Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

How can we tell when and whether a community is sufficiently 'developed'?

By Mark Randell - posted Tuesday, 30 September 2003


In this view, the people are the "basic units" of the system, and they aggregate into groups, both small and large. In any workable community there will be a characteristic size mix of these elements (groups), definable by certain mathematical distributions. Too many large groups can lead to rigidity, and too many small groups can lead to fragmentation; we need a moderate mix of the two. And here is our first pointer to a community development "rule of thumb": the community is not sufficiently developed if there is a "group size" imbalance.

The community development worker, besides improving the individual human capital of the community (that is, working with the people), needs to keep one eye on the overall composition of the community - and be prepared to amalgamate or split groups as necessary to keep the "organism" balanced and adaptive. A corollary to that rule might be that the "death" of some groups is not necessarily a bad thing, it may lead to a more balanced whole. The urge to keep all groups "alive" - and attendant panic by some community workers when groups start to fail - may (sometimes) be misplaced. As may the urge to "keep developing", where "developing" means starting more and more small groups …

Communities are self-organising, left to their own devices. When the community development team rides into town, the tendency is to "do something" in order to satisfy the shire, or the agency, or the residents. Yet "doing something" may be the wrong thing to do. There is an old tale about the difference between American and Japanese management styles: Faced with a crisis, the Americans "do something, anything" while the Japanese do nothing, just watch to see how the system responds.

Advertisement

This may often be the best approach to "community development" (but don't tell your boss) - when in doubt, do nothing. Let that group fall over, let that attempted grouping fail. Wait, and see how the (self-organising, adaptive) community responds.

If it rises over the ashes, it may very well be developed…

"Govern a country as you would cook a small fish" (Tao Te Ching). And don't overcook your community.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

Article edited by Jenny Ostini.
If you'd like to be a volunteer editor too, click here.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Mark Randell is the Principal of Human Sciences, a community development consultancy based in Fremantle, WA. He has worked in the commercial, government and academic sectors.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Mark Randell
Related Links
Human Sciences
Other articles by Mark Randell
Photo of Mark Randell
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy