Community Development

ISSN: 1557-5330 (Print) 1944-7485 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcod20

Community development approaches and

methods: Implications for community
development practice and research

Maria Ana T. Quimbo, John Erinorio M. Perez & Francisca O. Tan

To cite this article: Maria Ana T. Quimbo, John Erinorio M. Perez & Francisca O. Tan
(2018) Community development approaches and methods: Implications for community
development practice and research, Community Development, 49:5, 589-603, DOI:
10.1080/15575330.2018.1546199

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2018.1546199

Published online: 02 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 12

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcod20
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
2018, VOL. 49, NO. 5, 589–603
https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2018.1546199

Community development approaches and methods:

Implications for community development practice and
research
Maria Ana T. Quimbo, John Erinorio M. Perez, and Francisca O. Tan
Institute for Governance and Rural Development, College of Public Affairs and Development, University of
the Philippines Los Banos College, Laguna, Philippines

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study highlights an analysis of the evolution and development Received 18 February 2017
of various community development approaches and methods. This Accepted 6 November 2018
includes a contextual review and qualitative meta-analysis of KEYWORDS
empirical studies dealing with approaches and methods in commu- Community-based
nity development spanning five decades of Philippine research development; community
studies and cases. A total of 217 studies in community development development approaches;
conducted by students in Philippine universities were reviewed for community development
this study. Overall, our review documents an increase in the number methods; community
of community development research and studies in the Philippines. education; community
It is noteworthy that through the five decades of Philippine com- organizing
munity development experience, there was a steady and persistent
use of community-based and participatory approaches to develop-
ment work. Community education and community organizing
remained the popular strategies for successful development inter-
vention. The study recommends an integrated model of community
development practice in the Philippines useful for both researchers
and practitioners.

Introduction
The Philippine experience of community development can be traced back to 1958 when
the Philippine Government launched a nationwide program under the Philippine
Assistance on Community Development or PACD (Samonte, 1982). The program was
an approach that focused on rural development revolving around a four-pronged goal
of promoting livelihood, education, public health, and self-government for the rural
populace. The PACD had some degree of success but most of its initial accomplishments
were not sustained despite high aspirations and great expectations from the stake-
holders, such as farmers, rural women, and out-of-school youths.
After the PACD was established on 5 January 1956, the first Philippine Community
Development Plan was launched (Luna, 1999a). The Plan emphasized the role of local
government units, strengthening democratic processes at the local level through the
use of local leadership in various community development activities. While the idea of

CONTACT Maria Ana T. Quimbo mtquimbo@up.edu.ph Institute for Governance and Rural Development,
College of Public Affairs and Development, University of the Philippines Los Banos College, Laguna 4031, Philippines
© 2018 Community Development Society
590 M. A. T. QUIMBO ET AL.

local people empowerment and participation started in the 1960s, it was only in the late
1980s that community-led and community-based approaches to development activities
were actually adopted and implemented in the field (State Extension Leaders Network
(SELN), 2006).
Indeed, community development is a continuously evolving system of theory and
practice as seen from early experiences of top-down institutional approaches to parti-
cipatory then to community-based and community-led courses of action. Each of these
approaches and methods, however, had been found to be appropriate and relevant in
its time. Moreover, they were not seen as independent entities but were complementary
of each other, with each one building on the strengths of one another. Hence, the
success of any community development activity is not a matter of choosing the best
approach or method, but rather finding the appropriate combination of approaches or
methods to achieve a particular purpose.
Phillips and Pittman (2014) provide support to this progress in community develop-
ment by tracing its evolution from social movements as early as the 1840s to social
change and collective action in the 1950s and 1960s. They added that subsequent
literature addresses a wide spectrum of muldimensionality of community development
covering its physical, environmental, social, and economic aspects.
An earlier concept of integrated development framework in the Philippines supports
the idea that development is not merely equated with economic development but
implies as well an increased capability to achieve economic, political, social, and tech-
nical goals (Samonte, 1982). More recent studies look at community development
practice through the lens of three interrelated concepts of community education,
community organizing, and community resource management (Luna, Ferrer, Tan, &
Bawagan, 2004). Both perspectives are based on the multi-functionality and interdisci-
plinary notions of community development as a field of study, which guide the design of
most community-based current community development practice.

Review of literature
Community development
In the Philippines, rural (community) development got momentum during the election
campaign of President Ramon Magsaysay in 1953. Under his administration, the PACD
was created in 1954 and came into formal existence in 1956. An early study on rural
development efforts reveals that a major factor in the Philippine government’s interest
in community development in the early 1950s was the fact that more than 75% of the
Filipinos lived in barrios or rural communities (Valsan, n.d.). Hence, the main objective of
PACD is “to establish a system of communities or bodies politic capable of solving an
increasing number of their own problems through the initiative of the community and
the active participation of the people themselves” (Valsan, n.d.). These objectives are to
be attained through (1) education, training, and information programs; (2) community
projects; (3) comprehensive planning; and (4) research evaluation.
In the 1970s, a new perspective on community development emerged with a focus
on community organizing as an approach, anchored on the conflict perspective to
induce social change for development and to challenge the Marcos dictatorship (Luna,
 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 591

1999b). The declaration of the Martial Law in 1972 under the Marcos regime was
described as the “dark chapter in Philippine history” that placed the entire power of
the government under his rule. Organized communities, spearheaded largely by non-
government organizations, became the venue for alternative health and educational
programs and new methods of production and distribution of goods and services. The
end of the Marcos regime in 1986 marked the start of more community-led and
community-based approaches to development activities adopted and implemented in
the field of community development work and practice in the Philippines (State
Extension Leaders Network (SELN), 2006).
A study by Medallon (2001) revealed that through these community-based
approaches, local people became aware of their problems and circumstances, and
this awareness served to guide them in solving their problems. One approach they
adopted was to organize themselves into cooperatives. They realized that through the
support from the national and local government units, they had complete access to
resources for their income and livelihood through these cooperatives. The cooperative
members could share the costs and benefits incurred from their cooperative in a more
equitable way.
For the purpose of this study, community development is defined as a practice and
an academic discipline. Specifically, community development as a practice is defined
as a process of transforming marginalized communities so that the people in those
communities may collectively act on their situations and on the external forces that
undermine and perpetuate their oppressive conditions (Luna, et al., 2004). Luna, et al.,
(2004) further explained that as an academic discipline, community development is
a multidisciplinary and applied social science anchored on basic social sciences for the
analysis of the structure, dynamics, and processes of communities as well as for
planning intervention in communities.
This definition is complemented by Kenny (2007) who refers to community develop-
ment as the processes, tasks, and visions for empowering communities to take collective
responsibility for their own development. Similarly, Phillips and Pittman (2014) frame
community development both as an outcome and a process whereby communities act
collectively for self-improvement. Cook (1994) further states that community develop-
ment theory ordinarily treats communities as systems, suggesting that the growth of an
individual or community is a combination of personal strengths, initiative, and natural
helping systems to bring about change (Perkins & Zimmerman, 1995).

Community development approaches

A community development approach refers to how and for whom development
programs are planned, implemented, and managed (Luna, 1999a). For the purpose
of this study, community development approaches include participatory approach,
asset-based approach, community-based approach, area-based approach, community
economic development, welfare approach, spiritual-psychosocial approach, and rights-
based approach.
The participatory approach, which serves as the anchor of all community develop-
ment approaches, takes place when people work together and communities cooperate
and participate in the attainment of a common goal, when people are empowered with
592 M. A. T. QUIMBO ET AL.

knowledge and the means to decide their own priorities, improve their capacities,
address their own problems and needs, and achieve their own fulfillment and meaning.
According to Ferrer (2009), a participatory approach affirms long tested practices in
community endeavors and reinforces all traditions of collectivity and cooperation, as
reflected in Philippine culture.
The community-based approach is used when a development program/project is
conducted at the stakeholders’ locality or domicile. The program or project is orche-
strated within the targeted local community, and programs and action plans including
its administration are done ad intra or inside. On the other hand, an area-based
approach has wider scope of jurisdiction. It can cover a district and is specifically focused
on a common thrust like forestry or agriculture.
A welfare approach addresses immediate community, individual, group, or margin-
alized people’s needs. Vulnerable groups that this approach may target could be the
urban poor, the blind, the abandoned or street children, and indigenous peoples.
A spiritual-psychosocial approach is permeated with a tinge of religiosity toward value
formation, personal development, and social commitment. A life cycle and rights based
approach promotes the basic and primary rights of human individuals, each according
to their life stages. Life cycle can be subdivided into (1) early child care development
program (0–6); (2) children and youth program (7–17); (3) adult development program
(18–60); (4) women’s health and safe motherhood; and (5) elderly or senior citizens
program (61+). Each cycle ensures programmatic response implemented in each age or
group category as promotion of human potential.
Involving people and communities in managing their own affairs has proven to be
considerably successful in maximizing the socioeconomic growth of rural people
(Fernandez, 2001). Deshler and Sock (1985) theorized that participation in the context
of development is manifested when people are enlightened and active and have
sustained involvement in different project cycle stages. Using the framework of the
International Fund for Agricultural Development [IFAD] (2001), participation is not only
a human right but also a political act and an investment to ensure a sense of ownership
and motivation that are necessary conditions for sustainability.
Kenny (2007) stated that community development practitioners do not claim to solve the
world’s problems. There is no such thing as “one-and-for-all agenda for social change,” since
one cannot devise a single solution to address community problems. The reason behind this
is that community development is conceptualized as a dynamic and challenging endeavor.
Every situation is unique, requiring varied approaches to community development. These
approaches may be simple, or complex, or even contradictory.

Community development methods

A community development method includes the specific technique or strategy used in
implementing a certain intervention for the community (Luna, 1999a). For this study,
community development methods include community research, community education,
community organizing, community mobilization and advocacy, and community
planning.
Community research entails gathering all information and deeper investigation into
community issues. It is also called social investigation during community organizing,
 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 593

training needs analysis during community training and education, and situational analysis
for community planning. A more common method is community organizing that includes
several phases. First there is a social preparation phase that allows an organizer to establish
rapport and get to know the community and people better and likewise for the community
to get to know the organizer. Next comes setting up the community organization that pays
attention to details like formulating an organization’s basis for unity, determining appro-
priate organizational structure, conducting general assembly meetings, and electing of
officers and implementation plan. A later phases includes consolidation and expansion
efforts aimed at strengthening the organization as it pursues its goals, continuous action-
reflection-action, education and training to enhance knowledge, skills, and attitudes of
officers and members, and implementation of collective efforts.
Community education as a method ensures that people become more aware and
therefore more critical of their situation so that they realize that they can play a role in
changing the situation to make it more just and responsive to the needs of the grass-
roots sector. Bawagan and Luna (2009) explained that the whole community education
process involves participants and trainers. Results of a study on community education
(Iqbal, Medallon, Ancheta, & Goto, 2011) showed that community education strategies
and processes to improve access to formal and non-formal knowledge and capacity
building have created greater learning opportunities for the community. Some of the
more popular community education strategies utilized were awareness raising, training,
seminars, and farmers’ forums.
On the other hand, community organizing brings people together to act for their
common self-interest in the pursuit of a common agenda. As stated by Tayag and
Tungpalan (1997), community organizing is both a process and a method. All phases
of organizing work have specific strategies and approaches with the intention of
people empowerment. Specific problems and issues that need to be addressed are
analyzed, and strategies and approaches are carefully identified. The extent of how
a particular situation was studied will be the basis for choosing the right model for
intervention.
Finally, community planning includes situational analysis, plan formulation, plan
implementation, and monitoring and evaluation anchored on the principles of respon-
siveness, participation, flexibility, feasibility, and coordination among target benefici-
aries. Community planning is relevant to elicit response to the immediate needs of the
people such as food, clothing, health services, and educational needs, among others
(Luna et al., 2009). It also helps in determining proper utilization of resources such as
land, raw materials, money, labor, tools and technology, time, and labor. Planning is
advantageous to the community as it can deepen the community’s understanding of
a situation, its causes, and consequences. It also encourages commitment toward
collective concern and strengthens the people’s bond and unity of organization.
In order to support the development of an integrative model of community devel-
opment as the premise of this study, a timeline analytical framework of community
development approaches and community development methods was developed
(Figure 1). A critical review of community development studies conducted by students
in Philippine universities offering community development programs was done. These
studies spanned five decades starting from 1963 to 2009. Through this careful analysis,
594 M. A. T. QUIMBO ET AL.

Figure 1. Timeline analytical framework of CD approaches and methods.

the dominant community development approaches and community development

methods were determined, and these are presented later.

Methods
This study conducted a qualitative meta-analysis of empirical studies done by students
in Philippine universities offering community development programs. These studies
dealt with approaches and methods in community development spanning five decades
of Philippine experience. Specifically, contextual analysis of these studies was conducted
along parameters such as key issues and problem area/s addressed, research design
used, analytical techniques employed, and the community development approaches
and methods addressed and analyzed. Hence, local studies which had explicit presenta-
tion and description of these focal areas for analysis were included in the sampling
frame of studies reviewed. Studies conducted in a foreign locale or settings were
deliberately excluded from the sampling frame.
Themes and patterns were derived after the analysis and review of research materials
selected. Thematic analysis was used to organize the qualitative data and prepare these
for analysis and interpretation. Frequency counts were also utilized to present and
describe the selected parameters of the study. As one of its major outputs, the study
proposed an integrated community development framework or model that would guide
development workers, extension workers, researchers, and policy makers in strategy
formulation and design of intervention efforts with the end in view of achieving
productivity and sustainable development.
 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 595

This integrative analysis could also help achieve a relevant, workable, and refined set
of concepts, strategies, and techniques as evidenced by the growing theory and litera-
ture in development work. Finally, gains from previous studies will provide substance to
a realistic and replicable integrated model of community development that is anchored
on evidence-based learning and experiences. The implications for curriculum develop-
ment and research agenda formulation are likewise underscored in this study.

Results and discussion

Review and analysis of theses and dissertations in community development
A total of 217 studies in community development were reviewed for this study (Table 1).
Specifically, contextual analysis of these studies was conducted using the parameters
discussed in the methods section.
Studies reviewed were of three types: Bachelor’s theses (110), Master’s theses (66),
and PhD dissertations (41), for a total of 217 studies reviewed. Of the 110 undergraduate
studies reviewed, 43 were Bachelor of Science (BS) theses conducted by undergraduate
students of the University of Eastern Philippines (UEP), 39 from the University of the
Philippines (UP) Visayas, and 28 from the Western Visayas College of Science and
Technology (WVCST). Of the 66 MS Theses, 26 were Master’s theses of students from
the Department of Community Development, College of Social Work and Community
Development (DCD, CSWCD) in UP Diliman and 40 studies were theses of MS students
from the Institute for Governance and Rural Development, College of Public Affairs and
Development (IGRD, CPAf) in UP Los Baños. The only institution of higher learning that
offers a doctoral degree in community development is UP Los Banos. A total of 41 PhD
dissertations of students were reviewed from IGRD CPAf, UPLB.
The materials reviewed spanned over five decades of community development
empirical studies. Specifically, these were in the 1960s (1963–1969), 1970s (1972–
1979), 1980s (1980–1989), 1990s (1990–1999), and 2000s (2000–2009). Luna (1999a)
reported that the Master of Science in Community Development was the first academic
program for professional training. This was instituted in 1962 at the UP College of
Agriculture (UPCA). Later in 1969, the PhD in Community Development program was
also offered at the UPCA. The earliest reviewed MS thesis was completed in 1963 by Ari
Wongsearaya, entitled “Some Factors Associated with Coordination in the Provincial
Community Development Council.” The earliest PhD dissertation reviewed was by

Table 1. Type and number of CD studies reviewed.

Type 60’s 70’s 80’s 90’s 00’s Total
BS Theses – 3 31 76 110
UEP – 7 36 43
UP Visayas 3 17 19 39
WVSCT – 7 21 28
MS Theses 6 18 14 12 16 66
UP Diliman – 7 7 4 8 26
UP Los Banos 6 11 7 8 8 40
PhD Dissertations – 7 11 10 13 41
UP Los Banos – 7 11 10 13 41
Total 6 25 28 53 105 217
596 M. A. T. QUIMBO ET AL.

Quirino Villaraza in 1974 entitled “Socio-Economic Factors Associated with the Spending
Behavior of Lowland Farmers.”
Overall, there is an increasing trend in the number of community development
research and studies conducted across the five decades covered in the study. The
institution of undergraduate community development programs was a major contribu-
tory factor to the significant increase in the number of community development
research and studies starting in the 1990s and continuing into the 2000s.

Key issues and problem areas addressed

The key issues and problem areas addressed by the studies reviewed primarily focused
on sustainable development (89 studies), organization management and local govern-
ance (42 studies), environmental concerns (33 studies), socioeconomic and other social
concerns (32 studies), agriculture and its related fields such as fishery and forestry (29
studies), and participation of individuals and groups in community interventions, pro-
jects, and activities (15 studies). It should be noted that these key issues were not
addressed exclusively in one particular study. For instance, sustainable development
as the main backdrop of a study will have agriculture or forestry as its major context.
There are also cases in which participation in people’s organization is used as the
backdrop in order to attain sustainable development. This analysis supports the view
that community development is a multi-disciplinary, multi-faceted field of study and
thus is addressed from different perspectives by interested researchers.
Studies that had sustainable development as the key issue examined poverty allevia-
tion, environmental degradation issues, and natural resource management. They also
generally addressed problems in participation and collaboration among stakeholders.
A number of studies dealt with women’s participation in small and medium enterprises
and cooperatives. Still others explored the role of community organizing in community
development, social inclusion, indigenous groups, and empowerment of communities.
In the area of management and governance, most of community development studies
dealt with strategic planning and participatory approaches, conflict management, and
problems in project implementation. A number of studies also focused on the role of
institutions or program reforms. Altogether, these studies looked at community devel-
opment as a system governed and managed by people.
In general, community development studies with environmental concerns as the
worldview particularly focused on different environmental protection strategies that
institutions implemented to address environmental issues. Most of these studies looked
into environmental impact assessment, environmental protection protocols, ecotourism,
conservation, and waste management. One social concern that surfaced among the
studies reviewed was education as an important dimension in community development,
as a means of solving community development problems. They specifically reviewed
environment-centered curricula in colleges and universities, non-formal education,
cooperation, and conflict management.
A number of studies sought to address development problems by looking into
sustainable agriculture and use of forest resources. This is likely because most of the
countries in Southeast Asia have agriculture- or forestry-based economies, and the
pressing problems of rural poverty and environmental degradation are also prevalent
 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 597

in the region. Under this worldview, research studies have taken into account the
importance of participatory research, extension, and development, and recognized the
role that applied social science plays in the context of agriculture and forestry. Because
these studies put premium into their methodologies and approaches with the people in
communities, they commonly use stakeholder profiling and bottom-up approaches in
solving community development problems.
Sustainable agriculture is the key issue addressed by most studies in UPLB while
social issues like domestic violence and health and nutrition are the focus of under-
graduate and master’s theses in WVCST and DCD, CSWCD. These results were not
surprising as these are aligned with the focus of the curricula or programs of studies
of these UP units. Educational concerns were the focus of less number of studies
reviewed. Looking at the decades under review, social concerns or problems are the
major issues addressed by studies in the 1990s and 2000s. Specifically, these studies
were centered on domestic violence against women, child participation in farming or
agricultural production, population growth, migration, land expropriation, pyrotechnics
industry, and out-of-school youths. It was noted that in the earlier periods of the 1970s
and 1980s, the main backdrop of studies was essentially on participation and social
capital particularly within the context of local leadership and people’s involvement in
various projects and organizations in the community.

Research design
Most of the studies reviewed employed purely quantitative research designs. The most
popular design used was survey. For the purpose of this study, survey was further
categorized in terms of the main intent of the study and how the data were analyzed
by the researcher, namely, survey-correlational, survey-descriptive, survey-case study,
and survey-exploratory designs. Of these sub-types, the most common ones included
survey-correlational (116 studies) and survey-descriptive (58 studies) research designs.
Specifically, survey-correlational studies were aimed at exploring relationships among
variables while survey-descriptive had the intention of explaining the occurrence of
some phenomenon being studied.
Causal-comparative (also called ex-post facto) studies were also conducted to study
variables in retrospect in search of possible explanations for causes and effects. These
studies were aimed largely at exploring a research topic in order to satisfy the researcher’s
curiosity and desire for better understanding of a particular research problem. For
instance, these involved measuring certain attributes of research subjects which included
but were not limited to attitudes, opinions, and performance to some measured variables.
The rest of the studies (13 studies) reviewed were also quantitative in nature but
applied various qualitative data gathering tools such as participant observation, field
observation, and focus group discussion. A combination of quantitative and qualitative
approaches was used in order to validate results from quantitative approach with
qualitative approach, or vice versa. From the 1990s to 2000s, there has been
a significant increase in the number of studies employing a combination of quantitative
and qualitative research approaches. This implies an increase in awareness of qualitative
tools as an equally viable device in preparing data for analysis and interpretation.
Methodological triangulation became popular in social science research in the face of
598 M. A. T. QUIMBO ET AL.

criticisms about the limitations of specific methods or a single method employed

(Lamug, 1999). Lamug noted that in about the same period of the 1990s, it was common
for a particular study to use two or three techniques or research methods in order to
meet the objectives of the study.
Not a single experimental design was employed in community development studies
reviewed, which is understandable since all studies examined were conducted in natural
social settings with individuals, groups, and communities as the units of analysis. In
other words, there was no experimental treatment or control of variables performed by
the researcher in any of the studies. None of the studies reviewed used a purely
qualitative research design.

Data collection method

The data collection methods used in studies reviewed include interview, observation,
review of secondary data, and self-administered questionnaire. Of these methods, the
most popular primary data collection tool employed was interview (used in 154 studies)
which is categorized as either involving focus groups or individuals, with studies
employing individuals or key informants as greatest in number (145 studies) of all the
methods employed. This result is consistent with the finding from the previous section
which revealed that the most popular units of analysis are individuals. The next most
commonly used method of obtaining data is through review of secondary sources (25
studies). This is followed by employing self-administered questionnaires (24 studies) and
focus group discussion (9 studies). A number of studies also used observation which is
further categorized as either field or direct observation (8 studies) or participant obser-
vation (5 studies). Observation as a research instrument started to become popular only
in the 1980s, as did focus group discussions in the 1990s. The use of key informants and
of self-administered questionnaires is the data collection tool that can be considered
traditionally popular among community development studies reviewed.

Community development approaches

Given the diversity of community needs and requirements, it is important that various
approaches are considered in the design of interventions that would ensure the well-
being of people in the community. Referring to how and for whom development
programs are planned, implemented, and managed, the most common community
development approaches indicated in the studies reviewed include community-based
approach (87 studies) followed by participatory approach (66 studies) (Table 2). Other

Table 2. CD approaches in studies reviewed.

CD Approaches 60’s 70’s 80’s 90’s 00’s Total
Area-based – 12 10 7 6 35
Community-based 6 8 10 21 42 87
Community economic development – 3 3 6 13 25
Participatory – 6 13 16 31 66
Welfare-based – 1 1 12 32 46
Note: Multiple responses
 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 599

approaches drawn out from the studies include welfare-based (46 studies), area-based
(35 studies), and community economic development (25 studies).

Community development methods

While community development approaches would cover the general design of certain
development interventions, specific techniques and strategies need to be employed for
the effective and efficient execution of these development efforts. The most popular of
these methods from the studies reviewed is community education (106 studies), fol-
lowed closely by community organizing (102 studies) (Table 3). A significant number of
studies also used community planning (36 studies), community mobilization and advo-
cacy (35 studies), community research (21 studies), and community resource manage-
ment (14 studies).
Community organizing is a method found most popular especially with studies
conducted by DCD, CSWCD in UP Diliman. This is aligned with their mandate of
creating social movements and empowering community members to act together to
address common interests and achieve a common goal. Community mobilization and
advocacy is not much differentiated from community organizing in that the former
also addresses certain issues in the community that need wider dissemination to
provide greater understanding of these issues with the purpose of liberating local
people from ignorance.

Community development approaches vis-a-vis community development methods

in studies reviewed
Most of the studies that used an area-based approach focused on a larger geographical
scope, such as the Cordillera Reforestation and Environment Area Development,
included community organizing (41 studies) and community education (27 studies) as
the most popular choices of community development methods in implementing devel-
opment interventions. For development projects conducted within the locality or dom-
icile of target beneficiaries, referred to in this study as community-based approach, the
more commonly used strategies were either community education (36 studies) or
community organizing (34 studies) (Table 4).
Overall, community education was the most popular community development
method employed in the implementation of many development interventions. This
was true for most studies having such approaches as area-based, community-based,
community economic development and welfare-based. This finding implies that

Table 3. CD methods in studies reviewed.

CD Methods 60’s 70’s 80’s 90’s 00’s Total
Community education – 16 14 25 51 106
Community organizing 3 10 17 27 45 102
Community mobilization and advocacy – 3 3 8 21 35
Community planning 1 3 9 11 12 36
Community research – 1 1 7 12 21
Community resource management – – 1 5 8 14
Note: Multiple responses
600 M. A. T. QUIMBO ET AL.

Table 4. CD approaches across CD methods in studies reviewed.

CD Approaches
Area- Community- Community economic Welfare-
CD Methods based based Development Participatory based
Community education 27 36 30 12 17
Community organizing 41 34 18 3 1
Community mobilization and advocacy 11 9 3 5 12
Community planning 18 10 2 1 0
Community research 6 7 1 2 6
Community resource management 6 9 2 4 2
Note: Multiple responses

education is an important dimension in community development and that strategies

such as awareness raising, training, seminars, and forums have been found by develop-
ment workers as effective means of solving community development problems, as well
as improving the quality of life of the target beneficiaries. In addition, when people
acquire adequate knowledge, they become more aware of what their needs are, which
enables them to participate in making decisions about matters that concern them.
A closer examination of community development approaches vis-a-vis community
development methods used over the five decades covered is presented in Figure 2. It
revealed that in the 1960s, the dominant approach used was community-based with
community organizing as the popular choice method or strategy of implementing
community-based interventions. In the 1970s, the coverage of development interven-
tions expanded to wider geographic locations. Consequently, the area-based approach
with community education and community organizing as the main implementation
strategies started to become popular. Note that these past two decades under the
Marcos regime were dominated by top-down and centralized development interven-
tions from the government.
Starting in the late 1970s toward the 1980s, greater participation from organized
groups increased. This was the beginning of more participatory approaches to

Figure 2. Dominant CD approaches and CD methods over five decades.

 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 601

community development with community-based and area-based remaining to be the

important foci. Not much change was observed in the 1990s during which period
development workers continued to adopt community-based and participatory
approaches. The succeeding period witnessed the steady popularity of community-
based and participatory approaches to development. It is interesting to note that in
the more recent years, development interventions started to be more focused on the
needs of specific groups so that the welfare-based approach started to become popular
during the 2000s. It is noteworthy that through the five decades of Philippine experience
of community development, two development methods and strategies have remained
popular, implying that these have been found by community development workers to
be effective and efficient strategies for a successful development intervention. These
two development methods are community education and community organizing.

Conclusion
Drawing from the results of this study, an integrated model of community development
practice anchored on evidence-based learning and experiences is hereby proposed (Figure 3).
At the center of our argument is Development for Community Empowerment which is at the

Figure 3. Development for community empowerment: An integrated model of CD practice and

research.
602 M. A. T. QUIMBO ET AL.

core of community development as a professional practice and academic discipline. Around

the core and heart of community development are the community development approaches
which remained popular during the decades reviewed herein. These are participatory, com-
munity-based, and welfare-based approaches that define how and for whom development
programs are planned, implemented, and managed. Within the external environment are
found the community development methods which remained popular over five decades of
community development practice in the country. These are community education and
community organizing.
The present study has likewise identified research gaps in community development
as a field of study by determining which areas are over-studied and which are under-
studied. For instance, a majority of community development research focused on
sustainable development as the key issue addressed. Other emerging areas of study
such as environmental issues and climate change adaptation strategies of communities
should also be given equal importance. Given a wide array of research tools and
methodologies, most studies reviewed employed quantitative tools such as survey
with individuals as unit of analysis.
These findings provide the impetus for a research agenda on community develop-
ment and may help students and faculty members in higher education institutions to
determine the potential areas for research in community development. Researchers can
also be helped through prioritization of study areas that have great potential but are not
commonly explored through research.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Bawagan, A.B., & Luna, E.M. (2009). Methods in community development. In E.M. Luna, O.P. Ferrer,
M.C.J. Tan, L.P. de la Cruz, A.B. Bawagan, T.B. Magcuro, & A.T. Torres (Eds.), Community develop-
ment praxis in Philippine setting (pp. 128–133). Diliman, Quezon City: University of the
Philippines Diliman, College of Social Work and Community Development.
Cook, J.B. (1994). Community development theory. Retrieved from https://godwindossou.weebly.
com/uploads/5/2/9/5/5295681/community_development_theory.docx. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-
0302(94)77044-2
Deshler, D., & Sock, D. (1985). Community development participation: A concept review of
international literature. Paper presented at the International League for Social Commitment in
Adult Education, Ljungskile, Sweden.
Fernandez, J.C. (2001). Goal performance moderators of a community-based coastal resource man-
agement project in Masbate Province, Bicol Region, Philippines. (Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation). University of the Philippines Los Banos, College, Laguna.
Ferrer, O. (2009). Community development approaches. In E.M. Luna, O.P. Ferrer, M.C.J. Tan, L.P. de
la Cruz, A.B. Bawagan, T.B. Magcuro, & A.T. Torres (Eds.), Community development praxis in
Philippine setting (pp. 107–108). Diliman, Quezon City: University of the Philippines Diliman:
College of Social Work and Community Development.
International Fund for Agricultural Development. (2001). Participatory approaches for an impact-
oriented project cycle: Strengthening the impact orientation of IFAD’s project cycle. Rome, Italy:
IFAD.
 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 603

Iqbal, M., Medallon, R.H., Ancheta, J.A., & Goto, M. (2011). Education for community development
of Barangay Putho-Tuntungin, Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines. A Research Study Conducted for
Class Community Education 250, College of Public Affairs and Development, University of the
Philippines Los Banos, College, Laguna.
Kenny, S. (2007). Developing communities for the future (3rd ed.). South Melbourne, Victoria:
Thomson.
Lamug, C.B. (1999). Towards a Filipino sociological imagination. In V.A. Miralao (Ed.), The Philippine
social sciences in the life of the nation. Vol. 1: The history and development of social sciences in the
Philippines (pp. 270–285). Quezon City: Philippine Social Science Council.
Luna, E.M. (1999a). Rethinking community development in the Philippines: Indigenizing and
regaining grounds. In V.A. Miralao (Ed.), The Philippine social sciences in the life of the nation.
Vol. 1: The history and development of social sciences in the Philippines (pp. 315–343). Quezon
City: Philippine Social Science Council.
Luna, E.M. (1999b). Community disaster management as an area of study and practice in commu-
nity development. CSWCD Development Journal, 4(1), 1–26.
Luna, E.M., Ferrer, O.P., Tan, M.C.J., de la Cruz, L.P., Bawagan, A.B., Magcuro, T.B., & Torres, A.T.
(2009). Community development praxis in Philippine setting. Diliman, Quezon City: University of
the Philippines Diliman: College of Social Work and Community Development.
Luna, E.M., Ferrer, O.P., Tan, M.J., & Bawagan, A. (2004). Introduction to community development.
Quezon City: College of Social Work and Community Development, UP Diliman.
Medallon, R.H. (2001). Analysis of the Kalantog multipurpose cooperative in Sitio Kalantog,
Barangay Silangan, Malicboy, Pagbilao, Quezon. A research paper prepared for Community
Education 250 Class, College of Public Affairs and Development, University of the Philippines
Los Banos, College, Laguna.
Perkins, O.D., & Zimmerman, M.A. (1995). Empowerment theory, research, and application.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5), 569–579.
Phillips, R., & Pittman, R.H. (2014). A framework for community and economic development.
Retrieved from https://tandfbis.s3.amazonaws.com/rtmedia/pdf/9780415773843/chapter1.pdf.
Samonte, A.G. (1982). Integrated rural development: Concept, approach and objectives. In R.
V. Cuyno, M.F. Lumanta, & M.G. Ramos (Eds.), Management of rural development in the 80’s:
Philippine reflections (pp. 15–27). College, Laguna: Management of Rural Development (MaRD)
Program, University of the Philippines Los Banos.
State Extension Leaders Network (SELN). (2006). Enabling change in rural and regional Australia: The
role of extension in achieving sustainable and productive futures. A discussion document.
Indooroopilly, Qld.: State Extension Leaders Network. Retrieved from http://www.utas.edu.au/
ruralcommunities/SELN/ExtensionDiscussionDocument.pdf
Tayag, B.B., & Tungpalan, M.T.V. (1997). Social work 230 theory and practice of community organiz-
ing. Los Baños, Laguna: University of the Philippines Open University Course Module.
Valsan, E.H. (n. d.). The government-sponsored community development in the Philippines. Diliman,
Quezon City: Handout from College of Social Work and Community Development Library,
University of the Philippines Diliman.