Transformation on the Ground in Sri Lanka; Just who is Transformed?
Tales From the Inside/Out and the Outside/In
Transformative Learning in a Specific Context
Laurel Jeris
Jaya Gajanayake
Northern Illinois University
The central question posed but far from answered in this paper is: To what extent do
transformative learning theories provide a system of ideas to examine participatory research
(PR) and empowerment projects in a developing country, particularly in the aftermath of the
Tsunami global tragedy? Further, the descriptions of the project’s four model villages in Sri
Lanka attempt to place the reader “on-the-ground” with the intention of stimulating
consideration of this question and accompanying ethical dilemmas inherent within PR.
This paper describes a participatory research (PR) project encompassing a capacity development
program and advocacy skill building initiative that actively engaged the expertise and resources
of three units at a large mid-western university with extensive field experience in universityNGO collaboration: the International Programs Division, the Adult and Higher Education
Program, and University Resources for Women. The overseas partners were four prominent
women’s non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Sri Lanka: Agromart Foundation, Centre
for Women's Research (CENWOR), Sarvodoya Women's Movement, and the Muslim Women’s
Research and Action Forum (MWRAF). The initial major goal of the grant project, titled
Grassroots Organizing by Women or GROW, funded by the US Department of State, Office of
Citizen Exchanges, was to stimulate and build the capacities of the leaders of four selected
women’s NGOs in Sri Lanka to face new challenges and opportunities for strengthening
women's participation in grassroots democracy within the context of a multi-ethnic society.
Within two months of the inauguration of the project, the four NGO partners developed an
implementation structure through which each organization focused its energies on a single rural
“model village.” In each case, the NGO partner selected a village in which basic survival needs
remained largely unmet, especially access to potable drinking water. Two of the four villages
include Sinhala, Tamil, and Muslim residents and the other two villages are home to only the
Sinhala majority.
Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The project methodology was participatory research (PR). Perhaps the most empirical of all
research methodologies, one of the major problems facing those who embrace PR is to discover
the thematic collective in the particular experiences. We posit that although describing this
collective is an easier task in the Sri Lankan context than is true in a far more individualistic
western context, it is still enormously difficult requiring intense reflection on praxis across
cultures that are often inscrutable to western mindsets.
PR, as Gajanayake (2001) noted, has evolved from three primary epistemological roots:
An anthropological research approach where being an insider to the process is critical
Paulo Freire’s ideology of consciousness-raising
Action-oriented research – putting new insights into practice in a spirit of discovery and
experimentation
Consistent with these roots is the notion that the roles of both the researcher and the researched
are operating out of more equitable power relations and that the possibility of knowledge
production is distributed across these roles (Cunningham, 2000). However, the co- principal
investigators for this project, although highly compatible, have different histories, experiences,
and motivations. Findings are shared from a combined perspective including that of a highly
experienced (groundbreaker) participatory researcher (Jaya), who was born and raised in Sri
Lanka and moved to the US as an adult, and that of a US born “advanced beginner” (Laurel) in
terms of participatory research and international adult education.
In PR, as the power shifts from researcher as expert/authority to the participants as holders of
indigenous knowledge, the iterative progression of problem definition, formulation of research
problems and questions, and discovery of solutions takes place through dialogue among the
participants, researchers included. Building on the work of Freire, Gaventa (1988) noted, “[PR]
attempts to break down the distinction between the researchers and the researched. In the process
research is seen not only as a process of creating knowledge, but simultaneously, as education
and development of consciousness, and of mobilization for action” (p. 19). In this way, the
personal question facing the participatory researcher is not so much one of asking, how good am
I at doing research? But one of asking, how good am I at participating in collective knowledge
production, consciousness-raising, and taking action? The latter point, taking action, presents a
seriously troubling ethical dilemma for participatory researchers, especially for those involved in
projects where the non-residential researchers can leave at any time. There are many heady
moments in the field - particularly when working in a developing country. It is preposterous not
to feel the intensity of human misery. But what are the researchers’ roles in action planning and
implementation? How do participatory researchers resist the temptation to raise expectations and
over-promise what they will not be there to deliver; or worse, put in motion actions and events
that will further aggravate the circumstances of their co-learners lives? These are the primary
“research questions” that must continuously guide those who practice PR.
Key Principles Underlying GROW Project
As mentioned earlier, the GROW project was directed at enhancing civil society in Sri
Lanka through empowerment of grassroots women to enable them to participate in the decision
making process in their communities. At the beginning stage of the project the Sri Lankan NGO
leaders along with field staff described the key principles that should guide the GROW project
and integrated them into the total project process. The key principles were:
Gender empowerment through group action (solidarity building) and strengthening team spirit.
Harnessing inner potential of the group to face challenges.
Local capacity building and leadership development to solve community issues.
Community ownership, responsibility and commitment.
Consciousness-raising for creative problem solving and decision making on community issues.
Community needs identification, prioritization, and planning.
Mobilization of local resources for stimulating local development.
Partnership building with other stakeholders.
Multi-sectoral integration at the community level (holistic development)
Careful scrutiny of these nine principles as they have informed work on the ground
reveals numerous elements of Dirkx’s four-lens taxonomy of transformative learning theories
(1998). Strongly rooted in Freirean pedagogy, PR created the conditions for participants to
reappropriate knowledge “about them” and transform it to be knowledge produced by them. In
identifying their own needs and then learning to locate the resources to meet them, community
members of the four model villages materially and symbolically constructed different lives for
themselves.
The model village residents have renarrated their experience of working with local
government officials and, in one village, several young women are preparing to run for local
level elected positions in the near future. Daloz’s developmental model of transformative
learning (1986) speaks to the narrative as a powerful change strategy. In terms of the local
languages, both Sinhala and Tamil (Sanskrit-based languages) have approximately twice as
many characters in their alphabets as English. Further, both languages’ verbal forms/structures
are quite different from their written forms. Conversations among the project participants were
rich with stories, metaphors, poems and proverbs. Most of the workshops have included a
“cultural event” evening completely initiated and organized by the participants during which
they acted out skits portraying what they were learning and improvised songs that described their
interactions and accomplishments.
Public gatherings such as community meetings often begin with lighting the oil lamp and
always include time for reflection on the last gathering (a sort of verbal minutes), as well as
reflection and a “note of thanks” at the end. These rituals honor the community time, provide
public venues for their narratives regarding community issues, problems, and progress, and serve
to separate individual family time from community time in a way that brings in a spiritual
quality. Dirkx, (1998) has described the role of imagination and expressions of transformative
learning occurring through feelings and images. For example, visioning better futures in the
model villages were developed through intense small group work and shared through rich
descriptions that accompanied intricate drawings on newsprint sheets depicting before and after
scenes of the villages.
Mezirow’s (1991) elaboration of perspective transformation presents the most challenges
for application to this South Asian context. Even his later expansion (as cited in Baumgartner,
2001), fails to capture the community construction of new perspectives as opposed to validation
of individual change. However, Mezirow’s work has been helpful to Laurel in providing a
theoretical lens for her experience of being the western outsider. Sources of data include copious
field notes, interviews, photographs, video clips, aggregated results of iterative needs dialogues
with leaders of the four NGO partners and representatives from the villages selected by the Sri
Lankan partners, personal reflections of the two field researchers, and consultations with the US
Embassy-based Program Officers for this project. Data analysis, defined in PR as, “the group
collectively defining the major problem and its parts and visualizing a scenario where the
problem is solved” (Collins, 1998, p. 156), took place throughout the two-year project and
involved many stakeholder groups from the rural village residents to the national cabinet level,
the Minister of Women’s Empowerment and Social Affairs.
Findings
The findings are presented as they relate to the two major project objectives: capacity building
for the rural women of Sri Lanka, and advocacy. The latter objective was fully articulated ninemonths into the project (through iterative community-based dialogs) as a commitment to draft
and submit a declaration to the national government for greater political representation of women
at the local, provincial, and national levels. This occurred at an international symposium held in
Colombo, Sri Lanka on June 8, 2004. Over 150 people attended it from model village residents
to Members of Parliament, including a brief appearance by the Prime Minister.
The many data sources noted above provide rich descriptions of the defining moments identified
by the rural residents of each of the four model villages; the actions the villagers took to enact
their visions; the villager’s responses to local government officials; and local elected official’s
reactions to the villagers’ actions as they became increasingly determined to set their own
destiny. In addition, these actions and events are described within the context of highly unstable
national politics, tenuous cease-fire agreements, stalled peace talks for the more than twenty-year
old civil war in Sri Lanka, and of course, the Tsunami.
Modern history records that Sri Lanka endured 550 years of colonial rule under, first the
Portuguese, then the Dutch, and finally the British, ending in independence in 1948. Those
outside Sri Lanka consistently characterize the current conflicts as originating from ethnic
clashes, but when Sri Lankans speak for themselves they describe them as class/economic at
heart stemming from the lack of employment opportunities for Sri Lankan minority groups
(Tamil and Muslim),1 conditions that began under colonial rule.
Karenvila, Galle District
Adjacent to the southern coast, this hilly settlement of 260 families was developed about
10 years ago to relocate refugee families from various war-torn areas. Although it is populated
by a majority of Buddhist Sinhalese, it is an atypical Sri Lankan community because these are
first generation settlers who do not reside in a multi-generational family context. Further, about
60 families are comprised of widowed mothers with two or three children, having lost the fathers
to the civil war.
The GROW I Project’s lead NGO, Agromart, has been active in agriculturally related
income generating training and micro-lending in the Galle District for over a decade and selected
Karenvila as their model village for several reasons. First, Karenvila was aptly described as the
“poorest of the poor” by NGO field staff, there had been negligible intervention from the NGO
sector, and the Sri Lanka government had essentially abandoned the resettlement efforts leaving
this community in a sorry state with unfinished housing and completely inadequate drinking or
1 Two of the model village are comprised of nearly 100% Sinhala majority (Karenvila, and Pitiya), one village is
primarily Tamil speaking with about equal populations of Hindu and Muslim residents and a small number of
Buddhist ( Sinhala) speaking residents (Udayapuram), and one village (Pompekele) that is truly multi-ethnic with
about one third of the residents belonging to each of the three ethnic groups.
bathing water sources. Second, what struck Agromart leaders and field staff was the attitude and
energy of the villagers. Despite extremely difficult living conditions, participation at early
community meetings was high and a half dozen parents emerged early as community leaders
who were eager for change. Nearly three years later, Karenvila has come to the attention of the
national government as a model for grassroots empowerment and local leadership development.
The villagers have made four significant infra-structure improvements by organizing the
projects, locating the resources, and volunteering the labor to: 1) fill and grade an area for a play
field that also serves as a weekly market area, 2) regrade paths and walkways throughout the
village so that they can now be accessed by at least motorcycles or “three-wheelers,” 3) build a
much more conveniently located well for drinking water, and 4) build a large community bathing
well. In addition to these community-wide projects, most of the families in the village now have
kitchen gardens, compost bins, rain-collection equipment, and some form of income generating
activity. Non-existent waste management at the start of the project has morphed into an avid
recycling strategy. Footpaths around houses that were strewn with trash are now terraced,
planted, and free of debris.
It is important to stress that the GROW I project was not a development grant and
funds could not be used for much of anything other than training. The villagers have learned to
negotiate with local government authorities, local elected officials (after the one in office at the
start of GROW I sabotaged a project, he was not reelected), locate information, technical, and
financial assistance, and organize their own volunteer labor groups. These very skills suddenly
were called upon as major life-saving resources for Tsunami victims on the southern coast, just a
kilometer away. Karenvila’s drinking well was the only fresh water source in much of the Galle
District for about three days after Tsunami. The villagers transported it to the coast by every
means possible. They were instrumental in organizing the immediate clean-up and burial, taking
over 300 of the deceased to bury in their own village. They have also taken in many displaced
families and orphans and assisted in community trauma care.
Villagers described their daily lives prior to the GROW I project as comprised of two
primary activities: carrying water and napping frequently. Although many still have to carry
drinking water, it is much more accessible and reliably clean. Napping has been replaced by the
hum of productive activity throughout the village. Of all their accomplishments, the community
bathing well has given them the most satisfaction because it has become the heart of the
community – the latest news is shared there first and, they noted, “The best ideas arise from
refreshed minds and bodies.”
Pompekele, Ratnapura District
The Ratnapura District is known for gem mining; its central municipality named Gem
City. Many of the male residents of this multi-ethnic village are sporadically employed in the
gem mines or lapidaries. As gem veins are depleted and workers are laid off until new sites are
opened, alcohol and drug abuse (smoking a home-grown marijuana) have been major
contributors to domestic violence. This district is also geographically compromised due to
natural and man-made factors that result in certain parts flooding semi-annually during the
monsoons. As difficult as the terrain is in Karenvila, it is much worse in Pompekele making
treks from one part of the village to the small hamlets that tend to flood almost impossible.
Sarvodoya Women’s Movement selected this village in part because it is multi-ethnic. Other
factors taken into consideration were the acute needs and, like Karenvila, the spirit and energy of
the residents. Pompekele’s search for a “defining moment” or project around which the
community members could harness their energy, develop their leadership skills, and set direction
was not as straightforward as it was for Karenvila. Instead, after several small projects such as
cleaning up and refurbishing a community swimming area, storms and flooding completely
destroyed the home of a villager. This loss galvanized the community and they began the
process of negotiation, locating resources, and volunteering their labor to rebuild this house in a
much more stable manner. Further, given the location of this particular dwelling along the
footpath the village children take to go to school, the decision was made to turn this house into a
“community kitchen” of sorts. Now this resident has an income-generating project of making
small food items, which the children can buy on their way to school. Not only did the
community care for the family by replacing the house that was destroyed, they were able to
supply a useful service for the children that would, in turn, provide income for the woman and
her family.
A bigger project the villagers have taken on, creating footpaths that are actually
usable, has required them to communicate extensively with the local government administrators
(staff, not elected officials). Getting attention and resources for these types of improvements in
rural villages in Sri Lanka is enormously difficult. The highly centralized bureaucracy is
comprised of layers and layers of officials that must consider, approve, and sign requests. Often
rural villagers become resigned to their local conditions and don’t even try to bring about
change; when they do – it can be an endlessly frustrating process. Through PR, these villagers
have discovered their voices and negotiating power. Several very significant construction
projects are underway.
This village has also formed a “neighborhood watch” group to deal with some of
the social problems around alcohol and drug abuse. Given the multi-ethnic population, this
initiative has been very slow to develop and has encountered resistance. Although the villagers
acknowledge that the watch group has been instrumental in clearing certain gathering places
where these activities took place openly, some villagers report that the problem has not been
eradicated, it has just moved elsewhere.
There is scarcely a person in Sri Lanka who has not been affected by the Tsunami
in some way but Pompekele’s south/central and inland location experienced little direct impact.
However, like all Sri Lankan’s, they have responded generously by volunteering, taking in
displaced families, and sharing food, water, and funds.
Udayapuram, Ampara District
The Muslim Women’s Research and Action Forum (MWRAF) selected
Udayapuram in the Ampara District on the east coast of Sri Lanka as their model village. This
village is located adjacent to the Ampara District Hospital, which employs many of the village
residents for cleaning and washing tasks at microscopic wages, resulting in the village residents
living as indentured workers. Because this source of work is present, more life-sustaining
income generating activities have not been pursued perpetuating a truly vicious cycle of
debilitating under-employment. Contributing to this cycle is the unresolved civil war, frequent
incursions on the cease-fire agreement, lack of employment options for Tamil speakers, and a
constant threat of mutilation or death from the Liberation Tamil Tigers (LTT) to those who
appear sympathetic to the Sinhala majority. Imagining much greater misery than living under
these circumstances is nearly impossible but post-Tsunami conditions, which include miles and
miles of utter destruction punctuated with “Tsunami Camps” assault the senses and wrench the
souls of even the most seasoned community development field workers. Further complicating
the situation for Udayapuram is that it takes at least ten hours of bone-rattling travel to drive the
150-mile distance from Colombo to the east coast. Laurel was actually making that trip on the
very same day that Bill Clinton arrived neatly in 30 minutes by helicopter. Unlike Karenvila and
Pompekele, Udayapuram’s remoteness from its sponsoring NGO leadership, makes frequent
training and support extremely difficult.
This Tamil-speaking village comprised almost entirely of Hindus and Muslims has truly
struggled with PR. Despite early signs of success in setting up a community garden cooperative
and a Montessori school, they have not been able to sustain these projects. There are some
significant power struggles among the rural women leaders and one woman in particular has
been identified as “acting just like an elected official,” meaning that she is corrupt, plays
favorites, and has undermined the community spirit and collective action of PR. The possibility
exists that this women has become the scapegoat for village angst but the evidence suggests
otherwise.
Like Karenvila, Udayapuram is adjacent to the coast but sufficiently inland (about
one mile) to have escaped physical destruction from the Tsunami. However, most village
families lost numerous extended family members and have opened their homes to refugees,
related or not. Similarly, they participated in the initial clean up and buried several hundred of
the deceased in their village. There was no time to respect each religion ’s particular traditions
with respect to burials and sacred rituals. To stem the spread of disease the residents of
Udayapuram buried victims quickly and, if the victims were unidentified, they acknowledged the
burial with sacred elements from Hindu, Muslim, and Buddhist practices. Although this
pragmatic approach may appeal to the western mind, it has become the flashpoint for enormous
local criticism. Essentially, in the immediate aftermath, all three ethnic groups on the east coast
responded compassionately to anyone in need. Tragically, as the national government and LTT
compete for the upper hand in distributing aid on the east coast to curry favor with their
constituencies, the initial spirit of cooperation has deteriorated.
Despite these extremely difficult and disheartening circumstances, MWRAF’s
leadership, field staff, and a handful of village leaders who emerged from the early GROW I
workshops are regrouping. The chair of MWRAF, who is also the chair of GROW II’s Core
Advisory Group (CAG), Jezima Ismail, is a very prominent Muslim woman who is highly
respected throughout Sri Lanka for decades of grassroots to national level development work on
behalf of all Sri Lankans, She will be splitting her time for the foreseeable future between
Colombo and the east coast, with a special emphasis on Udayapuram. Jezima has enormous
influence at the national level and is a media favorite. Her power is evident in that when foreign
governments want to deliver aid with strings attached that disempower Sri Lankans, she turns her
back on the aid knowing that, in short order, the donor nations will cut those strings and deliver
purely humanitarian relief.
Recently, Jezima reported on a meeting that took place right after Tsunami with a very
conservative group of Muslim men who were offering substantial financial assistance to the
Ampara District on the condition that the Muslim women who lost their husbands in the Tsunami
observe the lengthy mourning period by wearing the burka. 2 The typical attire for Muslim
women in Sri Lanka is the salwa kameez with a matching scarf as a head cover – lightweight,
washable, modest, and appropriate for this equatorial climate. The wool burka poses substantial
health risks from heat and lack of washability. In her indomitable style, Jezima got the aid
without the conditions. She is equally effective at the grassroots as she is at the national level,
completely comfortable is using local language customs and habits, and has even, as she
reported, “ stayed in practice with chewing betel leaves” so that there is no power distance
between herself and the villagers. To interact with Jezima is to have an unwavering model of a
participatory researcher who has not a shred of doubt regarding the transformative learning
potential of all people. Udayapuram residents and NGO field staff could not have a better
advocate.
Pitiya, Monaragula District
South of the Ampara District and further inland, the Sinhala majority mostly populates
the Monaragula District. In many ways it is an ecological disaster zone, where over-zealous
foreign sugar cane production has completely disrupted the soil and water conditions rendering
this area as the most impoverished (prior to Tsunami) of the four model villages. This village
was the most unaffected by Tsunami of the four but, in this small country, no one was left
untouched. The GROW I Project partner, Centre for Women's Research (CENWOR), chose
Pitiya as a replacement model village for their first selection, which was actually washed away
during monsoon flooding in May 2003. CENWOR has a slightly different partnership role in the
GROW Projects as it is really a non-profit women’s research institute rather than a field-based
NGO. It partners with other NGOs to collaborate on action research projects that benefit women
in rural villages. Another factor that sets Pitiya apart is CENWOR’s introduction of computer
technology and the Internet as means for connecting the remote, nearly inaccessible villages of
the Monoragala District to the rest of Sri Lanka and the globe. These technology-based
initiatives were already in place when the GROW I project began. As a result, the local women
leaders came to project workshops with a well-developed sense of empowerment and direction
for the future. This group of about six women has dealt with some power struggles among
themselves, but they are the most politically active of all the rural women participating in
GROW I and will definitely be running for local offices in the upcoming elections. Given the
ecological problems facing this district, government intervention in this highly centralized
country is the only solution. These women have made a courageous decision to become
politically active. They have and will be subject to verbal and physical violence in the political
context but they are not naïve and have the spirit and energy to proceed.
2 The fact that this group of Muslim men would even meet with Jezima Ismail speaks to her influence.
Post Tsunami Note. We are inspired by our Sri Lankan partners, particularly the greatly
enlarged and multi-ethnic NGO coalition made possible by the second grant (GROW II) 3, in
their ability to conduct community needs assessments, distribute aid, and provide trauma care.
That a coalition of NGOs with diverse memberships and missions could not only maintain but
strengthen communication and share resources in the immediate aftermath of the Tsunami is
remarkable.
Just Who is Transformed? Conclusions and Contribution to Adult Education
In reflecting on the ethical dilemmas that reside within PR, particularly for the nonresidential researchers, the differing life histories of Jaya and Laurel, and the immense need of
the Sri Lankan rural villagers to regain some sense of hope and control of their lives postTsunami, reconciling transformative learning theory and experience on the ground in Sri Lanka
in some sort of evaluative manner (in either direction) seems a futile exercise, at least right now.
Although we admit, prior to our most recent month-long in-country project work (mid-May –
mid- June, 2005), attempting such an analysis made sense. We are, however, especially indebted
to Kathleen King (2003) for her post 9/11 exploration of transformative learning from tragedy.
In that paper, King asks, “One can wonder what was different with this event [9/11] compared to
other crises?” (np). Loss of life, destruction, and indeed, shift in the earth’s rotation, all as a
result of Tsunami dwarfs 9/11 by several orders of magnitude. But, the quest for understanding
transformative learning need not be a game of one-upmanship. We agree that the extent to
which the current theory base describing transformative learning includes creating meaning from
tragedy on a global scale seems an appropriate question, if somewhat out of our reach given our
recent experiences. Although there is an intense desire on our part to share “lessons learned”
(and there are many), doubts and questions are on our minds. A more useful cont ribution to the
field of international adult education and transformative learning theory at this time may be our
troubled thoughts, ethical dilemmas, problem posing, and reflection/dialog regarding our bordercrossing experiences.
References
Baumgartner, L. M. (2001). An update on transformational learning. New Directions for
Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 15-24.
Collins, M. (1998). Critical crosscurrents in education. Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Cunningham, P. (2000). A sociology of adult education. In A.L. Wilson & E. R. Hayes
(Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 573-591). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Daloz, L. A. (1986). Effective teaching and mentoring: Realizing the transformational
power of adult learning experiences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dirkx, J. M. (1998). Transformative learning theory in the practice of adult education: An
overview. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 7, 1-14.
Gajanayake, J. (2001). Participatory research: A legitimate approach for knowledge
validation. Unpublished manuscript, Northern Illinois University.
Gaventa, J. (1988). Participatory research in North America. Convergence, 21(2/3), 19-26
3 For complete details on GROW I and GROW 2 please see, http://www.niu.edu/srilankaproj/
and http:// www.niu.edu/grow2/
King, K. P. (2003). Exploring feminist research and pedagogy in a crucible of tragedy:
International perspectives creating meaning and response. Radical Pedagogy, 5 (2).
Mezirow, L. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.