EL PROCESO DE IMPLEMENTACIÓN DEL ACROSPORT EN EL AULA

This section briefly summarises key points of the theoretical context of CD, so to highlight the gaps in our understanding of RCD. These gaps establish the opportunity for further research and more specifically the research questions guiding this study.

For many years, literature on CD was predominantly practice focused, often providing analysis of specific projects and of the activities in accordance with the objectives of the project (Brawley, 1994). While CD literature and professionals acknowledge the significance of the complexity of relationships within RCD activity, the focus tended to be on achieving the goals of the specific development or measuring the quality of relationships such as trust and co-operation in achieving project objectives.

Similarly there are writings regarding project implementation and management involving good practice principles which identify the importance of leadership, social capital, broad community consultation, responding to the existing community, clear goals and expectation, a shared vision, allowing time, good communication, trust, ongoing evaluation and improvement and celebration (Brawley, 1994; Cavaye, 2005; Cheers, et al., 2002; Department of Transport and Regional Services, 2003; Forde, 2001; Garlick & Pryor, 2002b; Joint Work Group, 2004; Kilpatrick, Jones, & Barrett,

2004; Nissen, et al., 2005; Sorensen, et al., 2002). Yet, this practice focus often lacked a clear theoretical foundation and was difficult to generalise across disciplines, leading Burkett (2001: 233) to conclude that “the contemporary context of community practice remains theoretically

underdeveloped”. As well as a need to connect theory and practice within CD (Burkett, 2001; Ife, 2002; Moseley, 1997), there was a need for an understanding of community that encompasses the relational and spatial aspects in all their paradoxical processes and forms (Liepins, 2000).

Research has been needed to address the ambiguity and complexity of community in relation to RCD so to comprehensively inform RCD processes. Given the breadth of disciplines influencing and influenced by RCD, the current research draws from literature and theory across a number of disciplines. In particular, literature has been studied from the fields of psychology, sociology, social policy, human services, anthropology, small group studies and rural studies in geography. Such a multidisciplinary approach is also taken by other researchers in the area of community studies (Cheers, et al., 2003; Cnaan, et al., 2007; Luloff, 1999) acknowledging that while at times difficult to combine the different focus of analysis, each field contributes to the knowledge base for community work and are thus an important consideration in developing an holistic understanding of community (Domahidy, 2003; Stehlik, 2001). Based on the extent of RCD practice, any theory explicitly

responding to RCD will also be most accessible to practitioners and participants if it can be applied across the disciplinary barriers of differing language, conceptual and practice approaches, and the varying orientation in values and philosophical underpinnings.

The necessity for a conceptual understanding that addresses community in a holistic manner is acknowledged in literature seeking to develop frameworks for CD (see Burkett, 2001; Cheers, et al., 2003; Liepins, 2000). Theory in the area of CD needs to embrace the complexity of community previously discussed. Specifically for RCD this involves the ever changing and paradoxical experience of community as a relational process, associated with the physically yet fluidly bounded space of a

community of place, intersected by the plurality of community forms and the shifting meanings of them all.

Common across the literature is the idea of enhancement of quality of life and building capacity for this to be maintained (Brawley, 1994; Cavaye, 2001; Cheers & O'Toole, 2001; Dudley, et al., 2003; Hudson, 2004; Ife, 2002; Kelly & Steed, 2004; Kenny, 2006; Shaw, 2008). Such goals, and the strong ideological agendas within CD literature engender the risk of theory and research focused on what ‘should’ be happening, thus limiting the capacity to interpret what is actually happening within the dynamics of CD projects. As development encapsulates a goal orientation, much of the RCD

literature responds to this with a focus on the processes and structures of working towards the goal. In this manner, CD theory provides an understanding of how to facilitate change within

communities. Applying the holistic conceptualisation of community means sustained enhancement requires consideration of both the processes of community and their interaction with the internal processes of being human; the relationship between community and individual psyche (Burkett, 2001). This means it is also important to understand how communities are affected by the processes of CD. Research is lacking which addresses the processes of community as they interact with RCD and simultaneously accounts for the relational and identity connections.

Further, while CD theories founded in ideological thought provide insight in facilitating change for communities, understanding how community processes are affected as they interact with CD needs to be developed without being limited by philosophical expectations. For theory development to inform the quandary presented in 1:1, there is a need for research which steps back from the ideologies of community and CD, to first identify what is happening on the ground. Theory developed in this manner can then be applied across a range of ideological perspectives as well as across the multitude of disciplines in the arena of CD.

In the past decade in Australia there has been some work towards establishing a clear and

that directly address these needs. Their models provide clear frameworks for CD work, yet both are based on normative foundations of what community should be. At the same time, Cheers et al (Cheers, et al., 2003; Cheers & Luloff, 2001) also demonstrated the need for more knowledge regarding rural community processes in their research and model development on how a strong community field is produced.

There is still a gap in understanding the workings of the community boundary processes in relation to the implementation of RCD activities. From the perspective of the community strength model, this relates to the space where the development activities interact with the social infrastructure. These processes are represented by the “with” arrow highlighted in Figure 1. The model identifies the components and relationships associated with the community strength that CD seeks to build. In this manner it provides a framework for how RCD facilitates change, building the frequent community actions that it also seeks to sustain. However it does not specifically address or fully explain the interaction of CD processes with community processes, and so does not provide theory which addresses the quandary instigating the current study.

Understanding how RCD interacts with the community fabric has the potential to further inform the capacity to not only build a strong community field, but to also prevent negative impacts on the fabric of the community. Such understanding could enable CD participants to manage for example, process inhibitors of a strong community field. While it is not appropriate to develop one set formula for the doing of RCD (Cavaye, 2005; Ife, 2002; Kenny, 2006), if we can better understand the processes of the community fabric as they interact with RCD, practitioners and participants can be further informed about the dynamics which they navigate and in turn, influence.

The interactional CD literature reviewed, discussed the dynamic role of community boundaries in relation to the locality aspect of community and the attribution of various meanings creating a community of place within a physical space. The description of RCD as developing a strong

suggests that community boundary processes play a part in the implementation of RCD. It is likely that each of these fields have associated boundaries to be negotiated. If the concept of CD is synonymous with community strength the process of RCD inherently involves engaging community boundary processes, and thus the role of boundaries in CD is significant.

Boundaries in community have been identified and applied in various community studies, however, they appear to receive minimal attention in RCD research. It is understood that RCD involves working within the boundaries shaping rural community identity and the multiple identities of community members, all of which are part of the fabric of community. But the literature does not directly address the interaction of RCD processes and community boundary processes in relation to the community fabric. As Vergunst (2006) argues,

“if we understand where the boundaries [of the varying forms of community] are placed between ‘us and them’ in rural localities, we will understand the mechanisms for inclusion and exclusion” (p. 8)

which influence interactions within rural communities. Similarly, just as it has been demonstrated that external policy impacts boundaries and meaning for communities (Brent, 1997; Shaw, 2008), it is conceivable that RCD implementation processes impact boundaries and meaning within the fabric of the community through the interaction of internal community meanings with the external influences of a project and the ensuing dynamics. These in turn would have implications for individuals and collectives in the construction and reconstruction of the fabric of the community.