Resources

Rather than challenging the universal validity of PRA, this discussion paper focuses on the practical task of "doing PRAs" in a new and alien context. The authors advocate the acknowledgement and acceptance of local cultural trends, power relations and structures of authority when undertaking participatory research. This will allow to work with, rather than around these factors. Hence, the proposed "Vietnamisation" of PRA so as to allow local voices to shape the values and techniques of PRA itself. But, just how Vietnamised can PRA become until it comes into conflict with international liberal PRA values? This broad discussion originated in a workshop organised in Hanoi on Community Research Methods in February and March 1996. The issues covered by the paper include: introducing PRA and PRA values in Vietnamese communities, gender, local leadership and dominance; and international donors and PRA. Methodological issues covered are: sampling, recording of research information, interviews, focus group discussions and mapping.

This paper raises issues around PRA as an empowering process. For the poor, product matters more than process and "it is the functional, material gain which is the entry point, not the empowerment". PRA can be seen as "Orwellian manipulation" from the point of view of "elaborate processes imposed to secure participation". In practice, those "least familiar with Western cultural processes will be the most excluded and manipulated" - usually the women of a community. Any approach or technique has "differing meanings in differing geographical, cultural and temporal contexts", so PRA should also be seen as "context limited and context enhanced".

This paper is the third in a three-part series examining participatory rural appraisal. It reviews some of the practical and theoretical questions which have been raised as the spread of PRA accelerates. PRA approaches and methods are analysed in terms of how they have spread, quality assurance, dangers, potentials and strategies, and paradigmatic significance. Rapid spread has made quality assurance a concern, with dangers from "instant fashion", rushing, formalism and ruts. Promising potentials include farmers' own farming systems research, alternatives to questionnaire surveys, monitoring, evaluation and lateral spread by local people, empowerment of the poorer and weaker, and policy review. Changes in personal behaviour and attitudes, and in organisational cultures, are implied. PRA parallels and resonates with paradigm shifts in the social and natural sciences, in business management and development thinking.

This manual on self-evaluation is aimed at helping those involved in running rural community development projects to learn how to do more effective and appropriate evaluations independently. The case study of a rural development project is used to illustrate why self evaluation can be useful, with a list of key reasons given. Using the same case study, the following chapter examines who stands to benefit as a result of this evaluation taking place. Examples of beneficiaries are listed as being; project staff, community members, members of the general public, amongst others. Logically, the next question asked is who should be responsible for carrying out the evaluation and a list of potential partners who may be involved is provided. The fourth chapter examines the different levels at which evaluation can take place i.e. at the preparation, implementation, sustainibility levels etc. Following from this, is a look at when to evaluate in relation to the different levels. The issue of what to evaluate was decided by considering the indicators that would be utilised to measure the different sectors of the project i.e. health, education etc. This process helps to demonstrate how difficult it is to measure intangible criteria that involve a description of 'human qualities' i.e. enthusiasm. A variety of PRA type techniques are suggested for the different sectors and this concludes with a discussion of how to communicate the findings. The paper as a whole concludes with a summary of the above mentioned questions, recommended resource materials on evaluation and an appendix that illustrates some of the issues raised in the document.

The Habitat and Health Project was implemented in 1992 by IIED-Latin America in Barrio San Jorge, a poor squatter settlement in Buenos Aires. The article describes how three preliminary focus groups were piloted to test participatory methodologies on a small scale. The aim of the focus groups was to get to know local people's perspectives on the main health and habitat problems of the barrio, and to identify local facilitators with whom the project could work. Joint progress could then be made in the design and implementation of initiatives. The results of the pilot suggested that problems of low levels of community organisation and participation were not fully overcome. An evaluation of the experience has been used to revise the strategy for the second phase of the project.

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.