Abstract
This paper is evaluating the two popular community development approaches; the Top-down and the Bottom-up with their divergent differences in application and the influence each has in developmental projects/ programmes. The authors then proposes a new model / approach “MIXED METHOD”. The works of John Cohan and Norman Uphoff, Robert Chambers as earlier advocates of participatory development comes to mind as they tried to deviate from the previous and most popular top –down approach. Considering the fact that there has been arguments on the choice of one against the other, this paper proposes the “mixed method” as the most appropriate approach, as a new approach to balance the dichotomy thereby filling the research gap in search of most appropriate community development method. This advocates the application of both methods as there is need for a mix of both top-down and bottom-up for effective community development. This view of mixed method is borrowed from the supportive and effective empirical evidence for the adoption of mixed methods research in recent time. The review of previous articles, books, conference proceedings, and other internet publications were utilized as the methodological approach hence, the study used secondary data. The paper concludes that there should be a systematic blending or mixing of both top-bottom and bottom-up so as to achieve a holistic and appreciable sustainable development that carries every one along. DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n4p266
Highlights
The top-down and bottom-up have been used to identify the system adopted in each community developmental projects / programme and researchers have favoured one method or the other depending on their school of thought
The final analysis of each is the evaluation of the project to know if the goal was achieved and the impact it had on the communities
A lot of work have been done on bottom – top, otherwise referred as people’s participation or democratic process in line with the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) with one main objective and that is to encourage local community and local players to express their views in defining the development course for their area in line with their own views, expectations, plans and their sociocultural life style
Summary
The top-down and bottom-up have been used to identify the system adopted in each community developmental projects / programme and researchers have favoured one method or the other depending on their school of thought. United Nations (1995) stressed that “community development can be tentatively defined as a process designed to create conditions of economic and social progress for the whole community with its active participation and the fullest possible reliance on the community’s initiative.” This definition has greater emphasis on participatory approach and the people’s initiatives in the projects and programmes that would help them to achieve better living, socially, economically and otherwise. Whether the “Arab Spring” has achieved its purported objectives or has led to positive changes and improvement or negative and destructive is outside the purview of this study rather the authors are using it to give analogy of the quest for active participation in governance and community development This political and social agitation is seen as protest against the dominant policies and imposition of policies on the people which is what the top-bottom is talking about and the violent resistance is geared to the request for a bottom-top approach. The fact still remains undoubted that some of the policies has positive impact in the society despite the fact that the communities were not actively involved in the designing and implementation of such policies
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
