Practitioners readily acknowledge that CD is founded upon values (Cavaye, 2001; Kenny, 2006; Warren 1971). Despite the common focus of enhancement or improvement, the source of motivation and the value base for developmental activities vary. Bhattacharyya (2004) argues it is important to differentiate the purpose and role of CD from the methods and strategies utilised in the implementation of CD projects. It is in the purpose where these value differences are most marked.
Values particularly visible amongst CD activities include: the political and economic agendas associated with government funded purposes with the corresponding understandings of CD; the social justice agendas of human autonomy and agency enabling people to determine their existence (Bhattacharyya, 2004; Hudson, 2004; Kenny, 2006; Shaw, 2008); and varying professional
foundations of CD practitioners (Ife, 2002; Shaw, 2008).
CD activities are inextricably linked with the political interests associated with the project’s funding source and purpose. For over a decade in Australia’s recent history, funding through government agencies was particularly associated with neo-liberal policies with a strong focus on economic rationalism and sustainability. Within the past two decades, accountability requirements have moved from a focus on the outputs or activities achieved, to reporting on measurable outcomes within given timeframes. While the political emphasis in social policy may shift with changes in government, the nature of accountability for funding still involves establishing clear goals and outcomes. These outcomes are often based on reference to external expert opinion, and set to be achieved within timeframes guided by financial years or between election years.
The agendas accompanying CD funding may not always match community preparedness nor the time needed to engage strong community participation. This potential incongruity can impact how RCD occurs, particularly in relation to the extent to which a community engages to determine both the project objectives and how they will be achieved. As community engagement requires
considerable time and resources, the pressure of attaining requirements imposed top-down means the conceptual approach behind projects tends to lean towards what Taylor, Wilkinson and Cheers (2008) would classify as ‘contributions’ or ‘instrumental’ orientations (as described in 2:1) which while involving local community members, have highly specified predetermined outcomes and are directed by professionals not the community.
In contrast, social justice principles are the motivation behind much of the CD literature reviewed. Across these writings there are a range of principles described which fall under the social justice
banner. There is a focus on communities’ determining their own needs, meaning systems, solutions to concerns, and pace of development (Bhattacharyya, 2004; Ife, 2002; Kenny, 2006). The social justice agendas underpinning the motivation for CD entail addressing structural disadvantage in the process of seeking a fair distribution of services and resources (Cheers & Luloff, 2001; Ife, 2002) not based on neo-liberal principles of economic rationalism.
Nelson and Prilleltensky (2005) Ife (2002) Cheers et al.(2007) Bhattacharyya (2004) Holism Health Caring Compassion Support for community structures Respect for diversity Self- determination Participation Accountability to oppressed groups Ecological Principles Holism
Sustainability - systems can be maintained in the long term
Diversity within and between communities Organic development - in its own unique way Integrated development - balance across all dimensions of community
Social Justice Principles
Addressing structural disadvantage Addressing discourses of disadvantage Empowerment
Need definition - helping communities articulate their needs
Human rights - protection & promotion Bottom-up Principles
Valuing local knowledge Valuing local culture Valuing local resources Valuing local skills Valuing local processes Process principles
Process, outcome and vision - balancing all Consciousness raising
Participation
Co-operation and consensus Pace of development - community determined
Peace & non-violence Inclusiveness
Community building Global Principles
Linking the global and local
Anti-colonialist practice - not taking over the agenda, devaluing local culture, experience & identity Community Ownership Community Control Community- driven development Collective Action Community Participation Mobilisation – empowering people to take control over their circumstance & put ideas into action Outcomes & process - both important Community development as an expression of community Comprehensive & culturally appropriate understanding of community Solidarity Agency Self Help Felt needs Participation
CD is also an emerging profession and the values of community practitioners from a range of backgrounds are a further source of values and agendas in the implementation of RCD. The principles expounded by various authors listed in Table 2 not only demonstrate differing levels of detail, but a complex and differing language drawn from different disciplines for the same or similar concepts. While the principles in each column reflect those in the others, participation is the only term common across them all. Nelson and Prilleltensky (2005) encourage community practitioners from a community psychology background to uphold the values underpinned by the psychological orientation of individuals in community/their environment, whereas the principles detailed for the CD profession are drawn from a sociological orientation of understanding how society works. Under the banner of CD, Ife (2002) details 26 principles grouped as relating to the ecological, social justice, ‘bottom-up’, process and global concerns underpinning CD. These also overlap with each other as seen in, for example, a ‘community determined pace of development’ being a natural consequence of organic development. Cheers et al (2007) more succinctly lists nine principles which overlap and encompass the detail of Ife’s work. Bhattacharyya (2004) summarises the values of CD under the two pursuits of solidarity and agency, describing CD as the development of solidarity and agency through the three key principles of self-help, felt needs and participation. He further suggests that without these underpinning principles, an activity cannot be considered as CD. Principles from this perspective are thus a defining aspect of CD. In all cases, principles and values are acknowledged as paramount. This highlights the significance of values as part of the complex dynamics in RCD. It is therefore important to recognise and manage these within CD research. This issue is addressed later when positioning the current study in CD theory.
For practitioners, a value base which emphasises the importance of the processes of CD projects, can at times sits in tension with a focus on tangible outcomes. Implementing RCD in accord with social justice principles and values is often time consuming, leaving a need for those involved to juggle achieving process integrity and measurable outcomes within short funding timeframes (Kenny, 2006). Thus there are often tensions for RCD practitioners and participants, as they
endeavour to balance competing expectations emanating from the differing orientations of the highly tangible project outcomes and the less tangible yet significant benefits of process within RCD projects. This tension is also related to what is often described as resulting from top-down
compared to bottom-up orientations for community projects, or as Summers (1986) describes, “authoritative” rather than “client centred”. Bottom-up projects are more commonly associated with humanitarian approaches founded on principles of empowerment and agency. A top-down orientation is more often, but not exclusively, found in government and ‘expert’ based projects where the detail and decision making in a community activity is determined for, not by, the community. In the past two decades there have been increased endeavours to blend competing top-down/bottom-up needs and for community development to be based on needs and strategies as identified by communities (Cavaye, 2004; Head ,2007; Herbert-Cheshire and Higgins, 2004; Simpson, Wood and Daws, 2003). Greater community participation has emerged in varying levels of direct engagement of community with government from consultation through to partnership, or via NGOs representing vulnerable people (Cavaye, 2004; Head, 2007). Many government funded programs are now based on models that enable projects to be tailored to community needs and capacity (Cavaye, 2004).
The ideological underpinnings of CD are not unfounded. Development activities have been shown to be more effective when they work with a community’s “conditions, aspirations, needs, leaders and structures” (Cheers, et al., 2002, p. 13) (see also Brawley, 1994; Cavaye, 2001; Garlick & Pryor, 2002b). Feedback shows locals strongly believe they should be able to determine their local environment (Hayward, Simpson, & Wood, 2004; Sorensen, et al., 2002). Attitudes within rural communities have been described as involving anger, cynicism and suspicion when development is seen to be driven externally (Cavaye, 2001; Cheers & Hall, 1994). This is in keeping with the bottom- up focus in much of the literature (Cavaye, 2001; Cheers & Hall, 1994; Dudley, Harris, & Henry, 2003; Garlick & Pryor, 2002b; Hayward, et al., 2004; Kenny, 2006; Montero, 2005) that favours basing the drive and control of development in the ‘grass roots’ community and links directly to the principles
of self-direction and agency of a social justice approach. While the value and evidence of the effectiveness of bottom-up approaches is acknowledged within government agencies there remains the struggle to control projects for which they are accountable (Beer, 2000). At times this struggle leads to the requisite of attaining predetermined outcomes based on expert opinion and leaves practitioners to manage the tensions when these prescribed outcomes differ from community expectations (Taylor, et al., 2008).
Practitioners and participants of CD find themselves amid tension and conflicting demands as the agendas and differing ideology from political, professional and individual sources interact in the implementation of RCD projects. This is again an example of RCD as a process of interacting forces which are in a constantly engaging and shaping each other (Hudson, 2004). However, while practice values and motivations may differ in their particular emphasis, common foundational values are found in the belief in the capacity for community to provide a significant arena for people to engage in social life in a particular manner, and that such engagement is an important aspect of both individual and societal well-being (Kenny, 2006; Puddifoot, 1996).
Principles and values are therefore an integral factor in the practice of CD. Across varying contexts CD inhabits a contradictory province between top-down and bottom-up paradigms. This value based space of competing agendas, contradictions and paradoxes experienced by all participating (including funders, practitioners and community members) are part of the relational processes of the community fabric and thus CD. Consequently, theories directly addressing CD practice will be most accessible if they can cross the barriers of the various uses, practices and philosophical value bases. A challenge taken up for the current research is to address the areas of interest in a manner that can be utilised across the sphere of RCD amongst the tensions between the ideological and practical undertakings.