Participatory Action Research

Amy, Camille, Doug, and Haichen

Introduction

• Problem: International Development can become part of the problem of underdevelopment rather than being part of the solution

• Participatory Action Research (PAR) evolved in the latter half of the 20th century in response to increasing awareness of development failures

Definitions

• PAR is a means of putting research capabilities in the hands of the deprived and disenfranchised people so that they can transform their lives for themselves

• Takes into account knowledge of developing communities about their own environment

Characteristics

• The "problem" originates within the community

• The research goal is to fundamentally improve the lives of those involved through structural transformation.

• The people in the community or workplace are involved in controlling the entire research process.

Characteristics Cont.

• Participatory research plays a role in enabling by strengthening people’s awareness of their own capabilities

• The researchers with specialized training may be outsiders to the community, but are committed learners in a process that leads to militancy (fighting for change) rather than detachment

Considerations

• Required is an awareness of one's own limitations

• One needs consciousness of oneself as working with certain values, which may differ considerably from those of the local people

• Sufficient knowledge and understanding of local problems must be acquired

• Solutions must be achieved through dialogue with the community

Sustainability

Case Study I

Water Management

The Situation

• Joint effort of NGO’s in six countries:Cameroon KenyaNepal PakistanColumbia Guatemala

• To develop approaches, methods and tools to enhance the capacity of rural communities to manage their own water supply systems with appropriate back up support and guidance

Why PAR?

• Experience shows that success is impossible without the full involvement and commitment of the community.

• Advantages of community participation:- greater efficiency in system performance - improve cost-effectiveness - long-term sustainability of water supply systems.

What has been done

• Active participation of local population from the initial design, through data gathering and analysis to the final presentation of results and discussions.

• Research is seen as a learning process for all involved, learning from experiences of social action.

What has been done (cont’d)

• emphasis on gender-sensitive appraisal and needs assessment approaches

• Implementation:- Preparation, Training of facilitators- Area selection and problem

identification - Diagnosis of problems and potential solutions

- Experimentation and evaluation of possible solutions

Results

• Allowed rapid adjustment to the different local conditions in the six countries in both Africa, Asia and Latin America.

• enabled rural communities and supporting agencies to share, analyze and enhance their understanding of conditions and allowed them to plan and implement problem-solving action.

• strengthened local capacity in areas such as skills development, group building, confidence building for women and men, and in forging links with other communities or organizations.

Results (cont’ d)

• They also contribute to the improvement of maintenance, payment systems, and water source protection; a small budget from the programme allows to fund some technical improvements to the community water supply system itself.

• “the knowledge we gain from this research is much more valuable than gifts. It is something that we keep for life"

Case Study II

Nature Tourism

The Situation

• Development of nature tourism in the Windward Islands

• Explore how nature tourism could be instituted on 4 Windward Islands in the Carribbean- St. Lucia, Grenada, Dominica, St. Vincent

Why PAR?

• Many stakeholders were involved

• Including government ministries, environmental and heritage groups, private business, farmers’ cooperatives etc.

What has been done

• Multi-stakeholder national advisory councils were formed

• Search conferences took place

outcome: set of recommendations and action plans for carrying out sub-projects at the local community level.

• Extended advisory groups formed on the islands

• National awareness activities and community sub-projects were implemented in some cases

• Regional project meetings:

project coordinators and key advisory members shared experiences, conducted self-evaluation, developed plans for maintaining the process.

What has been done (cont’d)

Results

• Varied on the different islands

• St. Vincent: successful, several viable local developments instituted.

• Grenada and St. Lucia: mixed outcomes

• Dominica: least successful, process curtailed by the government soon after search conference tool place.

Why do the outcome differ?

• Willingness of the key government personnel to “let go” and allow the process to be jointly controlled by all participants

• Empower stakeholders, change existing power relations.

• Threats for some decision-makers• Effort of collaborative group of citizens is

required for accomplishment of many things.

Critiques of PAR

Main points

• Depoliticization of participation

• Roles and motives of outside facilitators

• Over-emphasis on formulas and techniques

• Problems with public participation

• Dichotimization of participation

From Participation ‘with Justice and Dignity’: Beyond ‘the New Tyranny’ by Ute Buhler

Depoliticization of participation

• Failure to take sufficient account of the wider power dynamics which constrain possible impact

• Participation needs to be re-politicized and re-scaled beyond the local– Participation should not be a gift from the

powerful, but a genuine shift in the social and power structure

Roles and motives of outside facilitators

• The restriction that the outsider’s role to ‘facilitation’ may be as problematic as one who takes over– Both stand in the way of genuine dialog and exchange

• The assumption that whatever ‘local people’ say is valid is as patronizing as its opposite– Need to challenge arguments– If we acknowledge that outsiders have something to

contribute, how can they do so without once again marginalizing the voices of those who have been most excluded?

• Financial, political, and/or furthering one’s career

Over-emphasis on formulas and techniques

• Structure vs. Structurelessness– Structure: Fails to take sufficient account of the

complexities of real people’s real lives– Structurelessness: participation built on personal

relationships and informal networks generate its own conclusions

– The structure of participation has consequences for who participates, how they do it, and how effective participation is likely to be

• Are results of ‘participation’ even legitimate– Risky decisions where no one really agrees?

Problems with public participation

• Reinforcement of existing privileges• Group dynamics that are likely to lead to

‘dysfunctional group consensus’• Creation of group identities that may

themselves be exclusive• Decisions may ‘rationalize harm to others’• Demands a conscious effort to avoid

‘groupthink’

Dichotimization of participation

• Participation associated with ‘salvation’ and non-participation with guilt

• In some cases, the refusal to participate might defend the ideal of genuine participation better than ‘participation’ itself– Actual opportunities for dialogue between

those in power and those marginalized are unlikely

Dichotimization of participation (cont’d)

• Where is the cutoff point beyond which the rejection of ‘participation’ is the only way of affirming the idea of meaningful participation?– Participation is social responsibility and non-

participation is irresponsibility

• Is ‘participation’ even the most appropriate response to inequality and marginalization?– Cannot rely on the dichotomy, need a new basis

Further Reading on Critiques

• Participation: the new tyranny? by Bill Cooke and Uma Kothari– On hold at Olin, not enough time to get it from

Borrow Direct for today

• Participation ‘with Justice and Dignity’: Beyond ‘the New Tyranny’ by Ute Buhler– What these critiques were based on

International Organizations

• Water For People www.water4people.org

• Water Supply & Sanitation Collaborative Council www.wsscc.org

• Global Water www.globalwater.org

• WaterCan www.watercan.com

• WaterAid www.wateraid.org