Editorial

After forty successful years of publishing and supporting other related activities, the Community Development Journal remains at the forefront within the field of community development. Its coverage of material from the north and south as well as practice and theory ensures that the Journal continues to command a unique position among academic journals. The recent introduction of online advance access publishing and e-letters ensures the Journal reflects the best in publishing. This issue begins with an article by Glen Laverack, in which he introduces the concept of the ‘domains approach’ to community empowerment, which is illustrated by a case study from Kyrgyzstan. Extrapolating from the community development literature, Laverack identifies nine empowerment domains and argues that using these in combination can significantly improve our understanding of the empowerment process and how we devise concrete strategies and evaluate programme outcomes. Stephen Connelly is also concerned about empowerment and takes a critical look at the recent rise of state-sponsored non-governmental participation policies in the United Kingdom, with their heavy emphasis on partnerships and consensus working. Connelly does not deny the need to engage in such processes, but does not wish to simply provide a checklist approach to how to improve specific initiatives. Rather, he argues that practitioners need to bring a critical analysis to their engagement, drawing upon our wider understanding, for example, in relation to the state, power and the policy process. Such an approach would, he argues, generate a better understanding of why any specific initiative exists and how it is being organized in order to ensure that involvement is more strategic and is directed to specific ends. The article by Madine VanderPlaat and Gene Barrett evaluates Canada's Community Action Program for Children and the Canada Prenatal Nutrition Program, the two largest community-based children's health programmes, as vehicles for actively involving marginalized groups in the policy process. The article highlights some of the barriers to parent participation, and also the benefits that such participation brings. VanderPlaat and Barrett emphasize the importance of the informal sphere and recognizing that those spaces predominately occupied by women and focused on ‘women's work’ are critical in linking the private and public realms. In the United States, Community Development Corporations (CDCs) have been a feature of the revitalization landscape for over forty years, but grew substantially between 1985 and 1995, and have received support from across the political spectrum. Gibbs Knotts examines their effectiveness in relation to both social capital and physical re-development and, unlike much of the research to date, compares them with non-CDC neighbourhoods. Using Atlanta, Georgia, as his case study, he argues that whereas the former have done better in relation to physical development the evidence is less convincing in relation to social development. He argues that if progress is to be made in relation to social development, then a more complex developmental approach is required that takes into account a range of variables often overlooked within the CDC framework. Vaughn John writes a sympathetic yet critical response to Van Vlaenderen's (2004) article on ‘communities of practice’ and participatory research in relation to university–community research engagements that appeared in an earlier issue of the Journal. John argues that a misreading of Lave's theoretical work on communities of practice led to a failure to identify some critical structural and process issues in relation to the concept of community and the interrelationships between communities. John's article is not only a timely reminder of the need to be more conceptually specific and to constantly critique our analysis and practice; it is also an example of how articles can be used as the starting point of a critical dialogue between the Journal's readers. In a similar vein, Karen Dullea, writing from her experience as a non-Aboriginal practitioner working with indigenous Aboriginal women in Canada, demonstrates the importance of recognizing the ‘other’ in relation to those participating in research or community activities. She identifies as critical the processes of building trust, not imposing externally generated agendas, being sensitive to local needs and priorities and working to their pace within a suitably supportive and enabling environment. With only a slight shift of focus, Zenia Kotval, writing from her experience of community planning in the United States, considers the dilemmas of working from within a professional enabling role in a context of conflict and distrust toward public officials and non-community members. The article is based on a case study of community planning in a neighbourhood area with predominantly Polish and more recently Puerto Rican residents. Concerned that community planning theory has little to say about managing what she describes as cultural conflict, Kotval charts the challenges confronting the planner in their efforts to build trust and establish a dialogue. Kotval concludes that in order to more effectively meet the goals of creating a better living and working environment, there is an need for some immersion into the world of community members and the demonstration of a high level of empathy reflected in practice in order to begin to understand the social meanings of those they seek to engage and to secure a commitment to do so. In a period when effectiveness rather than sectoral identity – state, market non-governmental or community – appears to be more important for public service delivery organizations, Beaufort Longest's article considers the contribution to community development of large, primarily North American, health service organizations. He argues that by exploring the potential derived from their economic role there is an opportunity to engage in a community development role that goes much beyond what would be normally expected of them in relation to local service delivery. As well as the more pragmatic health-enhancing reasons as to why health organizations should seek to extend their engagements in the community, Longest argues that social responsibility makes economic sense. Drawing upon a range of examples, Longest identifies a continuum of five levels of engagement, the requirements of each, and suggests four steps that might enable organizations to move along the continuum, including putting their own house in order in relation to environmental degradation impact and market practices. The fifth in our series of Critical Texts is offered by Philip Mendes of Monash University, Victoria, Australia, a member of the CDJ International Advisory Board. Philip has chosen an article written some twenty-four years ago by Lois Bryson and Martin Mowbray in the Australian Journal of Social Issues. This has continued to provide a critical framework with which to evaluate and understand the use and abuse of ‘community’ by the state and a warning of the dangers of ignoring politics. In Field Notes Alexander Gorobets takes what he describes as an ‘eco-centric’ approach to community development.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.