the best of intenti<strong>on</strong>s we can not operate inisolati<strong>on</strong> within our own groupings. We needto inter-act. We need to understand eachother’s perspectives, c<strong>on</strong>straints orlimitati<strong>on</strong>s, and the possible avenuesavailable for a mutually beneficialcompromise.The first editi<strong>on</strong> of the Guidelinespublicati<strong>on</strong> evolved from those workshopsand the particular c<strong>on</strong>text for which theworkshops were designed and delivered,with multi-nati<strong>on</strong>al and multi-sectoralgroups of all key stakeholders.Following a review of the workshops andthe Guidelines publicati<strong>on</strong>, in 2005 theASEAN Foundati<strong>on</strong> agreed to fund a further6 workshops in the regi<strong>on</strong>: Vietnam,Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Malaysia,and the Philippines. It was agreed that inthe case of the first four, these would benati<strong>on</strong>al workshops whereas the Malaysiaworkshop would include participants fromBIMP-EAGA: the Brunei, Ind<strong>on</strong>esia, Malaysiaand Philippines East ASEAN Growth Areaand the Philippines workshop wouldcomprise the ASEAN 5, namely, Thailand,Ind<strong>on</strong>esia, Malaysia, Philippines andSingapore. In additi<strong>on</strong> to changes incompositi<strong>on</strong>, the size of the groups wouldincrease from 20 to 40. These significantfactors prompted a thorough review of theoriginal materials leading to the omissi<strong>on</strong> oradaptati<strong>on</strong> of certain activities and theadopti<strong>on</strong> of others, as well as therepositi<strong>on</strong>ing of some within the dailyschedule. Together with inputs fromparticipants to the six workshops as well asfurther updates from participants from theinitial four workshops, these revisi<strong>on</strong>s nowcomprise this sec<strong>on</strong>d editi<strong>on</strong> of theGuidelines.Feedback from the first editi<strong>on</strong> promptedus to stay with the original format using anintroductory narrative for each day al<strong>on</strong>gwith detailed notes <strong>on</strong> the practicalactivities. The focus remains <strong>on</strong> theparticipatory process, exploring themeanings of culture and development,examining available tools and resourcesand dem<strong>on</strong>strating certain pitfalls in someof the more c<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>al developmenttools, while seeking to identify what culturalfactors individuals, professi<strong>on</strong>als,organizati<strong>on</strong>s and instituti<strong>on</strong>s may bring tothe planning process. It is a reflectivejourney where we questi<strong>on</strong> assumpti<strong>on</strong>smade and the array of resources that areat our disposal but quite often ignored. Wequesti<strong>on</strong> ourselves, our percepti<strong>on</strong>s, androle in development initiatives. Weevaluate the c<strong>on</strong>sequences of our acti<strong>on</strong>sand behaviours.The central driving force of the workshopremains focused <strong>on</strong> awareness-raising sothat the c<strong>on</strong>cept of inclusiveness is str<strong>on</strong>glypromoted. At the same time thisawareness-raising means that we begin toquesti<strong>on</strong> accepted standards and normsand this is all embodied within a healthydose of critical self-analysis designed tochallenge previously held ideas,prec<strong>on</strong>cepti<strong>on</strong>s, boundaries, andsignificantly, the scope of opportunities.Revisiting accepted norms andchallenging them in the quest for a positive17
18outcome does require that <strong>on</strong>e begin athome, with <strong>on</strong>e’s self. It is always so easy to‘blame’ others for project shortcomings, ifnot failures, but each individual has acrucial role to play and that role can bemost beneficial if we operate in aheightened state of awareness. Thisheightened state of awareness translatesas being more willing to try to c<strong>on</strong>vertc<strong>on</strong>straints into opportunities by beingcreative and resourceful. It translates asbeing prepared to take the blinkers off, andleave them off, thus always being open t<strong>on</strong>ew suggesti<strong>on</strong>s and the adopti<strong>on</strong> ofinnovative approaches. This combinati<strong>on</strong>of accessibility, positivism, and adaptability,grounded with realism, can make fordynamic improvements.The challenge has been to try to ensurethat up<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> of the workshopsparticipants from very differentbackgrounds, with varied experiences andfrom such diverse areas would all havegained something of particular relevanceto them. For example, that a Cambodianpeace activist, a Burmese genderspecialist, a Filipino priest/ documentaryfilm maker, a Lao m<strong>on</strong>k/ rural developmentworker, a Vietnamese researcher / healthworker, a Malaysian medicalanthropologist, an Ind<strong>on</strong>esian humanitarianrelief worker, a Singaporean visual artist, aBruneian museologist, or a Thai researcher<strong>on</strong> HIV/AIDS to name but a few, would feelbetter equipped to deal with a specificproblem within their own work c<strong>on</strong>text.Whether viewed as promotinginclusiveness, integrati<strong>on</strong>, or advocatingthe adopti<strong>on</strong> of community-driven, multisectoraldevelopment approaches, thisGuidelines publicati<strong>on</strong> is primarily intendedas a ‘guide’, not a ‘blue-print’. We, theauthors/workshop facilitators, certainly d<strong>on</strong>ot c<strong>on</strong>sider ourselves experts within all thedevelopment issues covered. In fact, thesuccess of the workshops and outcomespublished here could not have beenarrived at without the active c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong>s ofall the participants that provided for amutually rewarding experience.