Topical Themes in Development StudiesGroup: Globalization, Protest and Grass Root Alternatives

Lecturer: Leandro Vergara CamusMinor Development Studies

THE POSSIBILITIES OF PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH IN THE FIELD OF DEVELOPMENT.

Desi Boesvelds1387650

desiboesveld@gmail.com06-24289823

TABLE OF CONTENT

INTRODUCTION_________________________________________________________ 3

1 WHAT IS PAR?________________________________________________________ 5

1.1 THE DEVELOPMENT OF PAR 51.2 PAR, ITS PHILOSOPHY AND METHODS 51.3 THE APPLICATION OF PAR IN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 7

2 WHAT IS THE CONTRIBUTION OF PAR TO THE FIELD OF DEVELOPMENT?__________ 8

2.1 THE VALUE OF LOCAL KNOWLEDGE 82.2 DEMOCRATISATION OF DEVELOPMENT 112.3 PARTICIPATION OF ALL? 122.4 EMPOWERMENT OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES 122.5 SUSTAINABILITY 14

CONCLUSION__________________________________________________________ 15

BIBLIOGRAPHY_________________________________________________________17

2

INTRODUCTION________________________________________________________

Participatory Action Research has changed the way development projects work. In the

past, development was often seen as a top-down process, where aid was given by the

governments of countries to those of other countries, in order to better the circumstances

of its people. The use of Participatory Action Research (PAR) requires a whole other look

at the process of development, one where the people themselves take matters into their

own hand and turns the traditional top-down approach upside down into a bottom-up

approach. Self-empowerment, self-help and the knowledge of local communities are

central concepts to PAR and crucial to its philosophy.

Participatory Action Research is in itself a worthwhile research topic, since PAR

allows for the building of a bridge between researchers, policy makers and the people

affected by underdevelopment themselves, giving the later a sense of agency. It makes

no distinction in value between these actors, acknowledging that the knowledge and work

of all are required in order to promote change and effective development. As described

below, all sections of this essay together, aim to examine whether this philosophy has a

beneficial effect on the outcome of development programs.

This essay aims to research the influence that PAR has had on development

projects. It looks at both the academic debate on the benefits and weaknesses of using

PAR in the field of development issues and at real world examples of its application, in

order to give a concise argumentation on the fact that Participatory Action Research is a

beneficial approach to development projects. In order to make this argument, this essay

is divided into three parts, dealing with three subquestions, that together will lead to an

answer to this papers central question: to which extend has Participatory Action Research

been a positive influence in the field of development?

The first part will address the question: what is Participatory Action Research? It

will describe the concept of PAR, its history and its key notions. This will hopefully provide

the reader with the needed background knowledge to understand the further exploration

of the workings of PAR in the field of development.

3

Part two will examine the question: what is the contribution of PAR to the field of

development? I will weigh both the possibilities and weaknesses of PAR that have come out

of the academic debate described in the preceding part of this essay, combined with

experiences resulting from development projects that have applied the theory of PAR in real

world practices, in order to argue that, overall, the use PAR has had a positive effect on both

the working and the outcome of development programs.

4

1 WHAT IS PAR?________________________________________________________

This chapter looks at the development of PAR and its application to the field of

development. It aims at identifying the key notions, methods and philosophies of PAR in

order to provide the necessary background for the following chapter, which deals with the

debate on the benefits of applying PAR in the field of development.

1.1 the development of PAR

Participatory Action Research is a set of theories and methods that has derived out of the

sphere of social sciences. Whyte describes the development as PAR as the melting of

three ‘streams of intellectual development and action’: (1) social research methodology,

(2) participation in decision making by low-ranking people in organisations and

communities and (3) sociotechnical systems thinking regarding organizational behaviour.

PAR was created out of the need to bring together scientific knowledge of

scholars with actual actions resulting from that knowledge. (Whyte 1991, 8) In other

words, research should be done with the aim to lead to direct actions, instead of just an

academic exercise of outsider observations. Positive experiences with worker and farmer

participation in research and decision-making led to the idea that so-called low-ranking

people might have local knowledge that can be very beneficiary in projects. (Whyte 1991,

11) These ideas were combined with the idea that knowledge about social structures and

technology should also be taken into account within these projects, thus creating the

three-streamed approach described above. (Whyte 1991, 12)

1.2 PAR, its philosophy and methods

Participatory Action Research goes by many names. It is also known simply as Action

Research, Participatory Research, Action Science and a whole many other specific project

names such as ‘participatory plant breeding’ and ‘participatory action-learning’. The word

‘action’ in its name stands for the idea that as a result of the research done by scholars

and the local community, real life actions in order to improve local quality of life will be

taken.

PAR offers an alternative to normal academic research, that is often viewed as

‘extractive’ by the people being researched. This because the traditional forms of

5

research takes the knowledge that is gathered away from the local community towards

universities and research facilities, without giving much benefit to those who were

researched and does not empower them to change their own situation. (Carl Willemsen

in: Boog 2008, 136)

The researcher analyses the situation in its full context, with involves looking at

the sociological, historical, geological, ecological, cultural and political background of both

the community and its problems. This implies that PAR projects are highly specific to local

circumstances, custom-made if you will, and therefore completely a-universalist in their

approach and philosophies. The issues that are dealt with are identified by the local

people themselves and researched by themselves with help from the outside researcher.

The strength of PAR lies in the fact that it combines both the knowledge of internal and

external actors, that together create a more accurate picture of the reality that is being

transformed. (Fals-Borsa 1991, 4)

A typical cycle of a PAR project would look something like this: a researcher would

come into a local community, either out of own initiative or by invitation of the

community. This external agent talks to the people in order to identify the local

problem(s) and does a preliminary analysis of the causes of the local situation. This

information is then given back to the community as feedback and as a source for their

own debate and analysis of the problem. The outcomes of this process are then used to

form plans of actions, which could consist of a number of strategies (e.g. literacy

campaigns, health care planning etc). (Greenwood and Levin, 176-177)

PAR is often not regarded as an close-ending procedure, meaning that it would

lead to a clear-cut solution and then all ends well. It is seen as a continuous process,

where empowerment and new knowledge gathered through reflection of past projects

often lead to the initiation of new actions and research.

Outcomes of PAR projects are difficult to predict, because so much is left open to

the initiative of the local community and their own knowledge and practices.

1.3 the application of PAR in development projects

6

Participatory action research has made its way to all sectors of development projects.

Agriculture for instance has seen the rise of participatory plant breeding and participatory

technology development and education programs have been set up as participatory

action-learning and classroom action research projects. PAR methods seem to be

applicable in all fields of development, ranging from health care to infrastructure, and in

all parts of the developing world. This might, perhaps ironically, be a result of its non-

universalist approach. Exactly because no blueprints are provided and local preferences

and needs prevail, it is exportable to everywhere in the world – where the form of the

project might differ from anywhere else, but the philosophy does not.

PAR as a method for development programs has been picked up, or had a major

influence on many large projects and actors in the field of development. The World Bank

has decided to make participation a key requirement for funding development programs,

and even though many true PAR scholars see this as a paper promise by the World Bank,

one has to acknowledge that participation has become a more important aspect in many

projects, by many institutions in all parts of the world.

In short, Participatory Action Research is a sociological method that has spilled over into

the field of development. Its philosophy holds that communities can solve their own

development issues when they work together with outside researchers, who help them to

analyze their situation and make concrete action plans to address these issues. This

process involves research, analyses of this research, project planning and reflection. PAR

projects are very local in the way they work, being for a large part the result of local

knowledge and needs.

2 WHAT IS THE CONTRIBUTION OF PAR TO THE FIELD OF DEVELOPMENT? _______

This chapter addresses the benefits of PAR as a method for development. It argues that

Participatory Action Research hold a number of benefits over traditional top down

methods of development organization, while also taking into account some of the

7

criticism offered to PAR. It does so by taking a look at the most important aspects of PAR:

the value of local knowledge, the democratization of development, participation by local

people, empowerment, sustainability and cost-effectiveness.

2.1 the value of local knowledge

Traditional development methods had little to no attention to and appreciation of the

knowledge of local people about their own situation. Development programs were often

seen as universal blueprints that could be exported to whatever part of the world,

implying that development is a universal process and development issues are universal

issues. Any knowledge going into these projects is that of development aid workers,

experts and maybe local politicians.

PAR as a development method relies on the benefits of local knowledge. According

to Greenwood and Levin (1998, 177) local knowledge is authentic, detailed and valuable –

an idea that is often ignored by external organizers with other methods. They also feel

that acknowledging the power of local knowledge to promote local development, means

that one must acknowledge that the poor developmental condition people are in are not a

result of their lack of intelligence, but of some sort of oppression. I feel this is an

important point to make: PAR does not see a lack of knowledge as the cause of

underdevelopment, but the circumstances wherein people cannot benefit fully from this

knowledge and their own initiatives. I would not go so far as to say that these

circumstances are always the result of oppression, which implies some sort of

deliberative malign intent, because one could also see a relation to for instance a lack of

(financial) means, a lack of connections or a lack of technical or theoretical knowledge

and the inability of citizens to optimize their own circumstances. This does not always

have to be a result of oppression, it could also be a result of a very remote location, few

outside connections, a lack of effective government or a local society that does not place

much importance in technical education.

The value of local knowledge is that it is more sensitive to the specificities of local

needs, circumstances, traditions and so on. Solutions and analysis based on local

knowledge can be more effective than ready-made solutions that are conjured up in some

8

western office, by someone who does not take these aspects into consideration. Solutions

and analysis that are partly a result of local knowledge tend to be more easily accepted

by the people involved, creating a larger platform for projects. The implementation of

these projects is often more smoother, since most circumstances are taken into account,

like geography, local habits and such.

In my opinion the true strength of PAR is that it does not fully rely on only local

knowledge, but that the researcher brings outside knowledge to the table, that can be

complementary to what local people know. These researchers can provide technical

information, for instance on how to build a bridge or start a school curriculum, but can

also apply PAR techniques that help the decision-making process along, for an example of

such a method, see figure 1 on the next page.

PAR critics, will point out that the expertise still lies with western, imported,

knowledge. Therefore the local people are still dependent on outsiders to carry out these

projects. Or as PAR-pioneer Robert Chambers himself recognises: "However much the

rhetoric changes to participation, participatory research, community involvement and the

like, at the end of the day there is still an outsider seeking to change things... who the

outsider is may change but the relation is the same. A stronger person wants to change

things for a person who is weaker. From this paternal trap there is no complete escape."

(Chambers 1983, 141)

This would imply that PAR is yet another form of top-down development, just

disguised as ‘local’, ‘bottom up’ and ‘participatory.’ In my opinion, this is an

oversimplification that does not do justice to the process of participatory development

research. Yes, outside knowledge is initially still required – no one makes any secret of

that. But this local knowledge is spilled over to the local people, and any initiative is still

mainly developed and carried out by them. This means it is certainly not another form of

top-down development, but rather a synergy or symbioses between the people involved

and outside experts, where one is not more important than the other.

9

Figure 1: an example of a method used for gathering local knowledge and analysis: a mind map made by 22

women who took part in a participatory World Bank project on the causes of famine. Taken from Chambers

(1997, 138).

2.2 democratisation of development

Participatory research action democratises the process of development, giving the local

people real say in what action will be taken in their own community in order to deal with

issues of underdevelopment. They do not only have a say in what it issue will be dealt

with, opposed to e.g. an NGO coming in to start a school when the villagers would really

like a water well instead, but also in how the issue is researched and addressed. One

could argue that this transparency and democracy makes that the projects are supported

more by the local community, the same way as I argued the use of their knowledge

provides for a stronger platform for any research results and subsequent actions.

10

Many argue that this process of constant deliberation, input and feedback slows

down PAR projects considerably compared to non-PAR development projects. A lot of time

is used to gather information, to analyse this information, to get consensus on the

information and the analysis and then they haven’t even started with thinking about

solution and implementing them (which then also requires some form of consensus). In

short, a lot of talking and not enough action. (Greenwood and Levin, 114) It could be

argued that this is waisted time, that as soon as a problem is signalled, it is also obvious

what the solution is (like many NGO’s arrive at a town, signal that the local level of

education is poor – in their opinion – and then build a school). Deliberating about the

problem and a solution that are quite obvious does not make sense to these people.

It is true that PAR projects tend to take longer to implement than general

development projects (Greenwood and Levin 1998, 114), but as I already argued above,

the consensus that is sought in all these different stages add to the likely success of a

project, and as such often can be considered time and effort well spend. In the

hypothetical situation of the school being build via a traditional top-down NGO

development scheme, one could imagine that local circumstances and traditions can be

overlooked if local people are not given a say in the build. What if people first need to be

in agreement about the need for education, or feel that girls should not be educated, or

there simply aren’t any suitable teachers in a community or villagers don’t want to let

their children go to school during harvest season. Practical problems such as these will be

assessed and addressed from the get-go in PAR projects, but can cause serious problems

later on in traditional less-democratic projects.

2.3 participation of all?

The paragraphs above deal with the benefits of letting local people participate in the

creation of development projects. Proponents of PAR feel that this method allows all sorts

of people involved to have a say in both the research on the problem and the possible

solutions that can be implemented. But some scholars feel that this is not completely the

case and that PAR proponents sell it as an inclusive method whilst in practice it is not.

11

A major source for criticism of PAR is that it generalizes the local community into a

homogenous population which cherishes the same values, knowledge and needs. This

criticism is mainly offered by feminist scholars, who feel that PAR as a method does not

suffice in seeing the engenderedness of development. (Greenwood and Levin 1998, 184)

While this criticism might hold true in specific PAR projects, I feel this

generalization is not inherent to PAR as a method. Actually, PAR as a method for

development might be less sensitive to this generalization, because women can get

involved in these projects and raise these concerns themselves. There is a lot more room

for the local community to object against presumptions (also those based on gender) in

both the research and the action phase, so those implementing PAR projects could be

warned against them early on. This might of course not always happen, but that might be

more of a result of e.g. local attitudes towards letting women cooperate in these PAR

projects than to the actual methodology of PAR.

2.4 empowerment of local communities

A main part of the ideology of PAR is to empower the local community to address

problems themselves. This makes application of PAR in the field of development projects

a very obvious decision, because, in my opinion, development that does not break any

bonds of dependency on those providing aid is not true development.

According to Greenwood and Levin, the adaptation of PAR into a method for

development was born out of a need to help modern class struggles and out of the idea

that significant social change can only be achieved when power relations are changed

and oppression is reduced. (Greenwood and Levin 1998, 174) According to Fals-Borda

and Rahman, PAR entails the process in which knowledge and information is gathered in

order to construct power for the poor, oppressed and exploited and their grassroot

movements. This power is in turn used to create both creative and transforming leverage

and to develop socio-political thought processes. (Fals-Borda and Rahman 1991, 3)

This is of course a very ‘left’ and structuralist approach to development (with

typical rhetorics for that strand of thought), but the argument is pretty much the same as

I would like to make: PAR gives people the power to promote their desired social change.

12

From the southern vantage point, development projects may provide marginal changes

but are not the road to meaningful social change. The only serious answer to poverty and

marginalization is a fundamental alteration in the distribution of power (Greenwood and

Levin, 176)

Frideres (1992, 9) who himself is a critical proponent of PAR, argues that the

empowerment and learning of the participants is limited only to the problems addressed

and that spill over of knowledge is contained to the situation at hand. The participants are

not gaining enough general theoretic knowledge, and ability to generalize and create new

theoretic knowledge, to help them after the project is finished. If a new problem faces

these people, they do not have the capacity to solve it just because they solved the last

one. This means that while immediate needs might be fulfilled by using PAR, it offers little

to no use for the future.

I don not fully agree with this critique. Using PAR as a method for development

does not only empower people by giving them tools (funds and theoretical knowledge),

but also by awakening their own way of critical thinking and a sense of agency. These

aspects of the process of PAR will remain within a community long after the researcher

has left, and will continue to shape their empowerment.

2.5 sustainability

Proponents of PAR feel that the outcomes of PAR projects are often more sustainable than

those of non-PAR development projects. This is because traditional methods of

development are mainly aimed at economic improvement and do not necessarily take the

local environment into account. On the other hand, communities in developing countries

often have a strong bond with nature, linking it to their own sense of culture. (Rahman

1993, 210) In other words, local communities often link their own well-being with that of

their surroundings and this leads to a linking of socio-economic progress with ecologic

considerations, that otherwise might not have that much of a role. This can lead to

development projects that are less invasive to nature than somewhat more traditional

development thinking (such as modernisation and market-thinking).

13

To be fair, it has to be pointed out that traditional, less participatory centred

development projects have shown a bigger concern with their environmental impact over

the last decade or so. Yet this is not a result of their intrinsic philosophies and methods,

but rather the result of a crude awakening, whereas concerns with nature are more

rooted in PAR by the way it works and its principles.

CONCLUSION_________________________________________________________

I feel that Participatory Action Research has had a positive influence on the field of

development. PAR offers some distinct benefits opposed to more traditional top-down

development programs. PAR projects score high on factors such as the use of local

knowledge, the empowerment and participation of the subjects of development and the

sustainability and cost-effectiveness of the projects themselves. These benefits are

created by the unique approach that is centre to Participatory Action Research: the fact

that local people and outside experts work together in a transparent and democratic way

to asses the local needs and develop custom-made solutions to better meet these needs.

On of the characteristics of PAR is its use of local knowledge as a source for

research and analysis. This local knowledge allows PAR projects to be more custom made

to the specific local conditions and create a stronger platform for the project amongst the

14

subjects of development. This in turns create better conditions for successful

implementation. Of course PAR acknowledges that outside knowledge is still required in

order to make any project a success, but this outside knowledge is not regarded superior

to local knowledge and acts as a catalyst for research.

Another important aspect is the democratisation of development through

participation of local communities. This democratisation allows the subjects of

development to have their own say in the research of the problem creating

underdevelopment, the analysis of the research and the creation and implementation of

the solution to the problem. This democratisation also leads to more popular support for

the action that is taken and prevents that solutions are offered that do not fit local wants

and needs. Whilst some argue that PAR homogenizes the needs of the local people by

seeing them as one community instead of looking at e.g. gender, I feel that PAR as a

method allows for more personal input by people, also on the issue of gender. And the

possibility of delay in PAR projects by deliberations is in my opinion outweighed by the

benefits of this democratic approach.

PAR methods also empower the local people, by making them aware of local

issues and giving them agency in the required change in order to address

underdevelopment. This empowerment is seen as a political and therefore subjective

action, that does not fit in well with traditional research and development programs, but

in order to help people help people to address future issues of development, this

awareness of problems and their own role in solutions is actually quite helpful. Without

this awareness and agency many argue that serious change is not possible and

dependency of local communities will remain.

It can also be argued that participatory action research projects are more

sustainable to the environment. Giving the local community a role in the development of

projects often means that environmental considerations are linked to otherwise very

economic and social actions. As a result these actions tend to be less invasive to the local

environment than traditional development programs.

All in all, I feel that the benefits of using PAR as a method for development largely

outweigh the negative effects that PAR may have. PAR can form a good alternative to

15

traditional top-down development projects and many of those projects could stand to

benefit from applying more participation in their programs. I feel that participatory action

research is not only a good way for NGO’s, IO’s and scholars to help people in the third

world, but also allows these people to help themselves – which in the end is a lot more

dignified and desirable than just getting helped.

BIBLIOGRAPHY________________________________________________________

Boog, Ben et al., eds., 2008, Towards Quality Improvement of Action Research,

…...Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Chambers, Robert, 1983, Rural Development: Putting the Last First, Essex: Longman

…...Group UK, Ltd.

Chambers, Robert, 1997, Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last, London:

…...Intermediate Technology Publications.

Fals-Borsa, Orlando and Mohammad Anisur Rahman, eds. 1991, Action and Knowledge

…...– breaking the monopoly with Participatory Action Research, New York: The Apex

…...Press.

Frideres, James S., 1992, ed., A world of communities: participatory action research,

…...Ontario: Captus Press Inc.

Greenwood, Davydd J. and Morten Levin, 1998, Introduction to Action Research –

…...Social research for Social Change, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Ltd.

16

Rahman, M.D. Anisur, 1993, People’s Self-Development – Perspectives on Participatory

…...Action Research, A journey through experience, London: Zed Books.

Whyte, William Foote, ed. 1991, Participatory Action Research, Newbury Park: Sage

…...Publications Inc.

Image front page:

“Hands on a Globe” by Design Pics Images (photographer unnamed and date unknown),

http://www.fhsu.edu/uploadedImages/student_affairs/diversity_affairs/HANDS_WORLD.jpg

(accessed on 10-12-2010)

17