MUSEO de arte TESHIMA en Kagawa, Japón 2004-2010 RYUE NISHIZAWA + Sasak

As discuss in Chapter Two, participation is categorised into four types, each of which refers to different levels of participation: 1) passive participation, 2) participation by consultation, 3) participation by collaboration and, 4) empowerment participation (Tufte & Mefalopulos, 2009). This section discusses and analyses the engagement of community members in the BNC project and identifies which participation level their engagement falls within.

People in the researched community are well aware of the BNC project. This is probably because they are familiar with the name of the project operator, World Vision Laos [WVL]. According to BNC staff, WVL had previously implemented an Area Development Programme [ADP] in the community for a five-year period (see Chapter One for more details). It is not surprising, then, that when I first entered in the community, that people assumed I was one

of the BNC staff. This suggests that the local people have some sense that the project has been embedded in their community. However, they had a tendency to perceive that they would gain benefit either in the form of funds or materials allocation, rather than in the form of technical advice and support, which can be put into practice to result in self-reliance. Based on the findings from the parents P1, P2, P5 and P6, the supply of future learning material is a high priority among what they recommend to the BNC project (In-depth interview, August 18, 2018). This recommendation is consistent with that of a local primary school director (T1), who raised concerns about a number of students and said that the numbers may decrease if further learning aids are not provided (In-depth interview, August 29, 2018). This perception contrasts with that of Bessette (2004), who argues that, for meaningful participation in the process of development, people “must develop the perception that they can make a difference, moving from a passive attitude of waiting for donors to an attitude of self-help” (p. 45). He also claims that the change of attitude must not come only from outside professionals, but also from community members.

As identified in Chapter Four, communication actors in the researched community include community leaders (the village chief and VEDC member), village volunteers, teachers and parents. These actors have a different role to play in implementing the project’s activities which are designed to increase children’s school attendance. At a community level, community leaders are generally perceived as powerful people and general members of the community (villagers) may feel uncomfortable speaking to them or in front of them. The interaction between community leaders and villagers in this case study however, is natural and lively. This was noticeable during the parents’ focus group, in which a member of the VEDC and the village chief also joined. All parents perceived everyone else as just another one of the group members and expressed their opinion openly. For example, when discussing children with disabilities in the village, most of them, without any hesitation, shared the same opinion that such disabilities are partially attributable to malnutrition (Parents’ focus group, August 18, 2018). They saw community leaders as consultants and felt comfortable talking to them. They also perceived them as active listeners, who were attentive to the voicing of common concerns within the community, trusting them to discuss issues with local government officials in order to seek solutions.

Looking back at the findings on the communicative ecology of the researched community, it is clear that, apart from face-to-face communication and mobile phone use, Tholakhong were the next most prevailing communication tool in the village. Community leaders find them useful and effective for announcing new public policies, activities for the day, and meeting times and locations; they are especially useful for the BNC project intervention when a subject matter requires the opinions of villagers. For villagers, meetings arranged within the village are seen as a forum where they can discuss common issues. My personal communication with community leaders indicates that the Tholakhong are mainly used for meeting arrangements because it is fast and reaches all members at the same time, and it has become part of community life. In relation to the BNC project, Tholakhong are employed to inform community members about dates and location they need to gather for activities with the project team.

Despite the fact that all community members can be reached and kept informed through the previously mentioned medium of communication, the way they are engaged with cannot be defined as genuine participation (Deshler & Socks, 1985, as cited in Sanoff, 2000). This is because community members are not empowered to take control of the action. The communication between the project team and the community members appears to be monologic (one-way communication) rather than dialogic (two-way communication) (Tufte & Mefalopulos, 2009). Although they have a space for discussion, it does not happen in the process of planning and decision making. Rather, the discussion is about how to implement activities which is already designed by external development practitioners. Because, in this instance, villagers are present to do what they are told, their participation level can be referred to as what Deshler and Socks (1985, as cited in Sanoff, 2000) call ‘pseudo participation’. One of the participants (P1) actually said: “I had no reason to decide to participate in the project, but I did so because I was told to do it” (In-depth interview, August 18, 2018). This statement is supported by findings from the teachers’ focus group, where all members affirmed that they were not given the opportunity to give feedback or recommendations on the project operation. Instead, they were monitored and evaluated on their teaching performance when applying new techniques gained from the project training (Teachers’ focus group, August 31, 2018).

The points raised by the parents’ focus group and community leaders however, indicate that feedback and recommendations were sought in the assessment process of the project. To reflect on the implementation of the project, parents, along with community leaders, are invited to attend a meeting held in the village to discuss the project’s strengths and weaknesses. However, the discussion takes place in such a way that input from local people is garnered by having them answer a set of questions posed by the project team. As P4 and P6 confirmed during the parents’ focus group discussion, there was no other way of giving feedback or recommendations. Comment boxes were not available in the community (Parents’ focus group, August 18, 2018).

By summarising the ways community members engage in the project, it can be concluded that the level of community participation remains low and could be categorised as the second type of participation identified by Tufte and Mefalopulos (2009), ‘participation by consultation’. As described in Chapter Two, participation by consultation is a process in which stakeholders answer questions which are posed by external experts or researchers. Input from stakeholders is unlimited, but at the final stage of analysis all power in making decisions rests with the outside professionals, who are not obliged to incorporate the input of stakeholders.

5.4 How the BNC Project contributes to change in the target community