Community-Based Participatory Research
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://knowledgedemocracydspace.com/handle/123456789/1068
Browse
7 results
Search Results
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.Item An epidemiological approach to participatory research in evaluation (an ongoing study)(0000) Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA)Item Global foundations of community based research(0000) Tandon, Rajesh; Hall, Budd LThis paper by Dr. Budd Hall and Dr. Rajesh Tandon looks back at the origin of participatory research, tracing its evolution from the late 1970s when a small network of like-minded researchers and activists across Toronto, New Delhi, Dar es Salaam, the Netherlands, and Caracas began to challenge the foundations of conventional social science research. It highlights how this early movement grew into a globally recognized approach to knowledge creation and social change. The paper examines the emergence of international and regional networks, the establishment of Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), and the development of participatory methodologies aimed at social transformation. It also reflects on the challenges participatory research faced in gaining acceptance within academia, where researchers and practitioners often struggled to bridge differences in perspective and practice. Significant developments, including the 1997 Cartagena Congress, the launch of GACER, and the 2012 UNESCO Co-Chairs appointment, marked important steps toward broader recognition. The paper argues that years of participatory research work have slowly changed how knowledge is understood, who gets to produce it, in what settings, and in whose interest. For Hall and Tandon, this shift connects directly to current conversations about knowledge democracy and what higher education institutions owe to the communities around them.Item Challenges in the co-construction of knowledge: A global study on strengthening structures for community university research partnerships(0000) Hall, Budd L; Tandon, Rajesh; Tremblay, Crystal; Singh, WafaWhat does it mean to institutionalise the co-construction of knowledge between universities and communities at a global level? This paper begins from the premise that knowledge democracy requires moving beyond expert driven models towards collaborative processes that recognise the knowledge generating capacities of each human being and of every community. Community university research partnerships are presented as a key pathway for this shift, as they create structures through which research questions, methods, processes and outcomes can be shaped jointly. Drawing on a global survey and national case studies across Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas, the authors examine the histories, discourses and institutional forms that support or constrain such partnerships. This paper further analyses models such as Science Shops, centers of community-based research and national policy frameworks, while identifying tensions and practical challenges in embedding such work within universities. It highlights the importance of facilitative structures, supportive leadership, transnational networks and sustained institutional commitment. In doing so, it argues that institutionalising community-based research is not only a technical exercise but a political and ideological process that reshapes how universities understand knowledge, partnership and their responsibilities to society.Item The Indian urban elites: An exploratory study(0000) De, Nitish R.; Tandon, RajeshItem Report of SoPR: DPC in Bihar(Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA) , 0000) Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA)Item Towards an epistemology of participatory research(Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA) , 0000) Chaudhary, Anil