Community-Based Participatory Research

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

Browse

Filters

Settings

End date: 2009

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 59
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Book Review: Learning through community: Exploring participatory practices
    (2008) Hall, Budd L
    During the past years, no Canadian adult education research group has been more productive than the group based at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) at the University of Toronto. New Approaches to Lifelong Learning (NALL), The Changing Nature of Work and Lifelong Learning (WALL), and the Centre for the Study of Education and Work at OISE, led by David Livingstone with able support from D'Arcy Martin and a score of thoughtful scholar-activists, have given us many papers, books, surveys, Web pages, symposia, and conferences with a particular focus on adult education and work and the ever-evolving understanding of informal adult learning.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    University of Victoria task force on community-based research: Towards a structure for community-based research University of Victoria: Phase II
    (2005) Keller, Peter; Hall, Budd L
    This document was prepared by the University of Victoria Task Force on Community-Based Research, co-led by Peter Keller and Budd L. Hall. It explains the background to Phase II of the work on creating a structure to support community-based research (CBR) at the university, starting with a 2005 forum that drew more than 80 academics. The document uses a three-part definition of CBR as collaborative, as democratising knowledge, and as aimed at social action and social justice. It then sets out the next steps in the consultation, including talking with community partners, reviewing models from elsewhere, recommending a steering committee, identifying networks and funding sources, and exploring UVic’s hosting of the 2007 Community-University Expo.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Activity report office of community-based June-October, 2008
    (2008-10) Office of Community-Based Research
    This activity report covers the work of the Office of Community-Based Research (OCBR) from June to October 2008. It describes follow-up to CUexpo2008, including video interviews, an archival website and a proceedings volume of over 300 pages. It also reports on the first Summer Institute on Community-Based Research, held in mid- July 2008 with about 120 participants, and on related undergraduate and graduate courses. The report records the launch of the Pan-Canadian Coalition for Community-Based Research and the Global Alliance on Community-Engaged Scholarship, two outcomes of the conference. It also notes the integration of the Knowledge Mobilization Unit into the OCBR and support for Indigenous community-based research, including work with the Indigenous Adult and Higher Education Association, Indigenous language teacher education and the Halalt First Nations.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Code of practice for the Tangata Whenua, community and voluntary sector reseach centre
    (Tangata Whenua, Community and Voluntary Sector Research Centre, 2007-10-02)
    This Code of Practice sets out principles and standards for undertaking ethical and participatory research with the Tangata Whenua, community, and voluntary sector in New Zealand. It gives consideration to achieving greater levels of community participation and self-determination in research processes, and throughout the whole life-cycle of research projects, from design and implementation to reporting and evaluation. Furthermore, it is about recognizing the need to address power imbalances and inequities, and upholding Indigenous Peoples and Tangata Whenua, their own knowledge and tikanga (Maori values) and their rights as communities and peoples, including their ability to make decisions about research, its analysis and reporting. It also includes principles of empowerment, governance, and accountability, reciprocal relations, sustainability, social justice, confidentiality, ownership, and ethical and moral responsibility. Overall, the code focuses on research partnerships in which communities make decisions and are active participants, as well as benefitting directly from research, and in which research processes adopt rights-based approaches that are strengths-focused and contribute to community wellbeing.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Beyond "whose reality counts?" New methods we now need?
    (1997) Chambers, Robert
    Activities called PRA, and its equivalents in other languages, have evolved from a confluence, sharing and adaptation of methodologies, methods and participatory traditions. Synergies have generated new things to do and new ways to do them, including visual forms of analysis. A conjunction of conditions has produced an explosion of activities and applications, and spread to many countries and organisations - NGOs, Government departments, and even universities, and raising questions of ethics and of sharing methodologies. Coming from our different traditions, should we seek places of convergence and springboards for action? If so, could the concept of responsible wellbeing, and the question "Whose reality counts?" provide us with common ground? They fit with eclectic pluralism, a celebration of diversity, and democratic reversals of dominance. They raise shared issues of how we teach, learn, and construct realities, of dominant institutions and their cultures, and of personal power. They point towards responsible well-being for "uppers" being sought in empowering and privileging the realities of "lowers". Do we now have a phenomenal opportunity? We have participatory methodologies which are powerful, popular and self-spreading We have new space opened up by government and donor agency policies for participation and poverty reduction. Rapid spread has brought much bad practice. At the same time, PRA and other participatory methodologies have also shown a potential to contribute to changes at levels which are policy-related, institutional and personal To make the most of these opportunities invites sharing methods and experience between different traditions, and inventing new methods. Five methodological challenges now (May 1997) stand out as points of leverage. These are how better to 1. enable the realities and priorities of poor and marginalised people to be expressed and communicated to policy-makers 2. enable trainers to facilitate attitude and behaviour change 3. make normal bureaucracies more participatory 4. build self-improvement into the spread of participatory methodologies 5. enable people with power to find fulfilment in disempowering themselves Could it be that effective repertoires for these could lead to much good change? Could convergences and sharings of experiences and approaches among us contribute to such repertoires? Could we between us seize these opportunities in the new spaces which are opening up?
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    University-community partnerships: Connecting for change
    (The Community-University Exposition 2008, 2008)
    With many of the social, environmental, health and economic issues facing us today we need research that engages those who are working on the front lines. Issues in Victoria, such as homelessness or climate change, are best understood and acted upon when those working to find solutions are driving the research.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Building in dialogue between consumers and staff in acute mental health services
    (Systemic Practice and Action Research, 1998) Wadsworth, Yoland; Epstein, Merinda
    This paper describes some aspects of the methodology, material, and findings from a lengthy participatory action research engagement by a consumer organization in Australia, which was undertaken in collaboration with staff at a major public psychiatric hospital and then went on to involve "players" throughout the local state, and national mental health services system. A small first phase established a dialogic methodology for the exchange of experiences and thinking between staff and consumers. The purpose of the second phase of the research was to explore how consumers' voices might be heard, and how staff-consumer communication about that feedback, might be "built in" to ongoing organizational structure and culture. Systems thinking about defensive routines, silences, and voice-as-discourse is reported as offering a possible way of cracking the puzzle of the closed-loop cycle of claim/blame-defense-and-counter-claim/blame-defense that has been characteristic to date.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The funding and development of community university research partnerships in Canada: Evidence-based investment in knowledge, engaged scholarship, innovation and action for Canada's future
    (OCBR, University of Victoria; Community Based Research Canada, 2009-10) Office of Community-Based Research, University of Victoria; Community Based Research Canada
    The purpose of this report is to map out the sources and types of funding that have been created to support community university research partnerships, describe the current state of development of arrangements between public post secondary institutions and community organizations, to collaborate in research and knowledge mobilization, and suggest some conclusions as to how effective partnership work of this kind might be strengthened in the future.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Participatory impact assessment: A pilot programme in South Asia.
    (Voluntary Agencies Support Scheme (VASS), 2002-03) Quinn, Marion; Clark, Kevin
    This 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    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, Marion
    How 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 deepened