In its
simplest terms, a participatory approach is one in which everyone who has a
stake in the intervention has a voice, either in person or by representation.
Staff of the organization that will run it, members of the target population,
community officials, interested citizens, and people from involved agencies,
schools, and other institutions all should be invited to the table. Everyone's
participation should be welcomed and respected, and the process shouldn't be
dominated by any individual or group, or by a single point of view.
That's the
ideal. The reality may often be quite different. Some people might not want to
be involved - they may feel it takes too much time, or they don't have the
skills needed. Particular individuals or groups may feel left out and
disrespected if they're not invited to participate. The planning process may be
a rubber stamp for ideas that have already been developed. Some people's
opinions may be listened to more carefully than those of others. In some of
these situations, a participatory process can cause as many problems as never
involving people at all.
The
important thing to remember here is the word participatory. The use of
that term implies not just that you'll ask for someone's opinion before you do
what you were going to do anyway, but rather that each participant becomes an
important contributor to the planning process.
A true
participatory approach is one in which everyone's perspective is considered.
That doesn't mean that people can't challenge others' assumptions, or argue
about what the best strategy might be. It does mean, however, that everyone's
thoughts are respected, and it isn't necessarily assumed that the professionals
or the well -educated automatically know what's best. Everyone actually gets to
participate in the planning process, and has some role in
decision-making.
This is an
extremely important point. Many low-income or minority individuals and groups
feel that they have no voice in the society, that they are not listened to even
when they are asked for their opinions. True participation means that everyone
has a voice which must be acknowledged.
Acknowledgment
also implies having enough respect for another's opinion to argue with it. All
too often, low-income or minority members of a planning team or governing board
are treated with reverse condescension, as if anything they say must be true
and profound. A truly participatory process would include not only everyone
being heard, but also everyone thrashing out ideas and goals, and wrestling with
new concepts.
In order for
this to happen, those with less education and "status" often need
extra support, both to learn the process and to believe that their opinions and
ideas are important and worth stating. All of this takes time, but the rewards
are great.
What are the advantages of a participatory planning
approach?
1. Participation
carries with it feelings of ownership, and builds a strong base for the
intervention in the community. If people are integral to the planning of a community
intervention, then that intervention will be theirs. They have a stake in it
not only as its beneficiaries or staff or sponsors, but as its originators.
They'll do what they can to see their work succeed.
2. It
ensures that the intervention will have more credibility in all segments of the
community because it
was planned by a group representing all segments of the community. If people
know that others with the same point of view and experience as theirs were
instrumental in making the intervention happen, they'll assume that their
interests were attended to.
3. Bringing
a broader range of people to the planning process provides access to a broader
range of perspectives and ideas.
4. A
participatory planning approach avoids pitfalls caused by ignorance of the realities
of the community or the target population. If, for instance, Muslims are part
of the planning process for an intervention in a community which includes many
followers of Islam, they'll know that lunch meetings during Ramadan, the
Islamic month of daytime fasting, are not likely to work. Long-time community
members will know what has failed in the past, and why, and can keep the group
from repeating past mistakes.
In an
example from business: Magic Johnson, the Hall-of Fame basketball player, owns
a string of movie theaters in African-American neighborhoods. In talking to
theater managers, he found that drinks - the standard Coke/Sprite/root beer -
weren't selling at the concession stands. Johnson immediately ordered that
sweeter drinks - orange soda, fruit punch - be added, and concession sales shot
up. He knew, from his own experience, that sweeter drinks reminded patrons of
the Kool-Aid they had drunk as kids.
5. It
involves important players from the outset. If the intervention needs the
support of a particular individual, or that of a particular agency or group,
and they've been part of the planning from the beginning, their cooperation is
assured.
6. It can
provide an opportunity for often-disenfranchised groups to be heard, and teach
the community that they have important things to say.
7. It
teaches skills which last far beyond the planning process,and can help
to improve the community over the long term. People learn to run meetings, to
analyze data, to construct strategic plans - in short, to become community
resources and leaders.
8. It can
bring together and establish ties among community members who might normally
have no contact. Such relationships - between low-income people and business leaders, for
instance - are not only supportive of the intervention, but may help to create
long-term relationships and break down barriers in the community.
9. A
participatory planning process builds trust, both between your organization and
the community and among the individuals involved. This trust can serve as a
foundation for future community development and community action.
10. A
participatory planning process generally reflects the mission and goals of
grass roots and community-based organizations. With its underpinnings of
collaboration, inclusiveness, and empowerment, a participatory approach
embodies the ideals that form the foundations of most grass roots and
community-based organizations.
11. It
implies respect for everyone in the community, and thus sets a standard for
community participation and empowerment that other organizations - and the
community at large - may feel compelled to follow.
12.
Logically, a participatory planning approach should be effective. The fact
that it includes the views and perspectives of everyone affected by the
intervention should work to assure that all assets and needs are identified and
addressed, and that unintended consequences are minimized.
13. Finally,
it does things the way they should be done. It respects everyone's
intelligence, values everyone's ideas and experience, and affords everyone a measure
of control. By empowering the community, and particularly the target
population, rather than just superimposing its own ideas on a social structure
that already exists, your organization can give substance to its ideals. In the
final analysis, some level of participatory approach is almost always the most
ethical way to plan a community intervention.
What are the disadvantages of a participatory planning
approach?
Along with
its advantages, a participatory planning approach brings some serious
disadvantages as well. It's crucial to understand and anticipate these, and to
decide when and how a participatory planning approach can work in your
situation.
1. A
participatory process takes longer. A diverse group always takes longer to make decisions
and come to conclusions than does an individual or small group. It could take
so long that an opportunity is missed, or that valuable time is lost that could
be spent addressing the problem.
2. Members
of the target population or the community may not agree with the "experts
" about what is needed. This may point out serious flaws in a proposed plan,
and acknowledging and addressing those flaws may be difficult. Disagreement may
also mean that the target population or community members simply don't have
access to the knowledge or expertise to understand why the intervention is in
fact a good idea.
Often, the
most difficult part of participatory planning is to make sure that the
"experts" actually listen to community people and members of the
target population and take their ideas seriously. The goal isn't automatic
acceptance of those ideas, but serious discussion of them, just as for the
ideas of the professionals and policy makers. If the assumption is that only
the professionals have something to offer, it doesn't matter who's sitting at
the table - the process isn't participatory. It can be difficult, even for an
outstanding facilitator, to turn this situation around.
3. Lots of
education may be needed, both for community members and the organization. Members of
the target population and the community may not have important technical
knowledge or experience, and may need to understand some theory or past
practice in order to see what the organization is trying to do. Some may need
new skills in order to participate fully in the planning process. The
organization, on the other hand, may need to learn more about local culture,
political issues, and community history in order to tailor the intervention to
the community and avoid past errors. Education of either or both takes
time...and time may not be available.
4. One
determined individual can wreck the whole process if he's not handled well. Someone who
has a particular axe to grind, or who's convinced that only he knows what's
right for the community can make a participatory process very difficult.
Handling this situation can take both tact and toughness.
A group of
parents interested in placing an elective sex education program in the local
high school was opposed by a man whose religious beliefs convinced him that
their idea was the work of Satan. The parents invited him to join them. They
hoped that, by including him, they could defuse some of his objections and end
up with a compromise program that everyone could live with.
The reality
was that this man was so determined to undermine the process, and so unwilling
to play by the rules of civility or fairness, that he was able to make it
impossible for the group to function. Ultimately it fell apart, and the
curriculum that was eventually implemented - without a participatory planning
process - was so watered down as to be useless.
5. It may be
difficult to assure that all the right people get to the table. Some key
people may simply not want to participate. Factions in the community, a history
of failed attempts at communication or at dealing with problems, ignorance of
which groups or individuals are important, or just basic mistrust may
complicate the task of creating a participatory planning process. Overcoming
this barrier, however, can have profound positive consequences in the community
over the long term.
6. A
participatory planning process takes patience and commitment on everyone's
part. People have
to maintain their commitment over time, remain civil while discussing issues
about which they may have strong feelings, and be willing to compromise. A few
misplaced words, or one or a small number of key people losing interest can
upset the whole process.
While these
disadvantages present potential or real challenges to the success of a
participatory planning process, overcoming them may tremendously increase the
possibility of designing and carrying out an effective community intervention.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar