Project Conceptualisation and various actors

As has been mentioned earlier in Section 2.3.1, a key figure in the development of participatory approaches is Paulo Freire (see Evans and Foster, 2009; Huber, 1998; Mohan and Stokke, 2000). In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire (1972, p.32) describes a process, where the oppressed should first critically recognize its (situation

of oppression) causes, understand their world of oppression and through praxis (process of reflection and action), commit themselves to its transformation. The process involves identification of solutions, collective action and dialogue with those who have ‘power1. He constantly emphasises people’s fundamental role in the transformation process and a pedagogy that is forged with and not for the oppressed.

Scholars using PV affirm that the process embodies the concepts proposed by Freire, as it involves those concerned with the issues in making the transformation themselves or in advocacy with more powerful, such as the government (Johansson et al., 1999; Gutberlet, 2008; Harris, 2009). However, many such assertions do not address the concern that in practice there are several other actors who are deeply involved in a PV process, other than the participants and communities. These different actors may have different positions of power and even different agendas. They may have different thoughts about what needs transformation and what the participation of people should lead to, because of which conflicts may arise. The following table has been drawn up from the literature, listing the various actors in a PV project implemented by NGOs, revealing whom they can exercise their power over and the specific agendas that they may have when the project begins.

Table 2: Various actors, their objectives and power they can have over others Donor Agency NGO Trainer/

Facilitator

Community Participants

Objective _{Best utilisation}

of funds for meeting stated development needs and project objectives Delivering on stated project objectives Visible Community development Delivering on stated project objectives Participants’ learning Sustained Local Social Change Personal Development Earning livelihood Local Social Change Driven by _{International} Development agenda Need to Meet Donor’s Objectives Need to show results to NGOs Their own development needs

Their own and community’s development needs Can have power over NGO Trainer/ Facilitator Participants Other community members Themselves

The critique of participatory development by several scholars has highlighted that often the real agendas of the communities are not included in the development agenda and their participation remains tokenistic (see Section 2.2.1). Kabeer (1999, p.438) notes that agency is the power within, i.e. the ability to define one’s goal and act upon them. Having the ‘power to’ means people’s ability to pursue what they value. Frediani (2010) suggests that power with, power over and power structures need to be included in the analysis along with power to, for understanding people’s agency. This is because institutional obstacles (like in participation or accountability), social norms (which

determine who has the decision-making authority) and domination of certain groups can restrict people’s agency (Frediani, 2010; Kabeer, 1999; Ibrahim and Alkire, 2007). Kabeer (1999) also suggests that some actors may have power over, that is the capacity to override the agency of others, which can also happen in the absence of explicit opposition due to certain rules or norms. For instance, rules governing social behaviour tend to ensure some groups can exercise their power over others without any question.

While concerns around power have been raised by scholars analysing gender power relations, critiquing participatory approaches and those exploring people’s agency (see Section 2.2), the literature on PV practice often does not address such concerns. In particular, the issue that different actors involved in a long-term PV project might already hold different positions of power because of the institutional setup and norms, has not been delved in depth. Hierarchical power relations might exist between them and even be accepted. Hence, it becomes important to investigate how agendas and objectives are set at the beginning of the initiative where different actors have different agendas. In the next few paragraphs, I review the agendas that the various actors may have and how that can affect the participatory approach in a long-term PV project.

The major argument against the role of many NGOs is that they are creations of funding agencies, and hence, “their entire existence, not merely dependency, is on donor money, almost always from above” (Zaidi, 1999, p.263). There is, therefore, always a fear of NGOs being co-opted by international development and donor agencies (Tandon, 2000). Cain (2009) mentions that donor agencies are more ' concerned about quantifiable outcomes, and put more emphasis on the product and

less on the process. PV projects by NGOs are often funded by external sources such as donor agencies, and therefore, maybe influenced similarly.

So, even while NGOs have been using PV extensively to work with marginalized communities or marginalized groups within a community on their issues, such as climate change, gender inequality, education and health (e.g., Bery and Stuart, 1996; Ruiz, 1994; Rodriguez, 1994; Plush, 2009a), they might be driven more to fulfill donor objectives. Moreover, even the content of a video and what it communicates may actually be largely driven by the donor agency. As Shaw (2012) explains, organisations may face the dilemma of having to choose between what the donors want to see and what the participants want to say. If the topics of videos are pre-determined in such ways, it can remain a tokenistic process, as the video might be made and used for the purpose of the donors (ibid).

Although, during the ‘handing over’ of the equipment to the participants, there has been an emphasis on participants being in control of the entire process (Lunch and Lunch, 2006) and ensuring that structured learning is being facilitated (Shaw, 1997), participants might still work towards fulfilling the donors agenda. Facilitators, who work with participants to train them in a PV process, including technical skills (De Lange et al., 2008), may also be pressured to fulfil the donor objectives during the training process. Moreover, facilitators, who can be crucial in maintaining a participatory approach, being ‘above’ the participants in the hierarchy, might impose their own values on the process or the product (Harris, 2009).

When communities engage in advocacy or information dissemination, their agenda is to bring change in their situations according to their own needs and values

(Narayanan, 2003). However, when communities participate in invited spaces (see Cornwall, 2004) to create media, rather than in spaces created by them (Ginsburg, 1991; Turner, 1992), they might not be able to pursue their own values because of other actors. Moreover, since communities are often not homogenous, different community members may have different needs and the needs of the more powerful groups might be the only ones getting represented in a PV process. Furthermore, the community members, who become the participants getting trained through a long-term PV project, may also have objectives of their own, which they would want to fulfil through their participation.

This critique reveals that while there are different actors (where some hold power over others) with their different agendas, the literature on PV practice does not address how a participatory approach can be maintained in the process. During the project conceptualisation, only the donors and NGOs might be involved, thereby limiting the opportunity for participants and communities to participate in the setting of agenda and objectives. It reveals that there is a need to enquire, ‘how are objectives set, how are decisions made and whose agenda does a long-term PV project really fulfil?’ This thesis can contribute to understanding how participants can identify their own needs within a project with a possibility to address them, and therefore, have the opportunity to explore their agency, when other more powerful actors have different agendas.