See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273134736

Understanding Community and Community Development Defining the

Concept of Community

Chapter · January 2014

CITATIONS READS

3 18,432

1 author:

Kalpana Goel
University of South Australia
21 PUBLICATIONS   37 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PhD thesis on the needs of rural parents that have a son/daughter with disability View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kalpana Goel on 05 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Understanding Community and Community Development 1

Understanding Community and Community Development

Kalpana Goel*

Abstract
This chapter delineates what is meant by the term ‘community’ in community
development practice. Is the meaning changing in the context of development
taking place in the socio-political and technological areas or is it some aspects
of community functioning that are important in community development
practice? Thus, the nature of community and its function towards meeting goals
of human society has been explored.
Social workers work with communities at different levels ranging from micro to
mezzo and macro level. Their processes in community development are guided
by values and principles based on human rights, social and ecological justice.
These are at the core of community development practice. While applying these
values and principles and working at the grassroots level, social workers face
dominant societal views and power structures that operate at local, regional,
national and even international levels. Thus it is imperative to revisit the
knowledge and skills a social worker needs to have in the field of community
development.
Key words: community, community development, community development
practice

Defining the Concept of Community

The earlier and most commonly held meaning of ‘community’ refers to people
living in a place who have face–to-face contact with each other. Based on this
assertion Tönnies (1955) classified community as ‘Gemeinschaft’ to refer to pre-
industrial social formation where face–to-face contact was possible in rural and
tribal society. With changes in industrialised society, a new society emerged that
was more akin to impersonal contact amongst its people. People related with each
in formal ways and life was contractual. Tönnies denoted this with the term
‘Gesellschaft’. This conceptualisation served the purpose of defining and
conceptualising community in earlier days; however, such a tight
compartmentalisation changed over time as community crossed physical boundaries
of place and people could connect with each other by using technologies and still
fulfil most of the functions of the community. A critique undertaken by Bhattacharya
(2004, p. 11) also points out that a place-based conceptualisation of community
* Lecturer, Whyalla Campus, University of South Australia. Kalpana.goel@unisa.edu.au
2 Community Work : Theories, Experiences and Challenges

itself is not sufficient to conceptualise community development practice for three

important reasons. Firstly, it refers to ‘a neighbourhood, a small town, or a village…
regardless of the absences of any cohesion in it’. Secondly, it disguises various
differences and shared interests that transcend boundaries of place and unite people
together to act. This is also regarded as Durkheim’s ‘organic solidarity’ and Tönnies’
‘Gesellschaft’. Thirdly, place-based conceptualisation of the community ‘fails to
take into account the radical social change that is brought by modernity’
(Bhattacharya, 2004, p. 11).
Defining community in the context of community development requires a
broadening of definition that includes both place-based, interest-based and other
forms of new and emerging communities, for example, web community, Facebook
or other social media community and online groups that traverse physical boundaries
and relate with unknown people in diverse locations.
This can also be explained by looking at different theoretical explanations about
what constitutes community. Matarrita-Cascante & Brennan (2012, p. 294) cite
Luloff and Krannich (2002) who have used three theoretical approaches – human
ecology, systems theory and field theory – to explain what constitutes community.
The theory of human ecology explains ‘community as the structure of
relationships through which a localised population meets its daily requirements’
(Matarrita-Cascante & Brennan (2012, p. 294). It points out its key role of providing
support to its members for its survival by forming relationship of care. Systems
theory identifies community as the amalgamation of different units or sub-systems
that jointly work towards achievement of community goals. This theory views
people as holding different roles and statuses as part of different systems closely
linked with each other. The field theory describes ‘social interaction as the most
critical feature of community’ (Matarrita-Cascante & Brennan, 2012, p. 295). Thus
these theories contribute in explaining the community as a structure of relationship
whose members are inter-related and function through social interaction. Community
relationship could be based on shared identity that is derived from place, ethnicity,
culture, interest or ideology. This identity helps bring solidarity amongst people,
what Durkheim (1960, as cited in Kenny, 2011a, p. 46) identified as ‘mechanical’
and ‘organic solidarity’. The distinction between these two types of solidarity is
regarded as a difference due to commonality of experience for the former and
divergence of experience for the latter type of solidarity. This concept is useful in
understanding community as an entity where people share identity that brings
solidarity in relationship. It helps cross physical boundaries and thus becomes
relevant in understanding post-industrial and post-modern communities that have
shared identity and are functional communities. Kenny (2011a, p. 47) describes
two types of solidarity: thick and thin solidarity. The thick type of solidarity is
Understanding Community and Community Development 3

where people have ‘deep [feelings] and an all-embracing relationship’, such as racial
or ethno-religious groups, and thin solidarity refers to relationships that are most
evident in the post-modern era whereby people take membership of different
organisations on the basis of identification with a profession, group or place;
however, their involvement may not be as deep and all-encompassing as in thick
solidarity. An example could be membership of a professional organisation, human
rights group, or action groups. Nevertheless, each sort of solidarity has its place in
community development work as people are entrusted with different roles and
responsibilities based on their affinity and sense of ownership.

Elements of Community
For communities to function and help their members to achieve their goals,
compositional factors that include structural aspects and circumstances for growth
(poverty, crime, housing and environment) (Chaskin, 2009, p. 32); and physical
location, including both natural and built environment are important. According to
Matarrita-Cascante & Brennan (2012, p. 295) these ‘physical resources are important
for functional, aesthetic and symbolic reasons’. If we examine the impact of physical
resources on the inhabitants of a place, then it is clear that people who live in
places which are deprived of resources, opportunities for growth in education, skills
development, and offer limited employment opportunity, are restricted in
functionality. Aesthetically, people also prefer to live in places that are pleasurable
and, symbolically, physical resources strengthen the identity formation of
community members (Matarrita-Cascante & Brennan, 2012, p. 295).
This does exemplify that the quality and nature of physical resources are
important and constitute an important ingredient of the community. However,
different professional groups focus on different aspects of community. Physical
resources are an area of possible improvement where urban planners are more
likely to focus to. Social workers and social theorists are more likely to be concerned
with another ingredient of the community, that is, people’s relationships, networks
and trust in those relationships. These things form the basis of community strengths
as different stakeholders in the community (individuals and groups) bring different
sets of knowledge and skills that determine existing community capacity to effect
change and helps in building an empowering process that relies on existing
community social capital. This can also be described in the form of various assets
that make up what has been termed ‘social capital’ (Putnam, 1993). Putnam
describes social capital as a resource that the community can draw upon to achieve
common goals. A very similar conceptualisation of elements of community structure
and functioning has been theorised as ‘community interaction theory’, initiated by
Wilkinson and further developed by others (Wilkinson, 1970; 1991; Cheers & Luloff,
4 Community Work : Theories, Experiences and Challenges

2001; Sharp, 2001; Carroll et al., 2006, all as cited in Taylor, Wilkinson & Cheers,
2008, p. 31). This theory points out that every community has elements of ‘local
society, the community field, community structures (including power networks);
horizontal and vertical patterns of interaction; strong ties and weak ties and
community narratives’ that together promote and develop social interaction which
is the essence of the community. In order for the community to achieve goals of
development its members should act together in various social fields such as
education, health, transport and welfare. Thus the rise of community is not possible
until social fields linking together act for achievement of the common good (Taylor,
Wilkinson, & Cheers, 2008, p. 34).
Understanding processes of social interaction and how different social fields/
sectors link together and act together thus becomes important in a local society/
community that could be geographically based, interest-based or in a virtual
environment.

Functions of Community
If one examines the role and importance of community in the social, economic,
spiritual and political life of human beings, it is far clearer that various functions
that are performed by the community have a bearing on the extent of well-being
and disadvantage experienced by its members. Communities through identification
and symbolic artefacts provide a sense of belongingness to their people. Human
beings associate and form relationships with each other based on shared identity
of place, class, race, ethnicity, cultural heritage and various other mechanisms
that help form these identities. This sense of belongingness connects people with each
other and builds social capital that is referred to as relationships based on mutuality,
trust and cooperation. Although there is no certainty that people will develop trust
and cooperation, a sense of belongingness opens up possibilities of establishing
connections, networks and generating solidarity. This formation of social capital
can be both inclusive and exclusive of marginalised and disadvantaged communities.
How people can be excluded by shared identity of some members of the society
can be understood by looking at three case studies in Victoria, Australia presented
by Mendes (2004): Footscray Matters: excluding drug users; Port Phillip action
group: excluding street prostitutes; and the Blackshirts group who went against
single mothers. (See website URLs for action groups following the reference list.)
These show contrasting examples of social inclusion and exclusion in policy debates
in that Australian state. Kenny (2011a, p. 52) adds to our understanding of this
phenomenon by pointing out that ‘people identify with communities on the basis of
their own concrete experiences and relations’, thus paving the way for both inclusive
and exclusionary practices.
Understanding Community and Community Development 5

It has been generally agreed that communities are formed based on people’s
shared interest, mutual concerns, and identity formations, and may dissipate when
needs are met or tasks accomplished (Kenny, 2011a, p. 53). However, the
relationships formed and associations built are channelled to work together on issues
that are similar and conform to the value orientation of members. The organisations
raising awareness and taking action to bring about change in policies and actions
taken by public and private sector players in the socio-political and economic and
environmental context could encompass many diverse issues such as the green
movement, environmental degradation projects, an anti-corruption drive, the fight
for land rights and gender inequalities. Such examples could be GetUp!, Avaaz,
Human Rights Watch, Greenpeace, and Amnesty International. (See website URLs
in reference list.)
In contemporary society, advancement in communication technology has helped
in reducing distance and bringing like-minded people together, thus increasing the
functionality of interest-based communities. ‘Virtual communities’ is one example
of such communities which exist across boundaries and help in bringing people
together to work closely, not only on local issues but also on matters that concern
humanity globally. Virtual communities function to empower those who feel
marginalised in traditional structures of community life (Blackshaw, 2010, as cited
in Kenny, 2011a, p. 51). They provide an alternative to face-to-face interaction,
although they could be forming thin relationships with new members in the community;
however, they could also act to cement existing relationships, thus providing an
opportunity to build rich community experiences. Communities thus have wider roles
to play. It is not only about thinking locally, but also acting globally.
The current environment of uncertainty and exponential growth in materialism
has given rise to inequalities and unjust distribution of resources for the majority of
people living in the 21st century. Moreover, the current trend in most of the developed
and developing economies is towards shifting responsibility for welfare services
onto the community. Thus the community has to take more responsibility in providing
support, care, financial resources, technical know-how and maintenance services
to its members with minimum resources provided by the state. Thus changes in the
functions of the community call for alternative ways of working with communities
to support them in new functional responsibilities (Ife, 2013).

Community Development as an Approach of Social Work

Community development has been identified as a core social work approach or
method to work with communities who are disenfranchised, marginalised and faced
with broad social issues resulting from unjust policies and planning at global, national,
state and local level. The failure of neo-liberal policies and the social democratic
6 Community Work : Theories, Experiences and Challenges

welfare state in meeting human needs has become evident in the last four decades
and the current 21st century where widening gaps between the rich and poor, an
increase in hunger, poverty, crime, and social unrest is evident in most of the world.
Countries such as Congo, Zambia and Zimbabwe now have a lower human
development index (HDI) than in 1970. There are widening gaps in the health status
of some countries where they have suffered serious set-backs; besides this,
economic growth has been extremely unequal amongst the countries of the world
(United Nations Development Programme [UNDP], 2010). Still there are 1.2 billion
people who live in conditions of extreme poverty. The global financial crisis has
widened the global jobs gap by 67 million people (United Nations, 2013). Social
workers are faced with these challenges on a global scale and have roles and
responsibilities to effect change that prevents marginalisation and meets human
needs.
The social work profession has addressed human sufferings through charity and
philanthropy in the past. The Welfarist tradition of western countries (such as the
United States of America, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia), where people
have reliance on government support, has also failed in meeting human needs, which
is evident by increasing disparity in income levels, rising employment even in these
countries over the last decade. Ife (2013) argues that community-based solutions
are needed to address contemporary social issues such as poverty, hunger, illness,
crime and violence. Thus developing community-based structures can serve as an
alternative to large-scale bureaucratic structures and governance that might be
distanced from the community it plans to serve. Kenny (2011a, p. 8) defines
community development as ‘a method for empowering communities to take
collective control and responsibility for their own development’.
The main focus of the community development approach is on instituting those
interactive processes that help communities to take autonomous decisions on
meeting their needs and addressing issues that affect their life the most. It promotes
collective action rather than an individualised approach and thus can be
differentiated from approaches that focus on individual well-being. The International
Federation for Social Workers regards social workers as change agents who bring
change in the lives of individuals, groups and communities. Community development
has the potential to transform society and thus bring change in the status quo.
Community development needs to be contextualised in the current environment.
Many societies are now developing as mixed pluralistic societies which embrace
heterogeneity in their composition, relationships and practices. Modern societies
that are best known as industrialised societies share a common feature: relationships
amongst people are no longer confined to ‘places’ and have been extended to unknown
Understanding Community and Community Development 7

people in unknown places. They no longer hold the same norms and value system
that were pertinent in pre-industrialised society.
Kenny (2011b, p. i17) believes that what is needed is ‘an edgy community
development practice that is never secure and does not operate in a comfortable
“home”’. Largely community development is being practised through non-
government organisations (NGOs) also known as the third sector that includes non-
government organisations, not-for-profit, non-profit, voluntary organisations/
associations, community-based organisations, civil society that work autonomously
from governmental control or semi-autonomously. These various forms of
community-based organisation are the basis of organising communities, working
with communities to effect change processes.
To understand what community development offers, it is important to consider
its purpose and what it is that it tries to achieve. Community development fosters
active citizenship whereby individuals work together to improve human conditions
for the ‘well-being of their communities’ Kenny (2011a, p. 19). This role of being
active citizens can be performed in four ways. Firstly, it largely maintains existing
power relationships between the ‘giver’ and the welfare recipient under the guise
of ‘civil virtue’. The second type of active citizenship is ‘individualized self-help
or do it yourself ’ (Cornwell, 2008, as cited in Kenny, 2011a, p. 110). This ideology
is promoted in neo-liberal policies where citizens are obliged to aim for their self-
fulfilment. Thirdly, it can be in the form of ‘defensive opposition’, where citizens
may challenge a particular policy and resist change to an existing relationship or
assets; however, power relations are not challenged. The fourth type of active
citizenship is the idealistic version of ‘visionary active citizenship’. This form of
citizenship brings alternative ways of thinking and doing and changing the existing
power relationships in the community for the benefit of those who are oppressed
and marginalised. The concept of active citizenship is also aligned with developing
human agency as one of the goals of community development. Bhattacharyya
(2004, p. 13) cites Giddens (1984), who postulates human agency as being able to
‘act otherwise’; it is further explained as ‘to be able to intervene in the world, or to
refrain from such intervention, with the effect of influencing a specific process or
state of affairs’. Thus the aim of community development practice is to promote
human agency, that is, human freedom to choose actions that could sit anywhere on
the continuum from maintaining existing relationship, self-help, defensive opposition
and visionary act of citizenship. According to Bhattacharyya (2004), development
of human agency as a goal of community development also serves the purpose of
including the broad spectrum of community development that encompasses
‘economic, social, [cultural] and improvement of quality of life’.
8 Community Work : Theories, Experiences and Challenges

Principles and Strategies of Community Development

The practice of community development should be guided by its goal. As
discussed earlier, developing ‘human agency’ and ‘active citizenship’ is a key goal
of community development practice; an ideology of equality, social justice and
rights seems to be closely linked to this goal. Key principles and strategies that a
worker might adopt to guide community development practice are delineated here
with evidences from studies in related fields.
Human beings can achieve their full potential in the society only if they have
equal opportunities to grow and prosper and their basic rights are secured; that
means that society takes responsibility for meeting people’s rights and ensuring
that distribution of resources is just.
The seminal work of Paulo Freire (1972) regards human beings as change agents
who in active pursuit of their goal should be able to identify needs, and make decisions
on how to meet those needs. This positions them in a state of power where they
hold decision making power. He further postulates that human beings can only be
liberated from oppression if they have critical awareness of their current situation,
which he termed as ‘conscientization’. It is this consciousness raising that empowers
people to make decisions that affect their life. Doing community development work
that aims to develop human agency to transform their existing conditions of
powerlessness and act as a collective to change human conditions begins with
personal empowerment.
To bring about change in the society, empowering members of the community is
thus important and to empower their participation and voice in the decision making
process is the cornerstone of the community development process. However, it
has been noticed that not all members of the society have equal opportunity to
participate. One such example could be the voice of children in their neighbourhood
community development. Goodwin and Young’s (2013) work with children and young
people in a ‘school engagement project’ found that children’s perspectives reflected
not only their own age-related issues, but also shared adult perspectives influenced
by their developmental stage and experiences. Their study concluded that it was
important to include the voices of children in neighbourhood development programs
as they are important stakeholders in the developmental processes. Similar
examples of the value of empowering processes can be drawn from Quinn and
Knifton’s (2012, p. 593) paper on a ‘Positive Mental Attitude’ project, which showed
that mental health service users gained mastery over their lives through participation
in arts, drama and performances. Stephens, Baird, & Tsey (2013) argue that
empowerment even needs to be embedded in preparing and training community
development practitioners. This can be achieved by providing opportunities for
critical reflection on practice and experience which will bring attitudinal change in
Understanding Community and Community Development 9

individuals and transform their lives. It is this approach that prepares empowered
people to empower others in the community.
The concept of human agency, where people have decision making power to
decide what they need and how these needs should be met, is further linked to
values that inspire people to act for their own self-development and for a group as
a whole. Values around human dignity and worth are considered to be driving the
liberation movement for people who have suffered disadvantage and marginalisation
(Rahman, 2008). One of the examples given by Rahman (2008) is the liberation
movement of indigenous tribes who were bonded labourers in Maharashtra, India
and who organised themselves and fought for land rights, minimum wages and later
focused on cultural and political rights.
Community development aims to bring about change in the oppressive powerful
structures and institutions in the society. These structures could be class, race,
gender and institutions such as capitalism, patriarchy, racism, ageism and sexuality.
Community development workers are involved in social policy action to bring about
change in existing inequality in policies that disadvantage and marginalise certain
sections of the society. This requires collective action and involvement in conflict
with unjust policies and practices. There are many examples of people’s movements
and resistance to politically and economically driven modern development efforts
that have resulted in economic, social and environmental disasters for the society.
One such example is the formation of ‘Narmada Bachao Andolan’ (Save Narmada
Movement) in 1985 to resist the development that had devastating consequences
for the people who inhabited Narmada Valley and would have been affected by the
construction of a number of dams on the Narmada River in Central India. The
Narmada Valley Development Project (NVDP) plans to build several mega, medium
and small size dams. One of the largest dams, Sardar Sarover Project (SSP), is
recognised as causing large-scale human displacement. Official figures project
human displacement to be only 40,000 and rehabilitation plans have been put in
place (Ahmad, 1999, as cited in Routledge, 2013); however, figures obtained from
Save Narmada Movement (McCully, 1996; Ram, 1993; Sangvai, 2000; all cited in
Routledge, 2003) project these figures to be much higher, that is, nearly ‘85,000
people will be displacement by the SSP and with completion of dam 400,000 people
will be displaced and another 600,000 will have adverse livelihood conditions’.
The Save Narmada Movement is a people’s movement where both insiders
Adivasis (Indigenous) people who belong to the Narmada Valley and outsiders
who are activists – social workers such as Medha Patkar, students and like-minded
people who oppose such development efforts – have come together to resist such
developmental change. The movement has now a history of nearly two and a half
decades where it has progressed through their effort of resistance by mobilising
10 Community Work : Theories, Experiences and Challenges

people, raising people’s awareness, conscientisation, reconstruction and use of

Gandhian non-violent techniques such as ‘Satyagraha’, fasting and Yatras (marches),
strikes, hunger strikes and self-sacrifice. Such mass efforts of resistance and
reconstruction could not be possible without people’s participation, involvement
and commitment.
A number of global issues that are affecting humanity in the 21 st century include
poverty, water scarcity, food insecurity, climate change and resultant disasters.
Pawar (2013, p. 249) discusses the main issues that are related to water security,
such as ‘water availability in the eco-system’, ‘water distribution’, ‘fair distribution
of water resources, ‘use and abuse of water’, ‘ownership and control’ and
governance that warrants appropriate social action if we need to address such
wide-ranging issues associated with water scarcity. Social workers who are intending
to bring change in existing policy are likely to benefit from community development
principles and processes to organise the community and raise awareness in the
community. This will require people’s participation and engagement at all levels.
Any social action requires mobilisation of people who are committed to the cause
and willing to take collective action. This might include strategies such as having
consultations, negotiations with people who are in governance and control resources.
‘[Social workers] can mobilize communities to participate in the redistribution
decision making process, stop vested interests, seek accountability for external
costs and to ensure adequate rehabilitation policies and programs’ (Pawar, 2013,
p. 257). Social action strategies such as lobbying, public demonstrations, protests,
signature campaigns, media talks, street plays and peaceful disobedience could
be used in exposing those who have vested interest in exploiting ecological resources
and using them for their own benefit.
Another important principle of community development is sustainability. An
example of how social workers can work towards sustainable development is
presented by Rambaree (2013). He presents the case of Mauritius, where local
people are denied their rights to access the beach by economic power-holders who
represent the minority Franco-Mauritians (2%), who possess 75% of beachfront
houses and control more than 80% of land ownership, have strong links with
multinational companies and exploit the tourism industry for their own benefit, thus
depriving local people of economic gains. Another group holding power in this
society is the Mauritian Indian community who came to Mauritius as indentured
labour several decades back and now control political power. This group is leasing
out ‘state land’ to its own community for a hundred-year period. Oppressive
measures have been used to silence the voice of local people by political groups in
the past. Local people are of the opinion that their involvement and participation in
the sustainable initiative are important for them to share the benefits of economic
Understanding Community and Community Development 11

development. It should also be an integrated approach where development is

promoted in all spheres, such as socio-cultural, economic and political. Rambaree
(2013) suggest that social workers who work as community development workers
have requisite knowledge and skills to mobilise people and engage them in sustainable
development initiatives. He argues that social workers can challenge existing
structures of inequality by mobilising people and helping them create alternative
structures for overall community well-being. They can embrace political activism
to guide the direction of change and work towards collective empowerment by
engaging with international support groups to boost the agenda of change. Their
knowledge and skills in analysing existing power dynamics in the society and ability
to work at the grassroots level guided by values of social justice enables them to
effect change that is just and sustainable.
Over the last few decades, social workers have encouragingly been involved in
environmental issues and building awareness at the community level about the harmful
impacts of unsustainable, unequal and unjust practices in the ecological sphere. A
well-known environmental movement of the poor known as ‘Chipko (Embrace)
movement’ (1973-1981) is a good example of forest protection by the people of
the hill region of northern India. This movement led to ‘prohibition of commercial
deforestation’ (ref ?). Although this prohibition also led to non-availability of forest
goods for the local residents for home and livelihood purposes, the ripple effect of
this movement also led to the preparation of a cadre of social activists who became
active citizens; they formed associations and organisations to fight against unjust
policies and mentored other youth and workers who were conscious of environmental
degradation and its impact on humanity (Ishizaka, 2013).
Another issue that has significance in both the economic and environmental realm
relates to global food insecurity that has raised questions about unsustainable food
growing systems, marginalisation of small farmers, rising hunger and non-availability
of fresh produce in urban localities, along with heavy reliance on convenience stores
that are selling processed food. Macias (2008, as cited in Besthorn, 2013, p. 193)
affirms that community development initiatives at the grassroots level and
involvement of professional organisations have been increasing in past few decades.
Besthorn (2013, p. 198) says that social workers are trained in conducting needs
assessment of communities, identifying strengths and community resources. These
skills can be vital in identifying specific needs of urban local neighbourhoods whose
needs for ethnic fresh food and preferences for the availability of cooked meals
close to where they reside is important in sustaining vertical farming in urban
localities. They are also trained to effectively work with culturally diverse
communities, which is important for relating to people who may belong to different
age, gender and ethnicity groups. Social workers can also use their advocacy skills
12 Community Work : Theories, Experiences and Challenges

and organising skills that may be needed to develop relationships and negotiate
change with ‘city planners’, ‘law makers’ and ‘municipal governments’ (Besthorn,
p. 198).

Being a Generalist Practitioner

The diversity in nature of community, its culture and needs point towards the
need for generalist community development practice that embraces the principle
of holism and rejects a linear solution to problems (Ife, 2013). This is also aligned
to the post-structuralist perspective that values the subjective experiences of
people and communities and emphasises the changing nature of knowledge that is
constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed, thus highlighting a pluralistic
perspective. This form of conceptualisation implies that there are various
theoretical perspectives and viewpoints about how communities function and what
could be achieved in community development practice.
Community development workers thus need to embrace wide-ranging
perspectives to work with communities. They need to understand issues from micro
to macro level. It could be as small as locality/neighbourhood development to
connecting with interest communities across the borders or bringing changes in
existing institutions, policies and structures. A work of this nature warrants a
generalist practice approach where they are open to learn and be educated by the
community itself. It does not require a specialist approach where power dynamics
are inherent in a specialised knowledge base. However, it does not deny access to
specialists if need be, but that should be only a last resort (Ife, 2013).
The work carried out by social workers has to be in conformity with the principles
and values of community development.

Educating Social Workers in Community Development Practice

According to Ife (2013, p. 380), a ‘professional model’ for practice or having a
‘specific community work educational qualification’ is contrary to the ethos of
community development. This will set community workers apart as having
specialised knowledge that discounts people’s local knowledge. Rather he suggests
that community development workers should have a broad knowledge base that
helps them deal with the complexity and challenges of community work.
The question then arises as to what sort of knowledge should be imparted and
how it should be given. Purcell (2011, p. 267) suggests that instead of having a
narrow focus on some theoretical perspectives such as the critical perspectives of
Freire and Gramsci as the main or only critical theories, community workers will
benefit from having a broader knowledge base, that is, ‘theories of everyday life’.
Purcell (2011, p. 272) further argues that the community worker might explore a
Understanding Community and Community Development 13

knowledge base in everyday life that is space bound rather than in a time zone.
Students visiting a physical space observing, strolling without a preconceived notion
and knowledge base will explore the everyday experiences of ordinary people in
those spaces and understand how ‘ideology, social control and resistance’ is being
played out. This observation can be undertaken by even an ordinary person who
can be instrumental in generating knowledge/understanding that is specific to that
space and population and develop insights for practice.
Stephen, Baird and Tsey’s (2013) experience of imparting community
development education to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities points
out the need to develop collaborative education based on real-life experiences.
They propose that teachers need to be humble to learn from the students. A model
that is based on empowering the learners to empower others; linking personal
learning with practice experience through participatory approaches and enhancing
their bonding and bridging social networks with fellow students, community members
and alumni involved in various community projects could be beneficial in getting
support, resources and guidance.
Community development work is challenging, time-consuming and at times
frustrating as processes of change are slow and involve power conflicts amongst
the community members, local, state and national government. The breadth and
depth of community work is far-reaching and thus includes various stakeholders
with whom to negotiate and deal on a daily basis. Community development workers
thus need to have time to themselves for self-reflection and support to deal with
the stresses of daily life. Social work education thus needs to build resilient workers
who are equipped to face the challenges of this work.
Community development education and training thus needs to be based on the
principles of community development work. What applies to practice is very much
related to what should be the imparted knowledge and how it should be done. Thus
participatory approaches to learning that is embedded in everyday life experiences
and empowering workers to empower others are some useful strategies that an
educational institution could foster in program development and delivery.

Conclusion
This chapter has briefly described some of the processes and challenges facing
communities in contemporary society. It has then examined the concept of
community, its elements and function that has relevance for the community
development perspective. Community development as an approach has been
proposed to overcome some of the challenges posed by wider socio-economic,
political institutions and the resultant failure of national and international policies
to overcome these. How the community development perspective can be utilised
14 Community Work : Theories, Experiences and Challenges

to solve some of the crises of 21 st century such as the water crisis, food insecurity,
unsustainable of food-growing practices, access issues and rights of the poor and
marginalised has been examined. Lastly, a case for generalist practitioners and
education that is based on community development principles has been put forth.

References
Besthorn, F. H. (2013). Vertical farming: Social work and sustainable urban agriculture
in an age of global food crises. Australian Social Work, 66(2), 187-203.
Bhattacharyya, J. (2004). Theorizing community development. Community Development,
34(2), 5-34.
Chaskin, R. J. (2009). Building community capacity for children, youth, and families.
Children Australia, 34(1), 31-39.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin.
Goodwin, S., & Young, A. (2013). Ensuring children and young people have a voice in
neighbourhood community development. Australian Social Work, 66(3), 344-357.
Ife, J. (2013). Community development in an uncertain world: Vision, analysis and practice.
New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Ishizaka, S. (2013). Re-evaluating the Chipko (Forest Protection) movement in India.
The South Asianist, 2(1), 9-27. Retrieved from http://www.southasianist.ed.ac.uk/article/
view/144/82
Kenny, S. (2011a). Developing communities for the future (4 th ed.). South Melbourne,
Australia: Cengage Learning.
Kenny, S. (2011b). Towards unsettling community development. Community Development
Journal, 46(suppl 1), i7-i19.
Matarrita-Casc ante, D., & Brennan, M. A. (2011). Conc e ptualizing community
development in the twenty-first century. Community Development, 43(3), 293-305. doi:
10.1080/15575330.2011.593267
Mendes, P. (2004). Competing visions of community development in Australia: Social
inclusion vs social exclusion. In K. Brown, J. Boulet, P. Connors, L. Hawkins, S. Kenny,
L. Kerr, ... & R. Phillips (Eds.), Proceedings of Community Development Human Rights and
the Grassroots Conference, Deakin University, Geelong (pp. 130-140).
Pawar, M. (2013). Water insecurity: A case for social policy action by social workers.
Australian Social Work, 66(2), 248-260.
Purcell, R. (2012). Community development and everyday life. Community Development
Journal, 47(2), 266-281.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making Democracy Work. Civic traditions in modern Italy.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Quinn, N., & Knifton, L., (2012). Positive Mental Attitudes: How community
development principles have shaped a ten-year mental health inequalities programme
in Scotland. Community Development Journal. 47(4), 588–603.
Rahman, M. A. (2008). The case of the third world: People’s self development. In G.
Craig, K. Popple & M. Shaw (Eds.), Community development in theory and practice: An
international reader (pp. 232-241). Nottingham: Spokesman Books. Retrieved from http:/
/books.google.c om.au.e zlibproxy.unisa.e du.au/books?hl=e n&lr=&id=lL7
 Understanding Community and Community Development 15

TrdFlNTIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA232&dq=related:BHgZIOenL5oJ:scholar.google.com/
&ots=US a6vd60y&sig=XxFJRGmXV6funTuzR3P436uFtXM&redir_esc =
y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rambaree, K. (2013). Social work and sustainable development: Local voices from
Mauritius. Australian Social Work, 66(2), 261-276.
Routledge, P. (2003). Voices of the dammed: Discursive resistance amidst erasure in
the Narmada Valley, India. Political Geography, 22(3), 243-270. doi: http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0962-6298(02)00095-1
Ste phens, A., Baird, L., & Tsey, K. (2013). Australian Indigenous community
development: Making the link between community development training and
community development practice. Community Development (ahead-of-print), 1-15.
Taylor, J., Wilkinson, D., & Cheers, B. (2008). Working with communities in health and
human services. South Melbourne, Vic: Oxford University Press.
Tönnies, F. (1955). Community and association. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
United Nations Development Programme [UNDP] (2010). Human development report
overview. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/
HDR_2010_EN_Overview_reprint.pdf
United Nations (2013). The Millennium Development Goals Report 2013. New York: United
Nations. Retrieved from http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/MDG/
english/mdg-report-2013-english.pdf

Websites of action groups

Port Phillip Action Group (http://ppcg.org.au/about-us/)
Blackshirts group (https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/26650)
GetUp! (https://www.getup.org.au/)
Avaaz (http://www.avaaz.org/en/)
Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/)
Greenpeace (http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/)
Amnesty International (http://www.amnesty.org.au/)

View publication stats