Browsing by Author "Brown, L. David"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3

Action research, participatory research, and the political economy of inquiry
(1982) Brown, L. David; Tondon, Rajesh
This paper by L. David Brown and Rajesh Tandon compares traditions of applied behavioural science research, action research and participatory research, and how each is shaped by values, ideology and political economy. Two cases anchor the comparison: a joint study of stress-related "sore arm" complaints at a United States electronics plant, and a citizen-led study of land ownership in Appalachia. Both traditions aim for useful knowledge and developmental change. But action research works through individual and group analysis within a consensus view of organizations, while participatory research works through societal and conflict analysis centred on oppression and unequal resources. A political economy framework carries the comparison further, covering problem definition, data collection and analysis, and how results get used, showing how authority and resources are distributed differently in each tradition. Three hypotheses follow, on when each approach fits and how each might spread across Western and Third World settings. The authors conclude that ideological and political economic differences will likely keep the two traditions apart, despite their shared roots in dissatisfaction with conventional social science.
Ideology and political economy in inquiry: Action research and participatory research
(Sage Publication, 1983-09) Brown, L. David; Tandon, Rajesh
Participatory research: Revisiting the roots
(2002) Tandon, Rajesh; Hall, Budd L; Brown, L. David; Jaitli, Harsh; Kanhere, Vijay; Small, Dele; Gaventa, John; Merrifield, Juliet; Madiath, Anthya; Belamide, Eileen; Bryceson, Deborah; Manicom, Linzi; Kassam, Yusuf; Vio Grossi, Francisco; Hirabai Hiralal, Mohan; Tare, Savita; Batliwala, Srilatha; Patel, Sheela; Khot, Seemantinee
It has been nearly a quarter of a century since the early formulations of participatory research began to be presented hesitatingly and tentatively. Those early proposals were essentially a reaction to the classical methodology of research and inquiry which had alienated the social science research enterprise from the very people about whom research was being carried out. In a simple way, stated then, participatory research challenged the 'monopoly of knowledge' which has been vested in the elites of our society. The production of knowledge, its certification and dissemination have been controlled by intellectual elites in all human societies, since a long period of time. The Brahmanical order justified its hierarchy by making the distinction between intellectual work and physical work. Brahmins were the repositories of knowledge and wisdom, could use the language of God's 'Sanskrit', and interpret the religious scriptures to prescribe the social norms and behaviour for the rest of society. Similar Brahmanical orders have existed in other cultures and other histories. Therefore, the first significant contribution of participatory research has been to challenge the mythical and artificial divide between mental labour and manual labour, intellectual pursuits and physical pursuits. It has questioned the belief that capacity for intellectual work resides in only a few. It argued that popular knowledge, ability to produce and use knowledge, is a universal human phenomenon, and such capacity exists in all human beings, so argued participatory research then.