Evolution of Participation Theory Part of 2004 Report "Designing Social Capital Sensitive Participation Methodologies"

Participation is not a new concept (Buchy, Ross et al. 2000)^[1]. It represents a move from the global, aspatial, top-down strategies that dominated early development initiatives to more locally sensitive methodologies (Storey 1999)^[2]. There are differing opinions as to the origins of participation theory. Midgley et al (1986)^[3] suggested that the historical antecedents of community participation include: the legacy of western ideology, the influence of community development and the contribution of social work and community radicalism. Buchy, Ross et al (2000) suggested that literature on participation and participatory processes stems broadly from two major areas: political sciences and development theory. Lane (1995)^[4] added to this view, suggesting that participation is heavily influenced by theories of development and is therefore highly varied and complex due to different theoretical positions. The dominance of the top-down approaches to development was largely a result of modernization theory which was dominant in the 1960s (Lane 1995).

Modernization theory surmises that for developing countries to develop they need economic growth along the path already travelled by western countries (Hulme and Turner 1990^[5]; Peet and Hartwick 1999^[6]; So 1990^[7]). This has been heavily criticized and other development theories have highlighted disparities. From the modernization point of view participation meant involvement of the community in the implementation of a project with the purpose of increasing the acceptance and efficiency of use (Lane 1995). This represents a low level of participation that is reactionary and ignores the site-specific complexities of management needs (Kolavalli and Kerr 2002)^[8].

According to Holcombe (1995)^[9], acknowledgement of the importance of participation grew out of the recognition that the worlds’ poor have actually suffered as a result of development, and that everyone needs to be involved in development decisions, implementation and benefits. As participatory approaches advanced, they highlighted the weaknesses inherent in traditional, top-down approaches that focused on single disciplines and reductionist paradigms (Johnson and Walker 2000)^[10]. Agrawal and Gibson (1999)^[11] identified the limitation of the state in top-down resource conservation practices and emphasis popular participation as the remedy of these shortcomings. Mompati and Prinsen (2000)^[12] made a similar observation of the uniqueness of an individual as an entity who is capable of making unique contributions to decision-making. This move represents a move towards people centered development at a normative level (Chambers 1993^[13]; Kelly 2001^[14]). Midgley et al (1986)^[3] posited that the community development movement of the 1950s and 1960s was another source of inspiration for contemporary community participation theory and that community development and participation theory are very similar. Moser (1987) identified that community development is now considered in some countries to have colonialist overtones and has become discredited. Kelly (2001)^[14] provided a good account of the evolutionary trends in participation from the 1960s however does not identify the influence of community development (refer to table 1).

Table 1 Development of participatory processes (adapted from Kelly 2001)