Aspects and dimensions of community participation in Theatre for Development: The case of the University of Zimbabwe’s Manfred Hudson Hall Sanitation Project (2004)

Abstract

This article attempts to critique and analyse the possibilities and complexities of the manifestations of aspects and dimensions of popular participation in Theatre for Development with particular reference to the University of Zimbabwe’s Manfred Hudson Hall Sanitation Project (2004). It examines the extent to which Arnstein’s classification of levels of participation can be adopted in Theatre for Development projects. It emerges that the adoption of critical and systematic approaches in the analysis of the function of participation in Theatre for Development can be fruitful, seeing that the danger of celebrating manipulative and problematic participation is real. Major emphasis is also placed on the constraints, limitations and potential risks related to various aspects of community participation. The authors contend that this is only achievable within the context of a critical and robust engagement with dynamic and multi-dimensional manifestations of community participation in given Theatre for Development projects.

Researching on sanitation behaviour and practices in low- income settlements: the need for sensitivity, skill, and creativity

“…The use of drama/skits in data collection, referred to as Theatre for Development (TfD), Role play, Participatory theatre, Theatre for education or Popular Theatre; and has been used to investigate delicate health and social matters (Cox et al 2009) such as sexual practices (Mbachaga 2010), Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) (Ugwu and Ashaver 2014), and sexual violence (Christensen, 2014). In sanitation research, theatre has been used mainly to raise awareness and achieve community participation on sanitation issues (Mushangwe andChivandikwa 2014, Trivedi andPatel 2016). The benefits of using theatre also experienced in this research are that they facilitate and promote dialogue, raise awareness, motivate community members to think of appropriate solutions, and stimulate social and behaviour change (Mbachaga 2010, Sloman 2011.…”