Community Knowledge
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://knowledgedemocracydspace.com/handle/123456789/1071
Browse
11 results
Search Results
Item Activity report office of community-based June-October, 2008(2008-10) Office of Community-Based ResearchThis activity report covers the work of the Office of Community-Based Research (OCBR) from June to October 2008. It describes follow-up to CUexpo2008, including video interviews, an archival website and a proceedings volume of over 300 pages. It also reports on the first Summer Institute on Community-Based Research, held in mid- July 2008 with about 120 participants, and on related undergraduate and graduate courses. The report records the launch of the Pan-Canadian Coalition for Community-Based Research and the Global Alliance on Community-Engaged Scholarship, two outcomes of the conference. It also notes the integration of the Knowledge Mobilization Unit into the OCBR and support for Indigenous community-based research, including work with the Indigenous Adult and Higher Education Association, Indigenous language teacher education and the Halalt First Nations.Item Gracias Companero: An appreciation of Orlando Fals Borda(SAGE Publications, 2008) Hall, Budd LI first met Orlando Fals Borda in April of 1977. He was standing in the lobby of an older colonial style hotel in the city of Cartagena, Columbia. He was sur-rounded by a group of very earnest younger and older Latin Americans who were holding very heated discussions about the nature of knowledge, the role of intellectuals in revolutionary change and the age-old question in times of need: 'What is to be done?". The occasion was a meeting of 56 scholar-activists from all over the world, whom Orlando Fals Borda had brought together to this Caribbean city of coastal Colombia to embark on a daring new idea: to break the positivist hold on science by means of recognizing channels of valid knowledge production by and with the common people, with the purpose of social recon-struction and participation. Some of those scholars had been working to these ends since the late 1960s outside of academic confines. Orlando traced his lineage in Participatory Action Research and related approaches from that meeting. At the time, I was a newly appointed research officer working with the International Council for Adult Education, fresh from five years working in Tanzania where a number of us began the work which we coined 'participatory research'. A number of us were working on the building of an international par-ticipatory research network and we needed Orlando's ideas and support to move our work forward.Item The Application of the social sciences’ Contemporary issues to work on participatory action research(Society for Applied Anthropology, 2008) Fals Borda, OrlandoNo one could have been more surprised than I when at the closing session of the 12th International Sympo-N sium on Action Research for Education, held at my home city of Bogotá, Colombia May 14-18, 2007 a number of delegates from Australia, Great Britain and the United States went to the podium to announce that I was the new recipient of the prestigious Bronislaw Malinowski Award of the Society for Applied Anthropology. I should travel to Memphis for this purpose. It is a motive of amazement to find my name in the honor roll together with scientists and authors of my considerable youthful reverence, the masters of my professors-a roster with names such as Gunnar Myrdal, Everett C. Hughes, Laura Thompson, Conrad Arensberg, and Margaret Clark. How did I finally fit into this sacred list? I am not going to question the criteria for choosing. My main duty, I feel, is to examine whether I merit such inclusion from the standpoint of con-tinuity and/or accumulation of science, continuing some of the basic tenets of the discipline I learned in my university years in the United States.Item Code of practice for the Tangata Whenua, community and voluntary sector reseach centre(Tangata Whenua, Community and Voluntary Sector Research Centre, 2007-10-02)This Code of Practice sets out principles and standards for undertaking ethical and participatory research with the Tangata Whenua, community, and voluntary sector in New Zealand. It gives consideration to achieving greater levels of community participation and self-determination in research processes, and throughout the whole life-cycle of research projects, from design and implementation to reporting and evaluation. Furthermore, it is about recognizing the need to address power imbalances and inequities, and upholding Indigenous Peoples and Tangata Whenua, their own knowledge and tikanga (Maori values) and their rights as communities and peoples, including their ability to make decisions about research, its analysis and reporting. It also includes principles of empowerment, governance, and accountability, reciprocal relations, sustainability, social justice, confidentiality, ownership, and ethical and moral responsibility. Overall, the code focuses on research partnerships in which communities make decisions and are active participants, as well as benefitting directly from research, and in which research processes adopt rights-based approaches that are strengths-focused and contribute to community wellbeing.Item From clients to citizens: Asset-based community development as a strategy for community-driven development(The Coady International Institute, St. Francis Xavier University, 2002-01) Mathie, Alison; Cunningham, GordAsset-based community development (ABCD) is presented as an alternative to needs-based approaches to development. Following an overview of the principles and practice of ABCD, five major elements of ABCD are examined in the light of current literature on relevant research and practice. This involves exploring: the theory and practice of appreciative inquiry; the concept of social capital as an asset for community development; the theory of community economic development, such as the sustainable livelihoods approach; lessons learned from two decades of international development in the participatory paradigm; and the theory and practice of building active citizenship engagement and stronger civil society. How ABCD both reflects recent trends in these areas and stands to benefit from the insights generated from this work is outlined.Item Understanding design of organisation(Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), 2001-08-25) Tandon, RajeshThis text by Dr. Rajesh Tandon presents a comprehensive analysis of the structure and process of understanding organizations and NGOs and navigates strategies to their management. The text describes models as conceptual tools for analyzing organizational behaviour, emphasizing the organization as an open social system and provides a systems theory for it. It explains missions and purposes of an organisation and lists its required inputs and desired outputs. The text further identifies and describes five key components of organizational design, technology, tasks, human resources, formal organizational structure, and informal organization. It analyses the concept of congruence, arguing that organizational effectiveness depends on the degree to which these components fit together and presents the congruence hypothesis arguing that greater the fit between components, the more effective the organization will be in achieving its mission. The text identifies types of NGOs and addresses several critical issues for NGO management such as compatibility with organizing elements, size and informal structure, hierarchy, and organisational changes. It further discusses the differences arising from different ideologies and operational strategies and the need for NGOs to manage relationships with multiple constituencies. The text concludes that organizations are complex social systems requiring analysis at multiple levels and aspects and that a successful organisation requires effective division of work and integration of efforts.Item Participatory impact assessment: Final report on a two-year pilot programme in South Asia and the Pacific(Voluntary Agency Support Scheme (VASS), 2003-06) Clark, Kevin; Quinn, MarionHow can development interventions become more accountable to the communities they engage with? This report presents the findings and lessons from a two-year Participatory Impact Assessment pilot programme carried out across South Asia and the Pacific with New Zealand NGOs, their regional partners, and local communities. Its central argument is that impact assessment must move beyond measuring short term outputs to understanding long term social change through the active participation of primary stakeholders at every stage of the project cycle. Across multiple case studies involving women’s empowerment, livelihoods, peacebuilding, and community facilitation, the report illustrates how communities can identify indicators, analyse change, and shape future directions of programmes themselves. It highlights key themes such as partnership, stakeholder involvement, gender justice, institutional learning, and the use of participatory tools including mapping, ranking, theatre, focus groups, seasonal analysis, and interviews. The report consistently emphasises that evaluation is not merely a technical review but a democratic and empowering process through which ownership is strengthened, unintended impacts are surfaced, and organisational accountability is deepenedItem Re-Visiting participation third course development professional from south asia countries(Participatory research in Asia (PRIA), 2000-09-07) Satyamurthi, VThis paper compiled by V. Satyamurthi examines the concepts, methods, and limitations of monitoring and evaluation in development programmes. The paper traces the evolution of M&E from its origins in the 1950s UN system through the 1970s expansion of international development assistance. It critiques the conventional M&E system, arguing that it fails to capture the complex, qualitative dimensions of social change. The paper then assesses in detail, and distinguishes between monitoring as an internal management activity providing regular feedback on implementation progress, and evaluation as a broader assessment of programme appropriateness, results, and impact. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation and its key elements are presented as an alternative based on the belief that those most closely involved can analyse their own problems. The paper then outlines six categories of PM&E indicators, from group operation and management, economic performance, technical operation, financial management, group institutionalisation and self-reliance, to other considerations. The paper concludes by distinguishing three kinds of evaluation using Karl Deutsch's feedback loop framework, arguing how only participatory evaluation provides the latter two forms of feedback essential for genuine development.Item Mapping the assets of your community: A key component for building local capacity(Southern Rural Development Center, 2002) Beaulieu, Lionel JAmid growing debates on how best to foster local development, asset-based approaches have emerged as an alternative to problem-driven planning. This paper explores the concept of community asset mapping as a practical strategy for strengthening local capacity. The study contrasts the traditional needs assessment approach with asset mapping, showing how the latter encourages collaboration, reduces dependency, and creates a stronger sense of ownership among community members. Instead of beginning with a list of problems, the discussion emphasizes identifying the skills, talents, and resources that already exist within individuals, institutions, and informal groups. Special attention is given to how local leadership can be discovered and nurtured, and how linking people, organizations, and institutions builds a foundation for sustainable development. The research points toward a way of rethinking development by shifting attention from what is missing to what is already present, leaving open the question of how such a shift might transform community life.Item 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, SeemantineeIt 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.