Page:Participatory Development as New Paradigm.pdf/6

 : to the people providing the resources – donors and governments. Case studies support that, in the first place, there is rarely a need to be on the scene within hours of a disaster. And even fewer reasons exist for any such intervention to overlook local leadership and response efforts. In most cases, the most effective humanitarian interventions capitalized on existing resources, wisdom and methods already put to use by residents. In the rare instances where immediate response seemed warranted, a far better approach was to direct resources to indigenous organizations to better enable them to persevere. It is never too early to help people help themselves.

In a related paper, the variety of methods used in different types of interventions will be outlined for use in emergency, transition and development contexts. Such approaches may be categorized into participatory emergency methodologies (PEM), participatory transition methodologies (PTM) and participatory development methodologies (PDM). Once charted into contexts where the various approaches have been found most useful, methods could then be detailed along with successful organizational support arrangements and case studies, taking care to avoid duplicating similar efforts already completed. This task is beyond the scope of the current paper but will be described in a follow-on piece.

Paradigms sometimes peacefully transfer their preeminence to newer ones. Occasionally they defeat upstarts for a renaissance before they fade. Usually, when transition happens, it is anything but congenial. There is bickering in academic journals, textbooks fall out of favor, grant monies are redirected and the lecture circuit personalities change. A general camping up of adherents and “heretics” takes place. Obstinate practitioners are culled. Careers end. Professional identities are renegotiated. There is training, more training. In the end one view or the other must prevail, consolidate its gains and redefine the enterprise. It can take years. Copernican, Freudian, structural functionalist, impressionist and industrial revolutions required decades to both gain, then lose favor. Perhaps, if participatory professionalism does not become a footnote to conventional development, the transition from the dominant conventional paradigm toward a participatory ethic will be smooth, fast and more generous. The history of paradigm collisions suggests otherwise.

The good news is that the most creative and innovative work within a discipline occurs precisely at these times of transition and collision. But it is also a time that wild claims about the force and utility of a new way of doing business are made. Participatory methodologies are no panacea. They are not the linear descendants of industrial age production-oriented development understandings nor part of a larger accumulation of wisdom in the field. They, like all paradigms, are spontaneous reflections of their historical moment and will pass. However, competing paradigms, when they prevail, do so because they manage everything the old paradigm did and then some. And they do it better. Participatory development methodologies have this potential. Slowly, with the successful implementation and greater use of these methods, the participatory development approach will gain ground.

Conventionalism will be turned on its head when participation is no longer a curious addition to the development tool kit but a precondition for activities ranging from emergency relief and debt restructuring to technical assistance. Participation will then inform, contextualize and define the