BY BRIT ANELLOMSC. CANDIDATE, SEDRD, UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH,

CANADA

Examining Researcher Bias in Participatory Rural Appraisal Through an IDRC Perspective

Why Focus on the International Development Research Centre?

Interdisciplinary approach to international development research

Nationally (Canada) funded – Limits corporate interests in research

Excellent database of prior research done Including research done with different qualitative

and quantitative (or mixed) methods

“IDRC funds researchers in the developing world so they can build healthier, more prosperous societies” 3/20/2013

Why Use Participatory Methods?

Researchers and participants can learn from and with each other (Zeeuw and Wilbers, 2004)

Participants become stakeholders and “own” the process, becoming engaged and empowered (Dodge and Bennett, 2011)

Research can become a catalyst for ‘social transformation’ (McAllister and Vernooy, 1999)

Participatory Research

Stakeholder Empowerment

Social Transformation 3/20/2013

The Qualitative Researcher

Researcher must know their personal and cultural bias Self-reflection to promote objectivity in qualitative

research Understand socio-political and cultural

context of research participants Holistic understanding of context will create profound

understanding of resultsAs creator of a strong and robust research

design, researcher must allow for flexibility Plan for change

3/20/2013

Defining Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)

PRA is intended to enable people to conduct and share their own investigations and analysis. (Zeeuw and Wilbers, 2004) Uses methods which facilitate this discussion such as:

participatory video, mapping, network analysis etc.PRA operates under the assumption that local

citizens have the knowledge the researcher wants, so it is beneficial to work together (Zeeuw and Wilbers, 2004)

Appraisal: learning leading to action (www.caledonia.org.uk) “...all actors [are] in a continuing process of learning...” (i.e.

Including researcher)

3/20/2013

Gender and PRA (Zeeuw and Wilbers, 2004)

Many issues to consider when conducting research in either gender-specific socio-political ‘jobs’ or in contexts where gender is valued differently Researcher gender must be taken into account –

perhaps have a research team with both genders on it Sensitivity to cultural gender values is essential to

harmony in researchIn rural contexts, is it important to keep in

mind the balance of male and female responses and participants – both voices are important

3/20/2013

The Possible Problem of Researcher Bias in PRA

Language barriers – leads to a misinterpretation during fieldwork or mistranslation in analysis Ideally initial coding scheme should come in dialogue with

local participants (www.caledonia.org.uk)

Cultural barriers – leads to disintegration of important relationships with key informants in research context Loss of guide, supporter or aide is devastating when research

is on a timelineBeing too emotionally invested in research scenario

that ability to think clearly is compromised Especially important in contexts with vulnerable participants

3/20/2013

The Possible Problem of Researcher Bias in PRA (cont.)

Reliance on one sole key informant that researcher gets comfortable with Especially relevant if researcher does not speak local

language Lack of triangulation leads to crumbling of research

validity (Kalim for www.bdeduarticle.com)

Researcher believes he/she is the expert Researcher may well be tempted to see participants

not as partners, but as students (caledonia.org.uk)

3/20/2013

Summary of Researcher Bias

All of the aforementioned scenarios fit into 2 categories (Onwuegbuzie et al, 2008):

Effect of researcher on participant unacknowledged

Effect of participant on researcher unacknowledged

So, where do we go from here?Onwuegbuzie et al, argue for a systematic,

reflexive debriefing of the researcher To see how researcher bias formed the questions asked

in the methodology and provide true clarity within internal logic of research design

3/20/2013

Combating Researcher Bias

Self-aware researcher will not allow personal/cultural bias influence research analysis or process (Onwuegbuzie et al, 2008)

Prior education in research context absolutely essential Even better if researcher is able to visit research

location beforehand Partaking in research context culture will help gain

insight into participants

Academic Researcher Education

Full Contextual Understanding

3/20/2013

Works Referenced

de Zeeuw, H.; Wilbers, J. (2004). PRA Tools for Studying Urban Agriculture and Gender. IDRC. Retrieved: http://hdl.handle.net/10625/33988.

Dodge, C.P.; Bennett, G. (2011). Changing Minds: A Facilitated Guide to Participatory Planning. IDRC. Retreived: http://hdl.handle.net/10625/4641.

McAllister, K.; Vernooy, R. (1999). Action and Reflection: A Guide for Monitoring and Evaluating Participatory Research. IDRC. Retrieved: http://hdl.handle.net/10625/22617

3/20/2013

Works Referenced (cont)

Onwuegbuzie, A.J.; Leech, N.L.; Collins, K.M.T. (2008). Interviewing the Interpretive Researcher: A Method for Addressing the Crises of Representation, Legitimation and Praxis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(4). International Institute of Qualitative Methodology: Alberta, Canada.

IDRC images from www.idrc.caGraphics: author’s own

3/20/2013

For Further Research…

http://www.idrc.ca/EN/Pages/default.aspxhttp://www.caledonia.org.uk/pra.htm

Fantastic overview of the methodology, advantages and pitfalls in PRA

http://www.bdeduarticle.com/research/192-participatory-rural-appraisal-pra-for-qualitative-research Great source of list of PRA techniques that could be

usedhttp://www.iisd.org/casl/caslguide/pra.htm

Excellent for core PRA ideals and key problems PRA faces

3/20/2013