T H E W O R L D CON V E R G EN C E C O N G R E S S

The Congress was a liappening lliat tauglit us very nuich, a key

inonient in (lie world history of participatory nielhodologies for
having lacilitated the first ineeling of our diverse schools and
lrends.
Davydd Greemvood, Cometí University, United States.
It was a marvellous experieneie where participante from many
regions were able lo formúlate freely their concerns and points
of vievv, and to open up and affirm their knowledge in an
impressive show of contemporary solidarity.
Hernando Roa, Bogotá, Colombia.
Since my relurn I fell thal something liad happened to me! The
impact of the event is going to Iiave. major personal
repercussions. As a psychotherapist, my work is taking 011 a new
dialogical stanee.
Gerard Rademeyer, University of Soutli Africa, Pretoria.
1 found the Congress a formative experience in severa! ways. It
was extraordinary to lia ve been able to attract so many di verse
people vvlio sliare an overlapping ideology of participation and
empowerment of tlióse wlio are disadvantaged.
Roben Chambers, IDS, University ofSnsse.x, England.
We found the Congress stimulating, productive and enriching, a
significant milestone.
Rajesh Tandon, PRIA, New Dellii, India.

^ ¡ S r
COLCIENCIAS IEPRI
 C H U L E I G H AHEAD
.y
Compiled andAnalyzedby
Orlando Fals Borda
i

I wSO, ¡ f i l m (afelio, O i i i i j l i s

iliiflj Ot líiiiíj iWiifii, JiüOj Liioiii) uíiíiví

§
t ?

i
¡t- ¡.r
h r,-\

COLCIENCIAS • IEPRI • T/l/1 EDITORES

 PEOPLE'S P A R T I C I P A T I O N

Challenges Ahead

Contpilation and analysis by

ORLANDO FALS BORDA

Contributors
Wallerstein • Heller • Cardoso • Max-Neef • Galeano •
Chambers • Tandon • Flood • Molano • De Roux • Fournier •
Niño • Lincoln • Goulet • Group Rapporteurs

4 a
COLCIENCIAS IEPRI
IUIl\l
• EDITORES
1 1 . BEYOND "WHOSE REALITY COUNTS?" NEW
METHODS WE NOW NEED

Robert Chambers
lnstitute of Development Studies, University of Sussex,
Brighton, United Kingdom

A c t i v i t e s called PRA (participatory rural appraisal) and its

equivalents in other languages have evolved from a confluence,
s h a r i n g a n d a d a p t a t i o n of m e t h o d o l o g i e s , m e t h o d s a n d
participatory traditions. Synergies have generated new things to
do and new ways to do them, including visual forms of analysis. A
conjunction of conditions has produced an explosion of activities
and applications, and spread to many countries and organisations:
N G O s , g o v e r n m e n t d e p a r t m e n t s , and even universities, and
raising questions of ethics and of sharing methodologies.
Corning from our different traditions, should we seek places of
convergence and springboards for action? If so, could the concept
of responsible wellbeing, and the question "Whose reality counts?"
provide us with a common ground? They fit with eclectic pluralism,
a celebration of diversity, and democratic reversáis of dominance.
They raise shared issues of how we teach, learn, and construct
realities, of dominant institutions and their cultures, and of personal
power. They point towards responsible wellbeing for "uppers"
being sought in e m p o w e r i n g and privileging the realities of
"lowers".
Do we now have a phenomenal opportunity? We have partici-
patory methodologies which are powerful, popular and self-
spreading. We have new space opened up by government and
donor-agency policies for participation and poverty reduction.
Rapid spread has brought much bad practice. At the same time,
PRA and other participatory methodologies have also shown a
potential to contribute tochanges at levels which are policy-related,
institutional and personal.
To make the most of these opportunities invites sharing methods
and experience between different traditions, and inventing new
106 PliOPLIi'S l'AKTICII'ATION

methods. Five methodological challenges now (May 1997) stand

out as points of leverage. These are how better to:

1. Enable the realities and priorities of poor and marginali/.ed

people to be expressed and communicated to policy-makers.
2. Enable trainers to facilítate attitude and behaviour change.
3. Make normal bureaucracies more participatory.
4. Build s e l f - i m p r o v e m e n t into the s p r e a d of p a r t i c i p a t o r y
methodologies.
5. Enable people with power to find fulfilment in disempowering
themselves.
Could it be that effective repertoires for these could lead to
much good change?
Could convergencesand sharingsof experiencesand approaches
among us contribute to such repertoires? Could we between us
seize these opportunities in the new spaces which are opening up?
T h e past ten years have been a time of exhilaraling innovation
and discovery in participatory methodologies. Among these, those
described as PRA (participatory rural appraisal) (Mascarenhas et al
1991; RRA and PLA Notes passim), now sometimes broadened to
PLA (participatory learning and action), include many diverse
practices. These have evolved and spread fast and wide, raising
m a n y issues and questions, and now opening up problems and
potentials on a daunting scale. This paper asks whether those at
this Congress can help in ways forward. It sets out to examine what
h a s h a p p e n e d a n d w h e r e w e are now, and to o u t l i n e n e w
methodologies we now need. In a pluralist spirit of self-doubt, it
invites readers to share their experience and ideas, so that together
we can try to do better.

P R A : WHAT HAS HAPPL-NED

PRA has flowed from a confluence and sharing of traditions and

methodologies. The streams which have mingled and given it
m o m e n t u m have been many. Especially from Latin America, the
inspiration of Paulo Freire ( 1 9 7 0 , 1 9 7 4 ) and popular education and
then of Participatory Action Research (e.g. Gaventa 1980; Fals-Borda
1984; Fals Borda and Rahman 1991) brought notably the idea that
UNDI-RI'INNINCS 107

it is right and possible for poor and marginalized people to conduct

their own analysis and takeaction. Research on farming systems
and livelihoods brought the insights that resource-poor farming
and other livelihoods are often complex and diverse, and that many
farmers and poor people seek to complícate not simplify, and
diversify not standardize, to reduce risk and produce more. Social
a nthropology brought understandingof insider-outsider interactions,
of the importance of rapport, and of the distinción between emic
and ethic, the view from inside and the view from outside.
This resonated with the post-modern understandingof múltiple
realities, and the recognition that professional realities are constructed
differently from those of local people. Perhaps most creatively, agro-
e c o s y s t e m a n a l y s i s ( G y p m a n t a s i r i et al 1980; C o n w a y 1985)
contributed from ecology the valué of observation linked with
mapping and diagramming, and of visual expression and analysis
of local complexity. For its part, rapid rural appraisal (RRA) (KKU
1987 ) was the main antecedent of PRA, and brought alternatives
to questionnaire surveys and lo local " d e v e l o p m e n t tourism" (the
brief local visit by the professional outsider). RRAstressed especially
observation, semi-structured interviewing and focus groups. And
the list can be lengthened, with parallels in and eclectic borrowing
and adapting from other practical approaches-card sorting from
VIPP (Tillmann 1993), role plays from theatre in development (Mda
1993), 3-D modelling and e m p o w e r i n g through anonymity from
Planning for Real (Gibson 1995, 1996). With the spread of PRA,
different traditions have merged creatively, with synergies and
inventiveness. Much of the spread has been South-South, through
traineesfrom onecountry going toanother. The sharing, borrowing
and adapting have been very much in the spirit of this Congress,
learning from one another without boundaries.
These traditions and methodologies have flowed together and
inspired and supported innovations. Many of the early innovators
were field staff in N G O s , at first mainly in India and Kenya.
Methods and approaches evolved and spread with astonishing
speed. Nothing may be new under the sun, but some methods
and a p p r o a c h e s have at least seemed new in form, emphasis,
combinations and sequences, and in the way they have coalesced:
the "discoveries" that "they can do it" that local people, whether
108 PliOI'I.li'S l'AKTICII'ATION

they can read or not, can m a p , d i a g r a m , list, e s t í m a t e , rank,

construct and score matrices, and in other visual other visual ways
present and analyze theircompiex realities; the advantagesof visual
over purely verbal analysis, especially with local complexity; the
relative ease and utility of comparing rather than measuring; the
synergies of analysis as a group activity and especially democracy
of the ground, how differently we relate to one another when
working on the ground, with less inhibition, and less verbal and
physical dominance; the crucial importance of the behavior and
altitudes of facilitators, not dominating, to keep quiet, not following
a rigid routine but using their own best j u d g m e n t at all times.
T h e r e s u l t h a s b e e n a g r o w i n g a n d e v o l v i n g f a m i l y of
approaches and m e t h o d s , continuousiy discovered, invented,
r e d i s c o v e r e d , r e i n v e n t e d , and always e x p e r i e n c e d , variously
known as PRA (parcipatory rural apprasial), PALM (participatory
l e a r n i n g m e t h o d s ) , M A R P ( m é t h o d e a c c é l é r é e de r e c h e r c h e
participative) ( C u e y e a n d Freundenberg 1991) and DKP(diagnóstico
rural participativo); with other equivalents in other languages. To
describe these and related participatory methodologies, the term
PLA (participatory learning and action) has sometimes been used.
T h e scale and speed of the spread of these approaches are
difficult to grasp. From small beginnings in the late 1980s, PRA
related practicesare now to b e f o u n d in over 100countries. PRAhas
spread from rural to urban, from countries of the South to countries
of the North, from appraisal and planning to action and monitoring
and evaluation, and from NCOs to government departments and
even universities. In a research and data-collecting mode (which
many feel should be described asRRA, not PRA or PLA) it is provided
alternatives to questionnaires (Action Aid-Nepal 1992, M u k h e r j e e
1995) and its methods are now widely used in gradúate research
(Attwood 1997). It has had many policy applications (Chambers
and Blackburn 1996; Holland with Blackburn, forthcoming). In
adult literacy, REFLECT (Regenerated Freirían Literacy through
Empowering C o m m u n i t y Techniques) (Archer 1995; Archer and
Cottingham 1996a, 1996b; Fiedrich 1996) uses PRA visualí/.ations,
and after pilot testing in El Salvador, Uganda and Bangladesh, is
now being implemented in over 25 countries.
T h e r e have been applications in almost e v e r y sector and
practical d o m a i n s of local d e v e l o p m e n t including agriculture,
UNOI-KI'INNINCS 109

children, c o m m u n i t y p l a n n i n g and action, e d u c a t i o n especially

girls e d u c a t i o n , e m e r g e n c i e s a n d r e f u g e e s , fisheries, forestry,
g e n d e r a w a r e n e s s , health, land t e n u r e a n d policy, livelihood
analysis, livestock, older p e o p l e , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l analysis, parti-
cipatory monitoring and evaluation, pastoralism, people and
conservation, poverty programmes, sanitation, sexual and
r e p r o d u c t i v e health ( i n c l u d i n g HIV/AIDS), u r b a n d e v e l o p m e n t ,
urban violence, w a t e r supply, w a t e r s h e d m a n a g e m e n t , a n d w o -
m e n ' s p r o g r a m m e s . Probably t h o u s a n d s of NGOs a n d h u n d r e d s of
G o v e r n m e n t field organizations have s o u g h t to a d o p t PRA to s o m e
degree and in s o m e form, and large organizations h a v e tried to
use it on a large scale.
In sum, a c o n j u n c t i o n of conditions has p r o d u c e d an explosion
ofactivities and applications, and much d e b a t e a b o u t t h e quality
of practice (see e.g. Mosse 1993; O s u g a and Mutarysa 1994; Guijt
1995; Guijt and C o r n w a l l 1995; PLANotes 25 passim). It is timely
to take stock and ask what it is right to d o now. W h a t is right
d e p e n d s on w h o we are, w h e r e we are and w h a t we can do. W h a t
we perceive as right d e p e n d s on the traditions we work in and
what we see as the ethical basis for action. It is a strength that we
are all different, w h e t h e r we can c o n v e r g e and share, learn from
each other, and together d o better.

CANDIDATOS I-ÜR GONVERGENGE: RESPONSIBLE WELLBEING,

A N D WHOSE REALI I'Y COUN'I'S?

A g r e e m e n t is not always necessary for action. Differences a n d

dialogue can c o m e first and lead to learning. O r action can c o m e
first g e n e r a t i n g e x p e r i e n c e . Similar actions a n d b e h a v i o r s can
g e n e r a t e similar e x p e r i e n c e s . T h e s e in turn can c o n t r i b u t e to
philosophy and theory. So it has been largely with PRA. People
have d o n e things, found what w o r k e d , and only then asked why.
C o m m o n e x p e r i e n c e s have led to c o n v e r g e n c e s . In a spirit of
eclectic pluralism, sharing, b o r r o w i n g and adapting, w e can ask
w h e t h e r two of these can present a c o m m o n g r o u n d .
T h e first c a n d i d a t e for c o n v e r g e n c e is a c o n c e p t of responsible
wellbeing. " W e l l b e i n g " is the English word w h i c h best s e e m s to
e n c o m p a s s w h a t local people often express w h e n they cardsort
 l'KOl'U-'S l'AUTICII'ATION
110

individuáis into piles or ranks in what used to be called "wealth

ranking" (Grandin 1988; PRA Notes 15 passim). It is multidimensional
and locally defined, referring to what are perceived as good or
bad conditions, and good and bad quality and experience of life.
Wellbeing encompasses much besides wealth or income.
"Responsible" qualifies wellbing, adding the social dimensión
of relations with and effects on others, including unborn genera-
tions. T h e responsibilities of the rich and powerful are onerous,
a n d r e s p o n s i b l e w e l l b e i n g is difficult for t h e m to a c h i e v e .
Responsible wellbeing is individually defined, and will differ much
between individuáis and cultures.
T h e second candidate for convergence flows from the question
" W h o s e reality counts?" In puzzling how to reduce errors and do
better in development, an issue in the late 1970s was " W h o s e
knowledge counts?", and ITK (indigenous technical knowledge) was
increasingly recognized and valued (IDS 1979; Brokensha, Warren
and Werner 1980). Now the questions have elaborated and gone
further to include:
Whose categories and concepts count?
Whose valúes and criteria?
Whose preferences and priorities?
Whose analysis and planning?
Whose action?
Whose monitoring and evaluation?

In sum, Whose reality counts? Is it reality " u p p e r s " , of those

w h o normally domínate? Or should it be, can it be, increasingly
that of "lowers", those w h o are normally subordínate?
" W h o s e reality counts?" fits with a theme of "reversáis" (better
expressed in the Italian inversioni), or turning things on their heads,
u p e n d i n g the d o m i n a n t and n o r m a l view. This has been an
orientation of major religions and social movements. It belongs to
no single tradition. Its implications resonate with eclectic puralism,
a celebration of diversity, and democratic reversáis of dominance.
It raises shared issues of how we teach, learn, and construct
realities, of d o m i n a n t institutions and their cultures, and of
personal power.
Could responsible wellbeing be sought in part through embracing
the question " W h o s e reality c o u n t s ? " , and through " u p p e r s "
UNDI-RI'INNINCS 111

making what counts much more the reality of "lowers"? Could this
be a c o m m o n ground on which we converge?

A PHlíNOMIZNAL O P P O R T U N I T Y ?

T h i s leads to asking w h e t h e r the p a r t i c i p a t o r y d e v e l o p m e n t

community may now, in 1997, at the time of this Congress, be facing
a p h e n o m e n a l opportunity. Having often been wrong before, I
continually doubt my judgment in suggesting this. But there seems
to be a conjuncture of two exceptionally favourable conditions.
T h e first is methodological. There have been many quiet
c o n v e r g e n c e s and sharings. We n o w have the potentials of
participatory methodologies, including PRA, which are powerful,
popular, versatile and self-spreading. Having evolved through
borrowing and inventing, the ideal is that they should continuously
evolve through more s h a r i n g w i t h o u t b o u n d a r i e s and m o r e
inventing, and be freely adopted, adapted and owned.
T h e second favourable condition is political. Donor agencies
and national g o v e r n m e n l s are on an increasing scale promoting
participation, and often combining this with intentions to reduce
poverly. Cynics will say that rhetoric is o n e thing, and reality
another. Bul rhetoric opens doors, makes spaces, and provides
poinls of leverage. Moreover, participation is being taken seriously
in some of the centers of power. Under the leadership of j a m e s
Wolfensohn, and following a prolonged internal learning process
(see e.g. World Bank 1995), the World Bank is officially commited
lo participation: projectsaremonitored for it and some are participation
flagship projects. An Interagency C r o u p on Participation, of donor
agencies with NGOs, has met three times. G o v e r n m e n t s have
espoused participation: Bolivia has a Law of Popular Participation;
others including India, Indonesia, Kenya, Nepal, Uganda and
Vietnam have sought to go to scale with participatory approaches
in g o v e r n m e n l field agencies.
If we have both the methodologies and the political rhetoric
for going to scale, do we have the visión, gut, creativity, flexibility
and commitment to see and seize the opportunity, or will we mess
up and miss the chance?
112 i'iíoi'i.ii's I'ARIICM'AHON

G O I N G TO SCALE

These two favourable conditions have combined to lead to requi-

rements by governments and donors that PRA should be used on
a large scale. In s o m e places, all d o n o r s h a v e required ¡t in
programmes. In both Nepal and Andhra Pradesh it has been said
that the issue is not whether PRA will be used, but whether it will
be used well. In India, PRA has been required in the very large
national watershed programme, and over 300 trainers were trained
in four m o n t h s . In several countries, it is being used in local
g o v e r n m e n t , with training of elected leaders and staff. Most
dramatically, the Indonesian G o v e r n m e n t in 1995 issued instruc-
tions that PRA should be used in over 60.000 villages, and that
before the end of the financial year (Murkherjee 1996).
This list and these numbers are needed to forcé us to realize
the scale of what has happened and ¡shappening. Other methodologies
introduced by governments on a large scale have usually had a
more top-down orientation: the training and visit system of agricul-
tural extensión ( B e n o r a n d Harrison 1997), and logical framework
analysis and ZOPP (GTZ 1988; Foster 1996) are two examples. PRA
differs from these by being in theory at least standardi/.ed, less
routinized, more enabling, and intended to e m p o w e r local people,
t o " h a n d over the stick", emphasizingchangesin personal behavior
and attitudes, and replacing d o m i n a t i o n and t e a c h i n g with
facilitation and learning.
T h e o r y and practice are, though, never the same. Spread has
presented many problems of quality. Cases have been c o m m o n of
the following. Methods have been stressed, neglecting behavior
and attitudes. Visits have been rushed. Approaches have been
standardized and routini/.ed. Activites like mapping meant to be
carried out by local people have been undertaken by outsiders.
Appraisal has not linked with planning and action. Follow up has
been weak. Local people have given their time and nothing has
resulted. While these abuses are far from universal, and there has
been some excellent practice, they have been widespread and have
raised many questions of principies and ethics (Absalom et al 1995).
The PRA experience pitchforks us into the responsibilities of
scale. We are exposed to implications of personal choice. Not to
choose is a choice. Not to act is an action. T h e issue for trainers and
UNDIíKIMNNINGS 113

practioners is at what scale and level to be involved or not involved.

T h r e e r e s p o n s e s can be s u g g e s t e d ( C h a m b e r s 1995): the small,
secure and beautiful, limiting scale in o r d e r to m a i n t a i n high qua-
lity; a middle r a n g e of e n g a g e m e n t with a particular o r g a n i z a t i o n
o v e r m o n t h s and years; and a c c e p t i n g trade offs in w o r k i n g with
large o r g a n i z a t i o n s w h i c h go to scale rapidly. T h e t e m p t a t i o n s are
either to hide in s n u g w o m b s of the small, secure and beautiful, or
to be s e d u c e d by the i m p o r t a n c e a n d o t h e r r e w a r d s of g o i n g to
scale. It is m i d d l e r a n g e , t h o u g h , w h i c h is the m o s t significant
( W a g a c h c h i 1995; J o h a n s s o n 1995; T h o m p s o n 1995; H a g m a n n ,
C h u m a a n d M u r w i r a 1996; B l a c k b u r n with H o l l a n d in draft).
Perhaps all three levels are n e e d e d , a n d e n g a g e m e n t with each
can be a responsible activity if c o m p l e m e n t e d and i n f o r m e d by the
others.
T h e s e c o n d i t i o n s present h u g e o p p o r t u n i t i e s . Bad practice is
an opportunity to improve. Scale isan opportunity to have widespread
impact. Potentials are not just for local level participation, but for
c h a n g e s at three levels: policy, institutional and personal. To seize
those o p p o r t u n i t i e s w e have part of the m e a n s in existing m e t h o d s
and m e t h o d o l o g i e s . But they are p a t e n t l y n o t e n o u g h . S o the
r e m a i n d e r of this p a p e r asks for o u r o w n responsible wellbeing,
what other m e t h o d s or m e t h o d o l o g i e s d o w e n o w need to seek,
invent, use and s p r e a d ?

THI-2 EUTURE: NEW MI-THODS WE NEED

As n e w s p a c e s o p e n u p a n d t h e f r o n t i e r s m o v e f a s t , f i v e
methodological c h a l l e n g e s n o w ( M a y 1997) s e e m to present points
for innovation and leverage.

1. H o w better to enable the realities and priorities of p o o r and

marginalized people to be e x p r e s s e d and c o m i n u n i c a t e d to
policy-makers

Political organization a n d p o w e r is the usual m e a n s for securing

action to benefit p o o r and marginalized people. T h a t will always
be vital. But b e y o n d that, it has b e c o m e m o r e e v i d e n t that the
realites and priorities of p o o r p e o p l e o f t e n differ from t h o s e
114 i'iíoi'i.irs i'AunciiwnoN

s u p p o s e d for them by p r o f e s s i o n a l s and p o l i c y - m a k e r s . T h e

challenge is to enable poor and marginalized people to analy/.e
their conditions and identify their priorities in ways which freely
express their realities, generate proposals which are doable, and
are credible and persuasive to policy-makers.
Two a p p r o a c h e s h a v e b e g u n to be d e v e l o p e d and s h o w
promise:
( i ) Pnrticipatory povcrty asscssincnts(PPAs). PPAs using I'KA
approaches and methods have been pioneered in Ghana (Norton,
Kroboe, Bortei-Dorku and D o g b e 1995; D o g b e 1996), Z a m b i a
(Norton, O w e n and Milimo 1994). South Africa (Altwood 1996,
May 1996, Murphy 1995, Texeira and Chambers 1995), and most
recently in Bangladesh (UNOl' 1996), using a variely of processes
(for reviews see Norton and Stephens 1995, Robb 1996, Chambers
and Blackburn 1996, Holland with Blackburn in draft).
I n s i g h t s a n d priorities h a v e i n c l u d e d , for e x a m p l e , the
importance of all-weather roads for access to curative medicine
during the rains, the need to reschedule the timing of school fees
aways from the most difficult time of year, and how rudeness by
health staff d e t e r s p o o r p e o p l e from s e e k i n g t r e a t m e n l . In
Bangladesh, where the focus of analysis by poor people was on
"doables", differences in priorities between men and women, urban
and rural, were highlighted. T h e first doable priority of urban
women was drinking water, and the second private places to wash
themselves. A widespread desire of poor people was enforcement
of the anti dowry laws. A better understanding of sectoral priorities,
for example between health and education, has also resulted.
( ii ) Thcmcilic iiwestigntioiis. Thematic investigations using
PRA approaches and methods have illuminated local realities in a
range of contexts. Examples of insights are:

• Area stigma: how living in an area with a bad reputation for

violence makes it difficult to get jobs (from Jamaica, Moser and
Holland 1997).
• How a quarter of girls of school age were "invisible" to the official
system (from the Cambia, Kane, Bruce and O'Reilly De Brun
1996).
• How the problems and priorities of women differ not only from
those of men bu t also between women dependingon their access
UNDI-RI'INNINCS 115

lo basic services and infrastructures, and their social background

(from M o r o c c o , S h a h and Bourarach 1995).
• H o w w i d e t h e g a p w a s b e t w e e n p o l i c y a n d p r a c t i c e with
e x e m p t i o n s from healthcare c h a r g e s for the d e s t i t u t e a n d those
with infectious or c h r o n i c diseases (from Z a m b i a , Booth 1996).
• H o w i n d i g e n o u s p e o p l e ' s t h r e a t e n e d land rightscoincided with
a r e a s of g r e a t e s t b i o l o g i c a l d i v e r s i t y (from H o n d u r a s a n d
P a n a m a , D e n n i s t o n with Leake 1995).
• How an official belief that i n d i g e n o u s tenure systems no longer
existed was w r o n g , and h o w diverse and crucial they w e r e
( F r e u d e n b e r g e r 1996).
• T h e ability of local p e o p l e s to define sustainable m a n a g e m e n t
and c o n s e r v a r o n practices for t h e m s e l v e s (from India and
Pakistan, C u j j a , Pimbert and S h a h 1996).

T h e r e are m e t h o d o l o g i c a l c h a l l e n g e s in f u r t h e r d e v e l o p i n g
these m e t h o d s .
Perhaps now, t h o u g h , a larger c h a l l e n g e is finding h o w the
insights Ihey g e n e r a t e can effect c h a n g e s in policy, both policy-in-
principle and policy-in-practice. As part of political process, there
are questions here about how findings are analyzed and by w h o m ,
h o w they are p r e s e n t e d and lo w h o m , and h o w they are followed
up. S o m e o p t i o n s and issues are:

• M o d e s of analysis and categories.

• Forms of p r e s e n t a t i o n , especially m a p s and d i a g r a m s .
• Videos taken by and with local people.
• Poor people meeting policy-makers face-to-face in central places.
• Policy-makers m e e t i n g local people face-to-face in local places

Have you e x p e r i e n c e s and suggestions to s h a r e ?

2. H o w better to enable trainers to facilitate attitude and

behaviour c h a n g e

In the PRA e x p e r i e n c e , attitude and b e h a v i o u r c h a n g e a m o n g

facilitators and trainers has been recognized as m o r e i m p o r t a n t
than m e t h o d s . An international S o u t h - S o u t h S h a r i n g W o r k s h o p
held in South India in 1996 described attitude and b e h a v i o r c h a n g e
as the ABC of PRA (Kurnar 1996), as p e r h a p s it should be the ABC
116 l'KOl'U-'S l'AKTICII'ATION

of all participatory methodologies. L e a r n i n g to u n l e a r n , and

learning not to put forward one's own ideas, not to domínate,
criticize, interrupt or talk too much, not to rush or be ¡mpatient,
these negatives, together with positives such as s h o w respect,
embrace error, ask them, and be nice to people (personal c o m m u n i -
cation, Raúl Peresgrovas), have proved key to good facilitation of
analysis by others. Many professionals have been socialized into
behavior that is the opposite of these. As facilitators, then, they are
disabled at the start. T h e concern then has to be for programmes
of rehabilitation to liberate them (us) from the prisons of their (our)
conditioning.
T h e r e is n o w a wealth of e x p e r i e n c e , and a repertoire of
approaches and techniques for training for ABC (see e.g. Pretty,
Guijt, T h o m p s o n and Scoones 1995; Kumar 1996; Roy, Chatterjee,
Yadav, M u k h e r j e e and Bhattacharya 1997). T h e opportunity is
further to develop and spread three sets of methods. These are for
the following practices:
Excrcise and sequences for use in training. S o m e exercises and
sequences are already widely used in PRA training, for example: in
role plays ! i k e " d o m i n a t o r " and "saboteur", leading to those words
becoming partof the joking culture of a group; sequences like "what
would you do if?" leading to group formation and group contracts.
Staying nights in coinmunitics. Again and again, in PRA training,
there has been resistance to spending nights with communities,
again and again the experience has been formative. UNDPstaff have
together spent days and nights with communities in India as a
training experience. World Bank staff are now required t o s p e n d a
week of ¡inmersión in a village or slum as part of their executive
training. The significance and potential impact of this practice could
easily be underestimated.
Training of trainers and stylcs of training. T h e very word "training"
is a problem here, implying as it does teaching and the transfer of
knowledge. Learning to improve as a trainer, largely experiential
through sharing, example, and fieldwork. A basisc principie is that
such training must itself be participatory and experiential. Training
has to become not teaching, but helping one another lo experience
and learn. A trainer of trainers is then herself or himself a participatory
facilitator.
UNDI-RI'INNINCS 117

Going to scale d e m a n d s m a n y more trainers in participatory

methodologies. T h e temptation and tendency is then for "cascade"
training, in which trainers train trainers, or even train trainers of
trainers. T h e ideal training, which is experiential and interactive
with people in communities, is to be in s o m e central institutes to
organize. So the initial trainer is Hable to be in s o m e central place,
classroom based, with lectures. This then is the imprint and culture
which is passed down the cascade.
T h e challenge is to add to the exercises, sequences and types of
e x p e r i e n c e , and to d e v e l o p and spread participatory styles of
training.
Have you experiences and suggestions to share?

3. How better to m a k e normal b u r e a u c r a c i e s more participatory

A repeated experience with PRA has been tensión and contradiction

between topdown bureaucratic cultures and requirements, tending
as they do to standardize, simplify and control, and d e m a n d s and
needs generated at the local-level, tending as they do to be diverse
and compiex and lo require local-level discretion. Participation at
the grass-roots level requires participatory procedures and culture
in facilitating organizations. W h e r e these do not exist, field-level
participatory processes are liable to be fragile, vulnerable and
damaged by dominating modes of interaction.
T h e changes needed are personal, procedural and systemic
(Blackburn with Holland in draft). At the personal level they
include: ability to listen; reflexivitty; capacity to facilítate and
engage in dialogue and mutual learning; and capacity for visión.
Procedurally, they include moving from product to process, new
i n c e n t i v e s for p a r t i c i p a t o r y behavior, a n d m ú l t i p l e f e e d b a c k
mechanisms including participatory monitoring and evaluation.
Systemically and structurally, they include decentralized budgets
and replacing targets with trust. T h e changes sought correspond
with those advocated by s o m e of the gurús of m a n a g e m e n t , for
example Tom Peters in Tliriving on Chaos (1987) and S e n g e in The
Learning Organization (1990).
In the field of development, considerable experience has been
gained and analyzed (see e.g. Uphoff 1992; T h o m p s o n 1995; Leurs
 l ' l - O I ' l . l i ' S I ' A K I ICIIVVI I D N
118

1996; Adhikari at al 1996; Blackburn with Holland in draft), and

strategies r e c o m m e n d e d . But the task remains e n o r m o u s and
intimidating. W h e r e progress with bureaucratic reorientation
occurs, regression to the "normal" often seems to follow. Sometimes
corruption may be a part of this, where participation would mean
lower incomes for g o v e r n m e n t officials. So there remain daunting
methodological challenges. Three in particular are the following:

1. How to conduct and report on research which identifies what

really happens, especially with "rent seeking behavior" (corrup-
tion). Unless this is known, many obstacles to participation may
remain hidden and ignored, with a potential for preventing
change. How to archieve some of the more commonly advoca-
ted actions and conditions for change within bureaucracies,
for example:

• Continuity of c o m m i t m e n t to participation.
• Networking with allies.
• Starting small and slow, and resisting pressure lo scale up loo
fast.
• Funding flexible without the punitive orientalion of targets.
• Accountability and transparency based on trust.
• Training, encouraging and supporting grass-roots staff.
• Accommodating diversity of activites at the field level.
• Incorporating participatory monitoring and evaluation, and
múltiple feedback channels.
• Incentives to reward participatory behaviour in-house and in
the field.
• Easy access to information to foster learning across organisa-
tional units.

2. How to archive more rapid grassroots spread of participatory

approaches, as often required by donors and governments, with
acceptable trade-offs between quality and scale. Options to
explore include lateral spread of grassroots innovations, and the
routinized insertion of benign genes with self improvement
built in.
Have you experiences and suggestions to share?
UNDI-RI'INNINCS 119

4. How better to build s e l f - i m p r o v e m e n t into the spread of

participatory m e t h o d o l o g i e s

Of these questions, this may appear the most way out. It is whether
in PRA and other participatory methodologies it is: possible to sow
seeds of change which will work away improving performance over
the months and years. This question crosscuts the others.
T h e melaphors are genes and viruses. Genes are part of the
core composi tion of an organism, reproducing similar characteristics
wherever the organism develops. There is a genetic code or script
which is largely unalterable. For their part viruses spread on their
own, penetrating organisms that already exist. So the question is
whether, either as genes inserted at the start, or as viruses spread
later, there can be e l e m e n t s in participatory methodologies in
general, and PRA in particular, which will mean that however badly
things start, they will get better.
Three clusters of genes or viruses exits and could be strengthened,
as follows:

I. Fidel Experience. O n e cluster in PRA methods and experiences.

In themselves, they have a capacity to transform the mindsets,
behaviours and attitudes of professionals. Here is an illustrative
account, from a PRA training: "1 felt that the methods were not
relevant, interesting or rigorous. Then we went to the field and in
the village we agreed to have positive attitudes and respect for the
community. My problem was not in respecting people. I just
wanted to know what we would gain from respecting people and
using stones and so on. I was invited into the hut of a poor
agricultural labourer in the most marginalized part of the village.
We asked the oíd man in the hut to show the village in a sketch
map and gave him some chalks. This was the turning point of my
life. He started sketching the village, showing the poorest huts the
only ones he knew. I was ama/.ed to see the professional expertise
with which this illiterate man used seeds and chalks. I was also
impressed with the wealth of information and how he wasenjoying
telling people his story. 1 got many answers to my questions from
that one day in the field". (Neela M u k h e r j e e in Kumar 1996:20).
T h e PRA methods which e m p o w e r local people to present and
analy/.e their realities do, again and again, surprise them with
120 l ' l í O l ' l . l í S l ' A K T I O P A T K )N

what they find they can do, and change the way outsiders see them
and behave towards them. T h u s a villager in Sinthiane, Senegal,
after completing a historical matrixsaid: "This is just astonishing.
We know each of these pieces because they are parts of our exis-
tence. But we have never thought of it all put together like this.
This is our life and our history". (Quoted in K. and M. S c h o o n m a k e r
Freudenberger 1994:128).
O r a Tembomvura woman, Zimbabwe, who said to Ravai M a rindo
(Ranganai 1996:88) after PRA modelling and diagramming: "And
we thought we were so foolish because we could not write. Yel
look, we had all this information inside us".
And as a facilitator, John Devavaram has written (Mascarenhas
et al 1991:10), " o n e doesn't get bored repeating field work. It is
always interesting".

2. Reflexivity. If PRA has a tablet of stone, it is the non tablet"Use

your own best j u d g m e n t at all times", 'lo the extent that it is a
system, itis self-organi/ing. In the spiril oí Richard Forsyth's (1991)
idea that each of uscan design our own religión, so any practilioner
can, in this ideal, evolve her or his understanding through reflection
on experience. Reflexivity has been parí of PRA as of other me-
thodologies. It could, though, be more stressed and practiced,
through activites like keeping diaries, reflection on experience, and
sharing reflections and learning. And new forms of reflection and
learning using PRA methods could be devised.

3. Behavior and altitudes training. The prime candidate gene is

ABC-attitude and behavior change. In PRA, behavior and attitudes
matter much more than the methods. But PRA training still usually
stresses the methods. Often in a routini/ed manner. T h e question
hereis whether a coreof a few ABC exercises, relatively unlhreatening
and easy lo implement, could be identified and made a standard
requirement, and embedded in PRA training for going to scale.
Such top-down standardization conflicls with PRA philosophy.
But it may be a question of trade-offs. T h e issue is whether such a
cluster of genes might work away on the Irainer/facilitalor as well
as those trained/facilitated, with better long-lerm effeets than other
approaches.
UNPIÍKI'INNINCS 121

All three clusters of g e n e s or viruses are already there, but not

yet all fully developed or used. All present scope for innovation.
In itself, one cluster may not be enough.
With bad facilitation, the fulfillment and fun of field experience
do not manifest themselves, and PRA can be variously rushed, rigid,
r o u t i n i z e d , a n d e x p l o t a t i v e . With o n l y reflexivity, p e r s o n a l
d o m i n a n c e m i g h t not be c o n f r o n t e d . B e h a v i o r a n d a t t i t u d e s
training without reflection might allow defences to inhibít learning
and change. But together there might be a powerful synergy.
Where new training is undertaken, inserting these genes may
be feasible. It is likely to be more difficult to spread them where
there is already bad practice. At least partial solutions may be
trainers' retreats to share experience, and general recognition that
training and c h a n g e should never cease.
Have you experiences and suggestions to share?

5. How better to enable people with power to find fulfillment

in d i s e m p o w e r i n g t h e m s e l v e s

Perhaps the methodological challenge is to find good ways to enable

powerful people to gain from disempowering themselves. For the
realites of "lowers" lo count, " u p p e r s " have to hand over the stick.
Changes in dominant behavior entail having respect, standing
down, shutling up, and facilitating, enablingand empowering. This
is the key lo many changes, professional, personal and institutional.
Zero-sum thinking misleads here. We talk of giving up power,
abandoning power,surrendering power,and then ofgainingpower,
as though it were a commodity of which more was better and less
worse. T h e reality is often different . Personal d i s e m p o w e r m e n t
can be a gain in several ways as follows:

• Liberation and pcaccofmind. Participatory styles and management

are liberating. Centralized control of more than the minimum
is s t r e s s f u l . D i s e m p o w e r m e n t s p r e a d s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and
diminishesstress. Decentralization decreases punitive manage-
ment and fear. D i s e m p o w e r m e n t reduces the deceptions of "all
power deceives" (Chambers 1997 ch. 5). Openness, honesty and
realism make for peace of mind. When responsibility is shared
and dispersed, the strain of centralized work overload and of
122 ri:oiM.i:'s I'AKTICIIWHON

doingbadly are diminished; theniain responsibility fordevelop-

ment is removed from overburdened shoulders, and conflict
reduced by permitting and promoting local diversity.
• Effcctivcness. D i s e m p o w e r m e n t offers n e w roles and n e w
effectiveness. To facilítate participation is practical. It works.
Uppers can gain from the instrumental success of the approach.
There are fewer errors of s t a n d a r d i z a r o n and control.
• Collcgiality. Power on a pinnacle is lonely. In a participatory
mode, a boss is not isolated, but a team member. Relationships
are more equal, with mutual learning and partnership.
• Fullfilment. D i s e m p o w e r m e n t and participatory styles and
m a n a g e m e n t can be fulfilling. O n e learning from the PRA
experience is how satisfying it can be to facilítate participation.
This is not new; it is a rediscovery, a reaffirmation. Losses are
more than compensated by gains. Indeed, the self importance
and control that are "lost" are often liabilities anyway.
• Fnu. Faced with the horrors of war and extremes of cruelty and
deprivation, talkof fun seems frivolous. But fun (creativity, play,
laughter, shared pleasures) are part of what most people valué
and wish for themselves and for others. Repeatedly, PRA
experiences have been enjoyed by participaras w h o conduct
their own analysis, make their o w n s maps and diagrams, add
detail, and are creative; and have been a delight for facilitators
w h o do not domínate but act as catalysts and find satisfaction
in discovering what local people know and can do.
The key understanding is that reversáis need not be threateníng
for uppers. Uppers w h o lose in o n e way can gain in others.
Reversáis of roles like " h a n d i n g over the stick", enabling others,
and disempowering oneself as an upper are means to responsible
w e l l b e i n g , fulfillment and fun.
The challenge i¿ to find use of more and better methods to help
powerful people realize these gains. PRA has some, including field
experiences. Others could be the self-improving genes. What else?
Have you experiences and suggestions to share?
UNDI:KI'INNINI;S 123

Q u i i S T I O N S AND CHALLl£NGí£S

Is all this stuff of the real world or fantasy? Could a good repertoire
oí methods in any one of these domains have a huge impact? Could
convergences and sharing of experiences and approaches contribute
to such repertoires? Can we between us seize these opportunities
in the n e w s p a c e s which are o p e n i n g up? I m m e d i a t e l y a n d
practically:
Other priorities. Are these other methological domains with
bigger potential which should take priority?
Pradical liclp. Can you contribute ideas and experiences which
will lielp in a practical way?
Dci>alopiuant and spraad. How could methods best be found,
developed, shared and spread?
Futura action. Should we try to take things forward? If not,
peace. Bul if so, how?

I'INAI. KI-MAKKS

ll is a defecl of this paper, for which I apologi/.e, that it does not

relate directly lo other papers in this symposium. All oí us are
following different pathsand have different preoccupations. I hope
that in a spirit of pluralist convergence we will find common ground
and mutual learning in our discussions.
In Ihis paper methodology refers to a system of principies and
melhods. Method, refers to a way of doing something. PAR, agro-
ecosystem analysis, and PRA are examples of methodologies. Semi-
structured interviews, transeets and matrix scoring are examples
of melhods.
The question of labels is difficult. PRA and its equivalents in
olher languages are still the terms most commnly used. So PRA is
used in this paper. RRANotes was renamed PLANotes (participatory
learning and action) in 1995 to reflect the range of approaches and
applications (including urban) in contributions received. PAMFORK,
the Participatory Methodologies Forum of Kenya, and some others,
a r e u s i n g P M s (participatory methodologies) to embrace an even
wider range.
I feel bad suggesting this as point of convergence, since I have
written a book with this litle. I t i s a " c a n ' t w i n " , It is arrogant for
124 l'l-OI'l.li'S l'AKTICII'ATION

me to put this forward. At the same time, it would be wrong not to

do so if it really could provide c o m m o n ground. In the spirit of the
one-sentence manual, "Use your own best j u d g m e n t at all times",
let me urge any reader to be critical, to make up her or his own
mind, and above all to make better suggestions to help us forward.
For a more detailed exploration of responsible wellbeing, please
see Wliosc Reality Counts? pp. 9-12, which includes equity, sustai-
nability, capabilities and livelihoods as c o m p o n e n t s of and con-
tributors to responsible wellbeing. Examples of other experiences
with going to scale are badly needed. 1 would appreciate sources
of information on this. T h e C o m m u n i t y Development m o v e m e n t
of the 1950s ought to provide relevant lessons. There must be
others, even if they have not so centrally liad to confront the issues
of personal behavior and altitudes, and institutional cultures.
In an earlier drafl I said " We can be safe as oslriches hiding our
heads in sand, avoiding the issue, or as giraffes wilh a lofly view,
pontificating far from the ground. Or we can be vulnerable as a
ga/elle, committed to the middle ground and exposed to predators."
The analogies do not fully work, but I did not want to lose them
completely. T h e danger in this paper, and the lemptation to be
feared in the milieu of the Congress, is posturing as a grotesque
ostrich-giraffe hybrid.
Examples of the differences between the realities and priorities
of local people and those supposed for them by professionals can
be be found in Wlióse Reality Counts? ( Chapters 2, 3 and 8, 174-
183).
Participatory monitoring and evaluation could well have been
a separate methodology for development. It has a potential for
closing the participatory project cycle, referring back to and reinforcing
participatory baseline analyses. See the IDS Participatory Moni-
toring and Evaluation Pack (Mebrahtu et al 1997). Oddly, there is
much writing about the concepts of participatory monitoring and
evaluation but rather little actual experience reported. Priorities
would seem to be writing and sharing accounts of this type in
practice, and further field experimentaron and development, rather
than more academic and theoretical writing on the subject.
UNOI-KI'INNINCS 125

Rl-TERLNCES

Absalom, Elkanah et al 1995. "Participatory M e t h o d s and Approaches:

Sharing O u r C o n c e r n s and L o o k i n g to the Future". PLA Notes 22 pp
5-10.
A c t i o n A i d - N e p a l 1992. Participatory Rural Appraisal Utilization Survey
Rcporl. Part I. Sindhupalchowk, A c t i o n A i d - N e p a l . P O B o x 3198.
K a t h m a n d u , July.
Adhikari, G.B. et al 1996. " S h a r i n g O u r E x p e r i e n c e : an Appel to D o n o r s
and G o v e r n m e n t s " , in Kumar ed ABC of PRA: Attitude Behaviour
C h a n g e pp 41-44.
Archer, David 1995. " U s i n g PRA for a Radical N e w Approach to Adult
Literacy". PLA Notes 23 pp 51 55, J u n e .
Archer, David and Sara C o t t i n g h a m 1996a. Action Research Report on
REFLECT: the Experience of Three REFLECT Pilot Projeels in Uganda,
Bangladesli, El Salvador, O D A Education Papers No. 17, O D A , L o n d o n ,
Mnrch.
Archer, David and Sara C o t t i n g h a m 1996b. The REFLECT Mothcr Manual
Regeneraletl Freirean l.ileracy Through Enipoiueriiift Community Teeliniques.
AclionAid, L o n d o n , March.
Altwood, Heidi 1996. South Afriean Parlieipatory Puverty Assessment Process:
Were tlie Voiees of the Poor Heard? P a p e r for t h e PRA a n d Policy
Workshop, IDS. Sussex, 13 and 14 May 1996.
A ü o w w o d . Heidi 1997. PRA Research, PRA Topic Pack, IDS, University of
Sussex. Brighton, UK.
Backhaus, Christoph and R u k m a n W a g a c h c h i 1995. " O n l y Playing with
Beans? Participatory a p p r o a c h e s in large-scale g o v e r n m e n t progra-
m m e s " . PLA Notes 24 pp 62-65.
Uenor, Daniel and J a m e s Q. Harrison 1977. Agricultural Extensión: the
Training and Visit System, Worl Bank, Washington.
B l a c k b u r n , J a m e s with J e r e m y Holland eds. (in draft). What Changes?
tnstitutionalizing Participation in Development, IDS, Sussex.
Booth, David 1996. Coping with Cost Recovery: a sectoral policy study, paper
for the PRA and Policy Workshop, IDS Sussex, M a y 13 14 1996.
Brokensha, David. D. Warren and O. Werner and O. Werner eds. 1980.
Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Development, University Press of
Amercia, L a n h a m , M a r y l a n d .
C h a m b e r s , Robert 1995. " M a k i n g the Best of G o i n g to Scale", PLA Notes
24 pp 57-61, October.
C h a m b e r s , Robert 1997. Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last, Inter-
medíate Technology Publications.
126 l'KOl'I.H'S l'AKTICII'ATION

C h a m b e r s , Robert and J a m e s Blackburn 1996. Tlie Power of Participation

PRA muí Policy, Palie y Briefing, institute uf D e v e l o p m e n t S t u d i e s ,
University of Sussex, Brinton, UK.
D e n n i s t o n , David, with A n d r e w Leake 1995. " D e f e n d i n g the Land vvilh
Maps," PLA Notes 22 pp 36-40.
Dogbe, Tony 1996. " T h e o n e w h o rides the donkey d o e s not know the
ground is hot", Paper for the PRA and Policy Workshop, IDS, Sussex,
Mny 13-14 1996.
Fals-Bordo, O r l a n d o 1984. "Participatory Aclion Research", D e v e l o p m e n t :
Seeds of C h a n g e , reprinted in Development: Forty Yenrs in Development:
Tlie Searcli for Social ¡ustice, Vol 40 no 1 pp 92-6.
Fols Borda, O r l a n d o and M o h a m m a d Anisur Rahmnn eds. 1991. Action
muí Knowledge: Brenking the monopoly with participatory aclion rescindí,
Intermedíate Technology Publicntions, L o n d o n .
F i e d r i c h , M a r c 1996. Literacy in Circles?, W o r k i n g P a p e r N u m b e r 2,
ActionAid, H a m l y n House, Macdonald Road, Archvvay, L o n d o n N19
5 P C , December.
Forster, Reíner ed 1996. ZOPP mnrries PRA? Participatory Learning and
Aclion A Challenge for üur Services and liistilutions, Deutsche
Gesellschaft fur Technische Z u s o m m e n a r b e i t (GTZ) C m b l I, l'osfach
5180, D 6236 F s c h b o r n 1 bei Frankfurt am Main, C e r m a n y .
Foryth, Richard S. 1991. "Towards a C r o u n d e d Morality", C h a n g e s , vol 9,
no 4, D e c e m b e r pp 264-278.
Freí re, Paulo 1970. Pedagogy of the Opprcssed, T h e Sea bu ry Press, New York.
Freire, Paulo 1974. Ldiicalion for Critical Coiiscioitsness, S h e e d and Wnrd,
London (original edition liditora Paz e 'Ierra, Rio de Janeiro, 1967).
Freudenberger, Karen S c h o o n m n k e r 1996. The Llseof RRA ta Inforin Policy:
Some Personal Ohservations, paper for Ihe PRA and Policy Worshop,
IDS Sussex 13-14 May 1996.
Freudenberger, Karen S c h o o n m a k e r and Mark S c h o o n m a k e r Freuden-
berger 1994. " L i v e l i h o o d s , livestock and c h a n g e : T h e Versalily and
Richness of Historicol Matrices", RRA Notes 20 pp 144-148.
C a v e n l a , John 1980. Power and Powerlessness: Rehellion and Qniescence in un
Appalachian Valley, University of Illinois Press, Chicago.
Gibson, Tony 1995. " S h o w i n g What You Mean (Nol Jusl lálking about
lt)", RRA Notes 21 pp 41-47.
Gibson, Tony 1996. T h e Power in O u r Hands: Neigliboitrlwod basa! World
slmking, J o h n Carpenter, Charlbury, Oxfordshire O X 7 3 P Q , UK.
Grandin, Barbara 1988. Wealth Rankiiig in SmallholderConniiiniities: A Field
Manual, Intermedióte Technology Publicotions, L o n d o n .
UNIÍKKI'INNINGS 127

G T Z 1988. Z O P P (An introduclion lo tlw Methocl). D e u t s c h e Cesellschaft

fur Technische Z u s a m m e n a r b e i t (GTZ) G m b H , Pstfach 5180, D 6236
Eschborn I bei Prankfurt am Main, G e r m a n y .
G u e y e , Bara a n d K a r e n S c h u o n m a k e r F r e u d e n b e r g e r 1991. Méthode
Accélerée de Recherche Pnrticipatinc. IIED, London. :
Guijt, Irene 1995. Rhetoric versus Practice: Reflections on the Challengcs
l'aciiig the Spread and Development of PRA, Paper prepared for Uganda
National Worksop " laking PRA and o t h e r participatory techniques
forward", May 11 and 12 1995.
Guijt, Irene and Andrea Cornvvall 1995. "Editorial: Critica! Reflections
on the Practice of PRA", PLA Notes 24, pp 2-7.
G u j j a , B i k s h a m , Michel Pimbert and M e e r a S h a h 1996. Villaje voices
clialleiiging luelland management polieies: PRA experieneies from Pakistan
and India, paper for the PRA and Policy Worshop, IDS Sussex, May 13-
14 ,1996.
H a g m a n n , J u r g e n , E d w a r d C h u m a a n d K u d a k w a s h e M u r w i r a 1996.
" I m p r o v i n g the O u t p u t of A g r i c u l t u r a l E x t e n s i ó n a n d R e s e a r c h
Through Participatory Innovation Development and Extensión,
Experiences from Z i m b a b w e " , lluropean lounial of Agrieul ta ral Educalion
and Extensión, Vol 2 no 3, March 1996.
H o l l a n d , J e r e m y with J a m e s B l a c k b u r n e d s in d r a f l . Wliose Voiee?
Parlicipaton/ Research and Policy Change, IDS Sussex.
IDS 1979. W h o s e K n o w l e d g e C o u n t s ? IDS Bulletin Vol 10 no 2, Institute of
D e v e l o p m e n t Studies, University of Sussex Brighton, UK.
Jones, Carolyn 1996. Preliminary Behaviour and Altitudes Pack, PRA Topic
I'ack, IDS, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.
J o h a n s s o n , Lars 1995. " R e f o r m i n g d o n o r d r i v e n p r o j e e t s a n d state
bureaucracies through PRA", Forests, Trees and People Newsletler 26/27,
April pp 59-63.
Kane, Eileen, L a w r e n c e Bruce, Haddy Sey and M a r y O ' R e i l l y - d e Brun
1996. Girls' Education in The Cambia, p a p e r for PRA a n d Policy
Workshop, IDS Sussex, 13-14 May 1996.
KKU 1987. Proeeeding of the 1985 International Conferenee on Rapid Rural
Appraisal, Rural Systems Research and Farming Systems Research Projeets,
University of Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Kumar, S o m e s h ed., 1996. ABC of PRA: Attitude Behaviour Change. Report
o í the S o u t h - S o u t h W o r k s h o p pn PRA: Attitudes and Behaviour,
Bangalore and Madurai, organized by ActionAid India and S P E E C H ,
I 10 July 1996.
I.eurs, R o b e r t I 9 9 6 . " C u r r e n t c h a l l e n g e s f a c i n g p a r t i c i p a t o r y rural
appraisal", Public Administra/ion and Development, Vol 16, pp 1-6.
128 l'l-OIM.I-'S l'AKTICII'ATION

M a r i n d o - R a n g a n a i , Ravai 1995. " D i a g r a m s for D e m o g r a p h i c Data

C o l l e c t i o n : E x a m p l e s from the T e m b o m v u r a , Z i m b a b w e " , PLA Notes
22 p p 53-61.
M a s c a r e n h a s , J a m e s , P a r m e s h S h a h , Saín J o s e p h , Ravi J a y a k a r a n , J o h n
D e v a v a r a m , Vidya R a m a c h a n d r a n , Aloysius F e r n a n d e z , Robert
C h a m b e r s a n d J u l e s Pretty eds., 1991. P r o c e e d i n g s of the F e b r u a r y
1991 B a n g a l o r e PRA W o r k s h o p , RRA Notes 13, A u g u s t .
May, Julián 1996. Kicking Down Door and Ligliting Fires: Participating ¡n
Policy,: the SA-PPA Experience, Paper for the PRA a n d Policy W o r k s h o p ,
IDS, S u s s e x 13 14 M a y 1996.
M d a , J a c q u e s 1993. Whcn People Play People: Development Conimimication
through Theatrc, W i t w a t e r s r a n d U n i v e r s i t y Press, J o h a n n e s b u r g a n d
Z e d B o o k s , L o n d o n a n d N e w Jersey.
M e b r a n t u , E s t h e r with Heidi A t t w o o d a n d J o h n G a v e n t a 1997. Partici-
p a t o r y M o n i t o r i n g a n d E v a l u a t i o n , PRA Tupie Pnck, IDS, U n i v e r s i t y of
S u s s e x . B r i g h t o n , UK.
Moser, C a r o l i n e a n d J e r e m y H o l l a n d 1997. Urban Poverty muí Violence in
jamaica. World B a n k Latín A m e r i c a n a n d C a r i b b e a n S t u d i e s . View-
points.
M o s s e , David 1993. Authority, Gender and Knowledge theoretical reflections
on the practice of Participatory Rural Appaisal O D I N e l w o r k P a p e r 44,
OD1, L o n d o n .
M u k h e r j e e , N e e l a 1995. Participatory Rural Appraisal and Questionnaire
Survey: Comparativo field experience and metliological innovations, Concepl
P u b l i s h i n g C o m p a n y , N e w Delhi 1 1 0 0 5 9 .
M u k h e r j e e , N i l a n j a n a 1996. " T h e Rush to Scale: L e s s o n s B e i n g L e a r n t in
I n d o n e s i a " p a p e r for the W o r k s h o p on I n s t i t u o n a l i s i n g P a r t i c i p a l o r y
A p p r o a c h e s , IDS S u s s e x .
M u r p h y , C a r o l 1995. Implications of Poverty for Bltink Rural Women in
Kwazulu/Natal, R e p o r t for [he S o u t h African P a r t i c i p a t o r y Poverty
A s s e s s m e n t , Institute of N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s , P Bag X o 1 , S c o t t s v i l l e ,
S o u t h Africa 3209.
N e l s o n , Nici a n d S u s a n W r i g h t e d s . , 1 9 9 5 . Power and Participatory
Development Theory and Practice, I n t e r m e d í a t e ' l e c h n o l o g y Publications,
London.
N o r t o n , Andy, D a n O w e n a n d J o h n M i l i m o 1994. Y.ambia Participatory
Poverty Assessment: Report 12985 ZA, S o u t h e r n Africa D e p a r t m e n t , T h e
World B a n k , W a s h i n g t o n , N o v e m b e r 3 0 , 1 9 9 4 .
N o r t o n , Andy, David K r o b o e , Ellen B o r t e i - D o r k u a n d D.K. T o n y D o g b e
1995. Chana Participalory Poverty Assessment Consolidated Report on
Poverty assessment in Chana Llsing Qualitive and Participatory Research
Methods: Drafl Report, AFTIIR, World B a n k .
UNI>I;I<I'INNINC;S 129

N o r t o n , A n d r e w a n d T i l o m a s S t e p h e n s 1995. Participation in Poverty

Assessments, E n v i r o n m e n t D e p a r t m e n t Papers Participation Series,
Social Policy and Resettlement División, the World Bank, Washington,
June.
N o r t o n , A n d y a n d Dan O w e n 1996. The Zambia Participatory Poverty
Assessinent: Notes on the Proeess and Lessons Learned, Paper of the PRA
and Policy Workshop, IDS Sussex, May 13 1 4 , 1 9 9 6 .
O s u g a , B e n a n d D a v i d M u t a y i s a 1 9 9 4 . PRA Lessons and Concerns:
Experiences in Uganda, U g a n d a C B H C A s s o c i a t i o n , P O . Box 325,
Entebbe, February.
Peters, Tom 1987. Thriving on Chaos handbook for a management revolution,
Alfred A. Knopf.
Pretty, Jules, Irene Guijt, J o h n T h o m p s o n and Ian Scoones1995./4 trainer's
Cuide for Participatory Learning and Action, IIED Participatory
M e t h o d o l o g y Series, IIED.
Robb, Caroline 1996. Participatory Poverty Assessinent: Key Issues, Paper
presented at the PRA and policy Workshop, IDS Sussex, May 13-14
1996.
Robinson l'ant, Anua 1 9 9 5 . G e n d e r a n d PRA, PRA TopicPack, IDS, University
o í Sussex, Brighton, UK.
Roy, S.B., Mitali C h a t t e r j e e , G a n e s h Yadav, R a k t i m a M u k h e r j e e a n d
Prodyut B h a t t a r c h a r y a 1997. Group Sensitisation and Participatory Rural
Appraisal: Proeess Docuineiitation of Training for Indian Forestéis, Inter-
India Publications, D-17 Raja C a r d e n , N e w Delhi 110 015.
RRA Notes 1-21 s u b s e q u e n t l y PLA Notes 22-28 c o n t i n u i n g , International
Institute for E n v i r o n m e n t and D e v e l o p m e n t , 3 E n d s l e i g h S t r e e t .
London W C I H O D D (and issue 15 on Wealth Ranking).
S a m a r a n a y a k e , Mallika 1994. Institutionalizing Participatory Approaches,
paper presented at the " D a r é to S h a r e " Fair, Participatory Learning
Approaches in D e v e l o p m e n t Cooperation, 20 21 S e p t e m b e r 1994, G T Z ,
Eschbom, Cermany.
S e n g e , Peter 1990. The Fifth Discipline: the arl and practice of the learning
organisation, Doubleday, USA ( 1 9 9 2 e d i t i o n R a n d o m House, London).
S h a h , Meera Kaul and Khadija Bourarach 1995. Participatory Assessinent of
Wonieii 's Problems and Concerns in Morocco, Report submitled to tlie
World Bank, first draft, February.
leixeira, Lynne and Piona C h a m a m b e r s 1995. Cliild Support in Small Toiuns
in the Eastern Cape, Black Sasli Advice Office, Port Eli/.abeth, October.
T h o m p s o n , J o h n 1 9 9 5 . " P a r t i c i p a t o r y A p p r o a c h e s in C o v e r n m e n t
Bu r e a l i d a d e s : Facilitating the Proeess of lnstitutional C h a n g e " World
Development vol 23 no 9 pp 1521-1554, September.
130 l'liOI'l.li'S l'AKTICII'ATION

Tillmann, H e r m a n n J. 1993. V1PP: Visualisalion in Participalory Progrnmmes:

A manual for facilitators and trainees in participatory group cocuis, UNICEli
RO. Box 58, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh.
U N D P 1996. UNDP's 1996 Report on Human Development in Bangladesh: A
Pro-Poor Agenda. Volumen 3 Poor People's Perspectives, UNDP, Dhaka.
Uphoff, N o r m a n 1992. Learning from Gal Oya: Possibilities for Participatory
Development and Post-Newtonian social scieuce, Cornell University Press,
Ithaca and London.
World B a n k 1995. World Bank Participation Sourcebook, Environmenl
Department Papcrs, T h e World Bank, J u n e .