Participatory Rural Appraisal

1. Participatory Rural Appraisal Julia Preece, Centre for Research and Development in Adult and Lifelong Learning, University of Glasgow ALARPM & PAR, 2006

2. Participatory rural appraisal Commentary on rhetoric and practice Describing the rationale and approach Discussion of general critiques/defences Critique of two case studies Lessons learned Applicability in different contexts

3. Rationale Antidote to criticisms of traditional research Issues of ownership, control, power relations Powerful outsiders investigating local communities with only partial knowledge of context Criticisms of top down economic development Response to development agency needs for quick access to socio economic data Community demands to be included in decisions Increasing emphasis on need to respect multiple voices, ethical issues around participation

4. Application in African contexts Both urban and rural � health, agriculture, biodiversity, urban planning issues: For example: Desertification Low food production Declining productivity Fuelwood shortage Privileges status of locally developed technologies

5. The approach Holistic data collection exercise about a whole community Research process in the hands of ordinary people Involvement of experts as facilitators Practical goals Obtain detailed understanding and analysis of local context Local people prioritise needs Community action plan

6. Summarising the strategy Encourage use of local cultural values, organisations and knowledge systems for solving problems Involve community at every stage of the process Help local communities find solutions to their own problems Build community confidence and capacity

7. Wider umbrella of participatory research Range of terminologies include: Participatory research Participatory action research Action research Collaborative enquiry Emancipatory research Participatory appraisal Shift researcher-led focus to mutual learning and agenda sharing

8. The process New form of engagement between development workers and communities Workers listen and communities articulate their local knowledge Shared process of learning and working together to look for solutions to identified problems Several researcher-facilitators Data collection techniques designed to be useable amongst people with low literacy levels Using a family of methods that involve group-based learning and planning, investigating an issue from several different angles

9. PRA stages Site selection and preliminary site visits Public announcement of activities through traditional structures Data gathering (community members recruited as co-researchers) Data collation and analysis over extended period Preparation of community action plan Adoption of plan and strategies for implementation Ongoing participatory monitoring and evaluation

10. process - continued Emphasis on group data, building up a knowledge base of whole communities through: Visual activities Walks Discussions, role play, interviews Photos Seasonal calendars Diagrams Exploring how people live their lives, values, cultures etc Feeding back issues to the community for analysis, discussion and new ideas

11. Role of facilitators Initiate discussion activities, e.g.: Walking through a particular area and identifying issues Inviting people to put themselves into relationship groups Invite individuals and groups to list/draw key events in the life of a community Encourage men and women to record their own seasonal and daily activities Create a map of how resources are sourced for daily household needs

12. Critiques of the process Experience of participation not always positive in terms of inclusiveness and ownership Composition of participants may not be representative Choice of technique may reflect Western cultural bias � in terms of skills and context Nature of the data collected reflects goals of researchers, rather than participants Failure to acknowledge controlling role of facilitators Lack of transparency in reporting techniques or findings PRA organisers are rarely locally based No quality assurance to ensure discussions are coercion free, or critique of community claims themselves PRA is under-theorised Tension between academic agendas and community agendas

13. Responses to critiques No methodology is value-free How reliable are alternative methods in addressing concerns of power, ownership etc? Range of methods/tools should be adapted to circumstance Local people�s knowledge is more useful than �official� information Appropriate training of facilitators and piloting of methods should address the above concerns Analysis should be on-going, rather than short, one-off exercises

14. Question of ethics Whose voices are being taken seriously? To whom does the data belong? Whose interests are being served? Whose indicators are most relevant for assessing development? Whose analysis is most relevant, reliable? Who needs the information? Who is most likely to be empowered in the process? How much community time should one demand? How much data should be removed for analysis from outside the community itself? How much should one unquestioningly accept the status quo of community responses?

15. Case study 1 World Bank � HIV/AIDS prevention study in Nigeria Goal: collect information about STDs/AIDS to inform subsequent monitoring activities Process: conducted by local authority AIDS action managers through village elders 16 data collection methods used over 2 weeks Findings reported bilingually to community meetings through participatory workshops

16. Some issues to highlight Communities did not rank STDs and HIV/AIDS as their main health concerns Main concerns were wider development issues (water, credit, markets) Report recommendations focused only on HIV/AIDS issues Although the consultation process was adhered to as a strategy, the research team filtered out the issues that they intended to spend their energies on No analysis of how well minority ethnic groups and women were included in consultation

17. Case study 2 American youth learning about ethnic gardening practices from older adults in poor urban neighbourhoods PRA as an educational/community action tool Youth trained as PRA researchers Educators worked with youth, ongoing reflection 6 PRA methods over summer vacation

18. Some issues to highlight Shared learning � educators from youth, youth from elders, elders and youth gained confidence and developed trusting relationships Age/ethnicity mix broke down normal researcher power dynamics Limited action planning, though new ongoing relationships developed Confusion by elders of role � educator or research participant? Difficulty in balancing several agendas (educational vs research vs community action) Youth needed help to carry out some methods

19. Conclusions Versatility of PRA as an approach and family of methods Opportunities for data collection partnerships and new relationships A way of uncovering hidden knowledge Need for facilitation, as well as research skills Tensions of: ownership; theory/practice; using knowledge within/outwith community Effectiveness of action plans, without follow-up Situation for change rarely identified by participants Realism about research outcomes � but there is improved understanding between all parties