Community-Based Participatory Research

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://knowledgedemocracydspace.com/handle/123456789/1068

Browse

Filters

Settings

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 106
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    From margins to center? The development and purpose of participatory research
    (The American Sociologist, 1992) Hall, Budd L
    This article documents the development of the libratory stream of participa-tory research as experienced through the activities and connections of one of the key figures in the early development and dissemination of these ideas. It traces the developments in Tanzania in the early 1970s, through the establish-ment of the original Participatory Research Network to the elaboration of theoretical and political debates. It highlights the formulation and elaboration of participatory research as a contribution to social change in a variety of settings. It includes discussions of the feminist advance, the question of voice and the relationship of power to knowledge in transformative practice. It contains an extensive and historically valuable bibliography.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Research, commitment and action: The role of participatory research
    (International Review of Education, 1981) Hall, Budd L
    The author discusses the development and practice of participatory research as both a method and strategy of social investigation and social action within an adult education framework. Participatory research is compared with traditional research strategies, and its defining principles are outlined, together with specific examples of its application and practical issues both today and in the future.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Mobilizing community and academic knowledge for transformative change: The story of the UNESCO Chair in community based research and social responsibility in higher education
    (The Canadian Commission for UNESCO’s IdeaLab, 2017) Hall, Budd L; Tandon, Rajesh
    What role can higher education play in advancing knowledge democracy and fulfilling its social responsibility? This paper co-authored by Dr. Budd L. Hall and Dr. Rajesh Tandon reflects the establishment, evolution, and contributions of the UNESCO chair in community-based research and social responsibility in higher education. Established in July 2012 as a unique co-chair partnership bridging the University of Victoria (Canada) and Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA, India). This paper outlines the effectiveness of a distinctive global North-South co-chair method in connecting academic institutions with grassroots practitioners to promote knowledge and democracy. The paper explores how universities should collaborate with communities in the co-creation of knowledge to promote social responsibility, inclusion, and sustainable development. Through its three core domains, knowledge mobilization, policy advocacy, and capacity building, the chair has generated substantial, systemic impact. Through global reports, policy dialogues, and training programs, the Chair has influenced higher education policy, fostered international networks, and contributed to embedding engagement and participatory research into the everyday functions of universities. This paper demonstrates how universities can contribute to social change by working closely with communities, promoting sustainable development, and strengthening their social responsibility.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Notes on monitoring-fifth training workshop on participatory development. September 15-19, 1997
    (Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), 1997-09-19) Satyamurti, V.
    Monitoring is essential to any planning activity, as it provides a systematic and continuous assessment of the progress of work over time. In these writings, compiled by V. Satyamurthi, monitoring is presented not merely as a technical exercise but as a practical tool for accountability, learning, and improved programme management. These writings explain in detail what should be reviewed during monitoring, what information is useful, and how aims and indicators may be defined clearly. Particular attention is given to process monitoring, including the use of resources, progress of activities, and the manner in which work is carried out. The notes further discuss methods of data collection and analysis, including surveys, case studies, regular records, and participatory approaches that involve communities directly. Equal emphasis is placed on interpreting findings, sharing feedback, and using results to improve planning procedures and institutional learning. Satyamurthi also underlines the importance of making monitoring participatory so that people affected by programmes can have a say in the process. These notes provide a grounded and practical guide to participatory monitoring processes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Monitoring and evaluation
    (0000) Satyamurti, V.
    In this article, V. Satyamurthi discusses the need for monitoring and evaluation in sustaining the efficiency and long-term relevance of social programmes designed to strengthen citizens’ capacities to participate fully in social, economic, and political life. He traces the growing emphasis on monitoring and evaluation from the early 1950s, and more sharply in the 1970s, when international development assistance expanded and demands for accountability increased. At the same time, the article notes important critiques of conventional approaches that relied excessively on measurement, targets, and narrow indicators, arguing instead for a stronger learning process orientation. The article clearly explains the distinction between monitoring and evaluation, their core components, indicators, and the principles of participatory monitoring and evaluation. Particular attention is given to assessing the progress of community groups toward self reliance over time. In doing so, it demonstrates that participatory evaluation assesses the appropriateness of present goals and of the institutions that define those goals, making it a fundamental part of meaningful social programmes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    NZ VASS impact assessment: Pilot programme-Facilitator’s report
    (Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), 2001-07) Dwivedi, Anju
    How can impact assessment become a process of learning rather than only an exercise in measurement? This facilitator’s report by Anju Dwivedi documents the NZ VASS Participatory Impact Assessment Pilot Programme and reflects on how evaluation can be transformed through sustained participation, capacity building, and institutional commitment. The programme was designed not simply to assess outcomes, but to immerse partner organisations in the philosophical and methodological foundations of participatory impact assessment while learning from experiences of the past. Drawing on pilot initiatives in India, Bangladesh, Fiji, and New Zealand linked organisations, the report shows how facilitators worked with staff, communities, and local groups to identify indicators, plan assessments, collect evidence, and analyse change together. A wide range of participatory tools were used, including mapping, role play, Venn diagrams, interviews, ranking, focus groups, and seasonal analysis. These methods enabled communities to articulate impacts in their own terms and strengthened confidence, ownership, and dialogue. A central lesson of the report is that participatory impact assessment succeeds only when organisations demonstrate a genuine commitment to the process. It requires time, openness, and willingness to learn by doing.
  • Thumbnail Image
    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, Kevin
    This 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Participatory impact assessment. August 20- 25, 2001
    (Particiaptory Research in Asia (PRIA), 2001-08-25) Dwivedi, Anju
    How can development interventions be made more accountable to the people they are meant to serve? In this paper, Anju Dwivedi examines how participatory impact assessment can reframe conventional approaches to evaluation by placing communities at the center of the process. She begins by tracing shifts in development thinking from a focus on economic growth in the 1950s to an increasing emphasis on participation and human development by the 1990s, where people’s involvement became central. Dwivedi argues that social development is not a linear process that can be captured through simple output and outcome measures. Impact must instead be understood as change from a given starting point, including intended and unintended effects on people’s lives. Participatory impact assessment therefore becomes a continuous process across the project cycle, engaging communities and other stakeholders in defining indicators, collecting data, and interpreting findings. The paper also foregrounds the importance of integrating a gender lens to understand differentiated impacts. For practitioners and researchers, this paper offers a grounded way to rethink impact assessment as a political and learning process rather than a technical exercise.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Social development monitoring: A process to ensure accountability
    (Prashasnika A Journal of Administrative Processes, 2006-12) Dwivedi, Anju
    What does it mean to monitor development processes, and who holds the power to do so? In this paper, Anju Dwivedi situates social development monitoring within the broader shift toward people centred development that emerged in the 1990s, where participation became central to planning and implementation. Instead of viewing monitoring as a technical exercise carried out by experts, the paper argues for a process rooted in community participation, where citizens continuously observe, question, and engage with development interventions. Social development monitoring is presented as a means of strengthening accountability and governance by creating spaces for those historically excluded to articulate concerns, influence decisions, and exercise control over resources. The process moves beyond an instrumental function of tracking outcomes, and instead operates as a political act that redistributes power and challenges hierarchical decision making structures. By involving communities in identifying issues, generating information, and taking collective action, monitoring becomes a site of learning and citizenship in practice. The paper ultimately positions social development monitoring as a process that not only ensures accountability but also enables communities to shape development pathways in ways that reflect their own priorities, knowledge, and autonomy.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item