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.
close to the concept of freedom – being free to choose to be involved (or not) in various activities and organisations.
People need self-confidence to tackle their daily problems, which often leads to self- reliance with regard to improving their QoL (Burkey, 1993:50). Self-confidence is often gained through participating alongside others, which is the basis of experiences of PMs as empowering. More specifically, “[p]erhaps the greatest contribution that development assistance can make is to help the poor regain their confidence in themselves and in their ability to fight their way up from poverty” (Burkey, 1993:53). This is similar to inner
empowerment (see Rowlands, 1997:110) and self-efficacy (see Bandura, 1989) as discussed in subsection 2.2.2 (p28). Participation as an end resonates with the concepts of freedom, empowerment and development.
4.3.2 Having a Dual Focus
It seems to me that action research is in a sense true to label. It seeks to achieve action and research simultaneously. It seeks better action, and better understanding of that action. (Wildman and Dick, 1998:3)
PMs usually have a dual focus on action and on research (Barahona et al., 2007; Brock and Pettit, 2007; Cornwall and Jewkes, 1995). At the heart of PMs is the recognition of an unjust social order, where the oppressed and systemically disadvantaged need to empower themselves and work towards a more equitable state of human co-existence. The goal is to generate and implement action plans for social change, based on information and analysis generated through inclusive local participation. This information can also be used for non- local purposes, for example to generate theory or to inform policy, when accompanied by consent of those who produced the information.
Different emphases are placed on goals of action and of research, depending on the context, the relative power of local and non-local stakeholders, and how power relations are (or are not) dealt with. Some regard making a difference through action as the primary and abiding characteristic of participatory research (White and Pettit, 2004:6). When information generating activity and analysis is defined by and focuses on the information needed to plan and implement local action, these dual goals can work in harmony. However, when the research goals of non-locals dominate, the quality of participation and local relevance of
information suffers, reducing chances of empowerment. This tension is often present in par, but can be managed and need not be divisive if trade-offs are made (Brock, 2002).
4.3.3 Being Value-defined and Political
How people acquire, process and use information is linked with the way they interpret the world, with the philosophy that underlies their system of analysis.
(Barahona et al., 2007:165)
In the context of an unjust social order, Prozesky and Mouton (2001:537) define PAR as “[a]n activity in research which is used to serve the ends of empowerment,
conscientisation and emancipation in development”. Rahman (1993:81) defines
conscientisation within PAR as the “...stimulation of self-reflected critical awareness on the part of oppressed people of their social reality and of their ability to transform it by their conscious action”. Thus the political context of the practice of PMs is that within an unjust social order, the marginalised and excluded need to be conscientised in order to challenge the status quo.
Our perceptions and experiences inform our reality (Rowlands, 1997) and therefore, bias is inherent in all concepts and no research can be value-free (Rahman, 1993:88&90).
This is expressed by Guba and Lincoln (2005:195) as value-mediated findings, characteristic of the critical, constructivist and participatory paradigms, with respect to the relationship between local people (insiders), external agents (outsiders) and knowledge. “Participatory action research ... starts from the principle that it is not possible to separate facts from values and social relationships” (Burkey, 1993:61). Therefore it is important for outsiders to discover and account for their own values, beliefs and goals (Harding, 1993). The practical implication of this is the need to reflect on the process of data interpretation and analysis with reference to individual biographies and histories, as well as disciplinary bias of outside researchers (Wray, 2004:28).
Within PMs, the recognition of an unjust social order (as reflected through the different and multiple positions, power, perceptions, values, goals, and worldviews etc. of local and external stakeholders) is fundamental to the remaining key tenets of par presented below.
4.3.4 Flexible and Evolving, Responding to Diversity and Complexity
[A]ction researchers… recognise that the world they operate in is complex and richly interconnected… When almost everything affects almost everything else, they recognise that simple causal models are quite misleading. (Wildman and Dick, 1998:4)
PMs are flexible in design; accommodate varying topics, contexts and purposes; and adapt in response to changing circumstances and emerging issues (White and Pettit, 2004).
Mayoux (2007:93) refers to the Participatory Action Learning System (PALS) as “...an eclectic and constantly evolving methodology which enables people to collect and analyse the information they themselves need on an ongoing basis to improve their lives in ways they decide”.40 Jupp (2007:107-108) comments on the need for creativity, innovation and customisation when using PMs, especially when working with concepts that are not used locally (e.g. human rights) or issues that are habitually hidden from public scrutiny (e.g.
violence against women). PMs are also suited to development and research activity
concerned with concepts that have diverse or contested meaning, such as QoL (Costanza et al., 2008; White and Pettit, 2004) and telecentre impact (Coward, 2008). Par is particularly appropriate to use with complex or emerging interventions (Chambers, 2008), as both have evolving processes where the focus changes and findings emerge over time. Flexible and evolving processes are critical in order to facilitate and support local agency and action, targeting local development solutions.
4.3.5 A Cyclical Process over Time
Participatory action research takes place in time as part of the analysis-action- reflection process, where the people are both the subject and the object of the research; where the investigator not only shares this reality, but in fact participates in it as an agent of change. (Burkey, 1993:61)
Kurt Lewin’s action-reflection cycle from the 1940s (cited in Sarac-Suzer, 2007)
visualises the process of par, with many PM texts reproducing or adapting Lewin’s cycle and discussing its practical and theoretical relevance to PMs (see Altrighter et al., 2002; Burkey, 1993; Kemmis and McTaggart, 2000). The Plan-Act-Reflect cycle shown in Figure 4-1
40 PALS is one of the PMs described by Chambers (2008:93-96) as a promising participatory methodology which evolved alongside PRA.
Figure 4-1: The plan-act-reflect cycle
Source: Kemmis and McTaggart (2000:564)
illustrates an ongoing process with alternative activities of planning, action, reflection and revision. This cycle is referred to by Rahman (1993:80) as “...a progressive action-reflection rhythm” and fosters continuous learning. Goals and activities change over time, as people gain knowledge and insight into their reality, their place in the broader social order and potential solutions or avenues for progress (Burkey, 1993; Rahman, 1993).
This cycle is time-consuming. “...[W]hilst meaningful development must be
transformative, as opposed to top-down, there is no quick path to broadening the
development process” (Wood, 2001:466). Time is needed for development processes to assess power dynamics; to include relevant groups and individuals; and for extensive consultation
and debate regarding the local process and decisions (Burkey, 1993). Development initiatives using PMs rarely proceed according to planned time frames.
4.3.6 Information and Knowledge
An immediate objective of PAR is to return to the people the legitimacy of the knowledge they are capable of producing, through their own collectives and the verification systems they may decide to establish themselves, ... and their right to use this knowledge – not excluding any other knowledge but not dictated by them – as a guide in their own action. (Rahman, 1993:91 – author’s emphasis)
A major focus of Orlando Fals Borda’s PAR work in Columbia “...has been the legitimisation of popular knowledge and its development...” to assist the masses to
“...conduct their own struggle for social transformation” (Rahman, 1993:81). PAR questions what is regarded as knowledge and who the knowledge generators are, as does PRA
(Chambers, 1997). Perceptions of the poor must form the basis for analysis – which is different from outsiders’ perceptions (Burkey, 1993:62). Recognising that people are
capable of social enquiry (Rahman, 1993:159), local categories, definitions, issues, experiences and perceptions, analysis and action are at the core of par. While both professional and local knowledge together are needed (Burkey, 1993:80; Rahman, 1993:196), the nature, timing and purpose of introducing ‘expert’ knowledge should promote the overall goal of the work and not counter the potential for empowerment.
From the many examples of empowering strategies that work, the first of four elements identified by Narayan (2002:14) as part of successful efforts to empower poor people, is access to information - and the second was inclusion and participation.41 Information and knowledge are critical to empowerment processes, participation) and action research (Rahman, 1993; Urquhart, 2008). This is well illustrated through Gaventa and Cornwall’s (2008:179) view of the three dimensions of PR, namely knowledge, action and consciousness (see Figure 4-2). PR challenges power relations by addressing the need for knowledge, action, and/or consciousness. Many accounts of PR indicate a focus on one of these approaches, but Gaventa and Cornwall (2008: 179) aver that all three are needed because they related to areas of change that are intertwined.
41 The remaining two are accountability and local organizational capacity, which act in synergy with information and inclusion (Narayan, 2002:14).
Figure 4-2: Dimensions of participatory research
Source: Gaventa and Cornwall (2008:179)
4.3.7 Participation and Power: Exclusion and Inclusion
[C]ommunities often reflect divisions and competing interests and not that often harmony and common purpose. (Roodt, 2001:478)
With the focus away from the knowledge of the professionals or external researchers, the question of who participates – and what they participate in - still remains. Chambers (2005:158) points to the value of questioning whose knowledge, preferences, criteria,
planning, implementation, experimentation and monitoring counts, elaborating on the focus of “Whose Reality Counts?” (Chambers, 1997). These are practical questions that
interrogate claims of participation, by considering the detail of research and action processes.
Consideration of who participates and what they participate in, must go beyond the simple divide of local versus external stakeholders. The lumping together of people as the community, is the source of much criticism of activity purporting to be participatory (see Kothari, 2001; Taylor, 2001). Experienced and reflective PR facilitators recognise that power relations within groups and geographical areas, impact on the nature and extent of
participation:
This much is clear: participation … does not automatically include those who were previously left out of such processes. It is only as inclusive as those who are driving the process choose it to be, or as those involved demand it to be. (Guijt and Kaul Shah, 1998:19)
Furthermore, there are multiple dimensions, levels and types of power which can influence processes, as illustrated by Gaventa’s power cube (2006:25). Power is a relational concept and the roles of the various stakeholders in the process should take cognisance of the power relations within, between and across organisations, informal groups, families and individuals. An analysis of power is critical to action research activity (Gaventa and Cornwall, 2008; Prozesky and Mouton, 2001; Rowlands, 1997) and the critical theory paradigm
recognises the need for the empowerment of the marginalised, oppressed, excluded,
impoverished or disadvantaged. “Central to the ability of people to take control of their own lives and to undertake organised collective action, is the concept of power, more specifically power structures and relationships within particular communities” (Roodt, 2001:479).
In many development initiatives which originate from outside the area of interest (or group considered to be in need of development), unequal power relations between external
and internal stakeholders are present from the beginning of the process. These and existing local power relations are altered as the process gets going, often through initial negotiation by outsiders to gain entry into an area and the process of gaining local consent to take part in the initiative. How these power relations are dealt with, depends to a significant extent on conduct and worldview of outsiders, whether external researchers, development facilitators or “change agents”.
4.3.8 The Role of Outsiders as Change Agents
Catalytic initiatives are taken by persons coming from the well-educated class ..., independent of macro social organisations ..., to promote self-mobilisation of the rural underprivileged for group or organised action to emerge from out of their own deliberations. (Rahman, 1993:79)
Sen (1999), Prozesky and Mouton (2001), Rahman (1993), Burkey (1993) and Chambers (2008) all refer to the role of a change agent within a participatory process.
Burkey (1993:76) specifies that while the change agent initiates the process of change, the direction of change is determined through interaction with the people they are working with and that “[t]he primary role of change agents is to release the creative energies in people”
(ibid:75). Through initiating a “...process of critical awareness-building...”, the change agent facilitates human development and conscientisation, striving to change the way people think (Burkey, 1993:78-79). The dynamic and evolutionary nature of participatory processes, especially empowerment objectives, means that the roles of various participants change as the process unfolds. With the process of conscientisation, capacity building and the
development of internal leadership underway, the change agent’s role diminishes (Burkey, 1993; Rahman, 1993).
Burkey’s contention that change agents rarely arise from within the community (1993:75), places PA in the critical theory paradigm, where the external agent or inquirer is regarded as a “transformative intellectual“, as opposed to the constructivist paradigm where the change agent is regarded as a “passionate participant” (Guba and Lincoln, 1994:115).
Rahman’s description of the changing nature of the role of the researcher indicates that the paradigmatic location of a particular participatory initiative can shift as it progresses or that it can be located in both paradigms. Some forms of citizen research or AR research are based on the initiator or catalyst being a local person, who is of and from the group
motivated to investigate or act on an issue (McTaggart, 1989). With an ‘insider’ catalyst, the implementation of some form of PM fits more naturally within the constructivist paradigm.
The recognition of a personal agenda or motivation on the part of external change agents is a vital part of the concept and practice of par, but in many cases does not receive sufficient attention. Rahman (1993:80) refers to change agents’ research interests as another agenda or motivator, such as the search for new visual methods of analysis with illiterate people, or the identification of an ethical role for intellectuals within people’s development processes.
The role of change agents is reflected in the attitudes, behaviour and characteristics regarded as appropriate.
4.3.9 Guiding Attitudes, Behaviour and Ethics
The ‘social life’ of any research project - its principles, conduct and relationships established with respondents - is in fact central not only to its morality, but also to the quality of information it can yield.(White and Pettit, 2004:24).
The relationship between the external researcher or change agent and local groups influences the process and outcomes of development initiatives. The above quote reflects that the values, behaviour and attitudes of researchers are critical to both the action and research goals of par.42 In order to effectively fulfil their role, change agents should espouse attitudes and behaviour that is most conducive to promoting the empowerment of those they work with. The conduct of researchers or change agents is regarded by White and Pettit (2004:11) as a primary principle of PR.
With reference to Internal Learning Systems (ILS), Narendranath (2007:79) notes the importance of external facilitators’ belief in the capability of poorer people when guiding a process aimed at empowerment: “[t]hey have the right to set their life goals and strive to achieve them. ILS is a tool that has enormous potential to manifest this agency and build on women’s internal resources and capabilities”.43 The need to trust in the ability of the oppressed is echoed by Freire (1970) and Chambers (2008).
42 White and Pettit’s (2004:24) ‘morality’ refers to the need for PR to produce outcomes that are valued locally.
43 ILS is one of the PMs described by Chambers (2008:93-96) as a promising participatory methodology which evolved alongside PRA.
Table 4-4: Dimensions of methods 1 spatial
2 nominal (naming, lists, collecting) 3 temporal (chronological, sequential) 4 ordinal (sort, compare, rank) 5 numerical (score, count, estimate) 6 relational (linking, relating)
Source: Chambers (1997:135)
Burkey reproduces a list of 14 roles of the change agent (1993:79-81) and a list of seven characteristics that change agents need (ibid:82). A comparison between Burkey’s lists and the activities and behaviour of the PRA facilitator as discussed by Chambers (1997) again illustrates the commensurability between PRA and PAR. Both for example, refer to the need for respect, honesty and humility; the belief that “they can do it”; reflection on their own behaviour and role; and the promotion of broad participation, while also locating and working with vulnerable and invisible groups (Burkey, 1993:76-87; Chambers, 1997:131).44 Jupp (2007:120) notes that competent par facilitators are willing to “...continually improve, adapt and create new ways of finding out”. “Many of the changes in behaviour that make a difference concern power relations – handing over the stick (or pen or chalk), sitting down, listening, learning, not criticizing, not interrupting and so on” (Chambers, 2005:167).
4.3.10Research Methods
While visual diagramming methods are often used within PMs, a variety of methods can be used at different stages of a par process (if appropriate to the current need), including some quantitative and qualitative methods common to the positivist paradigm (e.g. questionnaires). Visual methods usually associated with PRA, include transect mapping, matrix ranking, flow diagrams, seasonality graphs, time-trends, and so on.45
Chambers (1997) identified six different types of information analysis that can be facilitated by various visual methods (see Table 4-4). When par principles guide the facilitation of such methods, it often has
empowering benefits, such as instilling a sense of accomplishment; revealing people’s capabilities to facilitate, draw, recount, and analyse; and uncovering unrecognised local knowledge. This boosts feelings of self- confidence and self-efficacy. It is the
potential for such methods to reveal people’s
44 The discussion in Burkey (1993) does however make more direct reference to issues of conscientisation and conflict resolution, than that of Chambers (1997).
45 See Chambers (1997: 116-119) for a menu of PRA methods and approaches.
Plate 4-1: Time Trend using buttons
capabilities they thought were beyond them and to circumvent low literacy levels, that makes these methods most suitable for use within an empowering process.
There are numerous other features of visual methods that contribute to the
empowering effect. For example, the use of inexpensive materials for drawing encourages experimentation and exploration; the availability of many drawing instruments encourages multiple contributions; and the visual nature of methods allow for different types of
interaction and participation (e.g. visually, verbally, and through visual outputs that can be debated and revisited at a later stage). In the time-trend shown in Error! Reference source not found., participants used buttons to indicate how different aspects of community life changed over time. Here the use of movable objects encourages participants to express alternative opinions, because the number of buttons allocated to cells can be easily changed until a group reaches consensus or
compromise. Where such debates occur, a record of the discussion during the production of a visual output is vital (particularly) for external research purposes, as it captures the range of opinions and issues affecting the topic of
discussion. Similarly observation notes on the process followed and behaviour of facilitators and participants help to validate the data, because it provides a summary of how the information was produced and particularly events that may have influenced the data. Appendix B (p311) provides further detail on the nature of participatory visual
methods and empowering impacts.