Community-Based Participatory Research

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

Browse

Filters

Settings

End date: 2009Subject: search.filters.subject.Participatory Action Research

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 27
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    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?
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Report on PRA workshop held at Bidda Village
    (1994) UNNATI Organization for Development Education
    This report is about a study conducted in “Bidda” village about Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methods in rural development planning. The participants included a workshop on PRA, which helped participants develop an understanding of the tools used for generating community knowledge, such as social mapping, resource mapping, transect walks, priority ranking, timelines and trends, service mapping, pie diagrams, and wealth ranking. In addition to providing knowledge about the tools, the workshop encouraged the participants to establish connections with local people, listen actively, ask open-ended questions, and value people’s community knowledge. The field study also helped participants learn how different PRA tools can collect comprehensive village information, including natural resources, livelihood resources, services available to the residents, and personal revenues and expenditures, and timelines and trends. The field study provided valuable insight into developing integrated community development plans for the study village based on the collective knowledge about the community. This research is a significant contribution to community planning, highlighting the importance of using participatory field study methods to generate community knowledge and promote rural development planning in Gujarat at the micro-level.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The village women cooperatives store: A case participatory research in a Korean village
    (1980) Cheong, Ji Woong
    This case study focuses on the role of the women’s club in the development of the rural community of Bangchuk village, South Korea, as part of the Rural Development Laboratory Project of Seoul National University. The village was characterized by low income, lack of infrastructure, poor coordination, and internal conflicts. Although there was an established number of formal and informal community groups, most of them were inactive, and women’s involvement was limited. Through field survey research in 1975, the current study explored how the women’s club was organized and manifested its developmental role. Particular attention was paid to developmental issues such as cooperation activities, economic and educational aspects, family planning, and the mobilization of women’s participation in the club activities to promote the well-being of the community. The case study provides evidence of how the women’s club organization and collective action promoted community development. It also demonstrates the importance of both the researcher’s cooperation with the community and his/her participation in the development mobilization process to harness local human resources for the empowerment of the community. The women’s collective organization in Bangchuk village is considered an effective way to promote community development and improve the quality of life of its residents.
  • 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
    Report of the meeting on participatory research held at Dehradun, India April 22-24, 1983
    (Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), 1983) Society for Participatory Research in Asia
    This report is about a three-day meeting on Participatory Research (PR) held in Dehradun, India, in April 1983, organized by the Society for Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA). It was attended by twenty-four participants, who discussed the role of ideology in PR, and the overlapping nature of participatory research, evaluation, and training. The meeting also explored the complex and often conflicting roles researchers assume in the field, illustrated through a participant's work with a Dalit theatre group. To examine these issues further, participants formed four interest groups. These groups focused on primary education, forest studies, baseline survey design, and women's issues, highlighting distinct methodological tensions in each area. The report closes with a review of PRIA's role as a support organization and suggestions for its future direction, including promoting PR more widely, producing materials in local languages, and building a resource pool of trained practitioners.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    From margins to center? The development and purpose of participatory research
    (The American Sociologist, 1992) Hall, Budd L
    This article documents the development of the libratory stream of participa-tory research as experienced through the activities and connections of one of the key figures in the early development and dissemination of these ideas. It traces the developments in Tanzania in the early 1970s, through the establish-ment of the original Participatory Research Network to the elaboration of theoretical and political debates. It highlights the formulation and elaboration of participatory research as a contribution to social change in a variety of settings. It includes discussions of the feminist advance, the question of voice and the relationship of power to knowledge in transformative practice. It contains an extensive and historically valuable bibliography.
  • 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Transformative environmental adult education: Lessons from global social movements
    (2004) Hall, Budd L
    How does learning emerge, and how can it be strengthened, within environmental social movement contexts? In this chapter, Dr. Budd Hall examines the previously unpublished results of the 1993–1994 Transformative Learning Through Environmental Action project (OISE, 1994), which investigated the learning dimension of six environmental action campaigns across Brazil, Canada, El Salvador, Germany, India, Sudan, and Venezuela, all centered on aspects of food security, preservation, and consumption. Hall re-examines these results, considering the growing interest in the theory and practice of environmental adult education, exploring the principles of transformative learning that were derived, the practices and processes that emerged, and the indicators of success that were identified. The chapter affirms that social movements are, among other things, about creating pedagogical spaces for adults to learn to transform their lives and the structures around them and that attending to the learning dimensions of environmental activism is a critical component in social movement strategy.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    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.