Community-Based Participatory Research
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://knowledgedemocracydspace.com/handle/123456789/1068
Browse
50 results
Search Results
Item Resource guide: Video collection of training in community-based research(UNESCO Chair, 2016) Jin, Jingsi; Tremblay, Crystal; Harris, LeilaThis resource guide provides a summary of videos on key topic areas related to teaching and training materials for Community Based Research from around the world. This guide is the outcome of research conducted by the UNESCO Chair in Community-based Research SSHRC funded project ‘NextGen’ between 2013-2016.Item Bridging knowledge cultures: Rebalancing power in the Co-Construction of knowledge(Brill, 2024) Lepore, Walter; Hall, Budd L; Tandon, RajeshEstablishing truly respectful, mutually beneficial, and equitable knowledge creation partnerships with diverse communities poses significant challenges for academia. Bridging Knowledge Cultures provides valuable insights into the dynamics involved and the obstacles encountered when attempting to establish meaningful research partnerships between different knowledge domains. This book goes beyond exploration by offering practical recommendations to overcome these challenges and forge effective collaboration between mainstream research institutions and community groups and organizations. This book includes ten compelling case studies conducted by research and training hubs established through the global Knowledge for Change Consortium. These case studies encompass community-university research partnerships across various geographical locations, tackling a wide range of societal issues and acknowledging the wealth of knowledge created by local communities. The overarching goal of this book is to inspire the next generation of researchers and professionals to embrace the richness of diverse perspectives and knowledge cultures. By advocating for the construction of "bridges" through practical approaches, the book encourages a shift from competition to collaboration in research. Ultimately, it aims to foster an environment where different forms of knowledge can intersect and thrive, leading to a more inclusive and comprehensive understanding of the world around us.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.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 CanadaThe 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.Item Participatory impact assessment: A pilot programme in South Asia.(Voluntary Agencies Support Scheme (VASS), 2002-03) Quinn, Marion; Clark, KevinThis 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.Item Re-Visiting participation third course development professional from south asia countries(Participatory research in Asia (PRIA), 2000-09-07) Satyamurthi, VThis 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.Item Majority-World foundations of community-based research(Palgrave Macmillan, 2014) Hall, Budd L; Tandon, RajeshThis chapter explores the majority-world foundations of community-based research with a particular focus on the rise of participatory research (PR) in social movement and civil society settings in the global South and its subsequent spread to the North, eventually finding its way into universities. The authors were involved in both the creation of the discourse and the spread of the initial ideas through the International Participatory Research Network. In the 1970s, Rajesh Tandon came to his initial thinking about participatory research while working with tribal peoples in Rajasthan, India. Budd Hall was working at the Institute for Adult Education in Tanzania during those days. The chapter challenges the Eurocentric bias of much contemporary scholarship in the field of community-based research (CBR). It closes with three challenges to contemporary scholars.Item Mobilizing community and academic knowledge for transformative change: The story of the UNESCO Chair in community based research and social responsibility in higher education(The Canadian Commission for UNESCO’s IdeaLab, 2017) Hall, Budd L; Tandon, RajeshWhat role can higher education play in advancing knowledge democracy and fulfilling its social responsibility? This paper co-authored by Dr. Budd L. Hall and Dr. Rajesh Tandon reflects the establishment, evolution, and contributions of the UNESCO chair in community-based research and social responsibility in higher education. Established in July 2012 as a unique co-chair partnership bridging the University of Victoria (Canada) and Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA, India). This paper outlines the effectiveness of a distinctive global North-South co-chair method in connecting academic institutions with grassroots practitioners to promote knowledge and democracy. The paper explores how universities should collaborate with communities in the co-creation of knowledge to promote social responsibility, inclusion, and sustainable development. Through its three core domains, knowledge mobilization, policy advocacy, and capacity building, the chair has generated substantial, systemic impact. Through global reports, policy dialogues, and training programs, the Chair has influenced higher education policy, fostered international networks, and contributed to embedding engagement and participatory research into the everyday functions of universities. This paper demonstrates how universities can contribute to social change by working closely with communities, promoting sustainable development, and strengthening their social responsibility.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.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.