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
270 results
Search Results
Item From margins to center? The development and purpose of participatory research(The American Sociologist, 1992) Hall, Budd LThis 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.Item Research, commitment and action: The role of participatory research(International Review of Education, 1981) Hall, Budd LThe 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.Item Decolonisation of knowledge, epistemicide, participatory research and higher education(2017) Hall, Budd L.; Tandon, RajeshWhat does the word ‘knowledge’ refer to, and whose knowledge is recognized within higher education? In this paper, Dr. Budd Hall draws on some 40 years of collaborative work on knowledge democracy. Hall suggests that higher education institutions today are working with a very small part of the extensive and diverse knowledge systems in the world. Following de Sousa Santos, Hall illustrates how Western knowledge has been engaged in epistemicide, or the killing of other knowledge systems. Community-based participatory research is about knowledge as an action strategy for change and about the rendering visible of the excluded knowledges of our remarkable planet. Knowledge stories, theoretical dimensions of knowledge, democracy, and the evolution of community-based participatory research partnerships are highlighted.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, RajeshWhat 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.Item Participatory training for promotion of social development(1996) Acharya, Binoy; Verma, ShaliniHow can participatory training and learning be undertaken with disadvantaged groups? In this article, Binoy Acharya and Shalini Verma discuss approaches to training that move beyond the mere transfer of information and place people’s confidence, experience, and critical awareness at the center. They argue that many marginalised communities have long experienced the devaluation of their own knowledge and capacities, which weakens participation and self belief. Therefore, participatory training must begin by helping people analyse their own realities, articulate their experiences, and recognise what they need to learn further. The article highlights the important role of grassroots trainers in understanding why people do not participate- including fear, exclusion, low confidence, and past experiences of being ignored. Training is therefore presented as a process of creating safe spaces for dialogue, reflection, and collective learning. Drawing from training designs adopted by Gujarat based NGOs, the authors show how structured modules on facilitation, group dynamics, self development, and training methods can build local leadership. Participatory training is thus presented as a means of fostering critical thinking, restoring confidence, and strengthening people’s capacities for social change.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.Item Monitoring and evaluation(Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), 1997) Satyamurthi, V.These writings on Monitoring and Evaluation, compiled by V. Satyamurthi, provide a succinct and practical introduction to key tools of project planning and management. They clearly explain Logical Framework Analysis, including its meaning, strengths, and limitations, while showing its relevance for objective oriented and participatory planning. The notes further discuss important concepts such as early start, early finish, late start, late finish, total slack, critical path, and critical jobs, along with how these may be calculated to improve project efficiency. Comparisons between Program Evaluation and Review Technique and Critical Path Method help clarify their use in different contexts. The notes also explain outputs and checklists and their role in implementation and review. Overall, this document brings together essential monitoring and evaluation concepts in an accessible format.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 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, KevinThis 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.Item Participatory impact assessment. August 20- 25, 2001(Particiaptory Research in Asia (PRIA), 2001-08-25) Dwivedi, AnjuHow 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.