The Limitations of Participation: What Else Needs Consideration?
In being a proponent of a particular ideology, it is vital to understand the negative ramifications of overtly positive thrusts in development. Thus, a fantastic critique of participatory design that I have encountered before, but not so succinctly.....the dangers of local "duplicitous agendas." which was also highlighted in Banerjee et all's "Can information campaigns spark local participation and improve outcomes"(2006), in which localized participatory integration was neither effective nor truly egalitarian in nature; in dealing with human beings, at the local level, we must also understand the negatives of human/power relations that are intrinsic to us all, regardless of socioeconomic development, and not look at the poor as simple, innocent recipients of our developmental agendas. Vogt and Clemons explain:
"On the other hand, what Chambers' (1994) failed to anticipate was Kapoor's (2002) concerns that "local controls" may not be without their own duplicitous agendas. Arguably, village politics often mimic the gross inequalities at the global level. Therefore, as researchers and practitioners, if we accept that globalization combined with decentralization of nonformal education introduces a complex phenomena, we must further agree that site specific research must be dependent upon localized social and political contexts of reform as much as on specific national or global directives (Crook & Manor, 1998)."
- Vogt and Clemons, 2004
