This thesis aims to understand the experiences of community development practitioners who are located in the organisational context of bureaucracies. Over the last decade there has been a revitalised interest in community development as a means of addressing social issues within Australia. Local, state and federal governments, as well as large non-government organisations, have developed policies and programs aimed at building, strengthening, renewing and revitalising communities. At the same time, a set of ideologies have emerged that have given rise to a global neoliberal welfare regime, and that have shaped ways of thinking and behaving within bureaucracies. Whilst much has been written about these two broad trends and their impact upon Australia, what appears to be missing from these analyses is an understanding of the impact upon the actual practitioners operating at the intersection of these forces. This research addresses the gap in the literature between the academic discussion and the personal experience of undertaking community development in bureaucracies. This investigation adopts a qualitative approach. Twenty-two semi-structured interviews were conducted with community development practitioners from federal, state and local government and from large non-government organisations in Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). The interview transcripts were then analysed utilising a framework known as Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) which enabled the responses to be examined through multiple lenses: social, discursive and metaphoric. What this study reveals is that community development practitioners have a largely negative experience of bureaucracies: the work is difficult to do, it is not well understood, and it is not well supported. Whilst this is not particularly surprising, what IS of interest is the level of shock and frustration felt by practitioners, and their lack of preparedness for these experiences. Whilst community development workers have a very good understanding of the content of their practice, what appears to be missing is a critical analysis of their context and themselves as practitioners, and this invites a more negative experience of the work. Practitioners respond to these experiences by distinguishing between themselves as bureaucrats and what they name as their true and authentic selves. They articulate a difference between “working developmentally” from within bureaucracies and undertaking what they call “real” community development, which occurs “in community”. The acts of distinguishing an authentic self and authentic community development are both forms of resistance. However, I suggest that such constructions are largely unhelpful as they construct false binaries which render practitioners ineffective. The work of community development practitioners is compromised because the context in which they are operating is compromised. I also argue that community development students require greater preparation for the organisational context of bureaucracy, which includes understanding not only methodology, but also the objectives, arenas and structures for practice. Practitioners need a deeper understanding of relations of power within these contexts. This requires workers to be clear about their motivations, their commitment and their analysis. Finally I contend that what is required is the creation and sharing of metaphors that articulate a relational rather than individualistic and heroic form of agency. In this way community development theory and practice can shift away from a modernist narrative of development to a discussion of mutual transformation.

This thesis aims to understand the experiences of community development practitioners who are located in the organisational context of bureaucracies. Over the last decade there has been a revitalised interest in community development as a means of addressing social issues within Australia. Local, state and federal governments, as well as large non-government organisations, have developed policies and programs aimed at building, strengthening, renewing and revitalising communities. At the same time, a set of ideologies have emerged that have given rise to a global neoliberal welfare regime, and that have shaped ways of thinking and behaving within bureaucracies. Whilst much has been written about these two broad trends and their impact upon Australia, what appears to be missing from these analyses is an understanding of the impact upon the actual practitioners operating at the intersection of these forces. This research addresses the gap in the literature between the academic discussion and the personal experience of undertaking community development in bureaucracies. This investigation adopts a qualitative approach. Twenty-two semi-structured interviews were conducted with community development practitioners from federal, state and local government and from large non-government organisations in Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). The interview transcripts were then analysed utilising a framework known as Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) which enabled the responses to be examined through multiple lenses: social, discursive and metaphoric. What this study reveals is that community development practitioners have a largely negative experience of bureaucracies: the work is difficult to do, it is not well understood, and it is not well supported. Whilst this is not particularly surprising, what IS of interest is the level of shock and frustration felt by practitioners, and their lack of preparedness for these experiences. Whilst community development workers have a very good understanding of the content of their practice, what appears to be missing is a critical analysis of their context and themselves as practitioners, and this invites a more negative experience of the work. Practitioners respond to these experiences by distinguishing between themselves as bureaucrats and what they name as their true and authentic selves. They articulate a difference between “working developmentally” from within bureaucracies and undertaking what they call “real” community development, which occurs “in community”. The acts of distinguishing an authentic self and authentic community development are both forms of resistance. However, I suggest that such constructions are largely unhelpful as they construct false binaries which render practitioners ineffective. The work of community development practitioners is compromised because the context in which they are operating is compromised. I also argue that community development students require greater preparation for the organisational context of bureaucracy, which includes understanding not only methodology, but also the objectives, arenas and structures for practice. Practitioners need a deeper understanding of relations of power within these contexts. This requires workers to be clear about their motivations, their commitment and their analysis. Finally I contend that what is required is the creation and sharing of metaphors that articulate a relational rather than individualistic and heroic form of agency. In this way community development theory and practice can shift away from a modernist narrative of development to a discussion of mutual transformation.

Thesis (B. Arch.)--Roger Williams University, 2007. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references. Also available online via Digital Commons @ RWU.

Thesis (B. Arch.)--Roger Williams University, 2007. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references. Also available online via Digital Commons @ RWU.

Thesis (MPhil)--University of Stellenbosch, 2007. / Bibliography. Also available via the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.) --Murdoch University, 2004. / Thesis submitted to the Division of Arts. Includes bibliographical references (p.330-332).

Thesis (Phd. Systems Agriculture) -- University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury, 1997. / "PhD thesis, Systems Agriculture ; the School of Agriculture and Rural Development, University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury."--T.p.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Melbourne, Centre for Public Policy, 2006. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [350]-[354]).

Thesis (MBus) -- Auckland University of Technology, 2004. / Also held in print (111, xviii leaves, ill., 30 cm.) in Wellesley Theses Collection. (T 338.47910285 LAU)

Thesis (M.C.R.P.)--California Polytechnic State University, 2008. Thesis (M.S.)--California Polytechnic State University, 2008. / Title from PDF title page; viewed on January 8, 2009. Major professor: Michael R. Boswell, Ph.D. "Presented to the faculty of California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo." "In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Engineering/Master of City and Regional Planning." "December 2008." Includes bibliographical references (p. 132-135). Also available on microfiche.