Chambers, Robert

R/PRA and remote sensing appear to be poles apart. The differences in their approaches are outlined (and contrasted in a table). The methodology of PRA is briefly introduced, and questions raised about PRA and remote sensing. Can PRA be of use to remote sensing? Can remote sensing be of use to PRA? The discussion of these questions concerns the appropriate source of knowledge; accessible visual forms; and the potential uses of aerial photographs in rural development and in participatory planning.

This paper contains information on a variety of sources of further information about PRA. These include free sources (IDS and IIED), general PRA publications (including PRA Notes), publications on specific subject areas, videos and contact persons.

This paper explains the shift towards 'farmer first' and other farmer participatory research approaches. It is argued that in agricultural and social sciences, complexity and diversity are under perceived and undervalued. The reasons and implications of this for agricultural research and extension are explored. Particular attention is focused on 'micro environments' (MEs). Biases in agricultural and social sciences combine to hide MEs from sight, exclude them from statistics and undervalue their importance for livelihoods.

This correspondence between Richard Ford and Robert Chambers concerns issues surrounding the production of PRA 'manuals'. Chambers is of the opinion that manuals have a number of disadvantages (e.g. inhibition, diminished responsibility, classroom bias, neglect of attitudes and behaviour, rigidity and so on). These comments were written in response to an invitation to comment on revisions to a PRA handbook. The suggested revisions (attached) illustrate some of the reasons for reservations about manuals in themselves.

In most Asian countries, it seems likely that agriculture will have to provide livelihood for much larger populations in the 21st century. To be sustainable and effective, this will require more intensive and complex farming systems, with more farm enterprises and internal linkages. For these farming systems, the balance of advantage shifts from scientists to farmers in managing complexity, in exploiting diversity, in experimenting and in innovation.

These comments concern a proposal to undertake a participatory evaluation of an ActionAid programme in India. The comments largely concern aspects of the proposal (not included) which need rethinking, and would be of interest to anyone intending to undertake a participatory evaluation, reflecting, for example, on appropriate mixes of evaluation for 'us' and evaluation by and for 'them', choosing appropriate PRA methods, the need for a flexible approach, whose concept of 'well-being to use in measurement etc.

These remarks, made to a workshop on ecoregional approaches to international research for sustainable agriculture in Puerto Rico, argue three main points. (i) That wherever an ecoregional approach is pursued, carefully sceptical agroecological historical analysis should precede the selection of areas defined as degraded. (ii) That an ecoregional approach is liable to have high opportunity costs.

The first page of these notes concerns the development of PRA from RRA - key characteristics and conditions, orientations, spread through training and adoption by large organisations. Attached is a paper, consisting of notes (more a checklist of points) written for participants in a workshop in Uttar Pradesh, India. These notes concern the development of PRA from RRA, key differences in approach and in practice, some dangers and problems, list of methods, practical tips. These pages would be a useful memory aide for trainers and fieldworkers.

Many processes of change involving population, resources, environment and development are not sustainable. In seeing what to do, normal professionalism and 'first' thinking are part of the problem. The concept of secure and sustainable livelihoods for the very poor and poor is powerful. Developing this approach, the thinking of professionals about environment and development and that of poor people about livelihoods can be combined as a sustainable livelihood thinking. The potential for applying this in resource-poor environments has been underestimated.

This conference paper traces the origins of RRA (and PRA), the rationale behind its emergence and its close affiliations with a number of discipline approaches such as social anthropology, farming systems research, Freirian activism, etc. While defining PRA and outlining its key philosophical elements, the paper contends that the distinctions made between RRA and PRA are merely difference in methods and both (PRA and RRA) can be used in a complementary manner.