Resources

Over a fourteen-month period, the author lived in two rural villages in south-central Bali and "tested the application of PRA tools with over 300 women and men (villagers to provincial government officials) to explore their gender roles, gender perceptions, gender relations and their Practical (PGN) and Strategic Gender Needs (SGN)". Government-designed programmes for women were also evaluated. Chapters 1 and 2 show how PRA has more in common with GAD (Gender And Development) than the WID (Women In Development) approach, since "they both focus upon relations of power". GAD and PRA are seen to be complementary approaches: GAD uses "extractive tools, with outsiders conducting interviews and participant observation" whilst PRA "has not addressed questions concerning exactly who within a community participates" and lacks tools to address conflict. Certain PRA tools do not enable women to express their particular perceptions and needs. Chapter 3 describes the research methodology in detail, analysing which PRA tools were successful in the field. Chapter 4 presents findings, showing that women have tended to become "implementers of government development initiatives, rather than participants in their own development". Conclusions (Ch 5) include evaluation of the research approach, listing the strengths and weaknesses of PRA and GAD in detail. Recommendations (Ch 6) suggest how PRA could be integrated into Gender Analysis training programmes.

This article is a case study of the author's participatory research with the Annette Lomond garment workers' co-operative in the North East of England. It discusses the relationship between the researcher and the participants, power imbalances, accountability, empowerment, effects of the research project, and presentation of findings. She concludes that the aim of uniting research with action and education is not always possible within one project. This alters the balance of the relationship and the nature of accountability.

This book is a guide to a variety of quantitative and qualitative methods for research and practice. It examines the concept of participation and ethical considerations in fieldwork, and stresses methodological pluralism and dialogue in development planning. The main part of the book is devoted to participatory methods. It discusses techniques such as ranking and scoring, mapping and diagrams, and the use of indicators, focus groups and semi- structured interviews in poverty and gender analysis. Participatory monitoring and evaluation and sustainability analysis are also discussed.

This short report written by the Research and Policy Programme on behalf of ACORD examines three different areas of the agency's work in Africa; i) conflict resolution, ii) monitoring and evaluations systems and iii) work on gender. In a workshop that was held in accordance with Birmingham University on the theme of Development in Conflict a number of important issues and decisions emerged in relation to ACORD's continued work in conflict ridden areas. These included; firstly that ACORD's ability to respond to armed conflict or turbulent situations will depend on improving the quality and relevance of it's work in the North. Secondly, that there is a need for greater anticipation and preparedness of conflict situations and thirdly, that decisions to continue work in turbulent areas should reside with project staff and not head office. Lastly, that the nature of turbulent situations requires teams to be able to respond flexibly. In relation to the M&E systems utilised by ACORD, the emphasis was on strengthening the capacity of programmes to use participatory techniques in order to involve communities more in the monitoring of their own work. The findings of each workshop is briefly discussed. In relation to the work of ACORD on gender issues, moreover, a Gender Analysis Matrix designed by UNIFEM is discussed as a tool which is utilised to identify the changing roles of men and women in response to programme activities.

A reflection on some social development issues which have arisen in the first 5 years of the rainfed farming project in eastern India. The current paradigm is that seeing development as formal, planned and intended projects run by rule- and procedure-led institutions is no longer useful. A different vision is current: of mutual determination between individual action and social structures, of choice, resistance and struggle, of the power of the apparently weak, of the multiplicity and contingency of perceptions of reality and of the negotiated character of development outcomes. The paper describes the project, the assumptions on which it is based, relationships between actors and difficulties with PRA.

Main findings of a participatory impact assessment in which people's own perceptions and indicators of change are compared with conventional monitoring indicators. The report also includes information on the impact of the project on the lives of women and children and raises issues of sustainability, equity and degree of participation in activities and outcomes.

In 1994 an experiment on participatory monitoring was carried out with CCDBÆs PPRDP programme. CCDB is a medium sized Bangladeshi NGO that provides development assistance primarily geared towards women. The purpose of the experiment was to explore more innovative approaches to project monitoring away from more conventional approaches that emphasise the use of indicators. The experiment hoped to establish a more æiteratedÆ process or evolutionary approach to project evaluation. The approach sought to highlight differing perspectives and interpretation of project developments in order to learn from their experiences. Monitoring was undertaken by members of the CCDB programme, field level project staff, senior staff at the head office, and CCDB donors. Each of these groups were asked to identify and select on a monthly basis the most æsignificantÆ impacts or changes experienced under the programme and explain the basis of their selections; however, the structure of participation followed a hierarchical process of selection whereby the choices of participants were forwarded to higher levels of staff and finally to CCDB donors. In effect, the number of identified impacts eventually narrowed at each level of the organisational hierarchy. The first section of the paper outlines the methodology following a series of steps and then describes the state of the experimental monitoring system as of March 1995. It is then contrasted with other conventional approaches to monitoring. While the experimental monitoring system continues to be operational and CCDB staff have identified a wider range of objectives for the monitoring system, several weaknesses of the system are identified. Most significant among these is the tendency at all levels of staff to focus primarily on describing the æsignificantÆ project impacts, with less emphasis on elaborating their criteria for selecting those impacts. Also, project staff tended to report and select mostly positive impacts of the programmes, suggesting that the system biased against more critical reporting of events.