Keynote Paper Participatory communication in rural development: What does it take for the established order?

Participatory approaches have undergone several waves of interest within the agricultural research and development community since the 1970s. There has been a trend from technology-oriented towards farmer-oriented outcomes to better support the requirements of sustainable change. The practice of participatory research and extension under a variety of models, all underpinned by the principles of participatory communication, has been accompanied by debates on what is “genuine participation” and how different “types” of participation suit different development objectives. Addressing stakeholder participation has slowly become the norm in project proposal development for most major funding organisations as it is perceived to increase impact. However, very little is required in terms of demonstrating, firstly, that project partners have a common understanding and are in agreement of what type of participation suits the proposed design and context of the research and development process and secondly, that the capacity and political will exist among the partner organisations to allow for and facilitate participation. It is not uncommon that participation is reduced to superficial consultation or even lip service, whilst decision making power remains in the hands of specific stakeholder groups, often those who already had their own agenda for the change process to take place. This paper will discuss the factors and conditions that enable and impede effective collaborative partnerships of stakeholder groups in the context of rural development, particularly in cross-national initiatives. Factors at the level of the individual include mentality, communication skills and facilitation capacity. At the organisational level, institutional mandates and objectives, leadership and political climate will be reviewed. The paper will particularly build on experiences in Australian government funded research for development projects in Southeast Asia but intends to provide some general input to further discussions into the debate about good participatory practice to support sustainable rural development. Participation – so what’s new? Participation has become an essential part of the vocabulary used in project proposals over the past two decades, since it was recognised that people rather than technology-oriented approaches are required to find the right balance in achieving economic, social and environmental sustainability (Van de Fliert 2007). The underlying goal of participation is, in theory, to empower communities, groups or individuals to determine their own direction, objectives and options for change, make well informed decisions, take (collective) action to achieve their goals and monitor and evaluate if they are getting where they want to be. In practice, however, many ‘non-participatory’ interventions can be observed (Bessette 2004) and genuinely participatory processes are hard to come across in development initiatives. In fact, good participation is not as easy to achieve as it sounds due to a range of factors, which will be explored here. The high requirements on human and financial resources are often mentioned as an immediate impediment to applying participatory processes, as well as a reason for not applying them. This may indicate that the benefits are not necessarily perceived worth the investment. It seems impossible, however, to assess what difference participation actually makes to the return on investment as it cannot be compared with a non-participatory approach in the same context. Many projects that do invest in participation attribute positive project outcomes to the application of the participatory approach but rarely are the indicators for successful participation clearly articulated. How do we judge whether participation was “genuine” and what do we expect in the process from each of the “participants”, including ourselves? More often than not, we see that participatory approaches are employed as a “means” rather than an “end”, as a potentially better pathway to achieving project objectives compared to topdown methods, but not necessarily for empowerment. As a means, participation is defined as a method to increase the effectiveness of an externally introduced program via the involvement of local people (Cleaver, 1999). As an end, it is seen as a goal in itself, which is to empower people by equipping them with capabilities and providing them opportunities to their take control and give direction to the change process to improve their livelihoods (Huesca, 2003). All too often in development projects, we can observe that participatory processes have been designed to serve as an end, but are merely implemented as a means. This is typically evident in situations where participatory approaches are applied in a context driven by the traditional Extension Farming Systems Journal volume 6 number 1 – Industry Forum © Copyright AFBMNetwork http://www.csu.edu.au/faculty/science/saws/afbmnetwork/efsjournal/index.htm 96 development paradigm of modernisation that emphasises economic growth rather than the multiple dimensions of human wellbeing. This paradigm is still very much embedded in contemporary mainstream development thinking, expecting those who supposedly “know” to take control over decisions on the direction of change for those who supposedly “don’t know”. Coupled with a predominantly reductionist view on research and development that tends to exist among professionals who had their training in a specific disciplinary field, many projects that attempt to apply a participatory approach grapple with the complexities that emerge when we allow all stakeholder groups to express their needs, instigating fear to lose control. In addition, academic training generally does not cater for “participatory research and development methodology” whilst facilitation of such processes is an art in itself. The literature has captured the dilemmas in the application of participatory approaches by categorising different forms of participation. White (1994), for instance, makes a distinction between pseudoversus genuine participation. Pseudo-participation is described as “people’s participation in development in which the control of project and decision-making power rests with planners, administrators and the community’s elite” (White et al. 1994, p. 17). Genuine participation is defined by Servaes (1999, p. 198) as a process that “touches the very core of power relationships in society”. Pretty (1995, p. 1252) describes seven types of participation: 1. Passive Participation: Be told and follow; information belongs only to external professionals. 2. Participation in Information Giving: Participate by answering questions; no opportunity to influence conclusions and decisions beyond the professionals. 3. Participation by Consultation: Participate by being consulted; conclusions may be modified in the light of people's responses but professionals are under no obligation to do so. 4. Participation for Material Incentive: Participate by providing resources, for example labour, in return for food, cash, or other material incentives. 5. Functional Participation: Participate by forming groups to meet predetermined objectives Instructions can be dependent on external initiators/facilitators or become selfdependent. 6. Interactive Participation: Participate in joint analysis, leading to action plans and formation of local institutions Groups take control over local decisions. 7. Self-Mobilization: Participate by taking initiative independent of external institution to