Community-Based Participatory Research

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://knowledgedemocracydspace.com/handle/123456789/1068

Browse

Now showing 1 - 20 of 82

50th anniversary edition of pedagogy of the oppressed: A review
(2020) Hall, Budd L
A Canadian approach to higher education, community-engagement and the public good: The future of continuing education
(2009) Hall, Budd L
What is the relationship between society and universities in the 21st century? In this article, Budd L Hall reflects on the future direction of Canadian higher education and its responsibility to the public good. Situating his argument within long-standing debates in continuing education, he examines how universities are increasingly shaped by market pressures, corporatisation, and funding constraints. Instead of framing social justice and economic concerns as oppositional, Hall calls for a more integrated approach that recognises the interdependence of markets, communities, and democratic life. Drawing on decades of work in community-based research and engagement, he argues that universities must move towards institutionalising meaningful partnerships with communities. Community-based research, he suggests, should be embedded within teaching and research practices as a pathway to social action. In conclusion, this article invites readers to reconsider how higher education institutions can remain socially relevant by strengthening their civic role and deepening their accountability to the communities they serve.
A note on the participatory research project in the asian region
(1981) Tandon, Rajesh
This paper traces the rise of participatory research as a response to the limits of conventional social science, linking it to wider struggles for democracy and development. It reflects on both its potential and contradictions, framing it as an ongoing project rather than a finished method.
African regional workshop on participatory research (1-7 July): "From clarity to Anarchy – Participatory research approach"
(PRIA, 1979-07) Tandon, Rajesh
An epidemiological approach to participatory research in evaluation (an ongoing study)
(0000) Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA)
Background document for the University of Victoria Task Force on civic engagement
(University of Victoria, 2017-09-15) Dragne, Cornelia
The purpose of the report is to identify and review the best strategies used by other universities to coordinate their civic/community engagement practices, as they are reflected in the literature dedicated to the topic. The focus of the report is on North American universities. The report seeks to: 1)present a brief background on university-community engagement 2)identify universities that promote civic/community engagement, case studies of coordinating models in place 3)identify evaluation methodologies 4)identify principles and structures that could serve as a model for UVic, lessons learned and recommendations in the literature.
Background document for university - community engagement
(University of Victoria, 2007-09-15) Office of Community-Based Research (OCBR); Dragne, Cornelia
The report examined the ways universities coordinate their engagement efforts from the university's side, by examining academic reports and universities websites. Being a two-way relationship, the picture would have been complete if the community side would have been presenting its own account. However, due to the large number of different interactions with various community partners, even for a single university such picture is not feasible for this report to build. Academics engaged in community-based research and activities are people committed to the idea of engagement and its strong supporters. By reviewing accounts of existing institutional commitments, the report presents a view strongly supportive of the idea that allocating institutional resources to university-community engagement is the way to go. The report overlooks the epistemological debates surrounding engagement scholarship and community-based forms of research, as well as the concerns about the ethics of academic-community interaction. Another limitation stems from the fact that English language was used for all the searches.
Beyond "whose reality counts?" New methods we now need?
(1997) Chambers, Robert
Activities called PRA, and its equivalents in other languages, have evolved from a confluence, sharing and adaptation of methodologies, methods and participatory traditions. Synergies have generated new things to do and new ways to do them, including visual forms of analysis. A conjunction of conditions has produced an explosion of activities and applications, and spread to many countries and organisations - NGOs, Government departments, and even universities, and raising questions of ethics and of sharing methodologies. Coming from our different traditions, should we seek places of convergence and springboards for action? If so, could the concept of responsible wellbeing, and the question "Whose reality counts?" provide us with common ground? They fit with eclectic pluralism, a celebration of diversity, and democratic reversals of dominance. They raise shared issues of how we teach, learn, and construct realities, of dominant institutions and their cultures, and of personal power. They point towards responsible well-being for "uppers" being sought in empowering and privileging the realities of "lowers". Do we now have a phenomenal opportunity? We have participatory methodologies which are powerful, popular and self-spreading We have new space opened up by government and donor agency policies for participation and poverty reduction. Rapid spread has brought much bad practice. At the same time, PRA and other participatory methodologies have also shown a potential to contribute to changes at levels which are policy-related, institutional and personal To make the most of these opportunities invites sharing methods and experience between different traditions, and inventing new methods. Five methodological challenges now (May 1997) stand out as points of leverage. These are how better to 1. enable the realities and priorities of poor and marginalised people to be expressed and communicated to policy-makers 2. enable trainers to facilitate attitude and behaviour change 3. make normal bureaucracies more participatory 4. build self-improvement into the spread of participatory methodologies 5. enable people with power to find fulfilment in disempowering themselves Could it be that effective repertoires for these could lead to much good change? Could convergences and sharings of experiences and approaches among us contribute to such repertoires? Could we between us seize these opportunities in the new spaces which are opening up?
Beyond epistemicide: Knowledge democracy, higher education and the path towards pluriversality
(UNESCO Chair, 2016) Hall, Budd L
How have our knowledge systems been shaped by histories of colonisation, enclosure and dispossession, and what might it mean to move beyond them? In this lecture delivered in Brighton, Dr. Budd L. Hall traces how contemporary knowledge systems are rooted in long histories of land theft, colonial expansion and epistemicide. Beginning with a personal account of his family’s migration to Canada and the acquisition of Indigenous land through illegal and immoral means, he situates his own access to higher education within the material histories of dispossession that financed universities and consolidated Western knowledge systems as dominant. Drawing on David Harvey’s notion of accumulation by dispossession and Boaventura de Sousa Santos’ concept of epistemicide, Hall argues that universities have functioned as sites of enclosure, determining who is authorised to produce knowledge and whose knowledge systems are dismissed. Through examples from India, Uganda, South Africa and beyond, the lecture highlights alternative knowledge systems that persist despite marginalisation. It calls for transforming knowledge systems through knowledge democracy, co-creation and a sustained commitment towards epistemic justice.
Breaking the monopoly of knowledge: research methods, participation and development
(1977) Hall, Budd L
Why do we undertake research, and in whose interests does it operate? In this essay, Dr. Budd Hall critically examines the dominant top down traditions of research in adult education and questions their claims to objectivity. He argues that conventional survey based approaches often extract information from communities while offering little in return. They produce knowledge that can be inaccurate, alienating, and detached from tangible social action. Engaging with radical educators and theorists such as Paulo Freire, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, Hall outlines the foundations of an alternative participatory research approach. This approach views knowledge as collectively produced and rooted in lived experience rather than imposed by external experts. Research, in this framing, becomes a process of dialogue, reflection, and action directed toward liberation and social transformation. The essay invites readers to reconsider the purpose of research itself and to imagine methodologies that expand human creative potential while challenging entrenched hierarchies of knowledge and power.
Bridging knowledge cultures: Rebalancing power in the Co-Construction of knowledge
(Brill, 2024) Lepore, Walter; Hall, Budd L; Tandon, Rajesh
Establishing truly respectful, mutually beneficial, and equitable knowledge creation partnerships with diverse communities poses significant challenges for academia. Bridging Knowledge Cultures provides valuable insights into the dynamics involved and the obstacles encountered when attempting to establish meaningful research partnerships between different knowledge domains. This book goes beyond exploration by offering practical recommendations to overcome these challenges and forge effective collaboration between mainstream research institutions and community groups and organizations. This book includes ten compelling case studies conducted by research and training hubs established through the global Knowledge for Change Consortium. These case studies encompass community-university research partnerships across various geographical locations, tackling a wide range of societal issues and acknowledging the wealth of knowledge created by local communities. The overarching goal of this book is to inspire the next generation of researchers and professionals to embrace the richness of diverse perspectives and knowledge cultures. By advocating for the construction of "bridges" through practical approaches, the book encourages a shift from competition to collaboration in research. Ultimately, it aims to foster an environment where different forms of knowledge can intersect and thrive, leading to a more inclusive and comprehensive understanding of the world around us.
Building in dialogue between consumers and staff in acute mental health services
(Systemic Practice and Action Research, 1998) Wadsworth, Yoland; Epstein, Merinda
This paper describes some aspects of the methodology, material, and findings from a lengthy participatory action research engagement by a consumer organization in Australia, which was undertaken in collaboration with staff at a major public psychiatric hospital and then went on to involve "players" throughout the local state, and national mental health services system. A small first phase established a dialogic methodology for the exchange of experiences and thinking between staff and consumers. The purpose of the second phase of the research was to explore how consumers' voices might be heard, and how staff-consumer communication about that feedback, might be "built in" to ongoing organizational structure and culture. Systems thinking about defensive routines, silences, and voice-as-discourse is reported as offering a possible way of cracking the puzzle of the closed-loop cycle of claim/blame-defense-and-counter-claim/blame-defense that has been characteristic to date.
Challenges in the co-construction of knowledge: A global study on strengthening structures for community university research partnerships
(0000) Hall, Budd L; Tandon, Rajesh; Tremblay, Crystal; Singh, Wafa
What does it mean to institutionalise the co-construction of knowledge between universities and communities at a global level? This paper begins from the premise that knowledge democracy requires moving beyond expert driven models towards collaborative processes that recognise the knowledge generating capacities of each human being and of every community. Community university research partnerships are presented as a key pathway for this shift, as they create structures through which research questions, methods, processes and outcomes can be shaped jointly. Drawing on a global survey and national case studies across Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas, the authors examine the histories, discourses and institutional forms that support or constrain such partnerships. This paper further analyses models such as Science Shops, centers of community-based research and national policy frameworks, while identifying tensions and practical challenges in embedding such work within universities. It highlights the importance of facilitative structures, supportive leadership, transnational networks and sustained institutional commitment. In doing so, it argues that institutionalising community-based research is not only a technical exercise but a political and ideological process that reshapes how universities understand knowledge, partnership and their responsibilities to society.
Citizen engagement in urban governance: Lessons from small and medium towns in India
(Society for Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), 2009) Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA)
With the rapid expansion of Indian cities came new pressures on governance, raising difficult questions about how urban institutions could remain accountable and responsive to citizens. This report focuses on the role of citizen engagement in strengthening urban governance in India. This study, drawing on case studies and field experiences, examines how rapid urban growth has reshaped city management and points to the possibilities opened up when citizens are given space to engage with governance. The analysis shows that while policies and structures for participation exist on paper, many citizens, especially those from marginalized groups, remain excluded from these processes due to a lack of awareness, resources, or institutional support. The paper points to the need for deeper trust and stronger channels of dialogue between citizens and city governments to make engagement meaningful. By placing citizens at the heart of governance, the study underlines how democratic processes in cities can become more inclusive, responsive, and effective in addressing the needs of diverse urban populations, positioning participation as the foundation of just and sustainable urban futures.
Citizen report card: Citizen feedback for effective service delivery: An operational manual
(Society for Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), 2013) Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA)
Asia is urbanising at a pace faster than ever. The ever increasing population in the Asian cities and the consequent increase in demands for supply of basic services like housing, water, sanitation, health, education etc. pose enormous challenges to the urban local governance institutions. The existing capacities and resources of most urban local governance institutions are over stretched. The situation is exacerbated due to lack of governance reforms leading to enormous deficits in the transparency, accountability and citizen participation – the hallmarks of any democratic governance institutions. The engagement of civil society organisations (CSOs) is pivotal in making the urban local governance institutions transparent, accountable, responsive and participatory. However, the capacities of CSOs to engage and hold the urban local governance institutions are also limited. The project “Deepening Local Democratic Governance through Social Accountability in Asia” aimed to improve democratic practices in urban local governance institutions through social accountability for improving the provision of basic services to the most marginalised families in two Asian cities – Rajshahi in Bangladesh and Takhmao in Cambodia. The project was supported by the UN Democracy Fund (UNDEF) and was implemented by the Society for Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA) in partnership with PRIP Trust, Bangladesh and SILAKA, Cambodia. It addressed the deficits of democratic practices, particularly the lack of citizen participation, transparency and accountability mechanisms in municipalities, due to which these institutions often fail to deliver services effectively and equitably and lack responsiveness towards the most marginalised. It made efforts to enhance organised citizen action and participation through mobilisation, capacity building, campaigns and participatory monitoring (using citizen report card and citizen monitoring methods) to ensure accountability. Its endeavours included enhancing citizens’ access to information and basic services by developing partnership with the elected municipalities to establish ‘models’ of social accountability mechanisms, particularly using citizen charters, pro-active information disclosures and public grievance redressal mechanisms. Having harvested the lessons from these interventions at the municipality level coupled with specific policy analysis at the sub-national and national levels, policy dialogues and policy oriented capacity building learning events were organised towards policy changes. It contributed to enhance capacities of local intermediary CSOs through training, exposure visits, on-site coaching and mentoring for implementing various social accountability approaches and tools and also influencing national and sub-national policies on urban governance issues. One of the critical outcomes of the intervention was to systematise the experience of implementing specific social accountability approaches, tools and methods so that the practitioners from CSOs as well as municipal officials could scale up, mainstream and institutionalise these practices elsewhere. Three operational manuals produced through this initiative are significant step towards these purposes. We sincerely hope that the practitioners from CSOs and officials from the municipalities will find these manuals handy and useful.
Citizen's report on water supply, sanitation and solid waste management in selected small and medium towns in India
(Society for Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), 2008-12) Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA)
Strengthening citizen participation in urban governance has been one of the main objectives of PRIA. A variety of interventions towards the formation and strengthening of citizen collectives for effective participatory governance have been carried out in multiple locations of various small and medium towns. Study on ‘Citizen Report on Water Supply and Sanitation Services’ is one of the important initiatives undertaken by PRIA. The objectives of the intervention were two fold: (i) enhancing civic engagement and citizen participation and (ii) improving service delivery by the municipalities through enhanced accountability and participation. The specific objective was to assess the status of water supply and sanitation in terms of availability, accessibility, quantity, quality and affordability by involving citizen leaders/volunteers and local civil society actors so as to initiate a citizen monitoring system. The study is confined to eight cities namely, Dharamshala (Himachal Pradesh), Narnaul and Mahendergarh (Haryana), Rajnandgaon and Janjgir (Chhattisgarh), Jhunjhunu and Karauli (Rajasthan) and Sehore (Madhya Pradesh). Information on water supply and sanitation had been collected through a series of primary household surveys using a structured questionnaire. The approach was to involve active citizen volunteers/leaders in collecting data wherever they were present. Youth from local colleges and senior secondary schools were especially encouraged to participate in carrying out the interview surveys.
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.
Community based participatory research & sustainable development goals
(the Canadian Commission for UNESCO’s IdeaLab, 2017) Hall, Budd L; Tandon, Rajesh
In this report, Dr. Budd Hall and Dr. Rajesh Tandon explore the role of Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The authors contend that addressing the social, economic, and environmental challenges within the SDG framework demands knowledge production approaches that go beyond what conventional academic research offers. Higher education institutions, with their considerable intellectual, physical, and digital resources, are seen as well-placed to generate locally relevant and actionable knowledge through socially responsible research. CBPR is discussed as a collaborative and participatory approach that brings together universities, communities, civil society, and policy actors in equitable partnerships, with an emphasis on co-learning, capacity building, and social change. The report also considers how higher education institutions can integrate CBPR into their research work through locally grounded and community-driven methods. It closes with recommendations for universities, policymakers, funding agencies, and civil society organizations on building stronger institutional support for CBPR in the pursuit of the SDGs.
Community participation
(2000) Tandon, Rajesh
Community-based participatory research with Dr. Rajesh Tandon-Podcast, Episode 1
(The Action Research Podcast, 2021-09-21) Tandon, Rajesh
In this episode, the Ar Pod team welcomes Dr. Rajesh Tandon, an internationally acclaimed leader and practitioner of participatory research and development. In 1982 Dr. Tandon founded the Society for Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), a voluntary organisation providing support to grassroots initiatives in South Asia and continues to be its Chief Functionary. He also holds a UNESCO Chair on Community Based Research and Social Responsibility in Higher Education since 2012. He is a prolific writer and scholar and is highly decorated. The conversation opens with an introduction of Dr. Tandon and the story behind PRIA (2:02), followed by a lightening round of questions (8:29), where Joe and Adam ask about the mission and vision of PRIA, a recent project with domestic workers, definitions of community based participatory research and, how is participatory research different from community-based participatory action research. Later in the episode, Adam asks what have been some of the more effective mechanisms or processes that you have used to catalyze participation in the field as it relates to participatory research (19:16). Dr. Tandon responds by placing emphasis on building trust among the stakeholders, facilitating conversation with the community and finding a local trusted organisation. How might a budding scholar identify those local organisations? How can these local organisations be trusted? (26:28). To find out, tune in!