Five - Whose ethics counts? Ethical issues in community development and action research with communities facing stigmatisation

Summary

Introduction

How much do participatory methods in community-based research and development empower communities vis-à-vis not only the facilitators but also other stakeholders, and how much do they disempower and lead to exploitation? Robert Chambers unequivocally presents a talisman: ‘At the core are principles and commitments to equity, respect, diversity and human rights. Who finds out, who learns, and who is empowered are core questions. The challenge and opportunity is for participatory methodologies to provide entry points for confronting and changing relationships and power’ (Chambers, 2012: 168). Chambers has listed 40 ‘who?’ and ‘whose?’ questions, the responses to which would define the ethics of participatory research and development. Nevertheless, what is important, which is also what this chapter tries to argue, is that ethics itself is also under contestation and it is even important to ask the question: whose ethics counts?

The question gains far more relevance in the context of communities that face stigmatisation, such as sex workers, people living in areas classed as ‘deprived’, people of certain classes, castes or religions. Such communities often face a wider social structure that is intrinsically violent towards them. The stigma is externally inflicted on the community and most often also internally experienced and owned by the members of the community, because their behaviours are under the constant gaze of, and compared against, the so-called socially and commonly accepted norms. Despite violence, both physical and emotional, such community members do not resort to open confrontation but, rather, accept themselves as deviants in relation to wider societal norms. Sometimes they ‘willingly’ conform to the stereotypes with which they are associated, if they feel that this helps them to cope better or survive.

Set against this backdrop are community development practitioners, who also coexist in this very society with its baggage of stereotypes and notions of right and wrong. When they embark on a programme of facilitated mobilisation of such stigmatised communities, hoping to challenge these norms and attempting a reversal of the discrimination, they end up being faced with several contradictions and dilemmas about defying accepted ‘progressive’ norms of civil society.