unsatisfying forms of existence”. The congruence of AR (see Altrighter et al., 2002; Dick, 2005; Wadsworth, 1998) and Participatory Research [PR] (see Cornwall and Jewkes, 1995;
White and Pettit, 2004) with aspects of PRA and PAR led to my inclusion of AR and PR literature in my post-field discussion of research methodology. PAR, PRA, AR and PR all discuss guiding principles, behaviour and attitudes of external researchers or activists,
without which mere participation in visual methods for gathering information and facilitating local analysis would essentially be reduced to another extractive research tool. Following Jupp, I refer to CLIQ’s research methodology as participatory action research (par), being a generic name that describes the context within which the participatory approach was undertaken. It is from this post-field perspective, that chapter 4 discusses PMs and par drawing on literature inclusive of that which specifically discusses PRA, PR, PAR and AR.
Table 4-2: Comparative lists of challenges to PMs Chambers’ ethical issues
related to the use of PMs (2008:163-164)
Brock and Pettit’s key challenges facing PMs (2007:6-13)
Cook and Kothari’s themes on problems with participation (2001:14)
Ch_1: taking people’s time Ch_2: raising expectations Ch_3: extracting information without being clear to those who provide it
Ch_4: extracting info which will be used against people Ch_5: exposing people to danger
Ch_6: repeating activities Ch_7: causing tensions and violence within community
BP_1: common words different meanings BP_2: scaling up and replicability
BP_3: standardisation or adaption
BP_4: external or local needs
BP_5: information or learning
CK_1: the naivety of assumptions about the authenticity of motivations and behaviour in participatory processes CK_2: how the language of
empowerment masks a real concern for managerialist effectiveness
CK_3: the quasi-religious associations of participatory rhetoric and practice CK_4: how an emphasis on the micro level of intervention can obscure, and indeed sustain, broader macro-level inequalities and injustice
Other common issues relate to the purpose of participatory activity or the agenda of those implementing the research and the existence and recognition of difference within groups of people who are the intended beneficiaries (a.k.a. the community). For example, a focus on extracting information (Ch_1; Ch_3; Ch_4, in Table 4-2) relates to the challenge of how to balance external needs for information (often using standardised approached across areas for comparison purposes) against internal needs for learning, flexibility and
empowerment (BP_3; BP_4; BP_5). Cook and Kothari (2001) express a challenge around purpose as outsiders’ focus on reaching output targets (e.g. for donors) which is masked as empowerment (CK_2). This links back to the issue of the multiple interpretations, use and abuse of terms like empowerment or participation (BP_1). Cook and Kothari also refer to a disregard for power relations and difference within communities (CK_1) that paves the way for other problematic practices, such as the replication of standardised participatory
methods and lack of flexibility (BP_2; BP_3) and public discussion of contentious issues (Ch_5; Ch_7).
These sets of challenges relate to four key aspects of approaches to development and research, namely:
a] supporting paradigms, underlying concepts and fundamental principles;
b] stakeholders’ goals (where multiple or alternate goals are often in conflict) and result in trade-offs);
Table 4-3: Symptoms and causes of low- quality PRA work
1 assumed that PRA methods equals development and positive change 2 information extraction with rhetoric of political correctness
3 selling the ‘PRA service’ is a new commercial activity 4 impositions made on the poor
5 Unchallenged myths regarding community harmony 6 neglect of ‘costs’ to individual livelihoods 7 obscure political realities / divisiveness within community 8 historical inheritance of short-cut evangelism 9 get rich quick
10 lack of openness and sharing 11 lack of…analysis of difference
12 project-led/ focused, not community-led/focused Source: Selected Text from Kumar (1996:74-75)
c] politics and relationships of power (where there is often a lack of awareness or disregard for the existence and influence of power relations and an inability or unwillingness to engage with issues of difference and conflict); and
d] the contextual relevance and flexibility of the methodology.
Perspectives relating to paradigms, purpose, power and context help define whether or not a methodology is participatory. Challenges and critiques of PMs are drawn from examples of the poor practice, as well as from reflection on the practical difficulty of
implementing quality processes based on a set of fundamental principles. I believe that the literature does not give sufficient attention to the latter. Reflection on practice is a key element of the ethical use of PMs and there are numerous examples of formal and informal reports that draw out lessons for the improved use of PMs. One of the examples of
practitioners’ self-reflection on their own work aimed at promoting good PM practice, emanated from an international workshop with 27 leading PRA practitioners, as
documented in Kumar (1996). Together these practitioners listed 58 symptoms and causes of low quality PRA work (Kumar,
1996:70-75). Table 4-3 lists 12 of these, and in comparison with Table 4-2 illustrates how many of the challenges identified by Cook and Kothari in 2001, were already receiving attention five years earlier, and how some were still challenges in 2008.
The tone of Cook and Kothari’s introduction (2001) does not reflect constructive criticism or inspire any hope for the future adaptation and usefulness of participation: “...any meaningful attempt to save
participatory development requires a sincere acceptance of the possibility that it should not be saved” (Cook
and Kothari, 2001:15). This suggests a lack of recognition of the numerous reported successes based on PM use. Success stories involving PM use continue (see Chambers, 1997:119-129), despite the almost inevitable inclusion of process errors. Chambers remarks that Cook and Kothari (2001) raise well-known shortcomings of PMs (which many
practitioners have sought to address), while “... criticisms that should have been made were overlooked...” (2008:91).
In reference to Cook and Kothari’s “...vigorous academic critiques that emphasised the
‘tyranny’ of participation...”Dill (2009:718), Dill refers to a softening of critiques in early 2000s, citing Hickey and Mohan (2004, 2005) who reassert the transformative potential of PMs. Hickey and Mohan (2004) collated a set of literary responses to Cook and Kothari, based on self-critical reflection from practitioners and constructive analysis from theorists, which they took forward in Relocating participation within the radical politics of
development (Hickey and Mohan, 2005). Their key concerns with participation relate to:
a] a lack of recognition of pervasive and persistent structures of oppression and social injustice (and an “...obsession with the ‘local’...”);
b] an insufficient understanding of the processes of power and empowerment;
c] “...an inadequate understanding of the role of structure and agency in social change...”;
and
d] the technical or mechanical implementation of participatory methods, rather than participation as “...a political methodology of empowerment...“ (Hickey and Mohan, 2005:8).
These concerns are reflected in part in Tables 4-2 and 4-3, with the exception of Hickey and Mohan’s (2005) third point regarding structure and agency.
There is no common definition or set of minimum standards for PMs. While valuable, attempts to document and analyse the variety of PMs in use will always be overtaken by ongoing methodological innovation. “The sheer volume of books, journals articles, and conferences devoted to participatory and action-oriented research is indicative of its importance and likely to be used in more flexible ways and for many more purposes in the future” (Abraham and Purkayastha , 2012:126). Recent noteworthy additions and changes have been the move away from branded methodologies to methodological diversity and
pluralism; increased engagement with power relations; increased popularity of face-to-face learning such as immersions (Chambers, 2008:101, 160, 164 & 169). Debates on the ethics, effectiveness and theoretical base of PMs will continue, as will the spread and evolution of PMs in terms of concepts, focus, methods, process and topics. Nevertheless, a set of principle elements or fundamental aspects helps to identify the kinds of processes and approaches that could (or should) be considered as participatory.