Participation and partnerships: love 'em or loathe 'em?

Preparing for a bit of teaching on participation and partnerships I am reminded of the emotion that such elements arouse when it comes to development of any sort. I have posted on this before in relation to recent policy trends here in Northern Ireland (NI) and how such 'feel good' words like 'participation', 'partnerships', 'bottom-up' 'community' and 'empowerment' have come to dominate the technobable emanating from the EU and which trickles down to all regions of the union. In fact, it is no different at the global level and such terminology dominates EU international development policy, as it does other global donors. The big question is whether such approaches to rural development in NI (and I suppose elsewhere?) really work, a question already posed by Dr Sally Shortall in the above posting. This was the type of question I was always grappling with in my project management work overseas. Although there were anecdotes of impact and lots of agency back slapping few seemed interested or willing to put in the hard work of measuring impact. How do such approaches contribute to the economic and environment regeneration of rural areas; social advancement and political stability that surely make up the arena of rural development? Such approaches do not come cheap. There have been some studies in NI on this area but from what I have read (limited!) the level of evaluation or measurement of impact has been minimal. Surely a very interesting and rewarding (and necessary?) piece of research for postgraduate study!

Personally, I belong to the school of practice that supports partnership and participatory approaches to development because I have seen benefits and positive impacts in the field, even if fairly localised (although I support more systematic studies of impact). For a good introduction to the beneficial impacts of participatory approaches to rural development in developed and developing countries, read Participation in Strategies for Sustainable Development. However, like all good development process 'good quality' must prevail. The ambiguity of meaning attached to participation and partnership mean they are open to interpretation and therefore variability in practice. Many typologies and ladders of participation have been devised as a way of categorizing levels of, or commitment to, participation with the recognition that participation by default is not necessarily a good thing. In fact, some types of involvement undermine rather than support, effective participation, leading to manipulation or at best a degree of tokenism. At its most extreme the practice of participation might be dangerous, open to abuse and possibly reinforce unfair and dishonest power structures. Even though it is almost 40 years old, Arnstein's Ladder of Participation is still an excellent example of the differences between effective participation and non-participation. Jules Pretty's Typology of Participation is another and both can guide us in the practice of 'good participation'. Clearly participation can mean different things to different people but it is only by aiming for the higher levels, citizen control and self-mobilisation, that real empowerment or transformation will occur. The irresponsible use of participatory development has been extensively critiqued in academic circles in Participation: The New Tyranny? However such criticisms have been countered and challenged by the many participatory practitioners in the field who continue to enrich development dialogue with examples of participatory development that is relevant, ethical and responsible but above all, effective. Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation is one example of recent responses to this criticism. Although both books review and critique participation in a global development context there is much in both to inform thought and analysis for rural development in NI. Of course, one of the main mechanisms for ensuring that good quality participation is practised in the field is through effective and relevant training at universities and other institutes. This takes me back again to the Learning and Teaching for Transformation initiative which I have posted and written about many times. How many Irish universities or institutes involved in rural development, or any development for that matter, critcally reflect or research areas such as 'participation', 'partnerships', 'empowerment' and so forth despite these elements dominating the international and rural development policy arena? Further, how many are really preparing rural development practitioners to be effective agents of rural development change, equipped with the necessary skills, attitudes and behaviours? Actually, I am aware of one such programme at Queen's which aims to enhance the participatory skills of students (and staff?). Despite trying to canvass others, I am aware of no similar programmes or even if the Queen's programme is continuing.

When planning for effective partnership the same principles and ethics that ensure quality participatory process obviously apply if the partnership in question is desired to be a 'real' and 'equal' partnership, not one that is considered an 'arm's length' partnership. Again, some of the information on my earlier postings on partnership will be useful in this context. Recently, I came across this postgraduate student paper on Partnerships in NI which provided some interesting perspectives on local partnerships that might be of interest to some readers working with partnerships.

Finally, I wanted to close with something rather scathing I once heard said about partnerships. I have no recollection who might have said it but I think we can safely assume that he or she belonged to the sceptical school of thought,

'partnership is the suppression of loathing in pursuit of funding'