Community Development and Democratic Practice
Meeting Notes and Insights
Kettering Foundation
Dayton, Ohio
October 3-4, 2012
The purpose of this workshop was to engage a field of practice – Community Development – in
an exchange about the theories that inform its work and how those theories connect to
democratic practice. During our brief time together, the group began what the Foundation
hopes will become continued work – including a series of meetings – to explore linkages
between community development, economic development, public engagement, and
democratic practice.
This group represented many different strains within the overarching field of community
development, including rural sociology; community organizing; institutional/behavioral
economics; international development; community psychology; leadership development;
economic development; architecture; planning; participatory research; organizational
development; and participatory theater. Those who attended this meeting share many of
Kettering’s durable interest in understanding the work that people can do collectively to
address problems affecting their lives, their communities, and their nation.
Key Themes and Questions
Here is a first take on some of the key ideas that emerged from the meeting. Please note that
this memo is based on Pat’s and Alice’s partial, handwritten notes, so we may have missed or
misinterpreted some important ideas. We welcome your corrections, insights, and suggestions
for how to build on this initial, productive exchange.
(The bulleted points sprinkled through the notes are drawn from the list of key questions &
themes identified by participants working in small groups during the closing session of
workshop. Please note that we did not have time to test the level of agreement about these
with the group. A full list of these questions and themes is on pp. 5-6.)
Understanding the nature and importance of relationships: The group discussed the
importance of building open, respectful relationships with the communities they serve. On a
parallel track, a key practice for this group of community developers is the building of new,
long-term relationships that shift networks of interaction within communities. Relationships are
central to what they do, especially the strengthening individual and community capacities, and
achieving instrumental goals.
Several participants emphasized that it is important to provide ways for people to bring their
emotional lives – and not only their rational selves – to the work. What can public deliberation
learn from community development about the role of emotion in democratic politics and
professional practice?
Wariness of the community developer’s role as expert: Community developers wrestle with
“an inherent pressure to bring their knowledge to communities.” (David Bronkema)
“Communities pull us in because they think we have the answers. … The challenge is to figure
out how we keep tossing the lead back and forth. … We need to ask ourselves whether we are
truly ‘adding to’ or ‘subtracting from’ what is happening in a community.” (Jim Cook) They also
talked of this as “letting go of outcomes” and “navigating between – and being clear about –
what you know and don’t know.” (Esther Farmer; John Gruidl)
Collective Learning: How do community developers create co-learner relationships with the
communities they assist? The group agreed that sound practice demands respect for
communities’ inherent knowledge and assets. However, they then went one step further and
argued that community developers should enter communities in ways that allow them to learn
from and alongside communities. Collective learning is complex in large part because inclusive
approaches to community development engage people of different backgrounds, beliefs,
experience, geography, race/ethnicity, class, and more.
o What are most useful approaches to co-learning and shared learning between
professionals and communities?
Context and culture: Context and culture of the place matter – a lot. Community developers
cannot use “best practices” or cut and paste an intervention from one place to another.
o How do we identify evidence-based practices that work within different contexts and
cultures? What do we know about how to adapt these practices from one context to
another?
Multiple ways of knowing: One of community development’s core values is the need to honor
multiple ways of knowing to access community wisdom. We need to understand how
communities learn together across differences. For example, how do different groups use
evidence and draw on experience as they address community challenges? What role does
emotional intelligence play?
o How can we synthesize multiple ways of knowing to advance social change around
community challenges?
Rethinking power: The group had a highly nuanced approach to thinking about power. For
example, they talked of the importance of “power with” and of the need to recognize situations
where power inequalities can interfere with democratic practices. A key question for many was
named by Cornelia Flora as “How do people who are seemingly without power bring about
change?”
2
The group appeared to agree that how communities best address power depends on the
context. For example, sometimes community work focuses on building “traditional” political
power via policy advocacy to address disparities in access to public resources. The trick is how
to go down that path without having it come at the expense of collective and/or
complementary action that falls outside the realm of public policy advocacy.
Tension b/w process and outcomes: Many community developers wrestle with whether to
focus on coaching people so that they can build local capacity to address shared problems, vs.
focusing on strategies that are likely to lead to near-term, tangible outcomes on particular
issues. Again, this seemed to be more of a balancing act for this group than a rigid prescription;
they make their decisions based on the local context. What does the community itself want?
Are its residents eager for short-term small wins, or are they prepared to engage in a long-term
approach?
Placing techniques and process in their proper place: None of the people in this meeting
appeared to be locked into a particular technique or method for working with communities.
Most talked of the need to engage communities in making their own decisions about which
approaches best fit the local context.
Michael Rios offered his concern that some practitioners “fetishize participation in ways that
have nothing to do with democracy.” Another bemoaned “facipulation” where facilitation is
used to manipulate situations in ways that run counter to a community’s true intentions.
John Gruidl asked what the implication would be for university-based community development
professionals if more communities adopted “right brain” approaches to their work. John
expressed a concern that this may leave highly analytical academics out in the cold. Michael
elaborated on this theme by asking what we can learn from looking at non-deliberative
methods communities employ to come together across difference and shape their collective
future. What are the theoretical underpinnings of non-deliberative forms of public
engagement?
Professionalization of the field: Some in the group recognized an inherent danger in academics
and practitioners doing this work for many years because “as we become more
professionalized, we lose touch with the values that first brought us to the work.” Some asked
what they can do to identify people in communities who can pick up this work, instead of
increasing reliance on professionals.
o Who are we attracting to this field? Who are we empowering/strengthening, enabling?
o What are we missing/deferring by working this way in this group? (i.e. we, here, @ KF)
o How do we define community development as a field vs. community development as a
movement?
3
o What challenges does the field face in the future?
o How representative is our group – was our discussion – of mainstream community
development theory and practice?
o What approaches and tools in democratic practice should be incorporated into the
training of community development practitioners? (submitted by John Gruidl after the
workshop)
Role of local institutions: Community developers who specialize in participatory research can
help bridge communications gaps b/w institutions and the communities they claim to serve. Jim
Cook noted that institutions are often unaware that the people they think they are serving do
not see the institutions as doing a very good job.
The role of “structural issues” in community politics: The group wrestled with the limitations
of their ability to work with communities in situations when important aspects of the challenges
at hand are rooted in what some referred to as “structural issues.” Unfortunately, we did not
pause to define this oft-used but somewhat ambiguous term, however the context suggests
that the group was referring to the influence that larger social systems and political structures
can have on choices available to local communities. For example, Cari Patterson noted that
“The type of work we do with communities will not address structural issues immediately.
However, it can provide people with the groundwork to do so later.”
Jim Cook noted that much of this work is about helping a community identify the problem(s) it
is facing. In most cases, there are multiple points of entry to addressing community challenges,
some of which may be rooted in structural issues. Given this, the first task of the community
developer is to strive for “small wins” that provide the foundation for additional work on
multiple levels.
This tension is a durable concern in discussions about deliberative democracy theory and
practice, and the group was keen to struggle with it. The group seems to be searching for a
theory that links community development, democracy, and structural change. Community
developers may be uniquely positioned to work through the tensions in developing civic agency
to address immediately actionable challenges over and against the larger social systems and
institutions that can sometimes feel out of reach when people try to work with and through
them to shape their collective future. We created a consciousness about this tension in the
meeting that will be of use to much of Kettering’s work.
o Are we adhering to citizen-centered democratic values when we engage our clients and
coach them in how to address structural issues?
o What is our appropriate role when introducing communities to systems thinking and
concepts of political economy?
4
o We need to examine how community development deals with competing concepts of
the need to increase and/or redistribute resources.
********
Questions – Top ideas that emerged from small-group discussions
1. We need theory that links community development, democracy, and structural change.
2. Are we adhering to citizen-centered democratic values when we engage our clients and
coach them in how to address structural issues?
3. What is our appropriate role when introducing communities to systems thinking and
concepts of political economy?
4. What are the most useful approaches to co-learning and shared learning between
professionals and communities?
5. How do we identify evidence-based practices that work within different contexts and
cultures? What do we know about how to adapt these practices from one context to
another?
6. How can we synthesize multiple ways of knowing to advance social change around
community challenges?
7. We need to examine how community development deals with competing concepts of
the need to increase and/or redistribute resources.
8. What are we missing/deferring by working this way in this group? (i.e. we, here, @ KF)
9. How do we define community development as a field vs. community development as a
movement?
10. Who are we attracting to this field? Who are we empowering/strengthening, enabling?
11. What challenges does the field face in the future?
Additional Questions submitted by participants after the workshop
12. What sociological, political, economic, psychological, and other theories inform
community development theory and practice? (Ted)
13. How does our discussion with respect to community development theory and practice
intersect with democratic political theory and democratic politics? (Ted)
14. How representative is our group, was our discussion, of mainstream community
development theory and practice? What can we learn from exploring the variance of
community development theory and practice across history, time, and space. (Ted)
5
Themes – Top ideas that emerged from small-group discussions
1. Importance of emotion as a core element of community work
2. Recognizing the political economy of local knowledge (expert/local)
3. Tension between advocacy of process and advocacy of outcome. What does CD look
like?
4. Important to honor multiple ways of knowing evidence, experience, etc. – community
wisdom
5. Some of the work’s most problematic dichotomies relate to increasing/redistribution of
resources, power, etc; disembodied/embodied approaches
6. Empowerment and its relation to structural change
Additional Themes submitted by participants after the workshop
7. What approaches and tools in democratic practice should be incorporated into the
training of community development practitioners? (John G)
8. The meaning, significance, and role of emotion in community development, democratic
politics, and professional practice. (Ted)
9. The political economy (power, politics, and choice) of local knowledge inherent in the
tension between expert and local knowledge. (Ted)
10. What should is, and what should be, the nature of community development practice?
(Ted)
11. Methods and tools – context, emotions (Neal & DB)
12. Tensions structural versus function – need for theories (Neal & DB)
13. Links with democracy – are we engaged in democratic processes with our clients (Neal &
DB)
14. Are we using democratic processes to challenge structures? (Neal & DB)
6
Participant List
Theodore R. Alter
Professor of Agricultural
Environmental and Regional Economics
Co-Director, Center for Economic and
Community Development
204 Armsby Building
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802
Work: 814-863-8640
talter@psu.edu
Kathryn J. Brasier
Assoc. Professor of Rural Sociology
Dept. of Ag Econ, Sociology and Education
105-B Armsby
Penn State University
University Park, PA 16802
Work: 814-865-7321
kbrasier@psu.edu
David Bronkema
Associate Professor
Director, International Development
Programs
Chair, School of Leadership and
Development
Eastern University
1300 Eagle Rd.
St. Davids, PA 19087-3696
Work: (610) 225-5068
dbronkem@eastern.edu
James R. Cook
Professor of Psychology
Past President, Society for Community
Research and Action (Div.27 of APA)
UNC Charlotte
9201 University City Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28223
Work: 704-687-1327
Cell: 704-575-3431
jcook@uncc.edu
Esther Farmer
Co-Principal,
Lateral Strategies
Brooklyn, NY
Work: 718-856-1788
estherfarmer@hotmail.com
Cornelia Flora
Charles F. Curtiss Distinguished Professor of
Agriculture and Life Sciences
315 East Hall
Iowa State University
Ames, IA 50011
Work: (515) 294-1329
cflora@iastate.edu
John J. Gruidl
Professor
Illinois Institute for Rural Affairs
Western Illinois University
1 University Circle
Macomb, IL 61455
Work: 309.298.2984
JJ-Gruidl@wiu.edu
Ronald J. Hustedde
Professor
Dept. of Community & Leadership
Development
University of Kentucky
506 Garrigus Building
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40546-0215
Work: (859) 257-3186
rhusted@email.uky.edu
Paul Lachapelle
Associate Professor,
Extension Community
Development Specialist
Department of Political Science
Local Government Center
Wilson Hall 2-117
P.O. Box 172240
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717-2240
Work: (406) 994-3620
paul.lachapelle@montana.edu
Jane Leonard
Senior Manager, Advancing Solutions
Bush Foundation
E900, 332 Minnesota St
Saint Paul, MN 55101
Work: 651-379-2230
jleonard@bushfoundation.org
Barry McKuin
Former President
Morrilton Chamber of Commerce
and Conway County EDC
Morrilton, AR 72110
501-354-5346
bandpmckuin@suddenlink.net
Cari Patterson
Director
Horizons Community
Development Associates Inc.
PO Box 2404
Wolfville, NS B4P 2S3
Work: (902) 582-7940
cari@horizonscda.ca
Michael Rios
Associate Professor
Chair, Community Development
Graduate Group
Department of Environmental Design
University of California
One Shields Ave
Davis, CA 95616
Work: 530.601.1066
mxrios@ucdavis.edu
Patrick L. Scully
Clearview Consulting, LLC
12 Newport Ave
West Hartford, CT 06107
860-561-1866
pscully@clearviewconsultingllc.com
Leon Sharpe
President
The Praxis Group, LLC
3954 Folsom Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63110
Cell: (314) 276-1384
leonsharpe@aol.com
Ronald Shiffman
Professor
Pratt Institute – Graduate Center for
Planning and the Environment
Brooklyn Campus
Higgins Hall North 1ST FL
200 Willoughby Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11205
rshiffma@pratt.edu
KETTERING STAFF:
Alice Diebel
diebel@kettering.org
David McIvor
dmcivor@kettering.org
Randy Nielsen
nielsen@kettering.org
8