Participatory Action Research
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://knowledgedemocracydspace.com/handle/123456789/1074
Browse
56 results
Search Results
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 Participatory training and self development(0000) Acharya, Binoy; Verma, ShaliniHow should training be undertaken to encourage critical thinking and instill confidence in people? In this article, Binoy Acharya and Shalini Verma discuss the growing emphasis on training within the development sector while questioning approaches that reduce training to the mere transfer of information or techniques. They argue that many people, especially the poor and marginalised, experience the systematic devaluation of their own knowledge and capacities which weakens self confidence and participation. For this reason, simply providing more skills cannot by itself lead to empowerment, though external knowledge may still be useful. The focus of training, they argue, must be to foster critical thinking so that people can analyse their own realities, articulate their experiences, and identify what they need to learn further. Participatory training is highlighted as a process that breaks the culture of silence, restores faith in people’s own knowledge, and builds confidence for collective action. Social development, the authors emphasise, begins with the development of the self.Item Social development monitoring: A process to ensure accountability(Prashasnika A Journal of Administrative Processes, 2006-12) Dwivedi, AnjuWhat 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.Item Participatory research handbook for community groups(International Council for Adult Education, 1978-06) Barndt, Deborah; Conchelos, Greg; Etherington, Alan; Galindo, June; Hall, Budd L; Harasim, Linda; Jackson, Ted; Marino, Dian; Tobias, Kathy; Vigoda, Al; Correia, Dianne; Icaza, Bernardita; Mansfield, JenniferItem Society for participatory research in Asia(1986) Tandon, RajeshItem Certificate in international perspectives in participatory research instructional guidelines(PRIA & UVic, 2013) Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA); University of VictoriaItem Workshop report teaching of participatory research, 4-5 August 2005(2005-08) Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA)Item Participatory research in Asia(1980) Tandon, RajeshItem Research for the people-Research by the people(1980) Erasmie, Thord; de Vries, J; Dubell, FItem Second national inter professional dialogue on participaroty development and participatory research, April 18-24, 1997(Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA) and Association of Schools of Social Work in India (ASSWI), 1997-04) Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA)This report documents the Second National Inter Professional Dialogue on Participatory Development and Participatory Research, organised by PRIA and the Association of Schools of Social Work in India in 1997. Its central purpose was to deepen conceptual understanding of participatory research and participatory development, while examining their relevance for social work education and practice. Participatory research is presented not merely as a method of inquiry, but as a process through which ordinary people generate knowledge, analyse their realities, and shape their own development. Participatory development is similarly located within wider shifts from welfare oriented and top down models toward empowerment, decentralisation, and democratic engagement. Across chapters on governance, rural and urban development, people’s movements, training, and field practice, the report reflects on how participation can be institutionalised in meaningful ways. It also raises critical questions of power, professionalism, curriculum reform, and the relationship between theory and practice. A major contribution of the dialogue is its insistence that social work education must move beyond service delivery alone toward approaches that strengthen agency, collective action, and social transformation.