Critique on Understanding Participatory Development, Models and Methods

8/13/2019 Critique on Understanding Participatory Development, Models and Methods

1/12

Critique on Understanding Participatory Development,Models and Methods

1st Individual Critique PaperIn Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement(s) in

CED 248: Participatory Extension2nd Semester A.Y. 2011 - 2012

Submitted to:

Dr. Rowena BaconguisINSTITUTE OF COMMUNITY EDUCATION (ICE)

College of Public Affairs and DevelopmentUniversity of the Philippines Los Baos

Submitted by:

Melvin L. CordezGraduate StudentPhD major in Extension Education


2/12

INTRODUCTION

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) is primarily intended to empower local

communities to conduct their own analysis and to plan andtake action (Chambers R.

2007). PRA encompasses project staff learning together with villagers about their

village. The aim of PRA is to help fortify the capacity of villagers to plan, make

decisions, and to take action towards improving their own situation.

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) is considered one of the most popular and far

effective approaches to collect information in rural areas. This approach was

developed in early 1990s with significant shift in paradigm from top-down to bottom-

up approach (but most likely the intersection of the two), and from blueprint to the

learning process. The fact is that it is a shift from extractive survey feedback form to

involvement sharing by local people. PRA is based on village experiences where

communities effectively and efficiently manage their natural resources.

PRA is an approach of learning and understanding rural life and their environment

from the rural people themselves. It necessitates researchers / field workers to act

as facilitators to support local people conduct their own analysis, plan and take

action accordingly. It is based on the principle that local people are ingenious and

capable and can do their own investigations, analysis, and planning. The basic

concept of PRA is to learn from rural people. Chambers (2007) has defined PRA as

an approach and methods for learning about rural life and conditions from, with and

by rural people. They are typically small groups who map, diagram, observe, analyze

and act. He further stated that PRA extends into analysis, planning and action. PRA


3/12

closely involve villagers and local officials in the process with the aid of a qualified

and skillful extension worker(s).

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) is an approach used by non-governmental

organizations (NGOs) and other agencies involved in international development. The

approach aims to incorporate the knowledge and opinions of rural people in the

planning and management of development projects and programs. A community

consists of diverse groups of people. They have different viewpoints on the

community problem. Some know the problem fully while others may not know it at

all, or know it only partially. Similarly, some may be highly vulnerable to the problem,

while others may be only partially vulnerable, or not at all. In order to tackle this

common problem, the concerns and needs of these groups should be addressed

fully (Bhandari 2003).

Importance of Socio-cultural and Demographics

Since PRA involves the localities, it is important to identify stakeholders of the

community (students, parents, teachers, local leaders, NGO representatives, etc.).

The collective action is possible only when all stakeholders of a community develop

a clear and common understanding about the issue(s). Different groups should be

brought together; they should be made aware of and once they realize the situation

they need to be taught in a way they develop the common understanding about the

issue, particularly managing and tackling them jointly.


4/12

Below is the possible model of PRA:

Figure 1. Model Cycle of PRA

Connell stressed that peoples participation is not only about achieving the more

efficient and more equitable distribution of material resources, it is also about sharing

of knowledge and transformation of the process of learning itself in the service of

peoples self-development. Everything will start in participation. Once the

participants understand the matter comprehensively, they should be given the

chance to apply their new knowledge in the real world of work. The direct and first-


5/12


6/12

assess everything within the premises of their community. The need to know and

accept their norms, culture and their perception of everything in life is vital in the

PRA process. This is to avoid optimal ignorance of what is everything around them,

their needs and filtering their wants. PRA will infuse everything making it inherent for

the locality thus establishing systematic approaches in dealing thing accordingly.

In the deepest view of Biggs, technology is very important part of PRA. Participatory

Technology Development is far more than useful in mapping and assessing the

boundaries of the premises (Biggs, 2008). With the advent of Geographical

Positioning System (GPS), determining the terrain, weather pattern and virtually

every aspect of the community is very much possible. Innovation plays an important

role in the process of PRA. Community locals are the framework of the PRA.

Extension practitioners, NGOs and other cause oriented groups is the soul of the

system but it is the technological innovation who plays as the lifeblood specially

today.

PRA is the intersection of art and science. According to Castelloe (2003),

community organizing should be the strengths of PRA but of course with some

limitation. It should be used as a science by employing critical-sequential steps and

as an art by the way an approach will be done. It is very much imperative that the

right approach and timing be used in the execution of PRA welded in the current

trend of technology as an able instrument.


7/12

Goals of Participatory Rural Appraisal

Participatory Development, Models and Methods

It is vital that participation should be both methodology and a strategic goal of

development because it is not something to be integrated in to a development model

but rather an alternative model that proposes both to improve peoples standard of

living and to give them a measure of control over the standards themselves (Connell,

1997). It is a clear mandate of empowerment by authorizing them to exercise power

over what is the communal calling but with caution.

Participation is encouraged to come out in typologies to become useful in

differentiating the degrees and kinds of participation, which provides a series of ideal

types along which forms of participation maybe ranged (Cornwall, 2008). Without

willful participation the foundation of PRA is weak and brittle that a simple conflict will

create immeasurable chaos in the PRA process.

In the argument of Davidson (2007), rural development is a complex process, a

multi-faceted and multi-vocal place of contestation that requires a measured

conceptual approach that can engage with varied interests and local perspective.

With such view of pluralism, the participatory planning process has implications for

the working methods of a conventional local development goal. Current

decentralized pluralistic planning techniques often keep people out of the planning

process, which severely limits their ability to deliver the intended results at local level

and reinforces the centralizing tendencies in decision-making.


8/12

On the participatory dimension, PRA can be applied in ways that are more or less

participatory. PRAs in which community members take full control of the process

are at one extreme of the participatory continuum. Many PRAs fall short of this

participation ideal, however, and involve a more limited form of community

participation.

PRA, in particular, puts a great quality on the active participation of the population

and good PRAs will seek to maximize this participation and the empowerment or

ownership that goes along with this. PRAs often must put less emphasis on other

goals in order to achieve this.

Doing something new needs to be given via an appropriate approach. Different

approaches were identified and assessed that different community needs a particular

approach based on their culture (Fraser, 2005). This only implies that there is no

best approach and method in executing PRAs. One maybe good over the other in a

particular group of people but nevertheless it is encourage that the PRA practitioner

must know how to integrate one to another merging approaches into a high breed

system.

An assessment of training needs for participatory local development must take into

account rural development programs and strategies, organizational culture and

functioning of the decision-making process, in particular the attitudes, behavior and

local livelihood conditions and needs of rural people concerned. The recognition of

the benefits of participatory local development planning has engendered changes in

the needs, concepts, approaches, techniques, the general conduct of and ways of


9/12


10/12

motivation so that PRA will start at the right timing, at the right moment, in the right

place with the right people. From planning to zoning and evaluation, participation of

the people in the locality is very important. Applying the elements of participation as

one good approach integrated in the power of information and communication

technology will give some edge in the error free rural appraisal (Castelloe, 2003 &

Frazer, 2005 & Neef, 2008).

Synthesis

It is very important to have an identity. PRA is associated with a distinctive behavior,

attitudes and approaches. We are not teachers or transferors of technology, but

instead motivators, catalysts, and facilitators. We have to unlearn, and put our

knowledge, ideas and categories second only to the proper procedure and

techniques of PRA. We should enable local people to do their own investigations,

analysis, presentations, planning and action, to own the outcome, and to teach us,

sharing their knowledge. We "turn over respect and responsibility" and facilitate

"their" own level of appraisal, presentation, analysis, planning and action, monitoring

and evaluation. They do many of the things we thought only we could do - mapping,

diagramming, counting, listing, sorting, ranking, scoring, sequencing, linking,

analyzing, planning....monitoring and evaluating.

Introducing modern concepts of approaches and methodologies will make PRA

meaningful and with ease. The integration of the current ICT trends will spice more

the process making it also more enjoyable to do. With PRA as an instrument and a


11/12

particular problem has been overcome, it is prudent to help the partner fuse the

problem solving skills they have learned or the solutions they have adopted. A

sensible option is to put the client in situations where they can solve the same or

similar problems if they emerge or re-emerge. It is important that occasionally you

will realize that in within stages something materializes because in an early stage

things have not been handled appropriately. Things will be face often strong need to

hurdle back and forth among the stages. Intermittently some stages have to be

combined, because the feedback between them is so strong that they are clearly

functioning as one single stage. PRA is not just the solution for the problem. It is

discipline that can actualize uprooting the cause to efficiently and effectively resolve

the problem.


12/12

References

Aba, O.S. 2007. Vignettes of Communities in Action: an exploration of participatory

methodologies in promoting community development in Nigeria. CommunityDevelopment Journal. 42:4, 435448

Bhandari, B.B. 2003. Participatory Rural Appraisal Manual. Institute for GlobalEnvironmental Strategies. 915

Biggs, S. 2008. The lost 1990s? Personal reflections on a history of participatorytechnology development. Development in Practice. Sage Publications. 18: 45, 489 - 505

Castelloe, P, T Watson, C White. 2003. Participatory Change, Journal of Community

Practice. Sage Publications. 10:4. 7 - 31.

Craig, D and D. Porter. 1997. Framing Participation. Development in Practice. SagePublications. 7:3, 236299

Chambers, R. 2007. From PRA to PLA and Pluralism: Practice and Theory. Instituteof Development Studies Working Paper 286. Institute of DevelopmentStudies. UK

Connell, D. 1997. Participatory Development. Development in Practice. SagePublications. 7:3, 248259

Cornwall, A. 2007. Unpacking Participation: Models, Meanings and Practices.Community Development Journal. Sage Publications. 43:3, 269 - 283

Davidson, A. 2007. Participation, Education and Pluralism: Towards a NewExtension Ethic. Development in Practice. Sage Publications. 17:1, 3950

Fraser, H. 2005. Four Different Approaches to Community Participation. CommunityDevelopment Journal. Sage Publications. 40:3, 286300

Neef, A. 2008. Integrating Participatory Elements into Conventional research

Projects Measuring the Cost and Benefits. Development in Practice. SagePublications. 18:45, 576 - 589

Documents

Critique on Understanding Participatory Development, Models and Methods