suggest that we examine participation fads and our own preferred means and that
we explore those of participating communities.
identify and promote the ‘best’ approach and methods. In some circles, visual is in
and verbal is out, qualitative is in and quantitative out, and informal is in while
formal is out. It may be more useful to realize the limits and potential of what
facilitators know how to do, to tailor the process to the local context and to respect
the needs, preferences and knowledge of the participants.
This book does not try to set up a list of good and bad methods, or to
Conclusion
Tools can empower or disempower. If they are adaptable to different contexts and
easily used by people of any class, gender, or culture, they can enable women and
men to take greater control of their lives. We need to think about what we are
doing in development and why we are doing it. We need to reflect on these ques-
29

tions in the midst of everyday practice as well as in the context of policy, plan-
ning, and administrative procedure. A careful review and consideration of the six
issues presented here provides a sounding board for the choice and application of
the tools in Part III.
30

tions in the midst of everyday practice as well as in the context of policy, plan-
ning, and administrative procedure. A careful review and consideration of the six
issues presented here provides a sounding board for the choice and application of
the tools in Part III.
30