Community-Based Participatory Research
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://knowledgedemocracydspace.com/handle/123456789/1068
Browse
19 results
Search Results
Item NZ VASS impact assessment: Pilot programme-Facilitator’s report(Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), 2001-07) Dwivedi, AnjuHow 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.Item Participatory impact assessment. August 20- 25, 2001(Particiaptory Research in Asia (PRIA), 2001-08-25) Dwivedi, AnjuHow 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.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 National level orientation programme on strengthening urban governance in india a Participatory research intervention, October 9-11, 2000, Reading material no. 2 and 4(Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), 2000) Gill, Harbans Singh; PrajaItem Item Towards a new architecture of knowledge: The creation of an office of community-based research at the University of Victoria(2007) Hall, Budd L; Lydon, Maeve; Trapero, JoaquinItem A Canadian approach to higher education, community-engagement and the public good: The future of continuing education(2009) Hall, Budd LThis work addresses the vital role of Community-University Engagement (CUE) in Canadian higher education as a critical strategy for responding to major global challenges like social injustice and climate change. It is argued that the collective resources of universities are the largest under-utilized assets for community change and sustainability. This work introduces the CUE Factor as a triangle encompassing “Community-Based Experiential Learning”, “Community-Based Research (CBR), and Community-Based Continuing Education” , defining CBR as a collaborative, democratizing process aimed at “social action and justice”. While Continuing Education (CE) units have over a century of experience and a strong base in lifelong learning, they face significant challenges, including declining institutional support and a perceived distance from the university's core academic and research functions. Therefore, this paper proposes an agenda for action to position CE centrally within the CUE movement, recommending that CE units strengthen their research profiles, lead university-wide discussions on civic engagement, and forge action alliances with community organizations to ensure universities meet their obligation to contribute to social transformation.Item Higher education, community engagement, and the public good: Building the future of continuing education in Canada(Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 2009) Hall, Budd LThis article is about the potential for university-community engagement to serve the public good by transforming the health and well-being of our communities. It documents contemporary expressions of and renewed calls for community university engagement. It includes a detailed treatment of community based research, discussed in the overall context of community-university engagement. The article also explores some other important and growing dimensions of community university engagement, including the development of structures for the support of community-based research and community-service learning. It concludes with an argument that university-community engagement, while not the only current trend in higher education that affects our work in continuing education, is nonetheless a very important new development in which continuing education has much to offer and much to gain.Item Revitalizing the teaching of participatory research in social sciences(Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), 2005-03) Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA)