capabilities they thought were beyond them and to circumvent low literacy levels, that makes these methods most suitable for use within an empowering process.
There are numerous other features of visual methods that contribute to the
empowering effect. For example, the use of inexpensive materials for drawing encourages experimentation and exploration; the availability of many drawing instruments encourages multiple contributions; and the visual nature of methods allow for different types of
interaction and participation (e.g. visually, verbally, and through visual outputs that can be debated and revisited at a later stage). In the time-trend shown in Error! Reference source not found., participants used buttons to indicate how different aspects of community life changed over time. Here the use of movable objects encourages participants to express alternative opinions, because the number of buttons allocated to cells can be easily changed until a group reaches consensus or
compromise. Where such debates occur, a record of the discussion during the production of a visual output is vital (particularly) for external research purposes, as it captures the range of opinions and issues affecting the topic of
discussion. Similarly observation notes on the process followed and behaviour of facilitators and participants help to validate the data, because it provides a summary of how the information was produced and particularly events that may have influenced the data. Appendix B (p311) provides further detail on the nature of participatory visual
methods and empowering impacts.
Table 4-5: Core principles of PMs 1 Both a means and an end 2 Having a dual focus
3 Being value defined and political
4 Flexible and evolving, responding to diversity and complexity
5 Process cycle and time 6 Information and knowledge
7 Participation and power: exclusion and inclusion 8 The role of outsiders as change agents
9 Guiding attitudes, behaviour and ethics 10 Empowering research methods
4.4 Summary Participatory Methodologies
People’s relative position in a world of inequality influences their values, perspectives and aspirations, along with their material well-being and many other aspects of life.
Through self-defined needs and goals which reflect the local context, people are able to design, plan and implement solutions to contribute to local development and hold personal relevance and value. A participatory approach can facilitate a process whereby those at the centre of the development effort, take a leading role in all aspects of the process, while also incorporating the knowledge, resources and action of outsiders as appropriate. Issues of power and empowerment are central and therefore a participatory approach must be
guided by some fundamental concepts and core principles. Table 4-5 lists the core principles presented in chapter 4.
While many in the development field claim to support or use PMs, practice includes a diverse range of activity, including approaches that do not challenge power relations or seek social justice. The practice of
participation is messy, contested, time-consuming, arduous and potentially dangerous. Parfitt does well to capture the essence of why it remains a popular approach:
[W]hile this ... may make participation a problematic approach, it also gives rise to opportunities for promotion of an emancipatory agenda. In other words, participation is a problematic and contested ground, but one with the potential to deliver real benefits to those who have hitherto been incorporated in the project of development as objects of the manipulations of development agencies. (Parfitt, 2004:538)
A more political agenda was and remains present in the theory of participation (Hickey and Mohan, 2005). The question for future reflection and analysis is why many (but not all) paths of practice have deviated from an emancipatory agenda.
This post-summary section of chapter 4 brings together the literature on QoL, empowerment, ICT4D and PM. First, I consider Community Informatics (CI) illustrating the similarities it has with PMs, and then go on to present examples of the practical application of PMs together with ICT4D, ending with my view on the synergies between QoL,
empowerment, participation and ICTs.
Making human development the goal of ICT4D is therefore a daunting challenge that requires participative and multidisciplinary reflection, continued research and evaluation, and meticulous preparation on the ground in order to enhance its potential for human flourishing. (Hamel, 2010:60)
4.5.1 ICT4D as Community Informatics
Returning to ICT4D theory and practice, some readings imply that CI and ICT4D are one and the same. Michael Gurstein contends that CI is a part of ICT4D, as well as an alternative to ICT4D. CI is “…one of the strategies …within the context and framework of ICT4D” and simultaneously “... an implicit critique of the conventional approaches to ICT4D” (Gurstein, 2007:63-64), such as the technology-transfer approach to ICT4D.
A CI approach….ideally begins with the local community identifying a need or possible application and then beginning a process of working with those with the requisite skills to respond to or satisfy that need always within the context of where the local community is in control and is directing the process of its own technology enablement. (Gurstein, 2007:63)
Gurstein’s description of CI above places it firmly within the group of PA to
development research and action, because a] it involves action and research; b] it includes locally identified needs and reflects other contextual aspects; and c] the process is initiated, directed and controlled locally. The description of a generic CI process above resonates with Kleine’s CF and Sen’s underlying CA with respect to the importance of strong local agency.
From the definition below, CI also recognises the need for social justice and political empowerment for the marginalised:
Community Informatics (CI) is the application of information and communications technology (ICT) to enable and empower community processes. The objective of CI is to use ICT to enable the achievement of community objectives including overcoming “digital divides” both within and between communities. But CI also ...
examine[s] how and under what conditions ICT access can be made usable and useful to the range of excluded populations and communities and particularly to support local economic development, social justice, and political empowerment using the Internet. (ibid:11)
CI as described by Gurstein (2007) represents an ICT4D approach that embodies the main aspects of current ICT4D theory, as summarised in section 3.4. The CI definition immediately above reflects issues of access, ability to use and the usefulness of ICTs; it sees ICTs as a tool for use to meet local objectives; and it recognises that some people are excluded from the digital revolution and in general, suffer social injustice and are disempowered. CI brings together QoL (through locally defined needs and goals for
improved well-being); agency and empowerment (as mechanisms to promote social justice, pro-poor development and a better QoL); ICTs (as tools to promote empowerment and meet human needs); and participatory process (as guided by principles of PMs). But as with other branding debates (and sometimes the unfortunate addition of turf battles), it is what you do that counts:
The question for participatory interventions becomes how they can enhance the capabilities of participants to project their agency beyond specific interventions into broader arenas, thereby progressively altering the ‘immanent’ [or inherent]
processes of inclusion and exclusion. (Hickey and Mohan, 2005:22)
4.5.2 Successful Initiatives Combining QoL, ICTs, PMs and Empowerment
Two development initiatives that have been recognised internationally as examples of good practice are the Centre for Digital Inclusion (CDI) which was founded in 1995 in Brazil and ReflectICT, which is an adaptation of the Regenerated Freirean Literacy through Empowering Community Techniques (Reflect) methodology, piloted by Action Aid in the early 1990s. There are numerous differences between these two examples, most notably the field of development practice from which they originated.
CDI originated from a vision of how ICTs can empower people and evolved to incorporate a participatory educational approach to further its goals of transformatory education, empowerment and social change (CDI, 2012). CDI supports technology and
learning centres in impoverished communities in partnership with existing local
organisations. “The true challenge is making technology relevant and useful in the context of marginalised populations” (ibid).
The adult literacy project, Reflect, was based on a vision of how adult education initiatives can be enhanced through fusing the theoretical thinking of Paulo Freire with the practical visualisation methodologies developed within Participatory Rural Appraisal” (Duffy et al., 2008:7). Reflect circles proved to be empowering, creating a democratic space for participants to share information, plan and act, based on a greater political awareness of power and increased confidence to express themselves. ReflectICTs was an extension of Reflect with a rights-based approach to information and communication aimed at building local capacity to make use of ICT tools to conscientise people and promote local needs- based action (De Vries, 2006). The quote below illustrates the nature of impact and Plate 4-3 contains further information about ReflectICTs.