|
|
| Français - Español |
|
 |
| Web Archives >
Publications >
IDRC Books >
All our books >
PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: A SOURCEBOOK >
|
ID: 85046Added: 2005-07-18 14:51Modified: 2007-03-25 17:45Refreshed: 2012-02-10 18:29 
|
|
Document(s) 7 of 34
Contributing to rural transformations and sustainable natural resource management through participatory action research requires researchers to reflect on the research process. The challenge is to critically assess the kind(s) of participation that are appropriate to the different stages of the research cycle. Another way to phrase this is to ask what is good practice in participatory research and development. There are three complementary entry points for investigating this question: the decision making process, the research context, and the aims of participation. The Decision Making Process: Types of ParticipationParticipatory research can take a variety of different forms in terms of who participates, how and when, and who decides about what, how and when. In any given participatory research activity, usually more than one form is employed, either consciously or unconsciously. Consultative forms of participation mean that researchers only consult with others (e.g., farmers) in order to make decisions about (community) needs and to design research interventions. Collegial forms imply the active involvement and equal decision making power of others in conducting the whole research process (from identification of the research problem or opportunity to final assessment), such as the involvement of communities and user groups in decision making about new management rules and regulations (e.g., an irrigation system or a community forest) or multi-stakeholder groups/associations developing management policies covering various scales of resource management (e.g., a watershed). A useful typology is the following (adapted from Probst et al., 2003, building on a classification presented by Biggs, 1989): One social actor has sole decision-making power over most of the decisions taken in a research process, and can be considered the "owner" of it. Others participate in activities defined by this social actor in the sense of being formally or informally "contracted" to provide services and support. Most of the key decisions are made by one social actor, but emphasis is put on consultation and gathering information from others, especially for identifying constraints and opportunities, priority setting and/or evaluation. Different actors collaborate and are put on a more equal footing, emphasizing linkage through an exchange of knowledge, different contributions and a sharing of decision-making power during the innovation process. Different actors work together as colleagues or partners. "Ownership" and responsibility are equally distributed among the partners, and decisions are made by agreement or consensus among all actors. It is useful to differentiate between types of participation in order to understand how this influences research results. Community participation in research can be differentiated according to the level of community control over the process (who sets the agenda), when (at what stage of the research) local people participate, and the level of representation and differentiation of different stakeholders and community groups in the process. Table 1 is a useful tool to reflect on these questions in any given project or program.
Source: Adapted from McAllister and Vernooy, 1999 There is no right or wrong amount of participation. However, it is always important to be honest and open to the community about the purposes of the research. If the goal of the research is social transformation, it is important to give local people as much control as possible over the research process. The Social Construction of KnowledgeTaking part in a research process is about generating new knowledge and skills, changing attitudes, and improving practice. It is therefore useful to reflect on the nature of knowledge generation processes. Knowledge exists in different forms, which are equally valuable and legitimate. A combination local or indigenous knowledge and scientific knowledge is important to improve natural resource management decisions at the local level or at higher levels, such as a watershed. Different groups in the community and different stakeholders have different knowledge about natural resources and may have different priorities, and there are many explanations or folk theories for a given body of facts. It is therefore very important to speak with different people in the community (women, men, poor, landless, different ethnic and social status, young and old) in order to understand their different perspectives. It is also important to be conscious that information and knowledge are not value-free, and to be aware that the selective choice of information or knowledge may empower some people and on the other hand, displace others. In other words, knowledge is always socially constructed and often disputed (Long and Long, 1992). The knowledge and information generated from participatory action research activities are constructed by the socio-economic and political context in which the research takes place (local culture and society, resource issues, and rights); by the nature of the research questions asked and research methods used; by the attitudes and abilities of the researchers; and by the research capacity and experiences of the community (McAllister, 1999; McAllister and Vernooy, 1999). Stronger awareness of these different social factors, which can influence the research process, can help researchers better understand the results of their activities. Socio-Economic and Political Issues in Natural Resource ManagementAt the community level, natural resources are governed by complex, overlapping, and sometimes conflicting social entitlements and traditional norms, such as private versus common property rights, tree versus land tenure, differential security of tenure and use rights. Social identities, relationships and roles negotiated along lines of gender, kinship, ethnicity, socio-economic status, age, occupation, and so on, can influence access to and use of natural resources. Different stakeholders – within the community and outside – have different values, perceptions and objectives, depending on individual context (how the individual experiences the social and natural environment) and social-cultural identity (McDougall and Braun, 2003). Representation of community interests and knowledge are often produced in the context of struggles over resources through which different parties defend interests and advance claims. Power differences between different community groups and between the community and outside groups influence interaction and negotiation between them and can influence whose interests are represented in the research. Participatory processes provide an opportunity for less-powerful groups to contest existing power relations and resource rights, but also may enable more powerful or politically aware groups to assert preferential rights over resources. Here it is important to consider if the government is supportive of participatory processes.
It is often especially important to be aware of the differences in social power and resource rights between men and women, that is, to specifically incorporate gender analysis into the research process. Gender encompasses the socially constructed roles and characteristics assigned to men and women in a specific culture).
Community Perceptions of the ResearchPrevious experience of local people with research and development projects, as well as perceptions of potential benefits can influence community motivation to participate in new research activities, as well as bias their responses. Methodologies for encouraging community participation can influence the information and priorities which result and the decisions which are made, because of who is present and because of how freely different individuals and groups are able to express their interests.
Local people may be inhibited to let researchers know what they truly think, may give "correct" or "expected" responses, or may present needs, which they feel fit the agenda of the researchers. Their responses may be based on their perceptions of what they can gain or lose by providing certain information, as well as suspicions about how the results will be used. Research activities may be perceived as both foreign and highly formal by local people, especially when more powerful stakeholders are present. Local involvement is often time-consuming, and takes people away from their normal livelihood activities. Sometimes, individuals who have important perspectives on the project are not able to participate in participatory group activities because they are busy with making their living. This is often especially true for women. It is important to recognize the value of local people's time, and to design research activities so that they are most convenient for local people. It may also be necessary to specifically seek out the perspectives of the very poor who may not be able to spare time to participate in organized activities (go to the people, instead of have the people come to the researchers, for example – interview women in the fields where they farm), so that their important perspectives are included in research decisions. Capacity of the Community and of the ResearchersResearcher's skills and experience with community facilitation, understanding of social and gender dimensions of research, and capacity for adaptability and flexibility all influence how research will actually be done. At the same time, the capacity of the community in terms of level of education and skills, level of organization, forms of natural resource management, approaches for managing conflict and making collective decision/taking collective action and past project experiences will have an impact as well. Other aspects to consider, include:
The Research Process: Principles of Good PracticeA third way to address the quality of participation is to ask how it contributes to the central goals of participatory research for natural resource management: positive local impacts of research (rural transformations, empowerment); and, the generation of valid, trustworthy, and relevant research findings. The latter implies that these findings may be generalized, i.e., that they contribute to learning that can be applied in some way to other areas beyond the research site. Based on a comprehensive review of (participatory research for) natural resource management case studies, five principles of good practice and selected related indicators have been put forward (Vernooy and McDougall, 2003): 1. The research reflects a clear and coherent common agenda (or set of priorities) among stakeholders and it contributes to partnership building. 2. The research addresses and integrates the complexities and dynamics of change in human and natural resource systems and processes, including local understanding of these. 3. The research applies the 'triangulation principle' (i.e., multiple sources of information and methods), and links together various knowledge worlds. 4. The research contributes to concerted planning for the future and social change.
5. The research process is based in iterative learning and feedback loops and there is a two-way sharing of information. These principles and related indicators make up a framework that represents a potential tool for learning for researchers enabling the application of increasingly inclusive or integrative perspectives to participatory research practice. It also serves as a hypothesis-generating tool to guide future research design and planning. A ChallengeCombining the three entry points presented here to reflect on and assess the quality of participation is a challenge. However, facing up to this challenge is at the heart of a commitment to participatory research and development. ReferencesBiggs, S. 1989. Resource-Poor Farmer Participation in Research: A Synthesis of Experiences from Nine National Agricultural Research Systems. OFCOR Comparative Study Paper. The Hague: ISNAR. Long, N. and A. Long (eds). 1992. Battlefields of Knowledge: The Interlocking of Theory and Practice in Social Research and Development. Routledge, London, UK and New York, USA. McAllister, K. 1999. Understanding Participation: Monitoring and Evaluation Process, Outputs and Outcomes. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, ON, Canada. Research Paper. McAllister, K. and R. Vernooy. 1999. Action and Reflection: A Guide for Monitoring and Evaluating Participatory Research. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, ON, Canada. McDougall, C. and A. Braun. 2003. Navigating Complexity, Diversity and Dynamism: Reflections on Research for Natural Resource Management. In: Pound, B. et al. (eds). Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods: Uniting Science and Participation. London, UK: Earthscan, and Ottawa, Canada: IDRC, pp. 20-47. Probst, K. and J. Hagmann with contributions from Fernandez, M. and J. A. Ashby. 2003. Understanding Participatory Research in the Context of Natural Resource Management: Paradigms, Approaches and Typologies. ODI-AGREN Network Paper No. 130. Vernooy, R. and C. McDougall. 2003. Principles for Good Practice in Participatory Research: Reflecting on Lessons from the Field. In: Pound, B. et al. (eds). Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods: Uniting Science and Participation. London, UK: Earthscan and Ottawa, Canada: IDRC, pp. 113-141. Contributed by:
Document(s) 7 of 34
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| guest (Read)(Ottawa) Login | Home|Careers|Copyright and Terms of Use|General Infomation|Contact Us|Low bandwidth |
Objectives: Are they focused or broad? Is the emphasis on diagnosis or on transformation? Is the goal to change people's behavior and attitudes, to help them develop new technologies or management approaches, or both?
Sector: Does the project deal with fisheries, forestry, agriculture, or a combination? With individually or collectively managed natural resources, or a combination?
Dimensions: Does the research involve economic, social, ecological, political, issues or a combination of issues?
Scale: Does the research problem affect the local, regional, or national scale or a combination?
risk that the research will not be able to meet its goals;and
risk that the research (in meeting the objectives or through the process) will unintentionally cause harm to the community or to specific groups within the community.
Exacerbating or initiating conflict in the community by making power relations explicit or by unknowingly directing benefits of the research to specific individuals or social groups.
Further marginalizing certain social groups by not understanding how the research and participatory process might affect them negatively, by not recognizing them as important stakeholders to include in the process.
Accidentally aiding elite members of the community in increasing their power, access and rights over resources through legitimizing their claims through "participatory" activities such as boundary and resource mapping, tree-planting which may effectively lead to land privatization.