Community-Based Participatory Research
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://knowledgedemocracydspace.com/handle/123456789/1068
Browse
19 results
Search Results
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 AsiaThis 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.Item Notes on monitoring-fifth training workshop on participatory development. September 15-19, 1997(Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), 1997-09-19) Satyamurti, V.Monitoring is essential to any planning activity, as it provides a systematic and continuous assessment of the progress of work over time. In these writings, compiled by V. Satyamurthi, monitoring is presented not merely as a technical exercise but as a practical tool for accountability, learning, and improved programme management. These writings explain in detail what should be reviewed during monitoring, what information is useful, and how aims and indicators may be defined clearly. Particular attention is given to process monitoring, including the use of resources, progress of activities, and the manner in which work is carried out. The notes further discuss methods of data collection and analysis, including surveys, case studies, regular records, and participatory approaches that involve communities directly. Equal emphasis is placed on interpreting findings, sharing feedback, and using results to improve planning procedures and institutional learning. Satyamurthi also underlines the importance of making monitoring participatory so that people affected by programmes can have a say in the process. These notes provide a grounded and practical guide to participatory monitoring processes.Item Involving communities in planning and assessing the impacts of development programmes: Report on a pacific NGO workshop on participatory approaches to development, Nadi, Fiji, 23–25 June(2023-06-23) Quinn, Marion; Clark, KevinThis report documents a Pacific NGO workshop on participatory approaches to development held in Fiji in 2003, aimed at strengthening the capacities of civil society organisations to use participatory impact assessment, stakeholder analysis, indicator setting, and community based monitoring in their own contexts. Its central concern is how development can move beyond expert driven models toward processes where primary stakeholders influence decisions, resources, and outcomes. The report covers practical sessions on identifying stakeholders, understanding gender relations, designing meaningful indicators, collecting and analysing data, and using participatory tools such as mapping, ranking, focus groups, seasonal calendars, and time use studies. Through examples from Pacific countries, it shows how communities can define priorities, generate knowledge, and evaluate change on their own terms. This report offers an important lesson that monitoring and evaluation are not merely technical exercises but democratic processes linked to power, voice, and accountability. It demonstrates that when communities participate from the beginning of a project cycle, development interventions become more relevant, more sustainable, and more responsive to local realities.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 Women and multiple vulnerabilities in an area of unrest: Key issues and challenges of tribal women in dumka and jamtara districts of Jharkhand: Final report(Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), 2013-11-12) Jaitli, Namrata; Singh, Shivani; Ahluwalia, Deepa; NasruddinItem Participatory training on coastal research study, Phase II: At all India catholic union federation hall, Madras, October 11–13, 1992(1992-10) Coastal Poor Development Action Network India (COPDANET); Society for Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA)Item Among equals: Strengthening community-based knowledge mobilization through international cooperation(2005) Hall, Budd LThis paper details the formation of a collaboration between the University of Victoria and the Society for Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA). Dr. Budd Hall describes how shared commitments to participatory research, community engagement, and knowledge mobilization brought the two organizations together and what that collaboration looked like in practice, from joint course development and student exchanges to co-organized research conferences. The paper outlines the strengths and priorities of each organization and highlights collaborative initiatives in continuing education, participatory research, community–university partnerships, curriculum development, and international exchanges. The paper also recognizes key principles that have supported the collaboration, including trust, reciprocity, flexibility, and respect for diverse forms of knowledge and experience. The paper provides an example of how institutions from different contexts can work together to build research capacity, strengthen knowledge mobilization, and support socially engaged learning at local and international levels.Item Revitalizing the teaching of participatory research in social sciences(Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), 2005-03) Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA)Item PRIA's engagements with higher educational institutions (HEIs): Initiatives in community based research (CBR)(Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), 2014) Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA)PRIA has engaged with academia in a multitude of interventions, bringing community and practitioner knowledge into the portals of traditional research institutions and processes. By doing this, PRIA has helped Higher Educational Institutions (HEls) realize their social responsibility towards a community's needs and aspirations. This document traces PRIA's work in promoting community engagement within HEls in India and beyond. The experience, garnered over three decades, have been classified into six categories to highlight the different forms PRIA's interventions as a facilitator have taken to build bridges between the world of formal research, the practitioner knowledge of civil society actors and the experiential knowledge of local communities. The experiences discussed in this paper are not intended to be comprehensive; a few specific interventions are described under each category to illustrate the nature of the engagements fostered and the practices promoted.