The deceptive illusion of multi‐paradigm development practice

Abstract This article responds to commentaries by Blunt, Bell and Joy on Cooke's ‘From process consultation to a clinical model of development practice’ in the August 1997 issue of Public Administration and Development . Following the paradigmatic analyses those commentaries introduce, it begins by trying to clarify the range of meanings attributed to the term ‘paradigm’. It then argues, that Blunt's critique does actually derive from a particular single (i.e. mono‐) paradigm, the application of which causes my initial arguments to be mis‐represented, and exemplifies the limits of that paradigm in practice. It goes on to agree that generic process approaches do have some cultural limitations, and that they can be used for ideological manipulation, although not inevitably in the pursuit of so‐called democratic values. The clinical‐process model is, however, distinct from these generic approaches and actually provides some safeguard against these problems. The article moves on to demonstrate that a multi‐paradigm approach to practice, as opposed to analysis, is illusory, because it is impossible, and deceptive, as claims for multi‐paradigm practice conceal the practitioner's inescapable paradigmatic assumptions. In conclusion it argues that until we recognize that ‘development’ per se is a ruling paradigm we are all imprisoned within it. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.