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

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 105

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, Rajesh
What 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.
Participatory training for promotion of social development
(1996) Acharya, Binoy; Verma, Shalini
How 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.
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.
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.
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, Kevin
This 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.
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.
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.
Leave no one behind. Repositioning Higher Education for achieving SDGs
(UNESCO Chair, 2022-11-05) Vargiu, Andrea; Tandon, Rajesh; Kaul, Niharika
Recent global disruptions connected to financial turbulence, pandemic outbreak, and global political instability up for hybrid warfare put the 2030 Agenda's vision at risk. Higher Education (HE) is central to the 2030 Agenda, but its potential hasn't been fully deployed thus far. A stronger role of HE in tackling the world's most pressing issues is therefore necessary. Which requires the repositioning of HE and the reshaping of its principles and practices. By referring to extensive experience on the ground of the Knowledge for Change Consortium members, and a wide range of contributions from the Global South and the excluded North, this policy brief approaches this need by discussing four interrelated themes: 1. HE for the public good 2. Socially inclusive HE 3. Diversity of epistemologies and knowledge systems 4. Contextual responsiveness and place-based learning This policy brief calls on HE leaders and actors to promote transformations within their institutions and HE systems, using the recommendations to critically reflect and act to reposition HE for achieving the 2030 Agenda.
Bridging the gap between the researcher and the community: PRIA’s engagements in promoting community based research and social responsibility in higher educational institutions
(Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), 2014) Tandon, Rajesh; Singh, Wafa; Srinivasan, Sumitra
PRIA has engaged with academia in a multitude of interventions, bringing community and practitioner knowledge into the portals of traditional research institutions and processes. By doing this, PRIA has helped Higher Educational Institutions (HEls) realize their social responsibility towards a community's needs and aspirations. This document traces PRIA's work in promoting community engagement within HEls in India and beyond. The experience, garnered over three decades, have been classified into six categories to highlight the different forms PRIA's interventions as a facilitator have taken to build bridges between the world of formal research, the practitioner knowledge of civil society actors and the experiential knowledge of local communities. The experiences discussed in this paper are not intended to be comprehensive; a few specific interventions are described under each category to illustrate the nature of the engagements fostered and the practices promoted.
Training on participatory research methodologies. September 18-22, 2017
(2017-09-22) Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA)

Knowledge Democracy / Participatory Research

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results