Knowledge Democracy / Participatory Research

Permanent URI for this communityhttp://192.9.200.215:4000/handle/123456789/123

Welcome to the Knowledge Democracy / Participatory Research Community. This community serves as a comprehensive repository of resources on participatory approaches, community-based research, and collaborative inquiry methods. Our mission is to foster knowledge sharing and support initiatives that empower communities to contribute to research, ensuring their voices shape the knowledge that impacts their lives.

Explore a wealth of materials, including case studies, policy papers, training guides, and research publications that highlight the practice and principles of participatory research worldwide.

Browse

Filters

2000 - 200935

Settings

Start date: 2000End date: 2009

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 35
  • 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
    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
    Seeing like a citizen’ re-claiming citizenship in a neoliberal world. November 28-29,2005
    (Institute of Development Studies, 2005-11-29) Gaventa, John
    What does it mean to be a citizen, and how is that meaning shifting under neoliberalism? In this paper, Prof. John Gaventa discusses how citizenship has increasingly moved away from a rights centered approach towards a more consumption-based approach. Depoliticised notions of citizenship have taken precedence under neoliberalism, where individuals are framed as consumers, users, voters, or beneficiaries rather than as rights bearing actors in their own right. He situates this shift within broader transformations of the state as well, which is not simply withdrawing but is being reconfigured to actively advance market logics, often weakening its role as a guarantor of rights. Through this paper, Gaventa proposes “reversing the telescope” by centering the perspectives of citizens as actors in development processes. This approach foregrounds what he terms thick forms of citizenship, where participation, contestation, and collective action are central. Moving beyond market, state and democracy first forms of citizenship, he argues that placing citizens first enables a re-politicisation of citizenship, strengthening claims to rights, accountability, and more meaningful democratic engagement.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Civil engagement in higher education and its role in Human & Social Development
    (Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), 2007-07) Tandon, Rajesh
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Workshop report teaching of participatory research, 4-5 August 2005
    (2005-08) Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA)
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Curriculum, higher education, and the public good
    (2009) Hall, Budd L; Bhatt, Nandita; Lepore, Walter
    Curriculum change in higher education is an extremely complex process. Influences on the content of what is taught in higher education include new knowledge coming from the various academic disciplines, from the regulatory bodies of many of the professions, from national calls for action, from global challenges, from social movements of the day. This chapter argues that in the search for excellence, engagement and social responsibility that there is no contradiction between responding to local calls for action and global matters. Illustrations of curriculum change which attend to both the local and the global include classroom changes, single university changes, system-wide changes in Canada, Asia, Latin America and New Zealand. We call for more attention to community engaged learning and the creation of central offices for community university engagement.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item

© 2026 UNESCO Chair- Knowledge Resource Centre.