Document(s) 15 of 18

Several years ago, I was asked to be the evaluator for Phase I of a project to assist dairy goat farmers in developing a cooperative. This co-op was located in a small village near the U.S.-Mexico border.* The project was designed to be participatory, and those involved wanted the evaluation to be consistent with this.

A major goal of the project was to "revitalize community life by increasing participation levels."** There were two sets of objectives, one involving concrete tasks, the other related to increasing social participation in the cooperative. The latter would be accomplished by involving local farmers in establishing the coop as a viable commercial venture. To achieve this, the proposers chose a participatory action research approach as the most appropriate methodology, and they

* Why me, a middle-aged, white "Anglo" woman from an eastern Canadian city who knows nothing about goats, you might well ask? They needed someone who knew how to do a participatory evaluation and could also speak both English and Spanish, and I qualified on both counts. There are many such evaluators in Central and South America, of course, where participatory action research and evaluation are well established. I was recruited by one of the unilingual anglophones leading the project, however, and the networks he was using may have been limited. He did indicate that he had made some unsuccessful attempts to find a Mexican evaluator. In addition, they may have actually wanted someone from the U.S. or Canada. One of the objectives was also "to meet the challenge of Third World scholars who say that First World social scientists cannot create methods of inquiry and service that are responsive to the basic needs of people in isolated communities characterized by social and economic depression."

** The project proposal states a major goal as the "identification of characteristics that can lead to successful long-term operation of cooperatives. These could include such topics as sustaining a participative organization beyond Phase I, building local and long-range networks for information sharing, continuing education, ownership in decision-making processes, peer review, etc." Later, the project is identified as an opportunity to mount "a community revitalization project that will offer income and employment opportunities to enable small farmers to stay on the land with their families and to earn a decent living while rebuilding social institutions to make them responsible to the needs and aspirations of the citizens" (Project Proposal, p. 4).

wanted the evaluation to be consistent with that approach. My job as evaluator of Phase I of the project was to assess the degree to which the co-op had achieved this goal.

History and Context

The Sinombre Valley, located on the border of the United States and Mexico, is approximately forty miles long.* Many of the people in the area farm for a living, and while a few large irrigated farms are prosperous, the majority of small farmers are unable to earn a living from working their land. The village of Sinombre (with an estimated population of 200) is located on the banks of the Rio Grande.

The people of Palomas (the village located directly across the river) and Sinombre form a culturally homogeneous community, interrelated through intermarriage and a common heritage. This community has a unique and valuable cultural heritage, for more than half the residents can trace their ancestry to original Spanish settlers who arrived over 300 years ago. All of the farmers, and all but three of the total families, are of Mexican or other Latin American or Native American origin.

Life in the Sinombre Valley is difficult, especially economically. It is a struggle to make a living from the land, and there are few other local means of supporting oneself or a family. Unemployment and underemployment levels are high, and two-thirds of the families live below the poverty line. In order to find work, many residents are forced to migrate to the cities, or they are restricted to seasonal labor. These workers are often forced to leave their families behind without any means of support for months at a time. Lack of economic resources is coupled with other familiar problems (including poor housing, isolation, low educational levels, hopelessness, and so forth).

Yet people are deeply rooted here—this is home—and are willing to work hard to develop a viable economic base in their community. Dairy goat farming is one promising alternative. The environment and climate are well suited to goats, it is a labor-intensive operation, and there is potential demand for goat and milk products. Many farmers already raise goats and are familiar with such an undertaking. A dairy goat cooperative would engage in small-scale production and marketing of goat's milk products (cheese and candy). Local farmers would supply raw materials to a producer-owned and -operated factory to be built in Sinombre, directly benefiting twenty families and indirectly benefiting an area population of thousands. The danger is the liquidation of a potentially viable rural community by large commercial interests, such as has already taken place in neighboring Miraflor, where over 90 percent of the farmland is owned by two corporate farms.

* The names of locations and people have been changed for reasons of confidentiality.

The Farmers' Co-op

In August 1990, Father James, a missionary of the Episcopal Church and resident of Sinombre since 1984, and Dr. Albert Smith, a retired sociologist and experienced goatkeeper living in a nearby town, teamed up to write a proposal (to the Department of Agriculture) for Phase I of this project. This was to be a six-month preliminary phase during which information would be gathered and a beginning made toward building the cooperative. It was anticipated that further funding would be sought to complete the project. Phase I was funded from June to December 1991.

The opportunity presented by this project was to mount a community revitalization project that would offer income and employment opportunities to enable small farmers to stay on the land with their families. This would allow them to earn a decent living and to rebuild the social institutions that meet the needs and aspirations of the citizens.

Objectives of the Project

As stated earlier, there were two sets of objectives for Phase I, one involving concrete tasks, the other related to increasing social participation in the cooperative. Specifically, the concrete tasks were to:

1. Identify and recruit potential milk producers;

2. Raise funds;

3. Establish a model herd;

4. Assist members in developing family herds;

5. Develop a delivery system for getting milk to the factory and a marketing system for distributing the product; and

6. Build a small factory for production of cheese.

The social participation objectives were to form a cooperative and strengthen the involvement of local people in its operation and to do the research necessary to develop the products. (The emphasis was to be on participatory methods in which residents of the area and outsiders were to work in partnership.)

Project Evaluation

My initial proposal involved two site visits—one as the project was beginning, and a second toward the end of Phase I.* I had proposed that an evaluation committee of local people be formed, and together, we would set up the evaluation design. I would then work closely with them (albeit long distance) over the next few months as they gathered the data. During the second visit,

* Limited funds restricted me to a maximum of two visits.

we would analyze the data and draft a report, in consultation with the people in the village. After my first visit, it was clear that this plan was not going to work out.

As the outside evaluator, I went to Sinombre for two days. I found that not only had there been no discussion of the evaluation at the co-op meetings, and therefore members had no idea what this was all about, but also the local people had no idea who this strange white lady was, how I got there, or what an evaluation was all about. My first meeting with one of the Anglos consisted of two hours of vitriol against the other; the second, with the other Anglo, echoed the sentiment. Their initial partnership had obviously broken down. There was disagreement on just about every issue, from how to raise goats to the roles of members and leaders, though both did acknowledge that the project had pretty much ground to a halt and needed help. On top of this, I was quietly told (by one of the women) that it would be inappropriate for me, as a female, to talk with the men in the village. This was not an auspicious beginning!

I recruited the (male) outside facilitator who was there at the time,* and with his help, I was able to talk with a number of the villagers. They reported that they really didn't know what was happening, for the two project directors (the Anglo men) were fighting and couldn't get along at all. Even though the funding (for Phase I) from the government had been approved, there appeared to be no progress in getting the cheese factory going, so people were suspicious. They wondered who was getting the money. The co-op meetings were conducted in English, so most people had stopped attending, since they could not understand what was going on. The facilitator, who had been in more regular contact with the situation, confirmed these impressions.

One conclusion was clear—that the conflict between the co-directors was seriously inhibiting the progress of the project and that people in the village felt basically left out. Their expectations were certainly not being met.** I concluded that the local people needed to take control of "their" project if it was to achieve any of its objectives. Otherwise, I feared that it would fail and they would be worse off than before—poorer, feeling more inadequate and hopeless, and ineligible for further funding because of this project.

So I was left with the question of how, or indeed whether, one could do a participatory evaluation under such circumstances. But at this point, I had no choice but to proceed and figure out a plan for my second visit.

* There were two outside consultants for this project, myself as the evaluator and a facilitator who was to be available as needed. He had made several visits to Sinombre by the time I made my first visit and was thus somewhat familiar with the problems.

** I wrote an interim report with a set of recommendations for change, including that a truly democratic process be established in the co-op, with meetings conducted in both Spanish and English, and that high priority be given to the building of a cheese factory, which would represent a tangible sign of progress and be a place where people could sell their milk and/or be employed. I also arranged for a local evaluation team to be set up to work with me over the next few months in planning the evaluation.

Theoretical Background

Participatory evaluation (PE) has been discussed in the literature for more than fifteen years now (Cousins and Earl 1992; Fernandes and Tandon 1981; Feuerstein 1986; Hall, Gillette, and Tandon 1982; Reason and Rowan 1981; Rugh 1994). Its principles are incorporated in the discourse on participatory research (PR), which defines itself in contrast to conventional approaches.*

Maguire (1987) summarizes the emergence of participatory research from three sources: radical critiques in international economic development assistance, adult education as empowerment, and the growing challenge to the dominant social science paradigm (chap. 3). Much of the literature, up until recently, has come from sources in Latin America, Africa, and Asia.** The origins and philosophical foundations have been well explicated elsewhere and thus do not need to be elaborated here (Hall 1975, 1981; Hall, Gillette, and Tandon 1982; Maguire 1987; Tandon 1981).

The basic definition of participatory research as combining three activities—investigation, education, and action—also forms the basis for conducting PE. Three types of change are envisioned as integral to the process: development of a critical consciousness for both the researcher (or evaluator) and participants, improvement of the lives of those involved in the process, and transformation of basic social structures and relationships (Maguire 1987, 29).

A number of basic assumptions underlie participatory approaches to research and evaluation:

• Inquiry is not neutral, but is socially constructed. Research and evaluation are political processes. Someone gains from the process and products of inquiry.

• Science is a cultural product; it is not context free. What is investigated and how it is implemented are grounded in the historical, cultural, political, and economic context within which it is conducted.

• Experts are not the only ones who can create valid knowledge. Ordinary

* There is a great deal of debate around naming, reflecting lively ferment in the field. Terms include participatory action research (PAR), which emphasizes the action as well as the research aspect, action research, ideological research, community-based research, empowerment research, and collaborative research. Many group such approaches under "alternative paradigm" and include feminist research in this.

** There has been a particularly vital debate in the last several years, documented in Collaborative Inquiry, a newsletter edited by Peter Reason from the University of Bath, England. Those from the South—Latin America, particularly—focus on collective aspects of change and the importance of critical analysis and structural transformation. Northerners—exemplified in the U.S. by William Foote Whyte and the group at Cornell University—use the term PAR. Their focus is more on linking research to action, but there has been little critical analysis of the economic, social, or political context. The notion of fundamental structural transformation disappears in the process. The fear is that once again, Northerners will appropriate the method and transform the discourse to suit the purposes of dominant societies.

people are capable of generating knowledge that is as important and as valid as that produced by more highly structured and scientific processes.

• Knowledge or information is a potential source of power, and as such, it ought not to be the exclusive domain of dominant institutions.

Working collectively is a particularly important aspect of participatory research and evaluation. Fals-Borda (1987, 338) suggests that gathering information as a group "provides a social validation of objective knowledge which cannot be achieved through individual methods based on surveys or field work. In this way confirmation is obtained of the positive values of dialogue, discussion, argumentation and consensus in the objective investigation of social realities."

From a PE perspective, addressing issues of power relations and empowerment of less powerful groups is an inherent and explicitly stated part of the process. Empowerment is not only a legitimate aspect of evaluation; indeed, issues of power are present in all evaluations whether a participatory approach is used or not (Whitmore 1994). "The distribution of power determines WHOSE ideology, interests and information will be dominant" (Weiss 1983, 239). Someone gains power through an evaluation, however neutral we might pretend to be. What subtle (and not so subtle) processes are at work in our choices of design, whom we work with, whom we include and exclude? Whom do we choose to focus on, and what are the implications? PE is "characterized by widely shared collective power . . . the people become agents of social action and the power differentials between those who control and need resources is reduced through participation" (Fernandes and Tandon 1981, 5). The question is thus not whether certain individuals or groups are empowered, but whom is the evaluation really for, and why? Becker's (1970) question, posed so many years ago to sociologists, "whose side are you on?" is equally applicable to evaluation.

Empowerment is a term that has long been used, abused, and now seems co-opted. What began as part of the civil rights movement in the United States, with its emphasis on collective rights and action, has been refocused more recently, especially by business and management interests, into a wholly individual activity. In this discussion, I would like to return to the original meaning, summed up by Baker-Miller (1983): empowerment, in short, is a series of attacks on subordination of every description—psychic, physical, cultural, sexual, legal, political, economic, and technological (cited in Simon 1990, 28).

Empowerment is not something one does "for" or "to" someone else, however. "Empowerment is a reflexive activity, a process capable of being initiated and sustained only by the agent or subject who seeks power or self-determination. Others can only aid and abet in this empowerment process. They do so by providing a climate, a relationship, resources and procedural means through which people can enhance their own lives" (Simon 1990, 32).

These philosophical principles formed the foundation of what I intended to do in the evaluation of Phase I.

Back to Sinombre

The local evaluation team never did get formed, and I continued to have no alternative but to communicate through the co-directors, particularly Dr. Smith, who sent me minutes of the co-op meetings, copies of the newsletter he was editing, and other information about what was occurring. I was basically forced to plan pretty much in a vacuum, though I did have the support of the outside facilitator.* As it turned out, he had been asked to facilitate a co-op meeting just before the evaluation, so he would be on site at the same time I was.

My second visit (in January 1992) occurred after the project was officially over (as far as funding was concerned). I planned to be at the site for four days, during which I hoped to conduct the evaluation with members of the co-op as a collective. I arranged through the treasurer that members would be paid for their time and expertise. Both co-directors fully supported the idea and seemed eager to participate in the process. This was the plan; here's what actually happened.

Day One. The first day was taken up entirely by a membership meeting, which I sat in on as an observer. This meeting was facilitated by the outside facilitator, whom they trusted and respected. This was key to keeping the conflicting parties under control and the process reasonably productive. Some ground rules were established, one of which was that everything would be in both Spanish and English—spoken and written.

At the end of the day (when everyone was tired and needing to leave to tend their herds), I was given five minutes to explain my role and what I wanted to do. Not the beginning I had planned! I hurriedly explained what I planned to do and why I felt that a collective process was essential. I said that I could interview them separately and individually, go away, and submit a report, but I felt that this would not accomplish much and would certainly be of no use to them.**

Subsequently, the facilitator and I met privately with the two co-directors and confronted them about the destructiveness of their conflict. Both could agree that it was not good for the organization.

Later, with the help of the facilitator, I developed a careful strategy to involve all the members in a process of evaluating first the stated objectives of the project (the easy part) and then the functioning of the Co-op itself.

Day Two. The next morning, a few people showed up, but not enough to proceed. The local members went off to round up others, and within an hour, we

* He had made one further visit during the fall and was in sporadic contact with the co-directors. We were, however, able to pool our understandings of the situation.

** Another part of the context that should be noted is that I was paid $400 a day (a huge amount by local standards). This served to increase the suspicion of me by local people.

had a solid representation of community people (all male, however, except for two, the secretary, and the wife of a member).* I reiterated the rationale for an evaluation and together we set some guidelines for how we would work together.** The facilitator then set the context, reviewing his involvement and discussing the contributions of key actors in positive terms. The intent was to set a positive tone and to reframe their diversity as a strength.

I began by dividing them into small groups and asking each to assess one of the original (concrete task) objectives. What had been accomplished for that objective, and what remained to be done? They needed to own what they had done (which was actually quite a bit) and to agree, as a group, on what still needed to be accomplished. They reported back, and all was recorded—in both languages—on flip charts. By the end of the first day, they reported feeling amazed at how much they had actually done and left with a sense of excitement and optimism. Participants felt that they were clearer about what had happened and understood better what needed to happen from here.

Again, privately, the consultant and I met with the two co-directors, in a last effort to see whether they could work positively together. The short answer, we concluded afterwards, was no. They were simply too different, and too much had already been said and done to repair the damage. This only reconfirmed my conviction that the local people needed to take control of the co-op if any progress was to be made.

Day Three. Today, we were to look at the structure and functioning of the coop, a touchy subject, to say the least. This discussion would probably affect the future of the organization, positively or negatively.

I began by asking them, individually, to think of two things in response to the question: What do you need an organization for? (Why have one at all?) I presented examples—"We don't need an organization to have goats. We do need an organization to . . ." (I could not ask them to jot these down, for some could not write or read). I then asked them to think of two things that most got in the way of doing these things (better). They shared their responses as a group (and again, all was recorded on flip charts).

I then divided them into small groups to discuss one time when a decision had been made and they liked how it was made. In the large group, we shared these and discussed how decisions are normally made in the co-op. Again in small groups, I asked, "What most concerns you about the way most co-op decisions have been made?" Responses included "most didn't agree but went along anyway"; "inadequate (or devaluation of) participation in decisions";

* There was a total of about twenty-five people at this evaluation. About half were villagers (male); the others were primarily Anglos involved in the project in one way or another. As stated, including myself, there were about four to six women involved at various points during the process.

** Guidelines included logistics, everyone should have a chance to speak, no interruptions, listen for the positive, no blaming or personal attacks, everything would be translated, and the bilingual people would all share in this task.

"all participation should be respected and valued"; "disregarding formal decisions (not following through)." In the ensuing larger discussion, it became clear that one thing that was needed was a training session in decision-making strategies.

Day Four. Everyone was there and ready to go.* Moving from the previous discussion, today we examined the structure of an organization by looking at what positions are needed and their tasks and functions. Again, they worked in small groups, responding to specific questions (e.g., what do you expect of a president? A secretary? A treasurer? A model herd manager?). The purpose was to clarify expectations and guide people in their positions, not to tell the present occupants what they had done wrong. The discussion nearly came unstuck when one faction (led by Anglo #1) attacked the other, whose leader (Anglo #2) could not attend that day.

We then spent time planning for the future in specific terms: what needed to be done, by whom, and when. This was an attempt to establish an open process in which everyone knew what was supposed to happen and how. They agreed upon decision-making procedures in which all would participate and that there had to be consensus for action to be taken.

Finally, I reviewed with them a wide range of my own impressions and conclusions (which had been written out on flip charts). I was free to say out loud what everyone knew but could not articulate publicly. We checked those that they felt were valid and either modified or eliminated those that were not.

We ended with a round: the most important thing you have learned in these past three days is. . . . Some reported learning what an organization is and what the duties of officers were; others stated that it's good to clear up the confusion when things go wrong. One summed it up by saying: "we need to rebuild this house."**

We celebrated with a barbeque—goat, of course.

Issues and Dilemmas

A number of questions arise from this experience that exemplify the dilemmas inherent in participatory approaches to evaluation.

1. Participatory evaluations focus more on the process than on the production of a final, technically sophisticated report. This has certain implications.

As the evaluator in this situation, was my role simply to document the outcome? I question whether this would have been useful to anyone. In fact, it

* It should be noted that on this day, two young women were present, daughters of one of the members. Both were bilingual and literate and were of great assistance with translating and recording. Dad just beamed with pride!

** At the end of this session, one of the local leaders jumped up from his chair and ran over and gave me a hug. This from someone I was barely allowed to speak to in my first visit!

might have made matters worse. At the very least, it would have been another outsider making negative judgments about the local situation, reinforcing the sense of despair people had about efforts to improve their lives.

When an evaluator becomes involved, she or he influences the situation and the people in it. That is a given. Focusing on outcome, in fact, involves a process (of talking to people, of "measuring" something, of deciding what the results mean), however "objective" we'd like to think it is. By deciding to focus on process, the evaluator makes a deliberate decision to assist the actors in reshaping the situation. This takes a great deal of skill and discipline, for intervening in power relationships is tricky, and people, especially those with less power, can get hurt. It can be a dangerous game, one fraught with potential conflict. But whatever we do involves either reinforcing the power of those who already have it or encouraging those with less power to assume more responsibility. We ought to make our choices explicit (see Whitmore in progress).

The emphasis on process has implications for the evaluator's role. She or he becomes an enabler responsive to the needs of those involved, working with "the moment" to assist people to express themselves openly and effectively (see Barndt 1989). It becomes very different from the traditional role of "impartial" outside technical expert, and we have not been trained to do this, which means that our educational institutions need to shift their emphasis. I am not saying that we could or should eliminate our technical training and expertise. Far from it. I'm suggesting that we need to put this in a context and understand its political implications. Once we do that, we must change our role.

2. There are severe limitations to short-term, one- (or two-) shot site visits at the best of times, but especially when one emphasizes the process. Ideally, there is an ongoing relationship, with the evaluator working closely with a cross section of the stakeholder population over time. Building trust is key to this process, and doing it in a short period means that the evaluator is severely limited in what she or he can accomplish. Indeed, one can condense only so much the normally long-term process of creating trust. I was forced to focus, in this instance, on what could be done in a few days and recognize the limitations.

Such short-term work reflects a model predicated on "objective" assumptions in which an outsider can or should come in and accurately assess a situation. It does not take into account the complexity of cultural, class, racial, or gender differences and the subtle and unseen resistance of powerless people to such "experts" (Gaventa 1980; Hooks 1984; Whitmore 1994).

In hindsight, I would not attempt such an evaluation again. I don't think that PE can be done short term; PE needs to be built in from the very beginning of a project, and the process takes time and sustained contact. For example, there wasn't any time to engage participants in formulating the evaluation questions, much less in the process of elaborating the evaluation design. All this is part and parcel of good participatory work.

Short-term work does not allow for follow-up either. Even though there was a shift from day one to day four in terms of trust and empowerment, however limited, how long it would or could last is another question. Whatever impact might have been made by the process described is likely to have been undone by those with power who are likely to benefit most from the status quo.* The best that can be hoped for, in this case, is that the facilitator may be in a position to follow up and that he can somehow build upon the alliances built during the evaluation.

In the end, a PE approach does not work with an organization that is not participatory. If a group or organization operates in a participatory fashion, an evaluation that uses PE will be consistent and it will be relatively easy to act on the results. If the group operates in a more hierarchical or dictatorial or paternalistic manner, the impact of a participatory evaluation is likely to be minimal. The issue in this case was power, and though the Anglos espoused participatory rhetoric, the actuality was seen as "divisive." Noblitt and Eaker (1987, 22) note that "authoritarian and/or disruptive strategies are necessary for successful network change under conditions of substantial power imbalance." While I was neither authoritarian nor disruptive, the structure of the process was deliberately designed to engage those with less power. And I did take enough control of the process so that the Anglos, and particularly the co-directors, could not dominate.

In such a situation, an evaluation will either reinforce the already divided relationships or help to mobilize members to change the situation. How much the villagers were able (or wanted) to act to take more control of the co-op remains to be seen. An idea was planted, and if it germinates at all, it will do so slowly and with plenty of nurturing.

3. There are limitations on how familiar an outside evaluator can be with the local culture and how much she or he will be trusted. As an Anglo white

* This is exemplified by my well-intentioned attempt to give them control of the money earmarked for the evaluator's fee. In meeting with several local (Hispanic) leaders, they decided that the money would be put toward the training of local people. This included such things as assisting a number of local people to go to GED classes, paying for the consultant/facilitator to do a two-day workshop on leadership and decision making, and getting bookkeeping training for the treasurer.

Though the two co-directors agreed in principle with this plan, it broke down when they refused to co-sign the check that would have turned the money over to the co-op. By this time, there were two different organizations, and neither would allow the money to go to the other's group. So they sent the money to me, which meant that by the time both the U.S. and Canadian governments took their tax bite, and I deducted the cost of expenses incurred in trying to arrange this long distance, there was very little money left over. Though I had warned them of the tax implications of my receiving the money, I suspect that the local people felt betrayed once again by a promise unfulfilled. Both Anglo men ended up angry with me, so they have likely reinforced this feeling. I am not present to rebuild the trust developed during the time I was there.

person, my relationship with them was burdened with the legacy of colonialism, no matter how sympathetic I might have been. The degree to which someone like me could be a role model for them is limited, and this restricts what the process can achieve. In addition, I am an academic, worlds apart from a group of illiterate goat farmers. Though we worked well together and the immediate response was most positive, I cannot pretend that the class barriers were not a factor in our interaction.* Issues of race, class, and gender are rarely addressed in evaluations yet operate everywhere. This situation was no different; it just had its own unique set of circumstances.

The whole question of gender and the issues raised by our differences were exemplified by my not even being allowed, at first, to talk with the men. Though we all relaxed after a while, our worlds were very far apart on how we saw the role of women. It could hardly be concluded that the community was learning to work democratically when half the population was excluded (Maguire 1987, 57). Maguire (1987, 57) points out that the machismo factor is a major obstacle to women's participation in community projects and concludes that "we need more insight into how researchers have dealt with machismo." I did raise the issue of including more women in the co-op and made a point of recognizing the contribution they were already making, but I did this carefully, understanding that if I pushed them too far, I would undo whatever little progress we might make on this and other fronts. Being an outsider can be an advantage; as a woman not dependent on local males, I was free to raise issues that local women could not.** Maguire (1987, 69) notes the complexity of this issue, raising the question, "how can (PR) be culturally sensitive and yet not collude with oppressive sexist policies and practices which are frequently defended as culturally appropriate or traditional?"

One major objective of this project was to "revitalize community life and increase participation levels." Evaluating such an objective by inviting community members to participate is entirely consistent with this. Increasing participation levels should, by definition, be empowering. One of the problems with the word empowerment, however, is precisely that it has been increasingly used to co-opt participants into working harder to achieve someone else's goal.*** In the same way, participatory action research and evaluation have become trendy and are being used by many organizations and groups to give

* The co-directors kept introducing me as Dr. Whitmore, which they may have seen as respectful and appropriate to my role as "expert" (or perhaps it was even hostile), but which I saw as reinforcing the barriers between the participants and myself.

** Mbilinyi (1982) discusses the role of the outsider who could articulate what the local women had told her because she could not be intimidated or silenced by dependence on a local male.

*** To be more productive in a business setting, for example.

people the illusion of participation. Governments call it participatory when they "consult" with the public about policy changes; business uses focus groups for marketing research and calls it participatory. Neither is based on an ideology of real empowerment, that is, the achievement of power by those who do not have it.

In this case example, I was asked to do a participatory evaluation, ostensibly by the co-op members, but actually, as I found out, quite unilaterally by one of the co-directors. The original proposal (which he had primarily written) did indeed envision using a participatory action research approach in developing the products, but it became clear in the evaluation that this vision became a problem when his own power was threatened. I was then seen as "divisive" and "intrusive."* I suspect that this is not an unusual situation, for as participatory evaluations are indeed intended to intervene on the side of those with less power, those with power in a given situation are bound to resent it.

It's important not to romanticize "the community" or pretend that "the people" or the powerless are always right. Such an attitude is naive and quite unrealistic. What is needed is a collaborative relationship in which all parties are able to contribute their understanding and knowledge in an atmosphere of respect and mutuality. Such a relationship is formed only when all members share a deep respect for the abilities, characteristics, and culture of one another. In this situation, such a relationship did not exist. The situation here was perhaps classic in that outsiders, however well intentioned, dominated the process in the paternalistic belief that the villagers could not do it themselves. As one Anglo concluded in the final meeting: "I'm so impressed with these people. They are much more intelligent than I thought!"

Sjorberg (1975, 45) states that "researchers must do more than accept the categories of the system when they carry out their research. . . . We must formulate research orientations that emphasize the development of alternative structural arrangements that transcend some of the difficulties inherent in the present-day social order." "Evaluators" can be substituted for "researchers" in this statement, for the issues are the same. Empowerment is a role that evaluators play. As stated earlier, "they do so by providing a climate, a relationship, resources and procedural means through which people can enhance their own lives" (Simon 1990, 32). The evaluator clearly provides a climate, establishes a relationship (with stakeholders), brings resources and procedures to the process. The question becomes, to what ends? And for whose benefit?

* This was stated in a letter to me from Dr. Smith, ironically, after the organization had split into two factions, each led by one of the co-directors.

References

Barndt, D. 1989. Naming the Moment: Political Analysis in Action. Toronto: Jesuit Centre for Social Faith and Justice.

Becker, H. 1970. Whose Side Are You On? Social Problems 14: 239–48.

Cousins, J. B., and L. M. Earl. 1992. "The Case for Participatory Evaluation." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 14 (4): 397–418.

Fals-Borda, O. 1987. "The Application of Participatory Action Research in Latin America." International Sociology 2 (4): 329–47.

Fernandes, W., and R. Tandon. 1981. Participatory Research and Evaluation: Experiments in Research as a Process of Liberation. New Delhi: Indian Social Institute.

Feuerstein, M.-T. 1986. Partnership in Evaluation: Evaluating Development and Community Programmes with Participants. London: Macmillan Publishers.

Gaventa, J. 1980. Power and Powerlessness: Rebellion and Quiescence in an Appalachian Valley. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Hall, B. 1975. "Participatory Research: An Approach for Change." Convergence 8(2): 24–32.

———. 1981. "Participatory Research, Popular Knowledge and Power: A Personal Reflection." Convergence 3: 6–19.

Hall, B., A. Gillette, and R. Tandon, eds. 1982. Creating Knowledge: A Monopoly? New Delhi: Society for Participatory Research in Asia.

Hooks, B. 1984. Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. Boston: South End Press.

Maguire, P. 1987. Doing Participatory Research: A Feminist Approach. Amherst, Mass.: Center for International Education.

Mbilinyi, M. 1982. "The Unity of 'Struggles' and 'Research': The Case of Peasant Women in West Bagamoyo, Tanzania." Pp. 102–42 in Fighting on Two Fronts, edited by M. Miles. The Hague: Institute of Social Sciences.

Noblitt, G. W., and D. J. Eaker. 1987. "Evaluation Designs as Political Strategies." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C.

Reason, P., and J. Rowan, eds. 1981. Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook of New Paradigm Research. New York: J. Wiley and Sons.

Rugh, J. 1994. "Can Participatory Evaluation Meet the Needs of All Stakeholders? A Case Study: Evaluating the World Neighbors West Africa Program." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Boston.

Simon, B. L. 1990. "Rethinking Empowerment." Journal of Progressive Human Services. 1: 27–37.

Sjorberg, G. 1975. "Politics, Ethics and Evaluation Research." Pp. 29–51 in Handbook of Evaluation Research, edited by M. Guttentag and E. Struening. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.

Tandon, R. 1981. "Participatory Research in the Empowerment of People." Convergence 14 (3): 20–27.

Weiss, C. 1983. "Ideology, Interest and Information: The Basis of Policy Decisions." Pp. 213–45 in Ethics, the Social Sciences and Policy Analysis, edited by D. Callahan and B. Jennings. New York: Plenum.

Whitmore, E. 1994. "To Tell the Truth: Process, Quality and Working with Oppressed Groups in Participatory Approaches to Inquiry." Pp. 82–98 in Participation in Human Inquiry, edited by P. Reason. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

———. In progress. "The Ideology of Evaluation."

Document(s) 15 of 18