Comparative Study of Sample Survey and Participatory Rural Appraisal Methodologies with Special Reference to Evaluation of National Programme on Improved Chulah

These are the findings of the first set of studies done in the "Evaluation of the National Programme on Improved Chula [NPIC]" carried out by the Indian National Council of Applied Economic Research [NCAER], to examine the efficacy of complementing or substituting sample surveys [SS] with RRAs/PRAs, based on comparison of results, reliability level of data sets, cost/time trade offs, quality of fieldworkers, training components. The comparisons were carried out only in the Maharashtra area and attempts were made to maximise the similarities in sampling procedures, places, and time of fieldwork, so that a proper comparative assessment of the two approaches could be facilitated. The findings are as follows:|1. At the village level, comparisons of quantitative as well as qualitative data "clearly point to the higher accuracy and reliability levels of the data emerging from the R/PRA methods as compared to the village schedule based data in SS" 2. At the regional/state level the feasibility of employing R/PRA methods in generating quantitative data for evaluation must be questioned, since the need to increase the number of village based R/PRA surveys will significantly raise costs [the per village data collection costs in R/PRA based studies was seven times more than that of the SS based study]. 3. On the whole the "blending of the two questions appears to be the logical and feasible proposition". However, this will call for a substantial modification in procedures for organisation of fieldwork, sample selection, recruitment and training of field workeres. The report emphasises the differences in evaluatative investigator training procedures that characterise the two approaches: the R/PRA training process has a significant potential (and actual) impact on improving the quality of the evaluation findings - while it is observed that SS training has little impact on improving the reliability of the collected data. There are a number of very clear and helpful comparative "flowcharts" of training processes, field operations and post field operations for both SS and RRA/PRA methods.