Unpacking Participation - Models, Meanings and Practices - Literature review Example

Sociology: Article Review This review critically evaluates the article “Unpacking 'Participation': models, meanings and practices in Community Development Journal”, 269 – 283, by Cornwall, A.. The review will first summarize the article, then analyse its effectiveness in the presentation of facts, its reliability and accessibility and lastly, it will critique the presentation of this article. This article was well written, coherent, clear and with a lot of relevance to the community development practices today. Article summary The main purpose of this article was to explore some of the meanings and practices involved in participation and also the relevance of theory to practice. Cornwall introduces us to the first section of this article by presenting different typologies of participation. The typologies presented here give different perspectives into the extent and the types of participations involved in community development projects. They focus of the approach and the intentions of the person initiating the participation. Cornwall presents three typologies in this article; Arnstein’s (1969), Pretty’s (1995) and White’s (1996) typology of participation. Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of participation is the common form of participation which focuses centrally on the citizen control where the citizens are at the receiving end. Pretty’s (1995) typology of participation is characterized by a wide range of participation approaches varying from manipulative, passive participation to functional participation. This typology is commonly manifested in development participation (Rudqvist and Woodford-Berger, 1996). White’s participation typology departs from the earlier two as it is concerned with issues of different interests at stake in various forms of participation. It offers insights as to the conflicts in ideas which arise from issues of why or how participation is being used at any particular stage in a process. The second point addressed by Cornwall is the participation in practice. This article notes that all the typologies discussed can be used indistinctively, with a very blurred boundary, in the same project. The article presents the merits and demerits of engaging in public participation in development projects. Participation can be responsible for sparking popular engagement on issues affecting their lives by giving the participants a voice and a platform for airing their grievances (Cornwall, 272). On the other hand, the intended beneficiaries may choose not to participate in the course intended for their own benefits. Cornwall also addresses the issue of power and influence as a result of participation. Having a voice needs to be nurtured and the participation platform can be an initiator of providing a space for people to speak their mind. Influence is achievable when one can capture the voice of the large population. This article also notes that different levels of participation will require different levels of engagements and different types of participants. Effectiveness This section presents the strengths of this article in the presentation of its facts and illustrations of evidence. The strength of this article is manifested from its content to its structure. Cornwall introduces this article with an abstract which offers the reader a stance which has been established in the article and also provides the reader with a general outline of the main ideas. The main ideas presented in the article are backed by solid example and illustration which makes the points comprehensible. For instance; Cornwall gives a relevant example of participation and influence from rural Kenya. The consistence of his arguments are also reinforced by those of Robert Chambers’ observations from 1974 who holds that participation can only become a privilege if theory can be translated into practice. This article has successfully linked theory into practice. The author starts this article with the presentation of the normalcy involved in theory of different typologies. This has been effectively presented by a wide range of participation by using relevant concepts of typologies. The different types of typologies present different levels of participation. The typologies have been presented in tables to enhance the reader’s understanding and give instant insights of the points presented therein in short, precise and clear illustrations. This has been a major strength in this article. He describes the different typologies with their rules and what they entail in general. He departs from this general view to give the reader the practical perspectives of the typologies and their manifestation on the ground. This is seen when he presents the different participation typologies in different places as seen in Cohen and Uphoff (1980, p. 222). The structure of the article was logically set out with subheadings to indicate the transition into specifics. The author used short paragraphs to present individual ideas and alternation of short and long sentences in the paragraphs. The use of subheadings enables the reader to effectively scan through the article in search for specific information. This set out an interesting ambience to motivate the readers of this article. There are also several in-text citations which indicates the author used and clearly referenced all the materials used in compiling this article. Evaluation This section of the review examines the weaknesses observed in this article. First, the article on the participation by the public in development has been based on the assumption that all the people are invited to participate. This assumption can be linked to Hart’s Ladder of Participation where the human rights require that all people should be involved. This assumption has prevailed throughout this article as the author does not address the invitation process but he addresses the issue of non-exclusion where many of the included participants are the elite, rich, and older members of the community (Cornwall, 275). The assumption may not hold reasonable ground to judge participation in development programmes of different individuals as it depends on whether or not they have been invited to participate. This is important especially due to overpopulation where adequate notice of invitation has to be made in different public fora. The second weakness of this article is in the lack of a conclusion. A conclusion is very important for a reader to engage with the deductions and summary points of the author. The conclusion is also used to present recommendations for future research in this field. The exclusion of the conclusion omits a vital part which prevents the reader from learning the author’s opinion as to which part of this field requires more search in the future. The author has, in several instances been very technical and wordy in his writing style which poses difficulties to the understanding of the average reader. A technical construction can frustrate a reader’s attempt to read and comprehend an article. For instance, the author states; “Participation as praxis is, after all, rarely a seamless process; rather, it constitutes a terrain of contestation, in which relations of power between different actors, each with their own ‘projects’, shape and reshape the boundaries of action.” This sentence is overly wordy and long which complicates the understanding of an average reader. There is need for plain English to improve comprehension of the article. Despite the presented shortcomings of the article, the author has been very successful in presenting this article. Bibliography Arnstein, S., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation, AIP Journal, July, 216–214. Cohen, J. & Uphoff, N., 1980. Participation’s place in rural development: seeking clarity through specificity, World Development, 8: 213–235. Cornwall, A., 1998. In my own back yard: participatory wellbeing assessment in suburban Britain, Social Change, 28: 17–40. Cornwall, A., 2000. Beneficiary, Consumer, Citizen: Perspectives on Participation for Poverty Reduction, Sida Studies 2, Stockholm, Sweden. Cornwall, A. & Coelho, V. S., 2006. Spaces for Change? The Politics of Citizen Participation in New Democratic Arenas, London: Zed. Pretty, J., 1995. Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture, World Development, 23 (8), 1247–1263. Rudqvist, A. & Woodford-Berger, P., 1996. Evaluation and Participation: Some Lessons, Department for Evaluation and Internal Audit, DAC Expert Group on Aid Evaluation, Sida, Stockholm. White, Sarah C., 1996. Depoliticising development: the uses and abuses of participation, Development in Practice, 6 (1), 6–15. Read More