Community-Based Participatory Research

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

Browse

Filters

2000 - 200925

Settings

Start date: 2000End date: 2009

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 25
  • Thumbnail Image
    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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    University-community partnerships: Connecting for change
    (The Community-University Exposition 2008, 2008)
    With many of the social, environmental, health and economic issues facing us today we need research that engages those who are working on the front lines. Issues in Victoria, such as homelessness or climate change, are best understood and acted upon when those working to find solutions are driving the research.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The funding and development of community university research partnerships in Canada: Evidence-based investment in knowledge, engaged scholarship, innovation and action for Canada's future
    (OCBR, University of Victoria; Community Based Research Canada, 2009-10) Office of Community-Based Research, University of Victoria; Community Based Research Canada
    The purpose of this report is to map out the sources and types of funding that have been created to support community university research partnerships, describe the current state of development of arrangements between public post secondary institutions and community organizations, to collaborate in research and knowledge mobilization, and suggest some conclusions as to how effective partnership work of this kind might be strengthened in the future.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Participatory impact assessment: A pilot programme in South Asia.
    (Voluntary Agencies Support Scheme (VASS), 2002-03) Quinn, Marion; Clark, Kevin
    This report documents a South Asian pilot programme on Participatory Impact Assessment and argues that evaluation must move beyond expert-led measurement of outputs toward a continuous and democratic process in which communities themselves analyse change, define priorities, and shape future action. Drawing on experiences from India and Bangladesh, it shows how participatory approaches deepen both the quality and meaning of impact assessment by placing people’s lived realities at the center. Through methods such as group discussions, mapping, interviews, ranking, and reflective exercises, communities were able to examine shifts in confidence, leadership, access to services, household decision making, and collective organisation. The process also brought forward unintended outcomes, local constraints, and concerns that are often overlooked in conventional evaluations. A key contribution of the report is its insistence that impact assessment should happen throughout the project cycle rather than only at the end. When undertaken in a participatory manner, evaluation becomes not just a tool of measurement but a means of learning, accountability, and institutional improvement. It strengthens community capacities, deepens ownership, and helps organisations remain responsive to changing realities. This report is an important resource for understanding how people centered approaches can make development practice more accountable, reflective, and meaningful.
  • Thumbnail Image
    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, Marion
    How 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 deepened
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Re-Visiting participation third course development professional from south asia countries
    (Participatory research in Asia (PRIA), 2000-09-07) Satyamurthi, V
    This 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Policies and practises affecting Aboriginal fathers' involvement with their children
    (Thompson Educational Publishing Inc., 2006) Ball, Jessica; George, Ron
    This paper, by Jessica Ball and Ron George, is based on interviews with eighty First Nations and Métis fathers in British Columbia about how government policy and everyday institutional practice shape their involvement with their children. Many fathers described coming to fatherhood slowly, after years shaped by residential schools, forced relocation, and child welfare removals that broke the passing down of parenting knowledge between generations. The paper outlines recurring barriers: confusion around paternity registration, parenting programs built around mothers, custody decisions that favour mothers by default, and a maze of overlapping federal, provincial, and First Nations jurisdictions; all made harder by poverty. It ends with a set of recommendations, including acting on the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report, simplifying paternity registration, funding Aboriginal-led child welfare and father-support programs, and helping fathers pass on cultural knowledge to their children. The fathers' own words run through the paper, holding both the weight of being excluded and a quiet hope of being recognized as capable and needed.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    NZ VASS impact assessment: Pilot programme-Facilitator’s report
    (Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), 2001-07) Dwivedi, Anju
    How 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Participatory impact assessment. August 20- 25, 2001
    (Particiaptory Research in Asia (PRIA), 2001-08-25) Dwivedi, Anju
    How 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Social development monitoring: A process to ensure accountability
    (Prashasnika A Journal of Administrative Processes, 2006-12) Dwivedi, Anju
    What 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.