Community-Based Participatory Research

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

Browse

Filters

Settings

End date: 2009Subject: search.filters.subject.SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 25
  • 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
    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
    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
    Notes on monitoring-fifth training workshop on participatory development. September 15-19, 1997
    (Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), 1997-09-19) Satyamurti, V.
    This learning material by Satyamurti V. examines the concept of monitoring as an essential ingredient of planning an activity. Its process involves the collection of information for implementing a programme, determining how the inputs are being used, and seeing whether deadlines are being met. It lists management, finance, and programme as different types of monitoring and discusses in detail the methods and utilisation of information to be collected for each type. The material further talks about process and impact monitoring, noting that all monitoring systems should include both. The steps and essential components of designing and managing a monitoring system are also laid out, starting from defining the main aim of the monitoring system, selection of relevant information, data collection and analysis, displaying and using the results, to finally deciding who should be involved in the process. It concludes with the idea that monitoring should be participatory, with information chosen, recorded, and analysed by all those involved, including people affected by the work.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Monitoring and evaluation
    (0000) Satyamurti, V.
    In this article, V. Satyamurthi discusses the need for monitoring and evaluation in sustaining the efficiency and long-term relevance of social programmes designed to strengthen citizens’ capacities to participate fully in social, economic, and political life. He traces the growing emphasis on monitoring and evaluation from the early 1950s, and more sharply in the 1970s, when international development assistance expanded and demands for accountability increased. At the same time, the article notes important critiques of conventional approaches that relied excessively on measurement, targets, and narrow indicators, arguing instead for a stronger learning process orientation. The article clearly explains the distinction between monitoring and evaluation, their core components, indicators, and the principles of participatory monitoring and evaluation. Particular attention is given to assessing the progress of community groups toward self reliance over time. In doing so, it demonstrates that participatory evaluation assesses the appropriateness of present goals and of the institutions that define those goals, making it a fundamental part of meaningful social programmes.
  • 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