Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Theoretical Framework
Previous Research
The following section presents research on participation in relation to the post-2015 process. The scientific articles all focus on participation in relation to the process of inclusiveness. The inten-tion is to shred light on participation within the area of development work.
Research field of participation and the new development agenda
The definition of ‘real participation’ has been the main area of critique within the research field of participation in establishing a new agenda. Stecher (2014, p. 335) emphasize how the issue of depth is more significant for the quality of participation rather than merely width, which might be seen as number of participants. While recognizing how efforts made by the UN to include civil society are well intended, Stecher (2014, p. 337) argues that bottom-up approaches with a depth are yet to be achieved. While presenting examples of NGOs and ‘the poorest’, Stecher (2014, p. contends that genuine participation narrows down to power and politics and less about par-ticipation counted in numbers, time and held meetings.
Although the UN has made great efforts to move away from a top-down approach concerning development work, critique concerning its lack of inclusive and participatory bottom-up ap-proaches has been aimed at the organization from many directions. From a critical standpoint, Enns, Bersaglio and Kepe (2015, p. 364) claim that the UNs’ approach to participatory develop-ment “represents a pretense rather than an actual shift in power from development experts to the intended beneficiaries of development.” Using the perspectives and priorities of indigenous peo-ple as the object of research in the study, Enns et al. (2015, p. 364) conclude that what the UN wanted to know about indigenous people determined the structure of inclusiveness and the pro-cess of collecting global perspectives on development. What the post-2015 consultation process does do, according to the authors, is to illustrate the recurring ‘tyranny’ of participation while the UN maintains control over the final shape of the global development goals. In this sense, the methodology of the UN has not achieved an actual shift in power as desired (Enns et al. 2015, p. 371).
In the scientific article entitled “15 seconds of fame: why the UN’s post-2015 process doesn’t need more ‘participation’”, Stecher (2014, p. 333) expresses a concern for the process of includ-ing civil society in development work and uses marginalized groups as specific examples. Stake-holders need to address structural changes in order to be genuinely inclusive but since power re-lations keep undermining actual participation, neither inclusiveness nor participation has been achieved in the process of establishing a new agenda so far.
An additional aspect of participation in the post-2015 process is presented in a discursive study by Bersaglio, Enns and Kepe (2015), which puts youth under the magnifying glass. Bersaglio et al. (2015, p. 68) emphasize how the UN is actively reconstructing youth as a social category by refer-ring to youth as “asset”, “risks” and “good citizens in the making”. By doing this, the authors claim that the UN seeks to draw youth into global development as subjects of neoliberalism. While youth have emerged as an uncontested priority of the global development agenda, the study recognizes how the discourse of development changed focus from working for youth as recipients of development to working with them as rightful partners and experts (Bersaglio et al. 2015, p. 68).
A The issue concerning PWDs and their visibility in the process of post-2015 can be found in previous research by Wolbring, Mackey, Rybchinski and Noga (2013). In a quantitative study with qualitative elements the authors investigate the role and visibility of disabled people in the post-2015 process through a disability lens. Using reports produced by the UN on the post-2015 process and data from the online consultations on issues concerning disability, Wolbring et al. (2013, p. 4152) investigate the relationship between the disability community and sustainable de-velopment community.
By using quantitative methods of analyzing data and counting visibility, the authors argue how PWDs as a group are underrepresented and barely visible within the sustainable development discourses examined in the study (Wolbring et al. 2013, p. 4171). The invisibility, it is argued, could possibly be explained by certain topics not being associated as topics of concern for disa-bled people. Moreover, the paper asserts how the issue of participation is related to lack of politi-cal and societal will to improve the situation for disabled. In line with the UNs’ recommendations to include disabled people in the post-2015 process, Wolbring et al. (2013, p. 4172) conclude that PWDs need to be involved in the development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the post-2015 SDGs. Despite efforts to increase the visibility of PWDs within the development discourses, it has not yet led to action in many instances (Wolbring et al. 2013, p. 4178).
Recommendations to improve the visibility of disabled within the development field include the need for capacity building, attitude change in terms of exclusionary language, recognizing a lack of diffusion of issues faced by PWDs into other discourses (as well as PWDs being a cross-cutting theme) and the importance of having a framework capable of capturing the reality of dis-advantaged groups, emphasizing evidence-based development (Wolbring et al. 2013, p. 4171-4177).
Participatory (Development) Theory
When viewing the literature on participatory development it becomes evident that no ultimate definition of ‘good’ or ‘true’ participation exists, as approaches to participation are constantly evolving and being debated. Therefore, the following sections will describe a number of different takes on the theory and end of with a clarification on what definition this paper will be concerned with.
In a study about indigenous voices in the post-2015 development agenda, Enns et al. (2015, p. describe the primary aim of participatory development as including the beneficiaries of de-velopment in all stages of development processes; the design, implementation and evaluation. The driving force of participatory approaches to development is to give voice to the marginalized and empower ‘the poor’ so to make people agents rather than objects of research. As such, bene-ficiaries of development projects are meant to stand as experts during the development process and consequently influence the direction of change.
According to Nelson and Wright (1995, p. 30), ‘participation’ is primarily used in three different ways. The first one is, as a cosmetic label to make the proposed project appear good. The second is when local labor is mobilized to reduce costs. In this scenario communities give their time and effort to self-help projects with little outside assistance, meaning that ‘the local people’ participate in ‘our’ project. Finally, it is used to create an empowering process, enabling local people to ana-lyze themselves, gain confidence, take command and make their own decisions. In other words, ‘we’ participate in ‘their’ project rather than ‘they’ in ‘ours’ (Nelson & Wright, 1995, p. 30). The latter use of participation is what this paper primarily will be concerned about.
‘Participation’ has been somewhat of a buzzword in the field of development studies for a long time (Katsui & Koistinen, 2008, p. 747) and is commonly used as an “umbrella term”, referring to the involvement of the local community in development activities (Willis, 2005, p. 103). How-ever, there is a number of ways and different stages in which participation can take place when it comes to the preparation of development projects (Willis, 2005, p. 103). While a greater awareness has evolved about the presence of power relations in development research, a range of re-search methods have developed to better understand what knowledge local people possess in var-ious areas (Willis, 2005, p. 103).
1 Introduction
2 Method
2.1 Purpose & Research Questions
2.2 Procedure of Collecting Data
2.3 Content Analysis – Qualitative Data
2.4 Criticism of Sources
2.5 Demarcations
2.6 Ethical Considerations
3 Theoretical Framework
3.1 Previous Research
3.2 Participatory (Development) Theory
4 Definitions
5 Background
6 Empirical Findings
6.1 Contributions from the Online Consultation
6.2 The Inclusion of Contributions in the SDGs Proposal
7 Analysis
8 Reflective Discussion
9 Concluding Remarks and Recommendations
References
