White, Shirley, ed. Participatory Video. Sage Publications: California, 2003.
Chapter 3: A Process that Transforms Self and Others
p 63-86
Shirley White's main point of this article is to point out that there are two seperate uses to participatory video: as a process and as a product. Each has their different uses, benefits, and consequences. As a process, participatory video sets the stage for communication and self-expressiong. "Thus, it has the potential to bring about person, social, political, and cultural change. That is what video power is all about" (P64). The video power that she talks about is achievable because people are able to self-express, gain identity, and have their voice acknowledged as valid (P65). She goes on to say that PV purely as a product is very different because it is a passive entity. Watching is optional, interpretation is personal, and control only exists for the video-makers, not the viewers (P66).
I will focus mostly on PV as a process in this summary. PV needs to be conducted a certain way for it to be successful, that is that PV needs to focus on "interaction, sharing, and cooperation with an outcome of individual and group growth" . It is about allowing people to express as well as offer another mode of interaction (P64-65). As a process, it has many uses: self-definition, education and training, community building, message-making, mediator, and many other things. This is made possible through PVs ability to transform individuals and eventually communities (P76). The facilitator must possess certain skills and encourage PV to grow in certain ways for the community to be transformed, however. They include things such as "encouraging interpersonal encounter, promoting dialog, reconciling differences, reaching consensus, dealing with prejudice, conflict management, and fostering cooperation" (P77). This is yet another acknowledgment that PV alone is not enough to bring about change, but rather a myriad of variables need to be aligned correctly for it to occur. One of these is the attitude of the facilitator.
Each one of these topics is explained in more detail, giving examples and advice on how to exemplify these characteristics as the PV facilitator's work. The other thing that the facilitator should be aware of Maslow's concept of "self-actualization" and Kelley's concept of "fully-functioning." Maslow believed that the human continues to reach for higher levels throughout life due to their desire for "knowledge, undestanding, meaning in life, beauty, peace, and self-fulfillment." White says that this humanistic approach pushes participation in the process of development, and that PV can help address issues of self-fulfillment. "When a person is fully functioning, he/she must look at the self and feel that they are capable of peforming the task at hand... [and] facilitating persons can further assist in the process of building, helping people realize their potential for change and improvements" (P82).
White says that self is an important concept to acknowledge as a facilitator as they must deal with disparities between how the self perceives self and how others perceive that person. She explains how self is shaped by our relations with others, creating a constanly evolving and changing self-concept. Thus, interpersonal interaction has impact on self-concept (P84).
She goes onto develop ideas of self-esteem and self-respect which are two things that "require a basic process whereby individuals can examine, assess and modify their existing concepts, attitudes and behaviors." PV is one such way of "questioning the assumptions one makes about their own actions or beliefs that often forces a person to modify their self-concept in order to maintain self-esteem" (P85-86). Basically that a person's ability to change lays in critical reflection in a process of "understanding a decision, thinking about what they are doing, obersving the reaction to what they are doing, and checking out the relationship between action and observation" (P86). Again, PV is able to bring this process to the forefront fo conscious change.
Reflections:
I enjoyed the portion of this text about psychology. The claims of PV are often thrown out there without absolute proof or even pointing towards possible reasons for why "PV causes change" or how "PV can induce empowerment." Her argument feels fleshed out. Instead of simply relying on case examples, she is able to pull from theoretical evidence to prove that PV is able to propogate impact from individual to the group.
I am also a fan of how she acknowledges that there are certain pre-conditions that make PV successful. Her outline for the facilitator is fairly detailed and could be useful in part of a handbook for hosting PV. They are reminiscent of therapy or mediator characterstics, and her techniques push the boundaries between using the camera for action versus psychological aid. The process is self-reflective, but also a very conscious manner. In a way, her process feels like the participants are being treated as children or as clients.
I think White is correct when she outlines the way in which facilitation must occur. I like that she has turned the process into less of a touch-feely-we-can-change-the-world and more into science. She outlines certain characteristics needed for PV to work as a process. However, I am also wary of her clearly-defined steps as it implies that PV intervention can always been the answer or have the potential to always be successful on some level. Based off of summer experiences, I would still question whether intervention always has more positive impacts than negative.
Further reading of the text is needed for further conclusions.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Cities for Citizens: Friedman, ed.
Friedman, John and Mike Douglas, eds. Cities for Citizens. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd: Sussex, England, 1998.
-Chapter 2: "Planning and Civil Society in the Twenty-first Century: An Introduction" (Friedman)
-Portions from "Empowering Civil Society: Habernas, Foucault and the Question of Conflict." (Bent Flybjerg)
-Chapter 12: "Civil/Uncivil Society: Confusing Form with Content" (Janet Abu-Lughod)
Summary:
Friedman's introduction includes a definition of civil society as well as a broad overview of the chapters that follow. His arguments mostly focus on the idea of the individual and organization's power, rights, and responsibilities as the 'citizen.' He argues that the elite have no connection or allegiance while the "disempowered great majority of the world's population value local traditions and inhabit specific places, but thier voices have been rendered silent." "Civil society is that part of social life which lies beyond the immediate reach of the state, and which, we would argue, must exist for a democratic state to flower." (P2) The citizen is part of a political struggle to maintain or strengthen their rights to demand that the state work for the people, especially those without power (P3)
The planner's jobs, Friedman argues, is to avoid the ruckus of politics in order to "discover and give voice to the broad interests of people in a long-term future perspective." (P19) Organizations, like the NGO, were developed to address the social needs that the city was not able to, but "their collective efforts inevitably fall far short of the probelms with whose symptoms they engage." As they proliferate, however, the NGO beginst to step on one another's toes and are forced to fight amongst their increasing numbers for non-increasing funding sources.
Maybe good for a beginning or ending quote: "The market economy doesn't solve urban problems; it creates them. Its patheticaly narrow vision for the future comes down to one syllable, 'more.' More is better than less. Growth is mandatory. Consumption is a civil obligation. But in fact, the materialism of the consumer society has very little to do with the good life, which is rather about the quality of human relationships" (P20).
Friedman also talks briefly about how poverty is defined, again offering no solutions. He says that concept of the household as a consumer leads to poverty being thought of as a problem of low-income. In turn, this leads anti-poverty movements to frame their raise this income as a way of increasing their spending power. Friedman argues that poverty is also a result of low access to necessary resources for household production which he calls the "bases of social power and include a secure lifespace, surplus time over and above time required for the reproduction of life, social networks, knoweldge and skills..., social organizations, good health, instruments and tools of domestic production, and ... financial resources" (P24).
His concern for poverty doesn't remove his belief that civil societies are in the business for themselves. The most incredible thing that I found within the reading was the unexpected remark that "within the constraints of structural imperatives, it is in its attention to small that the quality of our lives are found." He gives a few examples such as communities forcing cities to care for how the streets look or marking commemorative sites (P28).
Finally, Freidman steps back to look at some characteristics of successful planners within civil societies. He says that "reciprocity and trust counts for a good deal more than one's salary... [and] although shared experiences serves as an important foundation for trust, it is only the first and not neccessarily the most important basis. Trust develops in the course of working together..." Planners must withhold from judgment in order to understand points of view with which they are unfamiliar. Social transformation, however, is possible through the "enlargement of space for the workings of the moral economy based on relations of trust, reciprocity, and dialogue, ... and second, to make its multiple voices heard and respected through active participation in decisions that affect its conditions of life and wellbeing..." (P32-33). For delf-development to occur, someone needs to remove the obstacles to inclusion, opportunity, and "a form of social justice that acknowledges the different priorities and needs of different groups" (P34).
Abu-Lughod challenges Friedman's advocacy for supporting civil society as good planning practice. She first questions Friedman's usage of the term - "almost as a synonym for decentralization and local empowerment exercised through associational (and oftentimes voluntary) organizations," and points out that even these organizations are not neutral and can even be evil (P232). Her argument is that civil society needs to operate within certain confines of enough, too much, and too little (P236) as well as to point out that civil societies will have little change unless they change the current dominant political systems. She quotes Friedman, "reintegrating ... an existing political community in which [the people] exercise their rights, cannot be done in any meaningful sense unless the systems-in-dominance - authoritarianism, peripheral capitalism, and patriarchy - are themselves changed in fundamental ways." She then goes on to say that the planners job is not to listen and give the people what they want but to create and change the ways in which the people can GET what they want (P237).
To wrap up this intense round of quotes and reading, let's end on Flybjerg's idea that "'validity' is established via the mode of communication rather than through rational arguments concerning the matter at hand" (P194).
Reflections:
Although this book was meant for planners, it was good to get a broad overview of "civil society" and its present place in society. Friedman is a bit of an idealist with his notion that civil society is the opposition to unjust political structures and wealth but has been proven right many times in the cases when social movements (anti-slavery or feminists) has been a successful organization by the people, for the people. Although it advocates autonomy as the answer, again there are no concrete examples given of how "autonomy" may be achieved. Friedman presents a contradiction in the first part of his chapter that involves the idea that civil society is bound for failure while planning has the chance for change while the problem truly lies in the fabric of the concept of development. Overall, his general ideas are useful for supporting PV's place in social change as a way of creating those spaces necessary for representing many voices.
I found it interesting to read the respond of Abu-Lughod to Friedman's essay because it offered points that I hadn't considered. Finally, while Flybjerg's essay was mostly unhelpful, portions of it resonated so I quoted it.
-Chapter 2: "Planning and Civil Society in the Twenty-first Century: An Introduction" (Friedman)
-Portions from "Empowering Civil Society: Habernas, Foucault and the Question of Conflict." (Bent Flybjerg)
-Chapter 12: "Civil/Uncivil Society: Confusing Form with Content" (Janet Abu-Lughod)
Summary:
Friedman's introduction includes a definition of civil society as well as a broad overview of the chapters that follow. His arguments mostly focus on the idea of the individual and organization's power, rights, and responsibilities as the 'citizen.' He argues that the elite have no connection or allegiance while the "disempowered great majority of the world's population value local traditions and inhabit specific places, but thier voices have been rendered silent." "Civil society is that part of social life which lies beyond the immediate reach of the state, and which, we would argue, must exist for a democratic state to flower." (P2) The citizen is part of a political struggle to maintain or strengthen their rights to demand that the state work for the people, especially those without power (P3)
The planner's jobs, Friedman argues, is to avoid the ruckus of politics in order to "discover and give voice to the broad interests of people in a long-term future perspective." (P19) Organizations, like the NGO, were developed to address the social needs that the city was not able to, but "their collective efforts inevitably fall far short of the probelms with whose symptoms they engage." As they proliferate, however, the NGO beginst to step on one another's toes and are forced to fight amongst their increasing numbers for non-increasing funding sources.
Maybe good for a beginning or ending quote: "The market economy doesn't solve urban problems; it creates them. Its patheticaly narrow vision for the future comes down to one syllable, 'more.' More is better than less. Growth is mandatory. Consumption is a civil obligation. But in fact, the materialism of the consumer society has very little to do with the good life, which is rather about the quality of human relationships" (P20).
Friedman also talks briefly about how poverty is defined, again offering no solutions. He says that concept of the household as a consumer leads to poverty being thought of as a problem of low-income. In turn, this leads anti-poverty movements to frame their raise this income as a way of increasing their spending power. Friedman argues that poverty is also a result of low access to necessary resources for household production which he calls the "bases of social power and include a secure lifespace, surplus time over and above time required for the reproduction of life, social networks, knoweldge and skills..., social organizations, good health, instruments and tools of domestic production, and ... financial resources" (P24).
His concern for poverty doesn't remove his belief that civil societies are in the business for themselves. The most incredible thing that I found within the reading was the unexpected remark that "within the constraints of structural imperatives, it is in its attention to small that the quality of our lives are found." He gives a few examples such as communities forcing cities to care for how the streets look or marking commemorative sites (P28).
Finally, Freidman steps back to look at some characteristics of successful planners within civil societies. He says that "reciprocity and trust counts for a good deal more than one's salary... [and] although shared experiences serves as an important foundation for trust, it is only the first and not neccessarily the most important basis. Trust develops in the course of working together..." Planners must withhold from judgment in order to understand points of view with which they are unfamiliar. Social transformation, however, is possible through the "enlargement of space for the workings of the moral economy based on relations of trust, reciprocity, and dialogue, ... and second, to make its multiple voices heard and respected through active participation in decisions that affect its conditions of life and wellbeing..." (P32-33). For delf-development to occur, someone needs to remove the obstacles to inclusion, opportunity, and "a form of social justice that acknowledges the different priorities and needs of different groups" (P34).
Abu-Lughod challenges Friedman's advocacy for supporting civil society as good planning practice. She first questions Friedman's usage of the term - "almost as a synonym for decentralization and local empowerment exercised through associational (and oftentimes voluntary) organizations," and points out that even these organizations are not neutral and can even be evil (P232). Her argument is that civil society needs to operate within certain confines of enough, too much, and too little (P236) as well as to point out that civil societies will have little change unless they change the current dominant political systems. She quotes Friedman, "reintegrating ... an existing political community in which [the people] exercise their rights, cannot be done in any meaningful sense unless the systems-in-dominance - authoritarianism, peripheral capitalism, and patriarchy - are themselves changed in fundamental ways." She then goes on to say that the planners job is not to listen and give the people what they want but to create and change the ways in which the people can GET what they want (P237).
To wrap up this intense round of quotes and reading, let's end on Flybjerg's idea that "'validity' is established via the mode of communication rather than through rational arguments concerning the matter at hand" (P194).
Reflections:
Although this book was meant for planners, it was good to get a broad overview of "civil society" and its present place in society. Friedman is a bit of an idealist with his notion that civil society is the opposition to unjust political structures and wealth but has been proven right many times in the cases when social movements (anti-slavery or feminists) has been a successful organization by the people, for the people. Although it advocates autonomy as the answer, again there are no concrete examples given of how "autonomy" may be achieved. Friedman presents a contradiction in the first part of his chapter that involves the idea that civil society is bound for failure while planning has the chance for change while the problem truly lies in the fabric of the concept of development. Overall, his general ideas are useful for supporting PV's place in social change as a way of creating those spaces necessary for representing many voices.
I found it interesting to read the respond of Abu-Lughod to Friedman's essay because it offered points that I hadn't considered. Finally, while Flybjerg's essay was mostly unhelpful, portions of it resonated so I quoted it.
Autonomous Development: Carmen
Carmen, Raff. Autonomous Development. Zed Books Publishing: New Jersey, 1996.
Part 1: Maldevelopment
Chapter 3 "Demystifying Participation: of Beneficiaries and Benefactors"
Development, Carmen argues, is terminology that will never translate. He begins the chapter by asking the question of how the ideas of "development" can be communicated when the word itself does not exist in the language of the people we want to develop. Instead, it is simply a cover up for "acculturation" which is exemplified in the US' imperialistic spread and transfer in many of its seemingly humanitarian efforts. Aculturation is when "a culture of foreign origin profoundly influences or takes over an indigenous culture." He asks that the reader redefines development in other terms than the current mindframe of qualitative (bettering) and quantitative (goods, services, and skills). (P41-42).
Unlike many of the other literature that has been reviewed, Carmen traces participation back to the 60's with the WB's community development and green revolution and then into the 70's with the "Basic Needs Approach." These deceivingly top-down approaches of "participation" encourage development through "import substitution, technology transfer, and agricultural extension" which all, he concludes, will continue to fail as solutions. "To control a people's culture is to control their tools of self-defintion and relation to others." (P43)
Participatory development is not possible without the donor agency and thus paradoxical. Carmen points out that this methodology simply allows the third party (NGO, planner or otherwise) to avoid true development of the peasantry class by intervening and offering solutions while posing projects as 'participatory.' By leaving out the government, the organization can work directly with the people but also fails to address power structures from which poverty springs. Peasantry, which is the "obstacle to the march of modernity," could now be utilized and 'developed' in ways like technology transfer or skills aquisition while avoiding confrontation of true development like political activism and large structural projects (P45)
The technique of "Community Developmen"t was created not as a humanitarian effort but rather sprung from post-colonial relationships between the mother country and its territory and thus "suits the maintenance of colonial rule." It keeps the colony peaceful, transfers the economic burden from national to local governments, and helps in creating a stability during development. In a 1976 study that was conducted by The Cornell Development Research Group, four types of participation arose (1) Implementation (2) Benefits (3) Evaluation (4) Decision-Making. The implementation part of participation was the most common (P47).
Carmen also thinks that Rapid Rural Assessment is just terminology to cover up what is the "most cost-effective ways for outsiders to learn about rural conditions - ways that lead cloesr to optimal trade-off between the cost of collection and learning, the relevance, time and actual beneficial use of the information and understanding that is gained (P50).
Reflections:
The language is very formal, yet educated. This literature is incredibly theoretical. However, I totally disagree with what he is saying. What I dislike the most is the way that he tries to be so appealing. His definition of autonomous hinges on chance, pre-existing conditions being a certain way, and people having small amounts of power to increase their own power... somehow ... in places where the people who have power keep getting more power at everly increasing rates. The literature that he does draw on is well-pieced together and carefully selected. And although this chapter is formally backed with many documented sources, the feeling is much more like an opinion article that rants and raves without drawing from personal experience. However, his "about the author" section includes things such as 15 years as a preacher in Zambia as well as several other years in Burkina Fasa working at a manager of a UNDP research station. I expect and hope claims later will be supported with this.
Carmen's view point on participation, in my interpretation, is that participation is a result of TOTAL control, achieved at economic and social levels, by the institution in the brainwash to get culture to transfer.
If the implementation kind of participation is the most commonly found in development, then I would tend to assume that "implementation" is a euphemism for labor. This way projects employ local labor while the decisions are still made by the institutions. Drawing on my experiences from Peru, I would say that I don't necessarily know that finding labor within the community is such a bad thing. Looking at houses being built by NGOs where the labor force was the homeowner, more cost-efficient labor could have been hired from outside. So is it really about money? Or power? What do those four groups of "participation" really consist of.. ? I would like to find this research done by the Cornell students.
I doubt though that all of Carmen's criticisms in this chapter are well-deserved by many people in the field who may be accomplishing "autonomy," but mistakenly call it participation. Mix-ups in jargon may be the root of the issue at hand. Arguably, changes in linguistics of a subject are a true reflection of changes in the subject itself. His title of the chapter, "demystifying participation" is misleading as it merely provides a viewpoint on the subject.
Part 1: Maldevelopment
Chapter 3 "Demystifying Participation: of Beneficiaries and Benefactors"
Development, Carmen argues, is terminology that will never translate. He begins the chapter by asking the question of how the ideas of "development" can be communicated when the word itself does not exist in the language of the people we want to develop. Instead, it is simply a cover up for "acculturation" which is exemplified in the US' imperialistic spread and transfer in many of its seemingly humanitarian efforts. Aculturation is when "a culture of foreign origin profoundly influences or takes over an indigenous culture." He asks that the reader redefines development in other terms than the current mindframe of qualitative (bettering) and quantitative (goods, services, and skills). (P41-42).
Unlike many of the other literature that has been reviewed, Carmen traces participation back to the 60's with the WB's community development and green revolution and then into the 70's with the "Basic Needs Approach." These deceivingly top-down approaches of "participation" encourage development through "import substitution, technology transfer, and agricultural extension" which all, he concludes, will continue to fail as solutions. "To control a people's culture is to control their tools of self-defintion and relation to others." (P43)
Participatory development is not possible without the donor agency and thus paradoxical. Carmen points out that this methodology simply allows the third party (NGO, planner or otherwise) to avoid true development of the peasantry class by intervening and offering solutions while posing projects as 'participatory.' By leaving out the government, the organization can work directly with the people but also fails to address power structures from which poverty springs. Peasantry, which is the "obstacle to the march of modernity," could now be utilized and 'developed' in ways like technology transfer or skills aquisition while avoiding confrontation of true development like political activism and large structural projects (P45)
The technique of "Community Developmen"t was created not as a humanitarian effort but rather sprung from post-colonial relationships between the mother country and its territory and thus "suits the maintenance of colonial rule." It keeps the colony peaceful, transfers the economic burden from national to local governments, and helps in creating a stability during development. In a 1976 study that was conducted by The Cornell Development Research Group, four types of participation arose (1) Implementation (2) Benefits (3) Evaluation (4) Decision-Making. The implementation part of participation was the most common (P47).
Carmen also thinks that Rapid Rural Assessment is just terminology to cover up what is the "most cost-effective ways for outsiders to learn about rural conditions - ways that lead cloesr to optimal trade-off between the cost of collection and learning, the relevance, time and actual beneficial use of the information and understanding that is gained (P50).
Reflections:
The language is very formal, yet educated. This literature is incredibly theoretical. However, I totally disagree with what he is saying. What I dislike the most is the way that he tries to be so appealing. His definition of autonomous hinges on chance, pre-existing conditions being a certain way, and people having small amounts of power to increase their own power... somehow ... in places where the people who have power keep getting more power at everly increasing rates. The literature that he does draw on is well-pieced together and carefully selected. And although this chapter is formally backed with many documented sources, the feeling is much more like an opinion article that rants and raves without drawing from personal experience. However, his "about the author" section includes things such as 15 years as a preacher in Zambia as well as several other years in Burkina Fasa working at a manager of a UNDP research station. I expect and hope claims later will be supported with this.
Carmen's view point on participation, in my interpretation, is that participation is a result of TOTAL control, achieved at economic and social levels, by the institution in the brainwash to get culture to transfer.
If the implementation kind of participation is the most commonly found in development, then I would tend to assume that "implementation" is a euphemism for labor. This way projects employ local labor while the decisions are still made by the institutions. Drawing on my experiences from Peru, I would say that I don't necessarily know that finding labor within the community is such a bad thing. Looking at houses being built by NGOs where the labor force was the homeowner, more cost-efficient labor could have been hired from outside. So is it really about money? Or power? What do those four groups of "participation" really consist of.. ? I would like to find this research done by the Cornell students.
I doubt though that all of Carmen's criticisms in this chapter are well-deserved by many people in the field who may be accomplishing "autonomy," but mistakenly call it participation. Mix-ups in jargon may be the root of the issue at hand. Arguably, changes in linguistics of a subject are a true reflection of changes in the subject itself. His title of the chapter, "demystifying participation" is misleading as it merely provides a viewpoint on the subject.
Friday, October 23, 2009
The Art of Technique
White, Shirley A. The Art of Facilitating Participation:. Minneapolis: Sage Publications Pvt. Ltd, 2000. Print.
Overview of the essays in Part 2: The Art of Technique.
Shirley White's book 'The Art of Facilitating Participation', is the result of White facilitating a regular discussion group that stemmed from the prodding of her graduate students. This means she is metaphysically facilitating a book of essays on facilitation by students and practitioners in the field of facilitation. Her role in this book comes out quite clearly in the way she introduces the essays written by those in the discussion group. Though she has talked to many people on this topic and heard many stories of the same (or at least similar) lessons learned by so many students, she mentions the work of each of them as unique learning experiences and is honored to help share these stories with others.
The book is divided into three sections. The first section's essays are described in the last post; in this post I will focus on the second section: The Art of Technique. The word choice is intentional, and explained on p.22. Technology is vital, but technique and the application of technical proficiency is arguably more important. The 'art of technique' is the 'thoughtful articulation and interpretation of the need for technology, and the culturally sensitive way people are involved in assessing, acquiring, and applying that technology to benefit their development'. “Technique must serve the content of development and be the art that effectively promotes learning and effective communication.”
The first essay in this section is an interview between a young Colombian interested in participatory development and a widely recognized Colombian facilitator who has dedicated his life to participatory development: Orlando Fals Borda.. This is followed by Colverson's essay on her experiences using PAR (Participatory Action Research) with campesino women in two rural Honduranean communities. The next essay witnesses how successful an agricultural program in Nepal can be at implementing a participatory model. Galper proceeds this with an essay on the topic of empowerment via teaching basic statistics for understanding the processes the NGO is using to make decisions and how information from surveys are translated and used.
Three African writers team together to emphasize the benefits of training rural development facilitators via Participatory Rural Communication Appraisal (PRCA). This process is focused on built-in field work. Next, Renuka Bery proposes the discovery principle which states that learning by discovery stimulates individual development and thus, 'contribute to the mot important issues in their societies. Finally, we move into access to media technologies. “The importance of access to communication technologies and public media cannot be overstated as an important force in a community's development. Hochneimer discusses community radio and the issues surrounding community-based journalism, themes that are 'pertinent to any media system, and important tools for community building' (p. 27). Richardson follows with his essay on the considerations inherent to establishing a 'FreeSpace' network in Canada; his example has apparently led to a rural internet access to the poor in Peru, Mexico, and the Philippines. 'Communication relationships are no longer restricted by space., but access to communication resources is another matter.' (p.28)
Reflection
This book has inspired me to consider facilitating a forum, (at least initially) informal, on international development experiences of MIT students. The important qualities of this gathering would be student-sprouted and informative. This of course requires prior interest and students who would immediately view this as a valuable use of their time. If started correctly, with a precedent on student interest and informal yet useful exchange of ideas, (as well as possibly output), this could be a worthwhile pursuit. The output of such a gathering could be one of new ideas and opportunities horizontally traveling from one student to another. I am especially interested in having a space where international development can be delved into and researched without feeling the reigns of power often associated with the grants, paperwork, and rules that tends to define and limit access to development work by students. Of course, the fact that it does not yet exist leads one to believe that there may be a low enough percentage of students with this type of experience that such a gathering only has merit on the graduate level.
Stepping back we can see clearly that White is cleverly showing us what she means by effective facilitation by the actual form in which the book is produced. The book is facilitation at its best. However, it also is facilitation between presumably similarly-minded people with similar recent international exposure in the field of development. Each of them is interested in understanding the role of communication in development, so admittedly the students are not an accurate representation of the complexities in international development caused by vast formative discrepancies. Still, she is contextualizing the facilitation role to the academic environment, and the result seems to be an interesting collection of hope-giving accounts. It is possible that sometimes White goes overboard and says things like 'Kathy had become one of them...erased any apprehension they might have had' which is simply an overexaggeration.
I like how the author writes the book so that one can quickly find what essays they are interested in reading, and leave the rest. This is accomplished by dedicating one to three paragraphs to a brief, but long-enough description of right at the beginning. Doing something similar to my work might be an interesting approach to facilitating its applicability as a useful document to someone.
Overview of the essays in Part 2: The Art of Technique.
Shirley White's book 'The Art of Facilitating Participation', is the result of White facilitating a regular discussion group that stemmed from the prodding of her graduate students. This means she is metaphysically facilitating a book of essays on facilitation by students and practitioners in the field of facilitation. Her role in this book comes out quite clearly in the way she introduces the essays written by those in the discussion group. Though she has talked to many people on this topic and heard many stories of the same (or at least similar) lessons learned by so many students, she mentions the work of each of them as unique learning experiences and is honored to help share these stories with others.
The book is divided into three sections. The first section's essays are described in the last post; in this post I will focus on the second section: The Art of Technique. The word choice is intentional, and explained on p.22. Technology is vital, but technique and the application of technical proficiency is arguably more important. The 'art of technique' is the 'thoughtful articulation and interpretation of the need for technology, and the culturally sensitive way people are involved in assessing, acquiring, and applying that technology to benefit their development'. “Technique must serve the content of development and be the art that effectively promotes learning and effective communication.”
The first essay in this section is an interview between a young Colombian interested in participatory development and a widely recognized Colombian facilitator who has dedicated his life to participatory development: Orlando Fals Borda.. This is followed by Colverson's essay on her experiences using PAR (Participatory Action Research) with campesino women in two rural Honduranean communities. The next essay witnesses how successful an agricultural program in Nepal can be at implementing a participatory model. Galper proceeds this with an essay on the topic of empowerment via teaching basic statistics for understanding the processes the NGO is using to make decisions and how information from surveys are translated and used.
Three African writers team together to emphasize the benefits of training rural development facilitators via Participatory Rural Communication Appraisal (PRCA). This process is focused on built-in field work. Next, Renuka Bery proposes the discovery principle which states that learning by discovery stimulates individual development and thus, 'contribute to the mot important issues in their societies. Finally, we move into access to media technologies. “The importance of access to communication technologies and public media cannot be overstated as an important force in a community's development. Hochneimer discusses community radio and the issues surrounding community-based journalism, themes that are 'pertinent to any media system, and important tools for community building' (p. 27). Richardson follows with his essay on the considerations inherent to establishing a 'FreeSpace' network in Canada; his example has apparently led to a rural internet access to the poor in Peru, Mexico, and the Philippines. 'Communication relationships are no longer restricted by space., but access to communication resources is another matter.' (p.28)
Reflection
This book has inspired me to consider facilitating a forum, (at least initially) informal, on international development experiences of MIT students. The important qualities of this gathering would be student-sprouted and informative. This of course requires prior interest and students who would immediately view this as a valuable use of their time. If started correctly, with a precedent on student interest and informal yet useful exchange of ideas, (as well as possibly output), this could be a worthwhile pursuit. The output of such a gathering could be one of new ideas and opportunities horizontally traveling from one student to another. I am especially interested in having a space where international development can be delved into and researched without feeling the reigns of power often associated with the grants, paperwork, and rules that tends to define and limit access to development work by students. Of course, the fact that it does not yet exist leads one to believe that there may be a low enough percentage of students with this type of experience that such a gathering only has merit on the graduate level.
Stepping back we can see clearly that White is cleverly showing us what she means by effective facilitation by the actual form in which the book is produced. The book is facilitation at its best. However, it also is facilitation between presumably similarly-minded people with similar recent international exposure in the field of development. Each of them is interested in understanding the role of communication in development, so admittedly the students are not an accurate representation of the complexities in international development caused by vast formative discrepancies. Still, she is contextualizing the facilitation role to the academic environment, and the result seems to be an interesting collection of hope-giving accounts. It is possible that sometimes White goes overboard and says things like 'Kathy had become one of them...erased any apprehension they might have had' which is simply an overexaggeration.
I like how the author writes the book so that one can quickly find what essays they are interested in reading, and leave the rest. This is accomplished by dedicating one to three paragraphs to a brief, but long-enough description of right at the beginning. Doing something similar to my work might be an interesting approach to facilitating its applicability as a useful document to someone.
The Art of Participation
White, Shirley A. The Art of Facilitating Participation:. Minneapolis: Sage Publications Pvt. Ltd, 2000. Print.
p. 7-22: Introduction and an overview of Part I: The Art of Participation.
This book aims to catalyze improved participatory approaches to development, The focus is placed on the importance of proper facilitation, and does this by combining a set of different essays by White and others on the topic of findings on participatory development. White starts off with a broad generalization that NGOs spent the 90's talking about involving the socially excluded, but have yet tlo effectively do so (p. 16). In addition, development has become a business. “We quickly forget that development starts from the heart” (p.17). “Reaching across the barriers of diversity, power, caste, and class to touch the life force of a person and lift them to a 'higher ground' becomes the objective of the challenge” (p.18)
Underlying assumption of the book: 'communication is the foundation of participation'. With this as an anchor, the story introduces the array of essays that will be presented to the reader. Each of them is written from a practitioners standpoint, but with the academic integrity of a university graduate research department. Together, the essays provide a set of lessons learned from their personal experiences working in development around the world.
The first essay is by White and Nair, and it explains how the facilitator role is one of a catalyst communicator (CC). A CC is responsible for setting up an environment for continual learning and honing communication for building partnerships for participatory development. Kiiti and Nielsen's essay validates the use of reflective thinking as well as contextualized definitions of roles and purpose. Specifically this essay distinguishes between the role of a facilitator and an advocate, and the importance of the ability to fill both roles depending on the situation. This theme of facilitator vs advocate continues into the next essay, by Ndunge and Erik. This essay discusses how facilitating starts from where the community is at, whereas advocating often has an external motivation and paints near-sighted pictures.
Simone St. Anne follows with an essay on the importance of creativity in synergy, or connection, which is the key to autonomous participation. “Synergy is the spark that triggers thinking and helps form innovative connections to allow others to see what they see – that's the essence of creative collaboration.” (p. 21). This essay is followed by an essay on the enabling conditions of development communication for giving voice to different stakeholders to negotiate their positions and common interests. Then comes on essay that appears to be written by someone recently faced with the harsh divisions associated with development, choosing to write on the personality and character requirements for someone to be a quality facilitator. These include selflessness, willingness to take risks, commitment, persistence, sensitivity, and others that are difficult to understand without extended time working in the field of development (p.21). The last essay included in the section titled the Art of Participation is by Jim Lees and Sonali Ojha who write it while in the midst of a project trying to do participation-based work in the midst of the harsh conditions of the streets of Mumbai.
Reflection
Interesting, how the book 'Autonomous Development' has affected the reading of this story. As much as Autonomous Development appears to be academic and critical in an almost witty way, White's book is much more open, personable, and lightly written. For this reason, her book is soaked with phrases that Carmen, the author of Autonomous Development, would and does tear apart in his book on the failings of participatory development. Of course, in some ways they are acknowledging the same failings, only in very different manners and with very different messages. One example of this is where White talks about 'reaching across' divisions of all kinds and 'lifting' people to a 'higher ground'. Carmen would point out that lifting implies that we are in control and thus are actually reinforcing those very stark power differences.
The essays listed included in this book are very interesting to me. It seems like an interesting opening The introduction to the essay by Ndunge and Erik is interesting because it seems to hint that facilitators are important in bridging the gap between the development goals of the outside world and the sheltered way of life of the people being developed. I certainly hope they would not agree with this assessment, but I wonder if it is not a subconscious reality in the minds of many development workers, especially those with academic training. I also am really excited to read the essay about using creativity to connect to people.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Candid thoughts on the Not-so candid Camera
White, Shirley, ed. Participatory Video: Images that Transform and Empower. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2003. 412 pp. ISBN 0761997636
Chapter 7: "Candid thoughts on the Not-so candid Camera: How Video Documentation Radically Alters Development Projects" by Barbara Seidl
In this chapter Seidl uses her own PV experiences from the past 10 years to outline some of the positive and negative impacts from the presence of a camera in development projects. Within the 3 stages of documentation (pre-production, production, and screening), there are many intentional and unintentional changes that occur due to the camera team. Seidl focuses heavily on bias.
In cases of public broadcasting, there is the bias of the audience as well as the director. Depending on the topic of the research or audience, the frame excludes a large amount of potentially interesting and educational material (p. 162). The director's bias, "operationally, ... means that while documenting someone else's story [the director] knows what is and is not important (p. 162). Many of the below positives and negatives are a result of bias.
Pre-production benefits include (1) focusing of mission, by asking for a definite mission, (2) clear identification of leadership, (3) clear identification of priorities,(4) increase in project's productivity,and (5) increase in organization's credibility.
Pre-production hazards include (1) inadvertently changing the leadership structure, (3) discovering disagreement about the mission or objectives, and (4) Diluting the power of the story.
Production benefits include (1) increased exposure and (2) creation of an opportunity to publicly recognize supporters, leaders, and participants
Production hazards include (1) creation of a very visible and public forum for dissention and (2) a radical drop in productivity because of the presence of the camera.
Chapter 4: "Participatory Video that Empowers" - Renuka Bery
Through the power of the video maker's ability to engage viewers to internalize stories, redefine issues, and take initiative to exercise their own power, "PV helps to rearticulate the locus of power within individual communities and ultimately politics." (p. 103). Empowerment is not inherent to PV, and in fact, is only a tool for achieving an empowered status. The author outlines many steps towards achieving empowerment through the use of PV. reminding the reader that "the strength of the tool is only as powerful as the person wielding it." (p. 105).
Reflection
Contrary to my style with the other books, largely due to the prodding of a friend I delved into this book by first picking out the seemingly most relevant chapters.
In chapter 4, Bery unashamedly refers to PV as though it is completely contained within the realm of successful empowerment strategy, without bothering to remind the reader that this is only under very certain conditions. For instance, she uses the example of a woman interviewing politicians with a camera as giving her an immediate shift in power as she was suddenly noticed by the politicians. This may be an extreme example but it certainly illustrates the point. In this case, she does not bother to mention why the woman was interviewing the politicians, and how much of it was her own initiative, and whether or not she had prior experience in journalism, etc.
If there is one thing that my summer fieldwork taught me, it is that although PV has the potential to disturb the power balance, I don't really think that the immediate impact of physical cameras on the power dynamics in a rural Third World community is likely to be a positive one. Logically, power structures can only be changed as quickly as new ones can be rebuilt and old ones torn down. The introduction of PV into a community, however, is much more immediate, and therefore incapable of fundamentally affecting power structures in a sustainable fashion. On the contrary, immediate effects seem intuitively more likely t0 disturb the structure just enough to agitate it into action, with the more powerful agents feeling threatened.
Chapter 7: "Candid thoughts on the Not-so candid Camera: How Video Documentation Radically Alters Development Projects" by Barbara Seidl
In this chapter Seidl uses her own PV experiences from the past 10 years to outline some of the positive and negative impacts from the presence of a camera in development projects. Within the 3 stages of documentation (pre-production, production, and screening), there are many intentional and unintentional changes that occur due to the camera team. Seidl focuses heavily on bias.
In cases of public broadcasting, there is the bias of the audience as well as the director. Depending on the topic of the research or audience, the frame excludes a large amount of potentially interesting and educational material (p. 162). The director's bias, "operationally, ... means that while documenting someone else's story [the director] knows what is and is not important (p. 162). Many of the below positives and negatives are a result of bias.
Pre-production benefits include (1) focusing of mission, by asking for a definite mission, (2) clear identification of leadership, (3) clear identification of priorities,(4) increase in project's productivity,and (5) increase in organization's credibility.
Pre-production hazards include (1) inadvertently changing the leadership structure, (3) discovering disagreement about the mission or objectives, and (4) Diluting the power of the story.
Production benefits include (1) increased exposure and (2) creation of an opportunity to publicly recognize supporters, leaders, and participants
Production hazards include (1) creation of a very visible and public forum for dissention and (2) a radical drop in productivity because of the presence of the camera.
Chapter 4: "Participatory Video that Empowers" - Renuka Bery
Through the power of the video maker's ability to engage viewers to internalize stories, redefine issues, and take initiative to exercise their own power, "PV helps to rearticulate the locus of power within individual communities and ultimately politics." (p. 103). Empowerment is not inherent to PV, and in fact, is only a tool for achieving an empowered status. The author outlines many steps towards achieving empowerment through the use of PV. reminding the reader that "the strength of the tool is only as powerful as the person wielding it." (p. 105).
Reflection
Contrary to my style with the other books, largely due to the prodding of a friend I delved into this book by first picking out the seemingly most relevant chapters.
In chapter 4, Bery unashamedly refers to PV as though it is completely contained within the realm of successful empowerment strategy, without bothering to remind the reader that this is only under very certain conditions. For instance, she uses the example of a woman interviewing politicians with a camera as giving her an immediate shift in power as she was suddenly noticed by the politicians. This may be an extreme example but it certainly illustrates the point. In this case, she does not bother to mention why the woman was interviewing the politicians, and how much of it was her own initiative, and whether or not she had prior experience in journalism, etc.
If there is one thing that my summer fieldwork taught me, it is that although PV has the potential to disturb the power balance, I don't really think that the immediate impact of physical cameras on the power dynamics in a rural Third World community is likely to be a positive one. Logically, power structures can only be changed as quickly as new ones can be rebuilt and old ones torn down. The introduction of PV into a community, however, is much more immediate, and therefore incapable of fundamentally affecting power structures in a sustainable fashion. On the contrary, immediate effects seem intuitively more likely t0 disturb the structure just enough to agitate it into action, with the more powerful agents feeling threatened.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Redeveloping communication for social change
Wilkins, Karin Gwinn, 1962- Redeveloping communication for social change : theory, practice, and power / Karin Gwinn Wilkins. Lanham, Md. : Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, c2000.
Introduction, Chapters 1 & 2
Power, its construction and manifestation in development, are the focus of this book. The authors reference social change within the context of power over and over. According to their timeline, development communication has gone from the dominant paradigm (articulated by Lerner, Schramm) to dependency theory to participatory with social. Builds off the assumption that promoting social change needs to begin by understanding the differences in power across communities and institutions.
Things a communication specialist might concern themselves with include critical examination of project communications, disaggregating the structures and discourses of aid organizations, by documenting the roles played by formal and informal groups, and by studying media representations of development. (p.10)
“Economic class status and the things that come with it – Western languages, education, professional employment, travel opportunities, spare cash – together constitute a huge obstacle to real dialogue.” (p. 14). Often trained development workers see traditional religion as an obstacle or barrier to dialogue and development; religion is often seen as something that must be changed. Religion is inseparable from culture and dialogue and actually involves important forms of communication including meditation, storytelling, and prayer. (p.15)
Argues that the discussions need to address power inequities in societies in order to begin the process towards change. Prefers to use the term “development support communication” (DSC) rather than development communication. (p.40). DSC emphasizes support for self-determination of people, especially at the grassroots, rather than simply viewing communication as a tool for economic growth.
It is the power inequalities that exist that are at the root of the failed development projects. Until the social and economic structures are equilibriated, no significant progress can be made.
Power in Third World development (p. 44):
1.Power is exemplified through organized money or organized people or through connections between these.
2.Power is exercised via control of economic, political, cultural, and informational resources.
3.Wielders can reward of punish due to connections with available resources
4.Power is exercised through control of the agenda for the development project.
5.Power is exercised by influencing the shared consciousness of a people or community
Empowerment can occur at different levels: individual, organization, and community and take place in a variety of different contexts (p. 45). Empowerment is defined as the mechanism by which each of these levels gain control and mastery over social and economic conditions.
Taking a bold stand against good-intentions aid, Melkote says it is “unethical to solve minor and/or immediate problems while ignoring the systemic barriers erected by societies that permit or perpetuate inequalities among citizens.” (p. 46). The lack of economic, political and social power must be dealt with first.
3 tenets are given for a successful community organization: (1) empowerment is achieved through effective organizations, (2) effective organizations are maintained by strong inter-personal relationships, and (3) individual empowerment and action-reflection which occurs inherently when participating in a social organization. Of particular relevance to my video focus, effective inter-personal links formed by one-on-one communication, as well as use of “indigenous communication media and technology, such as the videotape cameras as used in Nepal or the Fogo community in Canada.” (p.47).
Reflections
The feel of this book is different from the others. The author uses words like “development industry”, and “unethical development”. The clear focus on power as the heart of the problem seems to simplify things at first, but after awhile you realize the problem has only been renamed and its complexities are still the same – precisely as the book tells us, it is recontextualizing the development debate around power structures and the tangible inequalities that become extremely pronounced in Third World development over almost any other activity. I say this because unlike the political arena or the corporate office setting, Third World development takes place during people's real lives at their real homes with their real kids.
And this is precisely why I believe the author is correct when he says that it is unethical to deal with minor/immediate problems only, leaving the ingrained power divides to remain undisturbed. This is because development is not being done in a lab to multiple test communities that can be reproduced on demand. Development happens in real time and has real impacts, both immediately and in the long run. This is no time to pretend that development is headed down a good path, so we let the power structures deal with themselves while we make sure and spend this grant money. No. The answer is clear. If we actually want to help people, we must first deal with the power inequalities.
Introduction, Chapters 1 & 2
Power, its construction and manifestation in development, are the focus of this book. The authors reference social change within the context of power over and over. According to their timeline, development communication has gone from the dominant paradigm (articulated by Lerner, Schramm) to dependency theory to participatory with social. Builds off the assumption that promoting social change needs to begin by understanding the differences in power across communities and institutions.
Things a communication specialist might concern themselves with include critical examination of project communications, disaggregating the structures and discourses of aid organizations, by documenting the roles played by formal and informal groups, and by studying media representations of development. (p.10)
“Economic class status and the things that come with it – Western languages, education, professional employment, travel opportunities, spare cash – together constitute a huge obstacle to real dialogue.” (p. 14). Often trained development workers see traditional religion as an obstacle or barrier to dialogue and development; religion is often seen as something that must be changed. Religion is inseparable from culture and dialogue and actually involves important forms of communication including meditation, storytelling, and prayer. (p.15)
Argues that the discussions need to address power inequities in societies in order to begin the process towards change. Prefers to use the term “development support communication” (DSC) rather than development communication. (p.40). DSC emphasizes support for self-determination of people, especially at the grassroots, rather than simply viewing communication as a tool for economic growth.
It is the power inequalities that exist that are at the root of the failed development projects. Until the social and economic structures are equilibriated, no significant progress can be made.
Power in Third World development (p. 44):
1.Power is exemplified through organized money or organized people or through connections between these.
2.Power is exercised via control of economic, political, cultural, and informational resources.
3.Wielders can reward of punish due to connections with available resources
4.Power is exercised through control of the agenda for the development project.
5.Power is exercised by influencing the shared consciousness of a people or community
Empowerment can occur at different levels: individual, organization, and community and take place in a variety of different contexts (p. 45). Empowerment is defined as the mechanism by which each of these levels gain control and mastery over social and economic conditions.
Taking a bold stand against good-intentions aid, Melkote says it is “unethical to solve minor and/or immediate problems while ignoring the systemic barriers erected by societies that permit or perpetuate inequalities among citizens.” (p. 46). The lack of economic, political and social power must be dealt with first.
3 tenets are given for a successful community organization: (1) empowerment is achieved through effective organizations, (2) effective organizations are maintained by strong inter-personal relationships, and (3) individual empowerment and action-reflection which occurs inherently when participating in a social organization. Of particular relevance to my video focus, effective inter-personal links formed by one-on-one communication, as well as use of “indigenous communication media and technology, such as the videotape cameras as used in Nepal or the Fogo community in Canada.” (p.47).
Reflections
The feel of this book is different from the others. The author uses words like “development industry”, and “unethical development”. The clear focus on power as the heart of the problem seems to simplify things at first, but after awhile you realize the problem has only been renamed and its complexities are still the same – precisely as the book tells us, it is recontextualizing the development debate around power structures and the tangible inequalities that become extremely pronounced in Third World development over almost any other activity. I say this because unlike the political arena or the corporate office setting, Third World development takes place during people's real lives at their real homes with their real kids.
And this is precisely why I believe the author is correct when he says that it is unethical to deal with minor/immediate problems only, leaving the ingrained power divides to remain undisturbed. This is because development is not being done in a lab to multiple test communities that can be reproduced on demand. Development happens in real time and has real impacts, both immediately and in the long run. This is no time to pretend that development is headed down a good path, so we let the power structures deal with themselves while we make sure and spend this grant money. No. The answer is clear. If we actually want to help people, we must first deal with the power inequalities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
