Analysis of Community Practice - Essay Example

Dialogical Approach to Community Development Number Department An Overview of a Community Development, Based on Dialogical Approach A dialogical approach to community development refers to a model that relies on egalitarian dialogue wherein different people provide arguments which are premised upon the validity of claims in lieu of power claims. According to Westoby and Dowling (2009, 45), the history of dialogic approach in community development dates back to the dialogic approach was integrated to contributions fro diverse disciplines and perspectives, being known as the theory of dialogic action, or the dialogic inquiry approach. In community development, dialogic approach shot to fame fast because it facilitated teamwork, consultative forums and collective bargaining, from which constructive and more tenable ideas emanate. Thus, the concept of dialogic approach in community development will seek to establish ethical and mutually-satisfying frameworks, upon which community development initiatives and projects are to be established. Westoby and Dowling (2013, 84) explain that the establishment of the aforementioned ethical and mutually-satisfying frameworks will be demanding of the need to engage the communities to be involved in community development, by crafting a framework by which matters such as the equitable distribution of socioeconomic values can be distributed. Conversely, a dialogical approach to community development will portend, engaging members of the community in identifying areas of greatest need, so that values can be dispensed towards socioeconomic ameliorations. For instance, applying a dialogical approach to community development may compel programme developers to discuss with members of the Aborigines community in Australia, before jumping whimsically on a project such as sinking of boreholes. In the absence of a dialogical approach to community development, a project may get to the point of completion, but it may never help members of that community, to the highest point desired or intended. 2. Demonstrating Personal Understanding of The Conceptual/Theoretical Knowledge and Community Development Principles That Underpin the Approach There are certain theoretical frameworks which underpin the dialogical approach of community development. One of these theoretical frameworks is the theory of communicative action. Herein, knowledge is viewed as the understanding which is provided by the objective world and the inter-subjectivity of the contexts from whence actions develop. This is to the effect that since communicative rationality denotes understanding, then the conditions which make consensus building have to be studied. This therefore readily brings in the need for argumentation and arguments. On one hand, arguments refer to the conclusions that comprise validity claims and reasons by which the validity claims can be questioned. On the other hand, argumentation is the speech which is issued by participants, as a way of developing or recanting the validity claims which have become questionable. At the point mentioned immediately above, Haberma's differentiation between power claims and validity claims are taken as important, and thus established. This may be done through the imposition of a concept by force, or by subjecting it to a dialogue so that other stakeholders' input or contributions can lead to rectification of initial stances. As touching the first case, the ‘interact’ holds the power claims. In the second case, the validity claims are scrutinised and held. In the power claims, the argument of force is put into application, in validity claims, so that the force of argument prevails. In this case, validity of claims is to be thoroughly and extensively discussed since it is the basis of dialogic learning. Another theoretical underpinning of the dialogic framework of community development is the establishment of created meanings, in a dialogic manner with other people. This concept of dialogism asserts that the relation among language, social transformation and social interaction. This is because, individuals (concerned in community development) do not exist outside the parameters of dialogue, with the concept of dialogue being established in the existence of the other person, since it is through dialogue that the other person cannot be excluded or silenced. Thus, in light of the foregoing, it means that meanings are contrived in processes of reflection among people. These are meanings that are used in later conversations with other people that the meanings get amplified and moderated to make them more effective as new meanings were acquired. Thus, in this case, every time that stakeholders in community development projects will meet to discuss new concepts that have been read or experienced, there will be actual reflections on the dialogues that will have been held with others, and thereby showing the meanings that had been created in previous dialogues. Again, in this theoretical framework, there is an integral relation between collective approach and the speeches made. It is against this backdrop Ife and Tesoriero (2006) discuss the chain of dialogue, to the point that every dialogue emanates from a previous one. Similarly, every new dialogue has to be presented in future ones. This framework therefore calls for regular consultations among stakeholders. Conversely, there is also the dialogic interaction and interaction of power, as is explained by the Centre of Research in Theories and Practices that Overcome Inequalities (CREA) and scholars of outstanding repute such as Piper (2004, 50). In this concept, interaction is a key component and relationships can take the form of identified power interactions and dialogic interactions. In this arrangement, the manager can hold validity claims with his employees, and the employee can be persuaded to accept the proposal by the employer, because of the unequal structure of the company or the wider society which places him in a position subordinate to his employer. In light of the standpoint above, CREA and Matthewson (2009, 30) see power relations as values in which power interactions that are involved have predominance over dialogic interactions and dialogic relations, just as is the case where dialogic interactions enjoy prevalence over power interactions. Importantly, dialogic interactions are premised upon equality and seek after understanding through stakeholders and speakers who appreciate the tabling of arguments to dialogue, the position of the speaker notwithstanding. In the context of community development, this model that CREA and Tesoriero (2010, 99) propose is best suited for educational institutions that abound in democracies such as Australia. Another merit which is attributable to this model is that community projects which have led to the transformation of some interactions of powers in to dialogic interactions, support the notion that an individual learns much more through dialogic interactions, compared to power ones (Gunstone, 2005, 66). 3. Considering the Advantages and Disadvantages of Adopting a Dialogical Approach When Working Within Australian Communities Today (Making Particular Reference to Working with Indigenous Communities) Like any other construct that is associated with humans, dialogic approaches to community development have their drawbacks and strengths. One of the strengths of the dialogical approach as a model for community development is that it entails the embracing of a wholesome scope in mapping out development projects. This is because, the dialogical approach fundamentally factors in, proper and effective consultations among stakeholders involved. With these consultations comes an array of rich ideas which are important in: forming the most feasible, tenable and efficient model of operation; and presenting stakeholders with several workable options to a chosen model. The converse of this is that unlike the dialogical approach to community development, models that are not contrived out of extensive consultative forums are bound to draw and pursue inchoate frameworks, and thereby leading to maladroit community development projects. In another wavelength, Jamrozik (2009, 75) and Kenny (2011, 13) observe that the dialogical approach enjoys greater affinity with peace building, owing to its highly consultative nature. As stakeholders sit to discuss the manner in which a community development project is to be undertaken, it is most logical that the representatives of the local communities (the Aborigines and the Baring Strait Islanders) are extensively engaged. This observation does not only prove rich in helping identify the Aborigines’ and the Baring Strait Islanders’ gravest socioeconomic needs, but the same also provides a forum for social exchange. This social exchange in turn provides room for seeking intercommunity reconciliation and harnessing of cordial relationships among the non-Aborigines, the Aborigines and the Baring Strait Islanders, for instance. On the converse, it is also necessary to acknowledge the pitfalls of pursuing dialogical approach. For one, Stephens (2009, 11) posits that the highly consultative nature of dialogical approach is almost always amenable to time wastage. This is because, during the consultative stage, a lot of time is spent on building consensus. Similarly, financial and logistical resources are equally expended in consensus building, in lieu of the actual execution of community development projects. Arrhenius (2006, 33) also points out the consultative nature of the dialogical model of community development as a demerit, on the account that it heavily co-occurs with plurality of views. While plurality of views comes with its advantages, it sometimes carries with it, the failure and difficulty in reaching an agreement. Likewise, plurality of views may not necessarily bring with it, the realisation of the best policy frameworks. This is because, in meetings akin to dialogical approaches may result in the execution of ideas which have been accepted because of power plays, instead of merit and cogency of thought. References Arrhenius, A. 2006. A Dialogical Approach to Community Development: A Critical Look. Cengage Learning, Queensland. Gunstone, A. 2005. The Formal Australian Reconciliation Process: 1991-2000. Monash University, Melbourne. Ife, J. & Tesoriero, F. (2006). Community Development: Community-Based Alternative in an Age of Globalisation. Frenchs Forest: Pearson Education Australia. Jamrozik, A. 2009. Social Policy in the Post-Welfare State: Australian Society in a Changing World. Pearson Education Australia, Frenchs Forest. Kenny, S, 2011. Developing Communities for the Future. Cengage Learning Pty Ltd, Victoria Matthewson, P. 2009. “Dialogical Community Development: With Depth, Solidarity and Hospitality”, Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work Review, 21 (3), 58-60. Piper, D. 2004. “Moral Development, Transformative Learning, and the Dialogical Self,” Westminster Studies in Education, 27 (1), 43-55. Stephens, J. 2009. A Dialogical Approach to Community Development. Longman, Queensland. Tesoriero, F. 2010. Community Development: Community-Based Alternatives in an Age of Globalisation. Pearson Australia, NS. Westoby, P. & Dowling 2009. Dialogical Community Development: With Depth, Solidarity and Hospitality. Tafina Press, West End.? Westoby, P. & Dowling, G 2013. Theory and Practice of Dialogical Community Development: International Perspectives. Routledge, New York.? Read More