Sister Sites
Land Reform Act Part 2 Guidance
|
Participatory Reflection and Action MethodsThis paper was published as an Appendix in Whose Eden? An Overview of Community
Approaches to Wildlife Management, IIED and ODA, London, July 1994.
The interactive involvement of many people in differing institutional contexts has promoted innovation, and there are many variations in the way that systems of inquiry have been put together. These systems of inquiry include, for example:
This diversity and complexity is strength. Despite the different ways in which these approaches are used, there are important common principles uniting most of them. These are as follows:
The principle of participation overarches these packages of methods. In this context, appraisal implies a process of learning leading to action. Livelihood improvement and sustainable resource management, with all its uncertainties and complexities, cannot be envisaged without all actors being involved in a continuing process of learning. Participatory inquiry can, therefore, be defined in the following way:
In recent years, the creative ingenuity of practitioner’s worldwide has increased the range of participatory reflection and action methods in use. Many existed in other contexts, and were borrowed and adapted. Others are innovations arising out of situations where practitioners have applied the methods in a new setting, the context and the people themselves giving rise to the novelty. The methods are structured into four classes namely those for group and team dynamics, for sampling, for interviewing and dialogue, and visualisation and diagramming (See chart for an illustration of some of the tools and techniques). It is the collection of these methods into unique approaches, or packages of methods, that constitutes systems of inquiry.
Participation calls for the collective analysis. Even a sole researcher must work closely with local people (often called beneficiaries, subjects, respondents or informants). Ideally, teams of investigators work together in interdisciplinary and inter-sectoral teams. By working as a group, the investigators can approach a situation from different perspectives, monitor one another’s work carefully, and carry out a variety of tasks simultaneously. Groups can be powerful and productive entities when they function well, as performance and output is likely to be greater than the sum of the individual members (Steiner, 1972; Handy, 1985 Belbin, 1992). Many assume that simply putting together a group of people in the same place is enough to make an effective team. This is not the case. Shared perceptions, essential for group or community action, have to be negotiated and tested in a complex social process. Yet, in general, the complexity of multidisciplinary teamwork is poorly understood. A range of workshop and field methods is available to help in the formation of groups.
Source: Pretty, J.N, Guijt, I. Scoones, I. Thompson, J (1994) A Trainer’s Guide for Participatory Learning and Action, IIED, London.
In order to ensure that multiple perspectives are both investigated and represented, practitioners must be clear about who is participating in the data gathering, analysis and construction of these perspectives. Sampling is an essential part of these participatory approaches, and a range of field methods is available.
Sensitive interviewing and dialogue are a third core element of the process of participatory inquiry. For the re-constructions of reality to be revealed, the conventional dichotomy between the interviewer and respondent should not be permitted to develop. Interviewing is, therefore structured around a series of methods that promote a sensitive and mutually beneficial dialogue.
The fourth element of participatory inquiry is the emphasis on diagramming and visual construction. In formal surveys, information is taken by interviewers, who transform what people say into their own language. By contrast, diagramming by local people gives them a share in the creation and analysis of knowledge, providing a focus for dialogue, which can be modified sequentially and extended. Local categories, criteria and symbols are used during diagramming, which include mapping and modelling, comparative analysis of local perceptions of seasonal and historical trends, ranking and scoring to understand decision-making, and diagrammatic representations of household and livelihood systems. Rather than answering questions, which are directed by the values of the researcher, local people are encouraged to explore creatively their own versions of their worlds. Visualisations therefore, help to balance dialogue and increase the depth and intensity of discussion.
Local people, using the methods of participatory inquiry, have shown a greater capacity to observe, diagram and analyse than most professionals have expected. In some programmes this has led to local people conducting investigations without outsiders being present (Shah, 1992). Here, participatory inquiry methods become the locally owned means to collective action.
Typically, participatory inquiry involves eight clearly defined steps. An outside team works with members of the local community to:
A variety of data collection tools exist: sketch maps, transects, time and trend lines, seasonal calendars, household interview charts, institutional diagrams, problem priority sheets. Based on these data, the local community organises and ranks problems and opportunities as a prelude to the creation of a community action plan.
As a participatory inquiry team begins work, it meets with the community and other leaders to ensure that they support the initiative and perceive the potential for their control over the process. Meetings with the community as a whole are then held to explain the process and initiate data collection. Separate meetings are also held with specific interest groups (i.e. women, youths, the elderly, and economically active persons) and with individual households. This mixture of public meetings and dialogue with smaller groups makes it more likely that all members of the community will participate constructively.
A participatory inquiry team needs to be made up of people who specialise in community work and relevant technical specialists (agriculture, business, local government, social services – education, health, etc, natural resource management, etc). At least half the members of the team should be women, and a minimum of two should be from the participating community. While the participatory inquiry emphasises local participation, it must be noted that individuals from outside the society can make positive and sometimes catalytic contributions to the process. Participatory inquiry is a learned skill and can be acquired by formal training or by participating with those who are experienced in the approach and method. However it does require on the part of individual professionals that they undergo a process of attitudinal and behavioural change. They must be willing to give up both power and their role as the expert and enter into a more horizontal form of communications. This is often referred to as the unlearning and relearning process.
This paper was published as an Appendix in Whose Eden? An Overview of Community
Approaches to Wildlife Management, IIED and ODA, London, July 1994. Pages 98
– 102. ISBN 0-905347 74 9
Belbin, M. (1992), Building the Perfect Team. (Video Arts, Video) Handy, C.B. (1985), Understanding Organisations, 3rd Edition, Penguin Books, London. Pretty, J.N, Guijt, I. Scoones, I. Thompson, J (1995) A Trainer’s Guide for Participatory Learning and Action, IIED, London, 1994. Shah, P. (1992) Participatory Watershed Management Programme in India: Reversing our Roles and Revising our Theories, Paper for Joint IIED/IDS Beyond Farmer First: Rural People’s Knowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension Practices Conference 27 – 29 October 1992, IIED Steiner, I.D. (1972), Group Process and Productivity, Academic Press, New York.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
