You are on page 1of 12

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Public Admin. Dev. 19, 93±104 (1999)

IcitrapÐan experiential training exercise for examining


participatory approaches to project management
PHILIP DEARDEN,* MIKE CARTER, JIM DAVIS, ROBERT KOWALSKI
and MARY SURRIDGE
CRDT, University of Wolverhampton, Walsall, UK

SUMMARY

Icitrap is a ¯exible workshop-based training exercise that has been developed to examine and
evaluate participatory approaches in project management. This article outlines the background
and rationale for the commissioning of the Icitrap exercise and then describes the development
and testing methodology used. The experiential nature of the exercise is the key to the
ful®lment of its stated aim, which is to foster an understanding of participatory approaches
towards project management by drawing out common problems, principles and points for
action. Details of the ®nalized experiential training package, available in text-based and
electronic formats, are presented. Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The early project process is dominated by engineers and economists, and


preoccupations with infrastructure, budgets, schedules and quanti®cation.
The way professionals and organisations think and operate biases the
process against poor people. A new professionalism and a new paradigm
start with people rather than things, and adaptive processes rather than
with blueprints (Chambers, 1993).
We will encourage participatory approaches which take into account
the views and needs of the poor, and which tackle disparities between
women and men throughout society (Department for International
Development, 1997).

INTRODUCTION

Over the past decade the Department For International Development (DFID)
and other donor agencies have increased their commitment towards participatory
approaches in project management. Within DFID the Social Development Division
has recently been attempting to facilitate a move towards more participatory
approaches of project management through the publication of a Social Development
Handbook (ODA, 1993) and then a useful series of technical notes on stakeholder
analysis (ODA, 1995a,b,c).

*Correspondence to: P. Dearden, Centre for Rural Development and Training, University of Wolver-
hampton, Gorway Road, Walsall, WS1 3BD, UK. e-mail: crdt@wlv.ac.uk

CCC 0271±2075/99/010093±12$17.50
Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
94 P. Dearden et al.

Given that the stated purpose of DFID's aid is to enhance the economic and
social development and wellbeing of recipients, it is argued that both the e€ective-
ness and sustainability of DFID's projects depend on the commitment of interested
parties, i.e. stakeholders (ODA, 1995c). Without participation of key stakeholders
in project design and management, DFID has little hope of achieving these aid
objectives.
Within the natural resource sector a number of studies and reviews of participatory
management have recently been undertaken to facilitate lesson learning (eg Carter,
1996; Hobley, 1996; ODA, 1996; OFI, 1996). In addition, the topic of participatory
management was chosen as the key theme for the 1997 DFID Natural Resource
Advisers' Conference. A small team of DFID Advisers, while recognizing that there is
a strong internal knowledge base in relation to the theory of participation, believed
there was a need to strengthen the links between theory and practice. Consequently,
they commissioned the production of an experiential training exercise on the topic of
participation in time for this conference. In early 1997 a team of sta€ from the Centre
for Rural Development and Training (CRDT) of the University of Wolverhampton
was commissioned to develop, pre-test and then facilitate an experiential case study
and role-play exercise for the 100 participants at the 1997 DFID conference. This
activity, which came to be called the Icitrap exercise, has subsequently been further
developed and tested and is now a ¯exible training package published as a training
manual and a CD-ROM and is available on the Internet.
Icitrap is a training exercise designed to enable people to explore what they
understand by participation, its major advantages and disadvantages, the practical
problems of achieving any particular level of participation, the vexed issue of
exactly who should `participateÐand all these in a way that can then be trans-
lated into those peoples' speci®c contextsÐnot to provide a ®xed answer, but to
generate an appropriate response. The general objectives of the exercise for partici-
pants are to:

. participate in a small-group discussion about experiences, concerns and interests in


major management;
. identify problems and common principles which underpin good practice and
organizational action;
. engage in a case study and role-play exercise with enjoyment

The core case study and role-play exercise which make up Icitrap have been designed
to be ¯exible in their format and form the basis of a one- to ®ve-day workshop
depending upon the requirements of the clients. Whilst the exercise has been primarily
designed for development professionals, it can also be used for university students of
development studies, for `A' level students of geography and related subjects and for
development education classes in schools. The Icitrap training package can be
adapted for pre-service and in-service training, project team training, sta€ develop-
ment and team building. Training based on the exercise can cover the topics of
stakeholder analysis, social analysis, gender analysis, environmental impact assess-
ment, project cycle management and the use of project logical frameworks. In the
exercise, Noitap-Icitrap (or Icitrap as it is called locally) is a forest reserve in a
watershed area in a ®ctious African country (Noitap-Icitrap spelt backwards being
the key theme of the exercise).

Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Public Admin. Dev. 19, 93±104 (1999)
Participatory approaches to project management 95

WHY PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT?

The strong interest in participation now spans many ®elds of activity, from political
discourse through to theories of business management and team work (Dannemillar
and Jacobs, 1992). In rural development the interest is also strong, south and north
(Oakley, 1991; Burkley, 1993; Chambers, 1993; Nelson and Wright, 1995; Slocum
et al., 1995). In relation to rural development the need to follow a participatory
approach was strengthened following the Rio Earth Summit, where it was agreed to
be an integral and inalienable part of the sustainable development process (Toulmin,
1997).
The word participation ®rst appeared in a developmental context in the late 1950s.
Since then, participation and participatory methods of interaction have become an
essential dimension of development (Rahnema, 1992). In recent years a small number
of analytical studies have examined the role of `participation' in development
subjects. Examining the evidence, Pretty et al. (1995) concluded that participation has
been one of the critical components of success in irrigation, livestock, health, water,
sanitation and agriculture projects. They boldly state: `All the evidence points towards
long-term economic and environmental successes coming about when people's ideas
and knowledge are valued, and power is given to them to make decisions independ-
ently of external agencies'. The current emphasis on participatory processes, although
very welcome to some academics and development practitioners, nevertheless has
certain drawbacks as far as development project management is concerned. As
Toulmin (1997) notes, `participation has been described by some as a new dogma and
tyranny (Abbot and Guijt, 1997; Hartley and Hunter, 1997) to be applied in all
circumstances, regardless of whether it is appropriate'. The Icitrap exercise aims to
help confront such beliefs and assumptions about participation in a pragmatic
manner by assisting development professionals and others to understand the many
complex dimensions of participation.
Whilst in recent years many development practitioners have taken on board the
concept of participation, the substance of participatory management is still often ill
de®ned. Clari®cation is needed regarding `what it is people are participating in . . .
who is it that is participating' (Toulmin, 1997). People can participate by contributing
to di€erent stages and levels of decision making, such as designing policy, agreeing
rules and terms of access, enforcing regulations and distributing bene®ts (Hoggarth
and McGregor, 1997). Despite the `feel-good' factor often associated with the concept
of participation, it must be recognized that it is not a neutral concept, and involves a
set of political issues concerning who has decision-making power and who has access
to resources.
Participatory management has been de®ned as a `process whereby those with
legitimate interests in a project both in¯uence decisions which a€ect them and receive
a proportion of any bene®ts which might accrue' (ODA, 1996). This suggests a major
but not exclusive role for local populations is exercising such responsibilities and
receiving bene®ts. In practice it involves sharing tasks with other interest groups at
micro- and macro-levels, such as state technical services, district councils, various
government ministries as well as NGOs. As Toulmin (1997) notes, `In practice the
term participation has been used in a wide variety of contexts to span a broad range of
meaning (see Table 1 from Pimbert and Pretty, 1997, for a useful summary of the
main forms). At one end of the continuum it is used to mean: I tell you what to do and

Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Public Admin. Dev. 19, 93±104 (1999)
96 P. Dearden et al.

Table 1. A typology of participation


Passive participation People participate by being told what is going to happen or has
already happened. It is unilateral announcement by an
administration or project management without listening to people's
responses. The information being shared belongs only to external
professionals
Participation in People participate by answering questions posed by extractive
information giving researchers and project managers using questionnaire surveys or
similar approaches. People do not have the opportunity to in¯uence
proceedings, as the ®ndings of the research or project design are
neither shared or checked for accuracy
Participation by People participate by being consulted, and external agents listen to
consultation views. These external agents de®ne both problems and solutions,
and may modify these in the light of people's responses. Such a
consultative process does not concede any share in decision making,
and professionals are under no obligation to take on board people's
views
Participation for People participate by providing resources, for example, labour, in
material incentives return for food, cash or other material incentives. Much in situ
research and bio-prospecting fall into this category, as rural people
provide the ®elds but are not involved in the experimentation or the
process of learning. It is very common to see this called
participation, yet people have no stake in prolonging the
development activities when the incentives end
Functional People participate by forming groups to meet predetermined
participation objectives related to the project, which can involve the development
or promotion of externally initiated social organization. Such
involvement does not tend to be at the early stages of project cycles
or planning, but rather after decisions have been made elsewhere.
These institutions tend to be dependent on external initiators and
facilitators, but may become self-dependent
Interactive People participate in joint analysis, which leads to action plans and
participation the formulation of new local groups or strengthening of existing
ones. It tends to involve interdisciplinary methodologies that seek
multiple perspectives and make use of systematic and structured
learning processes. These groups take control over local decisions,
so people have a stake in maintaining structures and practices
Self-mobilization People participate by taking initiatives independent of external
institutions to change systems. Such self-initiated mobilization and
collective action may or may not challenge inequitable distributions
of wealth or power.
Modi®ed from Pimbert and Pretty (1997).

you participate. Elsewhere it implies a much greater exercise of power and autonomy'.
Participation itself will not bring about greater sustainability. However if, as many
donor agencies now believe, participation is about greater e€ectiveness and help
towards the sustainability of development e€orts and activities, then stakeholders
need to participate in the process of development. This implies that during the
formulation of development projects the question `Who is not participating?' must
also be asked. Without this intervention, e€orts at deliberate participation may com-
pound existing inequalities by giving those, for example, with higher status and/or

Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Public Admin. Dev. 19, 93±104 (1999)
Participatory approaches to project management 97

louder voices a platform for participating. To ensure that all key stakeholders part-
icipate in the development process requires skilled facilitation/intervention. However,
this can challenge the vested interests of existing power holders and perpetrate local
con¯icts (Holland and Blackburn, 1998). Welbourn (1998) believes that participatory
approaches skilfully managed by facilitators who emphasize e€ective communication
skills have the potential to transform such situations.
The development of the Icitrap exercise has given consideration to the many diverse
characteristics associated with examples of successful participatory management.
The complexity of these characteristics is exempli®ed by the factors which various
authors have considered necessary for participatory management to operate
e€ectively. Hoggarth and McGregor (1997), for example, outline 11 key principles,
while Farrington and Boyd (1997) provide a summary table of 10 points. Hartley and
Hunter (1997) lay out a detailed checklist covering 16 pages which those responsible
for participatory management of communal resources are advised to consider. The
recent DFID review of participatory forestry management highlights six pages of key
areas which need to be considered (Bird, 1997; DFID, 1997b). Many of these points
are conveniently summarized by Shepherd (OFI, 1996) (see Table 2).
In addition to considering the complexity of participation, the Icitrap exercise aims
to present a realistic, balanced and open-ended picture of the advantages and
disadvantages of participation. There is a real danger that many of the e€orts made
by development organizations to make their systems of project and programme
management more participatory simply become new (and often costly) forms of

Table 2. Physical, social and politico-economic conditions which a€ect levels of participatory
management of natural resources
Physical and technical . Size of resource (absolute and relative to population)
characteristics of the . Clarity of boundaries and excludability
resource system . Predictability of ¯ow of bene®ts from resource
. Nature of current human use in farming system bordering it
. Larger ecological context (agricultural frontier or accessible area
of intensive production)
Characteristics of the . History of collective action
group of users . Population characteristics (homogeniety±heterogeniety)
. Number of members: size of resource
. Extent of interaction and mutual obligation
. Presence of catalysing factors (leader, problem, opportunity, etc.)
. Demographics (growth, decline, in-migration)
. Clarity and durability of membership
. Users' dependence on and need for the resource bene®ts
Political governance, . Supportive or punitive external legal and political environment
regulations, etc. . Right to organize and be recognized (legal personality)
. Presence of and relationships with umpires such as donors,
NGOs, religious bodies, etc.
. Availability of con¯ict resolution mechanisms for dealing with
di€erences among locals and with outsiders
. National commitment to local devolution and development
. Presence, role and orientation of relevant government resource
agencies
. Security of tenure (legal or de facto)
Adapted from Shepherd in OFI (1996).

Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Public Admin. Dev. 19, 93±104 (1999)
98 P. Dearden et al.

management and control, which do not result in great bene®ts for project part-
icipants. As Craig and Porter (1997) have recently argued, `New forms of projects and
organisations and new types of professional are required'. In the meantime it is
important to carefully examine the ways in which current tools of participatory
development can be used to promote di€erent levels of participation.

ICITRAPÐKEY FEATURES

To focus on participation, the Icitrap role-play exercise explores issues of optimizing


stakeholder participation in a simulated project. To be realistic, the exercise re¯ects
the elasticity of de®nitions of participation used by projects. Consequently there is a
high degree of ambiguity regarding the appropriate levels and the practicality of
participation in the Icitrap exercise. In the role-play exercise, participants are forced
to explore these issues themselves in an experimental manner.
In using an imaginary development project as the frame for the Icitrap exercise, a
series of important issues concerning the practical nature and appropriate level of
participation are raised. As Craig and Porter (1997) note, `Many development
projects face the dicult task of creating a recognisable, bounded, integrated whole
out of some complex ingredients; local geography, community and economics, project
`inputs'' including people, and the procedures and mechanisms that we call develop-
ment practice'. The Icitrap role-play exercise attempts to bring many of these
ingredients to life by taking participants into a complex but realistic simulation of a
project development where con¯icts are inevitable. The exercise also places them in
particular roles where they exemplify typically valued practices, which are made
explicit in the project frame through the project concept note presented in the exercise.
Likewise, project inputs and outputs have to be located within a timeframe of the
project cycle. In the real world this cycle would be carefully segmented and sequenced,
with speci®c activities, practices, budgetary inputs, observations and reconceptuali-
zations scheduled into it. The Icitrap exercise, however, focuses on the early stages of
the project cycle and project design. The exercise also recognizes that certain people
typically are more easily able to have their interests included, to ®t themselves into the
project's timeframe, and, equally, that other stakeholders are likely to be excluded.
The Icitrap exercise is particularly designed to challenge development profes-
sionals. A number of such recognizable roles have therefore been incorporated into it.
In practical terms, development professionals continue to formulate aid projects as
desk or programme ocers and short-term consultants. As Craig and Porter (1997)
note, `It is these key development professionals who provide development organisa-
tions with mobile, authoritative means of overseeing the transfer of goals, objectives,
information, resources and practices that need to travel and be locally replicated for
development projects to be realised.' A mix of these professionals is represented in the
Icitrap case study and their key role can, as in real life, largely determine the outcomes
of the planned project. Development professionals have been seen as the `lynch-pins
of development', `builders of order' and `catalysts and inducers of economic and
social change' (Craig and Porter, 1997). The real challenge facing the Icitrap develop-
ment team has been to design and develop an exercise that helps participants taking
on these simulated roles to gain insights into shifting their practice from what
Chambers (1993) has called normal professionalism to new professionalism. These

Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Public Admin. Dev. 19, 93±104 (1999)
Participatory approaches to project management 99

Table 3. Contrasts between the blueprint and learning process approaches to development
Blueprint Learning process
Idea originates in Capital City Village
First steps Data collection and plan Awareness and action
Design Static, by experts Evolving, people involved
Supporting organization Existing or built top-down Built bottom-up with lateral
spread
Main resources Central funds and technicians Local people and their assets
Sta€ training and Classroom and didactic Field-based learning through
development action
Implementation Rapid, widespread Gradual, local at people's
pace
Management focus Spending budgets, Sustained improvement and
completing projects on time performance
Content of action Standardized Diverse
Communication Vertical: orders down, Lateral: mutual learning and
reports up sharing experience
Leadership Positional, changing Personal, sustained
Evaluation External, intermittent Internal, continuous
Error Buried Embraced
E€ects Dependency-creating Empowering
Associated with Normal professionalism New professionalism
After David Korten in Chambers (1993).

two contrasting professionalisms correspond closely with the blueprint and learning
process approaches to development respectively as outlined in Table 3.
While designing and developing the Icitrap exercise, the production team was faced
with a series of choices about the type of learning experiences to incorporate. In some
cases the learning requirement is simply to extend the knowledge and skills of those
participating. In other cases the task required is to challenge and attempt to change
the (sometimes hardened) attitudes of those participating. Given the heterogeneous
nature of the possible groups of development professionals and students involved, a
series of di€erent learning experiences have been incorporated into the exercise. These
include:

. a complex case study with considerable group work;


. a role-play exercise to seriously challenge deep-seated attitudes;
. a brainstorming session;
. a series of presentation sessions, including a summary feedback gallery where
group ¯ip-charts are presented.

The recognition that participants all have their own preferred learning styles and
consequently prefer to learn in di€erent ways (e.g. as classi®ed by Honey and
Mumford, 1992, and in italics in Figure 1) has been coupled with the use of Kolb's

Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Public Admin. Dev. 19, 93±104 (1999)
100 P. Dearden et al.

Figure 1. Kolb's learning cycle with adaptation to add Honey and Mumford's learning styles.

learning cycle (Kolb, 1984), which has been used for sequencing the various
experiential learning activities in the Icitrap exercise (see Figure 1).
The range of learning experiences can be used to provide a clear structure to each
stage of the learning cycle and take participants through an appropriate sequence of
learning activities. For example, during the case study the participants follow the
learning cycle from re¯ection (observation) through abstract conceptualization to
experimentation (testing concepts in new situations) by being encouraged to ®rstly
diagnose a complex situation and then understand the associated problems. When
they have done this, they are requested to create solutions and then predict outcomes.
This experimental learning sequence allows those with strong learning style prefer-
ences as `re¯ectors', `theorists' and `pragmatists' to be involved in activities congruent
with their learning styles. Participants who are `re¯ectors' are those who like to stand
back to ponder experiences and observe them from many di€erent perspectives.
Within the exercise they are the ones who are likely to collect data, both ®rst-hand and
from others. They have a preference to think about things thoroughly before coming
to any conclusions. Their philosophy is to be cautious. `Theorists' are those who tend
to adapt and integrate observations into complex but sound theories. Within the
exercise they are the ones who are likely to think through problems in a vertical, step-
by-step logical way. They like to analyse and synthesize. In contrast, participants who
are `pragmatists' are keen to try out ideas, theories and techniques to see if they work
in practice. Within the exercise they are the ones who positively search out new ideas
and take the ®rst possible opportunities to experiment with applications. They tend to
be impatient with open-ended discussions and respond to problems and opportunities
`as a challenge' (Honey and Mumford, 1992).
In the Icitrap exercise the role-play experience is used to add an extra element of
simulation of real life events. It also helps participants to empathize with the position
and feelings of others. Participants with a strong preference for an `activist' learning
style are the ones who like `to have a go' and often take lead roles during the role-play.
They tend to enjoy involving themselves fully and without bias in a new and concrete

Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Public Admin. Dev. 19, 93±104 (1999)
Participatory approaches to project management 101

Figure 2. The Icitrap role-play and structured debrie®ng sessions related to Kolb's experiential
learning cycle.

experience. They also tend to be open-minded and not sceptical. This makes them
enthusiastic about being thrown into the deep end with the challenging tasks they are
set. As it is dicult for those taking on roles in the role-play to be observant at the
same time, a number of observers are nominated to provide additional `evidence' for
subsequent discussion in the debrie®ng sessions. These important sessions allow
participants to move through a further sequence following the experiential learning
cycle (see Figure 2).
Kolb (1984) contents that we all prefer to enter the learning cycle at entry points
which correspond to our own preferred learning style. He also suggests that for
learning to be e€ective, learners must move around the learning cycle. The varied
Icitrap learning experiences allow this to happen and encourage theory and practice
to be linked by the important processes of re¯ection and planning.

ICITRAPÐDEVELOPMENT, TESTING AND ACCESSIBILITY

The Icitrap exercise was developed by a team of CRDT sta€ working closely with four
DFID Advisers. The exercise is based on a real African watershed area that includes a
forest reserve which has had 30 years of complex, multiple and often competing land-
uses with over four government ministries involved in its management. The area itself
has been subject to a series of short-term development projects which have had very
mixed levels of success. These features are all replicated in the Icitrap case study
materials. Likewise, the character pro®les in the role-play exercise are loosely based
upon real people known to the production team. Consequently, as a simulated
exercise, Icitrap is ®rmly based in reality. Many of the participants who have been
involved with testing the Icitrap exercise have found its complex reality to be thought-
provoking and consider this to be a valuable asset of the exercise.
The initial testing of the Icitrap exercise was conducted with an international group
of 30 MSc and short-course students. Re®nement was made as a result of this. The
second test was undertaken with a senior group of 20 development professionals from
the Natural Resources Institute (NRI). The majority of the evaluation feedback was

Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Public Admin. Dev. 19, 93±104 (1999)
102 P. Dearden et al.

Table 4. Key principles underlying e€ective participatory processes developed from the Icitrap
exercise conducted at the DFID Natural Resources Advisers' Conference (DFID, 1997b)
. Personalities and individual bias can dominate, thus shrouding a clear presentation of the
issues. Special interest groups may dominate and those with a previous alliance or
accustomed to large, formal meetings may be at an advantage
. Project preparation teams should be adequately prepared and have clear terms of reference
. Donor representatives should clearly present options/ideas for proposed initiatives
. Certain individuals may dominate the discussion. This issue is of particular importance for
the donor representatives, who should be sensitive to others' perceptions of power
. A lack of respect for others' views, particularly if they are opposing views, hinders progress
and exacerbates con¯ict
. An e€ective working relationship between donor representatives and the host ministry
( particularly the person acting as chair in any round-table discussion) is important
. In round-table discussions the role of the chairperson is critical. Ideally the individual
should have skills in facilitation and mediation and ensure that `quieter' voices are heard,
that seating arrangements, etc. facilitate equitable discussion, and ensure all participants
understand the purpose of the meeting and expected outcomes
. Stakeholder meetings should have clear objectives and agenda and end with a brief summary
of discussion points
. Jargon in stakeholder meetings can hamper discussion and exclude some stakeholders
. Participants in stakeholder meetings should represent key stakeholder groups. Mechanisms
for direct discussion with primary stakeholders should be explored at an early stage,
e.g. participatory methodologies, participation of primary stakeholders at the
`aspirations' stage
. Di€erentiation of stakeholders may be necessary to facilitate consensusÐincluding
stakeholders may lead to stagnation. Undertake an iterative stakeholder analysis and
consider establishment of a focus group to support project design, implementation and
monitoring.
. Mechanisms to address high levels of con¯ict between certain stakeholder groups should be
explored prior to round-table discussions
. Inter-sectoral liaison should be sought at an early stage
. Initiatives should seek to establish and build upon partnerships
. Key stakeholder groups should have a shared understanding of what is meant by the
term participation, and seek to agree appropriate levels of participation as determined by
the context
. Where possible, build upon `win±win' links
. A realistic timeframe for securing participation and building partnerships should be agreed
. In project preparation activities the donor should be explicit about the boundaries (i.e. form,
level, direction, scale of potential support)
. Transparency and openness are required between donors and recipients

positive. The third test was with the DFID Natural Resources Advisers' Conference
in July 1997. A team of facilitators was used to guide the four groups of DFID
Advisers through the case study and role-play exercise. Although the time allowed
was short, feedback was generally positive, with valuable re®nements being recom-
mended. The DFID Advisers were asked to consider the problems highlighted by the
Icitrap exercise and to identify the key principles underlying its participatory
processes. The latter was presented in Table 4 and illustrate the range of conclusions
that can come out of the Icitrap exercise. One of the most interesting and signi®cant
®ndings of the Icitrap development and testing process is that the majority of the
`guinea pigs' have been very ready to openly admit that they lack the skills necessary
to facilitate participation. This has strongly con®rmed for the production team the

Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Public Admin. Dev. 19, 93±104 (1999)
Participatory approaches to project management 103

practical value of the Icitrap package and the type of insight it can facilitate. With the
production team con®dent that the Icitrap exercise works with a wide variety of
groups it has now been made available in several forms. An Icitrap facilitator's
resource pack with background information, model session plans, a social and gender
analysis exercise, role-play instructions for the participants, overhead transparencies,
handouts and a pack of twenty 35 mm slides has been published. To facilitate as
wide an appeal and access to the material as possible, the pack has been published in a
number of formats. It is available on CD-ROM (to run the CD, access to a PC
running Windows 95 or 3.1 is required), archived on CRDT's web site library
(to access it, Adobe Acrobat Reader (Shareware) is required). Both include a digital
slide show to replace the 35 mm slide pack which is provided with the third format,
the `traditional' paper-based manual. The CD-ROM and Internet web site library is
fully word-searchable, requires little storage space, is economical to post/transport
and can be electronically mailed and stored on a single ¯oppy disk. The paper-based
pack is independent of the need for computer technology.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge the DFID team involved in the commission-
ing and development of the Icitrap exercise. Our thanks are due to Pippa Bird, Rural
Development Forestry Specialist, Jane Clark, Forestry Adviser, Alex Holland,
Assistant Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Adviser, and John Hudson, Forestry
Adviser, for their enthusiastic support throughout the development of the Icitrap
Training Package.

REFERENCES

Abbot, J. and Guijt, I. (1997). `Changing views on change. A working paper on participatory
monitoring of the environment', Draft Report, IIED, London.
Bird, P. (1997). `Sharing forest management: mystifying or myth-defying', Report of the
Natural Resources Advisers' Conference, Sparsholt, Winchester, July, pp. 78±83.
Burkley, S. (1993). People First: a Guide to Self Reliant, Participatory Rural Development,
Zed Books, London.
Carter, J. (1996). `Recent approaches to participatory forest resource assessment', Rural
Development Forestry Study Guide 2, Rural Development Forestry Network, ODI, London.
Chambers, R. (1993). Challenging the Professionals: Frontiers for Rural Development,
Intermediate Technology Publications, London.
Craig, D. and Porter, D. (1997). `Framing participation: development projects, professionals
and organisations', Development in Practice, 7(3), 229±236.
Dannemillar, K. D. and Jacobs, R. W. (1992). `Changing the way organisations change:
a revolution of common sense', Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 28(4), 480±498.
Department for International Development (DFID, UK) (1997a). Eliminating World Poverty:
A Challenge for the 21st Century. Cm 3789. The Stationery Oce, London.
Department for International Development (DFID, UK) (1997b). Report of the Natural
Resources Advisors' Conference, Sparsholt, Winchester, July.
Farrington, J. and Boyd, C. (1997). `Scaling up the participatory management of peri-village
communal resources', Report of the Natural Resources Advisers' Conference, Sparsholt,
Winchester, July, pp. 54±70.

Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Public Admin. Dev. 19, 93±104 (1999)
104 P. Dearden et al.

Hartley, D. and Hunter, N. (1997). `Community wildlife management; turning theory into
practice', Report of the Natural Resources Advisers' Conference, Sparshold, Winchester, July,
pp. 29±53.
Hobley, M. (1996). `Participatory forestry: the process of change in India and Nepal'', in Rural
Development Forestry Study Guide 3, Rural Development Forestry Network, ODI, London.
Hoggarth, D. and McGregor, A. (1997). `Governance and biology: the possibilities of partici-
patory management in inland ®sheries in developing countries'. Report of the Natural
Resources Advisers' Conference, Sparsholt, Winchester, July, pp. 5±28.
Holland, J. and Blackburn, J. (1998). Whose Voice: Participatory Research and Policy Change,
Intermediate Technology Publications, London.
Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1992). The Manual of Learning Styles, Honey, P., Maidenhead.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cli€s, NJ.
Nelson, N. and Wright, S. (eds) (1995). Power and Participatory Development: Theory and
Practice, Intermediate Technology Publications, London.
Oakley, P. (1991). Projects with People: the Practice of Participation in Rural Development,
ILO, Geneva.
ODA (1993). Social Development HandbookÐa Guide to Social Issues in ODA Projects and
Programmes, ODA, London.
ODA (1995a). `Note on enhancing stakeholder participation in aid activities', ODA Social
Development Department, April.
ODA (1995b). `Guidance note on indicators for measuring and assessing primary stakeholder
participation, ODA Social Development Department, July.
ODA (1995c). `Guidance note on how to do a stakeholder analysis of aid projects and
programmes, ODA Social Development Department, July.
ODA (1996). ODA's Review of Participatory Forest Management. Synthesis of Findings, ODA,
London.
OFI (1996). Making Forest Policy Work 1996, Conference of the proceedings of the
Oxford Forestry Institute Summer Course Programme, Edited by Kate Harris, Oxford
Forestry Institute.
Pimbert, M. and Pretty, J. (1997). `Diversity and sustainability in community based con-
servation', paper presented at the UNESCO±IIPA Regional Workshop on Community-
based Conservation, February.
Pretty, J., Guijt, I., Thompson, J. and Scoones, I. (1995). Participatory Learning and Action,
IIED Participatory Methodology Series, IIED, London.
Rahnema, M. (1992). `Participation', in Sachs, W. (ed.), The Development DictionaryÐa Guide
to Knowledge as Power, Zed Books, London, pp. 116±132.
Slocum, R., Wichhart, L., Rocheleau, D. and Thomas-Slayter, B. (1995). Power, Process
and Participation: Tools for change, Intermediate Technology Publications, London.
Toulmin, C. (1997). `Participatory management of communal resources', Report of the Natural
Resources Advisers' Conference, Sparsholt, Winchester, July, pp. 83±97.
Welbourn, A. (1998). `PRA, gender and con¯ict resolution: some problems and possibilities',
paper presented at PRA and Gender Workshop, December.

Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Public Admin. Dev. 19, 93±104 (1999)

You might also like