Project

Analysis of community practice

In community development, dialogic approach shot to fame fast because it facilitated teamwork, consultative forums and collective bargaining, from which constructive and more tenable ideas emanate. Thus, the concept of dialogic approach in community development will seek to establish ethical and mutually-satisfying frameworks, upon which community development initiatives and projects are to be established. Westoby and Dowling (2013, 84) explain that the establishment of the aforementioned ethical and mutually-satisfying frameworks will be demanding of the need to engage the communities to be involved in community development, by crafting a framework by which matters such as the equitable distribution of socioeconomic values can be distributed. Conversely, a dialogical approach to community development will portend, engaging members of the community in identifying areas of greatest need, so that values can be dispensed towards socioeconomic ameliorations. For instance, applying a dialogical approach to community development may compel programme developers to discuss with members of the Aborigines community in Australia, before jumping whimsically on a project such as sinking of boreholes. In the absence of a dialogical approach to community development, a project may get to the point of completion, but it may never help members of that community, to the highest point desired or intended. 2. Demonstrating Personal Understanding of The Conceptual/Theoretical Knowledge and Community Development Principles That Underpin the Approach There are certain theoretical frameworks which underpin the dialogical approach of community development. One of these theoretical frameworks is the theory of communicative action. Herein, knowledge is viewed as the understanding which is provided by the objective world and the inter-subjectivity of the contexts from whence actions develop. This is to the effect that since communicative rationality denotes understanding, then the conditions which make consensus building have to be studied. This therefore readily brings in the need for argumentation and arguments. On one hand, arguments refer to the conclusions that comprise validity claims and reasons by which the validity claims can be questioned. On the other hand, argumentation is the speech which is issued by participants, as a way of developing or recanting the validity claims which have become questionable. At the point mentioned immediately above, Haberma’s differentiation between power claims and validity claims are taken as important, and thus established. This may be done through the imposition of a concept by force, or by subjecting it to a dialogue so that other stakeholders’ input or contributions can lead to rectification of initial stances. As touching the first case, the ‘interact’ holds the power claims. In the second case, the validity claims are scrutinised and held. In the power claims, the argument of force is put into application, in validity claims, so that the force of argument prevails. In this case, validity of claims is to be thoroughly and extensively discussed since it is the basis of dialogic learning. Another theoretical underpinning of the dialogic framework of community development is the establishment of created meanings, in a dialogic manner with other people. This concept of dialogism asserts that the relation

Back To Top