Participatory Research
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://knowledgedemocracydspace.com/handle/123456789/1075
Browse
49 results
Search Results
Item PRA training report-cum-reference manual developed for Purvanchal Gramin Seva Samiti(Gorakhpur Environmental Action Group, 1995) Gorakhpur Environmental Action GroupThe PRA Training Report-cum-Reference Manual was developed for Purvanchal Gramin Sewa Samiti (PGSS) as a training and reference resource on Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA). The training was held at the PGSS Centre, Padri Bazar, Gorakhpur, from 31 March to 4 April 1995. The manual was prepared by the Gorakhpur Environmental Action Group (GEAG) with assistance from UNICEF, Lucknow. It documents the training programme and serves as a reference manual for the application of PRA approaches in rural development and community-oriented work. The available title page does not provide sufficient information to specify the individual PRA methods or detailed findings covered in the manual.Item Relevance of community‑based participatory research in community medicine training(Indian Journal of Community Medicine, 2020) Krishnan, Anand; Tandon, Rajesh; Nongkynrih, BaridalyneCommunity-based participatory research (CBPR) is an approach in which researchers undertake research in partnership with those affected by the issue being studied, for the purpose of taking action or effecting so-cial change. It can also incorporate those who will use the results to change practice and inform policy. The practice of CBPR is primarily fo-cused on "Knowledge for Change." Most research projects in such CBPR partnerships are funded through the academic partners. In many situations, academic and professional researcher institutions and researchers find it difficult to share the information and resources or to di-rectly engage with local community and other local stakeholders. In practice, finding an intermediary partner who has good rapport with lo-cal community and local government can be very effective. While there are good initiatives in selected medical colleges for community orien-tation of medical undergraduates and postgraduates in community medicine, these are not immersive enough to cause an attitudinal change. It is time that we exposed our graduates and postgraduates to CBPR concepts and practiceItem Economics among the road scholars(2017-12-22) Dreze, JeanJholawala Economics’ is a derogatory term that the urban elites use to dismiss the arguments of social activists without having to contend with them. However, some of the jholawalas are indeed first-rate economists and their arguments cannot be dismissed easily. Jean Drèze is a prime example. His book ‘Sense and Solidarity: Jholawala Economics for Everyone’ puts together the wisdom that he and his co-authors (especially Reetika Khera) have gathered while doing research motivated by the problems they found at the grassroots level. This article is a condensed version of the thought-provoking introduction to the book. The article is a vigorous defense of the possibility of combining research with action. The argument is not that mainstream economists just interpret the world while the activists try to change it. It is about the learning value of collective action and the role of economists in society. In a country where we tend “to climb the ladder from the top” – Drèze’s characterisation of the Bullet Train project – the contribution of activists-scholars to economic research has special value.Item Participatory impact assessment: A pilot programme in South Asia.(Voluntary Agencies Support Scheme (VASS), 2002-03) Quinn, Marion; Clark, KevinThis report documents a South Asian pilot programme on Participatory Impact Assessment and argues that evaluation must move beyond expert-led measurement of outputs toward a continuous and democratic process in which communities themselves analyse change, define priorities, and shape future action. Drawing on experiences from India and Bangladesh, it shows how participatory approaches deepen both the quality and meaning of impact assessment by placing people’s lived realities at the center. Through methods such as group discussions, mapping, interviews, ranking, and reflective exercises, communities were able to examine shifts in confidence, leadership, access to services, household decision making, and collective organisation. The process also brought forward unintended outcomes, local constraints, and concerns that are often overlooked in conventional evaluations. A key contribution of the report is its insistence that impact assessment should happen throughout the project cycle rather than only at the end. When undertaken in a participatory manner, evaluation becomes not just a tool of measurement but a means of learning, accountability, and institutional improvement. It strengthens community capacities, deepens ownership, and helps organisations remain responsive to changing realities. This report is an important resource for understanding how people centered approaches can make development practice more accountable, reflective, and meaningful.Item Participatory impact assessment: Final report on a two-year pilot programme in South Asia and the Pacific(Voluntary Agency Support Scheme (VASS), 2003-06) Clark, Kevin; Quinn, MarionHow can development interventions become more accountable to the communities they engage with? This report presents the findings and lessons from a two-year Participatory Impact Assessment pilot programme carried out across South Asia and the Pacific with New Zealand NGOs, their regional partners, and local communities. Its central argument is that impact assessment must move beyond measuring short term outputs to understanding long term social change through the active participation of primary stakeholders at every stage of the project cycle. Across multiple case studies involving women’s empowerment, livelihoods, peacebuilding, and community facilitation, the report illustrates how communities can identify indicators, analyse change, and shape future directions of programmes themselves. It highlights key themes such as partnership, stakeholder involvement, gender justice, institutional learning, and the use of participatory tools including mapping, ranking, theatre, focus groups, seasonal analysis, and interviews. The report consistently emphasises that evaluation is not merely a technical review but a democratic and empowering process through which ownership is strengthened, unintended impacts are surfaced, and organisational accountability is deepenedItem Report on PRA workshop held at Bidda Village(1994) UNNATI Organization for Development EducationThis report is about a study conducted in “Bidda” village about Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methods in rural development planning. The participants included a workshop on PRA, which helped participants develop an understanding of the tools used for generating community knowledge, such as social mapping, resource mapping, transect walks, priority ranking, timelines and trends, service mapping, pie diagrams, and wealth ranking. In addition to providing knowledge about the tools, the workshop encouraged the participants to establish connections with local people, listen actively, ask open-ended questions, and value people’s community knowledge. The field study also helped participants learn how different PRA tools can collect comprehensive village information, including natural resources, livelihood resources, services available to the residents, and personal revenues and expenditures, and timelines and trends. The field study provided valuable insight into developing integrated community development plans for the study village based on the collective knowledge about the community. This research is a significant contribution to community planning, highlighting the importance of using participatory field study methods to generate community knowledge and promote rural development planning in Gujarat at the micro-level.Item Report of the meeting on participatory research held at Dehradun, India April 22-24, 1983(Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), 1983) Society for Participatory Research in AsiaThis report is about a three-day meeting on Participatory Research (PR) held in Dehradun, India, in April 1983, organized by the Society for Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA). It was attended by twenty-four participants, who discussed the role of ideology in PR, and the overlapping nature of participatory research, evaluation, and training. The meeting also explored the complex and often conflicting roles researchers assume in the field, illustrated through a participant's work with a Dalit theatre group. To examine these issues further, participants formed four interest groups. These groups focused on primary education, forest studies, baseline survey design, and women's issues, highlighting distinct methodological tensions in each area. The report closes with a review of PRIA's role as a support organization and suggestions for its future direction, including promoting PR more widely, producing materials in local languages, and building a resource pool of trained practitioners.Item Participatory training for promotion of social development(1996) Acharya, Binoy; Verma, ShaliniHow can participatory training and learning be undertaken with disadvantaged groups? In this article, Binoy Acharya and Shalini Verma discuss approaches to training that move beyond the mere transfer of information and place people’s confidence, experience, and critical awareness at the center. They argue that many marginalised communities have long experienced the devaluation of their own knowledge and capacities, which weakens participation and self belief. Therefore, participatory training must begin by helping people analyse their own realities, articulate their experiences, and recognise what they need to learn further. The article highlights the important role of grassroots trainers in understanding why people do not participate- including fear, exclusion, low confidence, and past experiences of being ignored. Training is therefore presented as a process of creating safe spaces for dialogue, reflection, and collective learning. Drawing from training designs adopted by Gujarat based NGOs, the authors show how structured modules on facilitation, group dynamics, self development, and training methods can build local leadership. Participatory training is thus presented as a means of fostering critical thinking, restoring confidence, and strengthening people’s capacities for social change.Item Participatory training and self development(0000) Acharya, Binoy; Verma, ShaliniHow should training be undertaken to encourage critical thinking and instill confidence in people? In this article, Binoy Acharya and Shalini Verma discuss the growing emphasis on training within the development sector while questioning approaches that reduce training to the mere transfer of information or techniques. They argue that many people, especially the poor and marginalised, experience the systematic devaluation of their own knowledge and capacities which weakens self confidence and participation. For this reason, simply providing more skills cannot by itself lead to empowerment, though external knowledge may still be useful. The focus of training, they argue, must be to foster critical thinking so that people can analyse their own realities, articulate their experiences, and identify what they need to learn further. Participatory training is highlighted as a process that breaks the culture of silence, restores faith in people’s own knowledge, and builds confidence for collective action. Social development, the authors emphasise, begins with the development of the self.Item Involving communities in planning and assessing the impacts of development programmes: Report on a pacific NGO workshop on participatory approaches to development, Nadi, Fiji, 23–25 June(2023-06-23) Quinn, Marion; Clark, KevinThis report documents a Pacific NGO workshop on participatory approaches to development held in Fiji in 2003, aimed at strengthening the capacities of civil society organisations to use participatory impact assessment, stakeholder analysis, indicator setting, and community based monitoring in their own contexts. Its central concern is how development can move beyond expert driven models toward processes where primary stakeholders influence decisions, resources, and outcomes. The report covers practical sessions on identifying stakeholders, understanding gender relations, designing meaningful indicators, collecting and analysing data, and using participatory tools such as mapping, ranking, focus groups, seasonal calendars, and time use studies. Through examples from Pacific countries, it shows how communities can define priorities, generate knowledge, and evaluate change on their own terms. This report offers an important lesson that monitoring and evaluation are not merely technical exercises but democratic processes linked to power, voice, and accountability. It demonstrates that when communities participate from the beginning of a project cycle, development interventions become more relevant, more sustainable, and more responsive to local realities.