Community-Based Participatory Research
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://knowledgedemocracydspace.com/handle/123456789/1068
Browse
2 results
Search Results
Item NZ VASS impact assessment: Pilot programme-Facilitator’s report(Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), 2001-07) Dwivedi, AnjuHow 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.Item Social development monitoring: A process to ensure accountability(Prashasnika A Journal of Administrative Processes, 2006-12) Dwivedi, AnjuWhat 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.