Table 1 Extracts from the typology of practice in community level interventions (illustrated with respect to three of the seven attributes*).
| Â | ATTRIBUTE | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Type | Orientation of Practice | Characterization of the supporting cast** | Resolution** |
The Romantic Type | Practitioner expressed agency in nurturing and maintaining relationships. It is in the context of personal relationships that change takes place. | Understood according to personal qualities. They are positioned in the narrative according to the role or function they serve within the relationship. | Happy ending if relationships are intact. |
The Heroic Type | Orientation to the future. Work inside and outside conventional settings. Values the agency of individuals to create change. | A moral positioning according to roles, with a particular focus on 'blocking characters'. Utilitarian approach to relationships. | The re-distribution of power. |
The Satirist Type | Orientation to the future. Work within conventional institutions. Agency is expressed through the analysis of situations. | The supporting cast is rarely taken on face value. Their character is assessed according to careful observation. | No satisfactory resolution. We don't know if the future predicted by the practitioner is realized. |
The Technologist Type | Practitioner defers power to the intervention technology and works within institutional and managerial contexts. | Characterized according to role or function in the delivery of the intervention technologies. | Resolution suspended until evaluation results are known. |
The Against the Odds Type | Practice focus is process. This process is applied through relationships. The practitioner is a facilitator of change. | Characterized according to community development logic., i.e., as people to be facilitated | The 'invisible fate' i.e., possible intervention failure, becomes visible to the practitioner. |