Chambers Pra

8/12/2019 Chambers Pra

1/17

World Development, Vol. 22, No. 7, 953-969, 1994p.Copyright 0 1994 Elsevier Science LtdPrinted in Great Britain. All rights reserved

0305-750x/94 7.00 + 0.000305750X 94)E0029-W

The Origins and Practice of Participatory RuralAppraisal*

ROBERT CHAMBERS?Institute of Development Studies, Brighton

Summary. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) describes a growing family of approaches and meth-ods to enable local people to share, enhance and analyze their knowledge of life and conditions, to planand to act. PRA has sources in activist participatory research, agroecosystem analysis, applied anthro-pology, field research on farming systems, and rapid rural appraisal (RRA). In RRA information is moreelicited and extracted by outsiders; in PRA it is more shared and owned by local people. Participatorymethods include mapping and modeling, transect walks, matrix scoring, seasonal calendars, trend andchange analysis, well-being and wealth ranking and grouping, and analytical diagramming. PRA appli-cations include natural resources management, agriculture, poverty and social programs, and health andfood security. Dominant behavior by outsiders may explain why it has taken until the 1990s for the ana-lytical capabilities of local people to be better recognized and for PRA to emerge, grow and spread.

1. INTRODUCTIONThe past decade has witnessed more shifts in therhetoric of rural development than in its practice.

These shifts include the now familiar reversals fromtop-down to bottom-up, from centralized standardiza-tion to local diversity, and from blueprint to learningprocess. Linked with these, changes have begun inmodes of learning. The move here is away fromextractive survey questionnaires and toward newapproaches and methods for participatory appraisaland analysis in which more of the activities previouslyappropriated by outsiders are instead carried out bylocal rural or urban people themselves. The questionnow is how much potential these approaches andmethods have for making participation more practicaland the rhetoric more real.

In these changes, a part has been played by twoclosely related families of approaches and of methods,often referred to as rapid rural appraisal (RRA) whichdeveloped and spread especially in the 1980s and itsfurther evolution into participatory rural appraisal(PRA) which has developed and spread fast in the1990s. The purpose of this paper is to outline the ori-gins, principles, approaches, methods and applica-tions of PRA from a perspective in early 1994.

2. PARENTS AND RELATIVES OF PRA

The approaches and methods described as PRA are

evolving so fast that to propose one secure and finaldefinition would be unhelpful. As PRA further devel-ops, there will be changes in what the label can use-fully refer to, and perhaps in the label itself. PRA hasbeen called an approach and methods for learningabout rural life and conditions from, with and by ruralpeople. The prepositions have sometimes beenreversed in order to read by, with and from. Thephenomenon described is, though, more than justlearning. It is a process which extends into analysis,planning and action. PRA as a term is also used todescribe a variety of approaches. To cover these, arecent description of PRA is a family of approachesand methods to enable rural people to share, enhance,and analyze their knowledge of life and conditions, toplan and to act.PRA as it exists in the early to mid- 1990s has sev-eral sources. It has evolved from, draws on, and res-onates with, several traditions. Some of its methods doappear to be new; but some have been rediscoveries

*This paper is the first in a three-part series examining par-ticipating rural appraisal.tThis paper is based on the work and innovations of manypeople, too numerous to name, but I thank them all. Forcomments on earlier versions I am grateful to Tony Dunn,James Mascarenhas, Jules Pretty and two anonymous refer-ees. Responsibility for errors, omission and opinions ismine alone. Final revision accepted: February 21, 1994.

953


2/17

95 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

(for antecedents see, for example, Whyte, 1977; Peltoand Pelto, 1978; and Rhoades, 1992). In understand-ing what has happened, it makes no sense to try to sep-arate out causes, effects, innovations, influences anddiffusion as though they follow straight lines. In aworld of continuously quicker and closer communica-tion, the transfer and sharing of ideas have becomemore rapid and untraceable. So these sources and tra-ditions have, like flows in a braided stream, intermin-gled more and more over the past decade, and eachalso continues in several forms; but directly orindirectly all have contributed to a confluence inPRA; and as with other confluences, the flow hasspeeded up, and innovation and change have acceler-ated.

Five streams which stand out as sources and paral-lels to PRA are, in alphabetical order:- activist participatory research;- agroecosystem analysis;- applied anthropology;- field research on farming systems;- rapid rural appraisal.

(a) Activistpart icipator researchThe term activist participatory research is usedto refer to a family of approaches and methods which

use dialogue and participatory research to enhancepeoples awareness and confidence, and to empowertheir action. Activist participatory research in thissense owes much to the work and inspiration of PauloFreire, to his book Pedagogy of he Oppr essed (1968),and to the practice and experience of consciencizationin Latin America. The Freirian theme, that poor andexploited people can and should be enabled to conducttheir own analysis of their own reality has been widelyinfluential, even though it has remained a minorityview among development professionals as a whole.Two related schools have been known as participatoryresearch, and participatory action research (PAR).

Participatory research has been associated with theadult education movement since at least 1975(Convergence 197.5; 1981; 1988, No. 3). Regionalnetworks were set up. An African regional Workshopon Participatory Research was held in Tanzania in1979 (Kassam and Mustafa, 1982). In India, theSociety for Participatory Research in Asia (SPR inAsia 1982) has sought to spread the philosophy andpractice of participatory research. Participatoryresearch has been conducted in widely differing con-ditions (Rahman, 1984). For example, in Bangladesh,as recorded in The Net (BRAC, 1983), poor and pow-erless people took part in investigation and analysis ofthe power structure in 10 villages, and of how benefitsdirected toward them by the government were inter-cepted by the local elite. In the United States, theHighlander Center in rural Appalachia has worked to

enable underprivileged communities to gain confi-dence in their own knowledge and abilities, and totake political action (Gaventa and Lewis, 1991).

For its part, participatory action research (PAR)has been parallel and overlapping with participatoryresearch, and has had strong associations with indus-try and agriculture (Whyte, 1991). The techniquesused in PAR (summarized in Cornwall, Guijt andWelboum, 1993, p. 25) include collective researchthrough meetings and sociodramas, critical recoveryof history, valuing and applying folk culture, andthe production and diffusion of new knowledgesthrough written, oral and visual forms.Activist participatory research has taken differentforms and has been practised by people with a range ofideological positions, from radical crypto-paternalismto open-ended facilitation. Its special focus on theunderprivileged and on political action has threatenedestablished interests, whether political or profes-sional, and limited its spread. In practice, much PRAhas similarly been concerned with poverty and equity.The contributions of the activist participatory researchstream to PRA have been more through concepts thanmethods. They have in common three prescriptiveideas:- that poor people are creative and capable, andcan and should do much of their own investigation,

analysis and planning;-that outsiders have roles as conveners, catalystsand facilitators;-that the weak and marginalized can and shouldbe empowered.

(b) Agroecosystern anal ysisAgroecosystem analysis (Conway 1985, 1986,

1987) was developed in Thailand from 1978 onward,initially at the University of Chiang Mai, by GordonConway and his colleagues (Gypmantasiri et al.1980). It spread first through Southeast Asia and thenelsewhere. Drawing on systemsand ecological think-ing, it combines analysis of systems and system prop-erties (productivity, stability, sustainability, and equi-tability) with pattern analysis of space (maps andtransects), time (seasonal calendars and long-termtrends), flows and relationships (flow, causal, Vennand other diagrams), relative values (bar diagrams ofrelative sources of income etc.), and decisions (deci-sion trees and other decision diagrams). The approachwas further developed by Conway and others with theAga Khan Rural Support Programme (Pakistan) forapplication in villages in Northern Pakistan, where ittook a form which led to identification and assessmentof practical hypotheses for action.

Agroecosystem analysis was so powerful andpractical that it quickly overlapped with and con-tributed to much RRA. In some cases, either or both


3/17

PARTICIPATORY RURAL APPRAISAL 955

labels could be used to describe what was done. Someof the major contributions of agroecosystem analysisto current RRA and PRA have been:- transects (systematic walks and observation);

- informal mapping (sketch maps drawn on site);- diagramming (seasonal calendars, flow andcausal diagrams, bar charts, Venn or chapa?i dia-grams);- innovation assessment (scoring and rankingdifferent actions).

(c) Appl ied anthropologySocial anthropology in its classical forms has been

concerned more with understanding than with chang-ing, but especially in the 1980s applied anthropology,and development anthropology, became more recog-nized as legitimate and useful activities. In the UnitedStates, the Institute for Development Anthropologyestablished a network and a regular Bulletin. A veryfew social anthropologists found their way into theInternational Agricultural Research Centers, wherethey had an influence disproportionate to their tinynumbers, and the social anthropologists in aid agen-cies rose in numbers and status, though they were stillfew. Social anthropologists helped development pro-fessionals generally to appreciate better the richnessand validity of rural peoples knowledge (e.g., IDS,1979; Brokensha, Warren and Werner, 1980), and todistinguish the etic - the outsiders mental frame,categories and world view, and the emit - those ofthe insider. In addition, The Art of the InformalAgricultural Survey (1982), by Robert Rhoades, asocial anthropologist at the International PotatoCenter in Peru, was widely read and influential farbeyond the informal form of its publication.In one methodological stream, the approaches ofsocial anthropology were adopted in health and nutri-tion in rapid assessment procedures (RAP)(Scrimshaw and Hurtado, 1987; Scrimshaw andGleason, 1992) and in rapid ethnographic assessment(REA) (Bentley et al. 1988). which variously usedconversations, observation, informal interviews, focusgroups, and careful and detailed recording.

PRA represents an extension and application ofsocial anthropological insights, approaches and meth-ods, crossfertilized with others. Some of the manyinsights and contributions coming from and sharedwith social anthropology have been:- the idea of field learning as flexible art ratherthan rigid science;- the value of field residence, unhurried partici-pant-observation, and conversations;- the importance of attitudes, behavior and rap-

port;-the emit-etic distinction;-the validity of indigenous technical knowledge.

(d) Field research on armi ng systemsField research on farming systems, whether by

social anthropologists, geographers, agriculturaleconomists or biological scientists, has revealed thecomplexity, diversity and rationality of much appar-ently untidy and unsystematic farming practice.Among those who showed its good sense were, in the196Os, D. G. R. Belshaw at Makerere University inUganda, and in the 197Os, David Norman and his col-leagues at Ahmadu Bello University in NorthernNigeria (see e.g., Norman, 1975 for the value of mixedcropping), Michael Collinson in Tanzania, RichardHarwood in Thailand (Harwood, 1979) and PeterHildrebrand in Guatemala. Farming systems research(FSR) (Gilbert, Norman and Winch 1980, Shaner,Philipp and Schmehl, 1982, FSSP, 1987) system-atized methods for investigating, understanding, andprescribing for farming system complexity, but some-times bogged down in ponderous surveys and dataoverload.A parallel stream of research drew attention tofarmers capabilities. Stephen Biggs in describinginformal R and D (1980), Paul Richards in his clas-sic Indigenous Agricultural Revolution (1985), andRoland Bunch in Two Ears of Corn (1985) wereamong those who showed and recognized that farmerswere experimenters. Farmers participation in agricul-tural research became a focus (e.g., Farrington, 1988;Farrington and Martin, 1988; Chambers, Pacey andThrupp, 1989; Ashby, 1990). Clive Lightfoot and hiscolleagues pioneered analytical and flow diagram-ming by farmers (e.g., Lightfoot, Noble and Morales1991; Lightfoot and Minnick, 1991; Lightfoot andNoble, 1993) and Jacqueline Ashby at CIAT inColombia and Michel Pimbert at ICRISAT in Indiashowed through widely influential videos how capa-ble farmers, women and men, could be in conductingtheir own trials, assessments and analysis. In the latter1980s and early 1990s it has been increasingly recog-nized that farmers should and could play a muchgreater part in agricultural research.So field research on farming systems can be seento have contributed especially to the appreciation andunderstanding of:

-the complexity, diversity and risk-proneness ofmany farming systems;- the knowledge, professionalism and rationalityof small and poor farmers;-their experimental mindset and behavior;- their ability to conduct their own analyses.

(e) Rapid rural appraisalThe philosophy, approaches and methods known

as rapid rural appraisal (RRA) began to emerge in thelate 1970s. Workshops held at the Institute of


4/17


Development Studies at the University of Sussex onrural development tourism (1977), indigenous techni-cal knowledge (1978), and RRA itself (1978, 1979)were only some among the parallel moves in differentparts of the world in search of better ways for out-siders to learn about rural life and conditions. RRAcan be seen to have had three main origins.

The first was dissatisfaction with the biases, espe-cially the anti-poverty biases, of rural developmenttourism - the phenomenon of the brief rural visit bythe urban-based professional. These biases were rec-ognized as spatial (visits near cities, on roadsides, andto the centers of villages to the neglect of peripheries);project (where projects were being undertaken, oftenwith special official attention and support); person(meeting men more than women, elites more than thepoor, the users more than the nonusers of services, andso on); seasonal (going in the dry and cool rather thanhot and wet seasons which are often worse for poorrural people); and diplomatic (where the outsider doesnot wish to cause offense by asking to meet poor peo-ple or see bad conditions). All these could combine tohide the worst poverty and deprivation,

The second origin of RRA was disillusion with thenormal processes of questionnaire surveys and theirresults. Again and again, over many years and in manyplaces (see e.g., Moris, 1970; Campbell, Shrestha andStone, 1979) the experience had been that large-scalesurveys with long questionnaires tended to be drawn-out, tedious, a headache to administer, a nightmare toprocess and write up, inaccurate and unreliable in dataobtained, leading to reports, if any, which were long,late, boring, misleading, difficult to use, and anywayignored.The third origin was more positive. More cost-effective methods of learning were sought. This washelped by the growing recognition by developmentprofessionals of the obvious fact that rural peoplewere themselves knowledgeable on many subjectswhich touched their lives. What became known asindigenous technical knowledge (ITK) (IDS, 1979;Brokensha, Warren and Werner, 1980) was thenincreasingly seen to have richness and value for prac-tical purposes. One major question, as it seemed then,was how more effectively to tap ITK as a source ofinformation for analysis and use by outsider profes-sionals.In the late 1970s though, most of those profes-sionals who were inventing and using methods whichwere quicker and more cost-effective thanrespectable questionnaire surveys, were reluctant towrite about what they did, fearing for their profes-sional credibility. They felt compelled to conform tostandard statistical norms, however costly and crudetheir applications, and obliged in their reports andpublications to use conventional methods, categoriesand measures. In a classic statement, MichaelCollinson 1981) described how he would take only a

week to conduct an exploratory survey to identifyagricultural research priorities, but would then feelobliged to follow this with a formal verification sur-vey which represented the major commitment of pro-fessional time and funds. This more costly exercisehad always confirmed the exploratory survey but thenumbers which this formal survey provide are theonly hard evidence produced by the diagnosticprocess. This is extremely important in convincingthe Establishment . . (Collinson, 1981, p. 444). Toconvince, the researcher had to be conservative; butthe process was costly and decisions and action weredelayed.In the 1980s in some places, this situation wastransformed. The family of approaches and methodsknown as Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) gainedincreasing acceptance. It began to be seen that it hadits own principles and rigor (Chambers, 1980;Belshaw, 1981; Carruthers and Chambers, 1981). Inthe early 1980s. RRA was argued to be cost-effective,especially for gaining timely information, but stillwith some sense that it might only be a second-best.But by the mid-1980s the RRA approaches and meth-ods, when properly conducted, were more and moreeliciting a range and quality of information andinsights inaccessible through more traditional meth-ods. Except when rushed and unself-critical, RRAcame out better by criteria of cost-effectiveness, valid-ity and reliability when it was compared with moreconventional methods. In many contexts and for manypurposes, RRA, when well done, showed itself to benot second-best but best.In establishing the methods and principles of RRAmany people and institutions took part. No accountcan do justice to them, and with imperfect knowledgethere is no avoiding significant omissions. An earlierattempt to list countries where RRA had been devel-oped identified 12 in Africa, eight in South andSoutheast Asia, three in Latin America, three inAustralasia and the Pacific, and one in Europe.Perhaps more than any other movement, agroecosys-tern analysis in Southeast Asia introduced new meth-ods and established new credibility. In the mid-1980s.the University of Khon Kaen in Thailand was worldleader in developing theory and methods, especiallyfor multidisciplinary teams, and in institutionalizingRRA as a part of professional training. TheInternational Conference on Rapid Rural Appraisalheld at the University of Khon Kaen in 1985, and thepublished volume of papers which resulted (KKU,1987), were landmarks. The practical value of RRAwas confirmed, and its underlying theory outlined(Beebe, 1987; Gibbs, 1987; Grandstaff andGrandstaff, 1987a; Jamieson, 1987). In the latter1980s RRA continued to spread, and was adopted notonly in tropical countries but also Australia (Ampt andIson, 1989; Dunn and McMillan, 1991). RRA was fur-ther developed and disseminated through extensive


5/17


training by the International Institute for Environmentand Development (IIED) based in London, workingwith colleagues mainly in Africa and Asia, andthrough its publications, especially the informal peri-odical RRA Notes (198% ).In specialized fields, too, there were parallel andoverlapping developments. In health and nutrition, forexample, Rapid Assessment Procedures (RAP)(Scrimshaw and Hurtado, 1987) were practised in atleast 20 countries. In agriculture, some practitioners offarming systems research and extension innovatedwith lighter, quicker methods in an RRA style. In irri-gation, a small literature built up on RRA (e.g., Potten,1985; Groenfeldt, 1989). Moreover, hard journalspublished papers on RRA.RRA began and continues as a better way for out-siders to learn. In answering the question - whoseknowledge counts? - it sought, and continues toseek, to enable outsiders to gain information andinsight from local people and about local conditions,and to do this in a more cost-effective and timely man-ner. It was, and remains, less one-sided than question-naire surveys where much of respondents time istaken by the outsider, and little or nothing is givenback. All the same, like most past farming systemsresearch, its normal mode entails outsiders collectingdata, which they then take away to be analyzed else-where. This is a valid and useful activity and it has andwill continue to have its place. Depending on onespoint of view and the context, the normal practice ofthis nonparticipatory RRA can be described as extrac-tive, or, more neutrally, elicitive.

3. FROM RRA TO PRAIn the mid-1980s, the words participation andparticipatory entered the RRA vocabulary. Theyalready had a long history in rural development. To

take but two examples, for some years in the 1970sand early 1980s under the leadership of NormanUphoff and others, Cornell University published theRural Development Participation Review until USAgency for International Development (USAID) ter-minated its support, perhaps because the review wasahead of its time; and participation was a recurrenttheme in the contributions to Michael Cemeas book,edited for the World Bank, Putting People First1985, second edition 1991) which drew on experi-ence from earlier years. It was at the 1985 Khon KaenInternational Conference that the word participatorybegan, albeit modestly, to be used in connection withRRA. Discussions at the Conference generated atypology of seven types of RRA (KKU, 1987, p. 17) ofwhich participatory RRA was one. For this, thedominant purpose was seen as stimulating communityawareness, with the outsiders role as catalyst. Later,in 1988, participatory RRAs were listed by the IIED

team as one of four classes of RRA methodologies -the others being exploratory RRAs, topical RRAs, andmonitoring RRAs (McCracken, Pretty and Conway,1988).In 1988, there were parallel developments inKenya and India. In Kenya, the National EnvironmentSecretariat, in association with Clark University, con-ducted an RRA in Mbusanyi, a community inMachakos District which led to the adoption inSeptember of a Village Resource Management Plan(Kabutha and Ford, 1988). This was subsequentlydescribed as a Participatory Rural Appraisal, and themethod outlined in two Handbooks (PID and NES,1989; NES, 1990). Around the same time in 1988, theAga Khan Rural Support Programme (India)(AKRSP) was interested in developing participatoryRRA, and invited BED to help. Jennifer McCrackencarried out a four-week consultancy with AKRSP inGujarat in September and October 1988 during whichparticipatory rapid rural appraisals were conducted byand with villagers and AKRSP staff in two villages(McCracken, 1988). In different ways, both the Kenyaand Indian experiences were seminal for understand-ing and for the development of PRA.Subsequently, there was an explosion of innova-tion in India (for which see Mascarenhas et al. 1991)mainly in the nongovemment organization (NGO)sector but also in some government organizations.MYRADA, based in Bangalore, trained its senior staffin PRA in early 1990 (Ramachandran, 1990), came toplay a role in training for other NGOs and for govem-ment, and started a series of papers PALM Series 1-). AKRSP continued to innovate and broke newground in showing how well village volunteers couldthemselves be facilitators of PRA. ActionAid,Bangalore undertook a networking role.Among others, government organizations in Indiathat received and promoted training included theDrylands Development Board, Karnataka, the DistrictRural Development Agencies, Andhra Pradesh, andseveral Forestry Departments. PRA methods wereadopted by the National Academy of Administration,Mussoorie for the fieldwork of its 300-odd IndianAdministrative Service probationers each year, and bythe Xavier Institute of Social Services, Ranchi, whichintroduced PRA for the fieldwork of its students. Thefirst book about PRA was written by NeelaMukherjee, working at the National Academy ofAdministration, and published in 1993.At the same time, crossfertilization and spreadtook place internationally.* The small group of theSustainable Agriculture Programme at IIED, withsupport from the Ford Foundation and SIDA, wasdecisively influential through its activities in Africaand Asia, and spread PRA and its methods through 30substantial field-based training workshops in 15 coun-tries and through publications and papers, especiallyRRA Notes. They and others wrote source books and


6/17


manuals (e.g., McCracken, Pretty and Conway, 1988;Gueye and Freudenberger, 1990, 1991; Theis andGrady, 1991).Much of the spread was South-South, throughsharing field experiences and training. PRA methodsspread from India to Nepal on the initiative ofWinrock International and to Sri Lanka on the initia-tive of Intercooperation. The World ResourcesInstitute was active in Latin America. Two interna-tional field workshops were held in India: in 1992,ActionAid, AKRSP and MYRADA were hosts to 14people from 11 countries in the South, and in 1992ActionAid and OUTREACH (Bangalore) were hoststo 18 people, again from 11 countries. PRA or PRA-type activities continued to evolve independently inmany places. In 1993 alone, the countries in whichthere was South-South sharing of experience includedBotswana, China, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Indonesia,Namibia, Nepal, the Philippines, South Africa,Tanzania, Uganda, Vietnam, Zambia, Zimbabwe andseveral countries in francophone West Africa. AndPRA approaches and methods were also spreading tothe industrialized world, with trainers from the Southhelping to initiate Northerners into PRA in Canada,Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the UnitedKingdom.

A summary comparison of what are normallydescribed as RRA and PRA is given in Table 1.

4. RRA AND PRA: LABELS AND MEANINGSThe question has been raised as to whether it is

useful to define PRA as separate from RRA.One view is that labels do not matter. There is aplethora of labels for approaches and methods oflearning about rural life and conditions. Many of thesets of practices overlap. There is continuous innova-tion, sharing and exchange. In this view, the only

importance of a label is the sense of pride of owner-ship and originality which it gives, so strengtheningcommitment, enthusiasm and good work among itspractitioners. Otherwise, there would be no point indefining an exclusive territory of activities for PRA orany other set of approaches or methods.An alternative view is that careful use of terms canhelp to maintain and improve quality, both by settingminimum standards for good RRA or PRA, and bydistinguishing them from each other. The label ofRRA has already been used quite widely to legitimaterushed rural development tourism, and unself-criticalinvestigations: see for example, Pottiers critique(1992) of a quick but heavily biased RRA survey inZambia, and some of the observations in a wide-rang-ing review (van Steijn, 1991) of RRA activities in thePhilippines. The label of PRA has similarly been usedto legitimate either bad work or to describe RRA;PRA has been used to describe data collection whichis elicitive or extractive rather than participatory. Inthis view, then, it makes sense to separate out defini-tions of RRA as a form of data collection by outsiderswho then take it away and analyze it; and of PRA asmore participatory and empowering, meaning thatoutsiders are conveners, catalysts and facilitators whoenable people undertake and share their own investi-gations and analysis.A balanced view may be that since we are con-cerned here with static terms - RRA and PRA - forcombinations and fluxes of activities which aredynamic and evolving and which take different formsin different places, labels can help to define whatbelongs where. There can, then, be a distinctionbetween an RRA and a PRA. An RRA is intendedfor learning by outsiders. A PRA is intended to enablelocal people to conduct their own analysis, and oftento plan and take action. In this sense, PRA oftenimplies radical personal and institutional change, andit would debase the term to use it for anything less than

Table 1.RR.4 and PRA comparedRRA PRA

Period of major developmentMajor innovators based inMain users at firstKey resource earlier undervaluedMain innovationsPredominant modeIdeal objectivesLonger term outcomes

Late 1970s 1980sUniversitiesAid agenciesUniversitiesLocal peoples knowledgeMethodsTeam managementElicitive, ExtractiveLearning by outsidersPlans, projects publications

Late 1980s 1990sNGOsNGOsGovernment field organizationsLocal peoples analytical capabilitiesBehaviorExperiential trainingFacilitating, ParticipatoryEmpowerment of local peopleSustainable local action and institutions


7/17


Table 2. The RRA-PRA continuumNature of process RRAT ___________________._____________------______________...PRAMode Extractive elicitive sharing empoweringOutsiders role Investigator _________________.._...----_______________........FacilitatorInformation owned, analyzedand used by Outsiders_________________________----..._______________------_LocaleopleMethods used Mainly RRA plus sometimes PRA __________.._____.______MainlyRA plus sometimes RRA

this. The claim that PRA is a simple methodology. . . (PID and NES, 1989, p. I) is then misleading,since personal and institutional change are rarely sim-ple or easy. Moreover, as PRA becomes increasinglyfashionable, some may be tempted to label and relabeltheir work as PRA when it is still extractive rather thanparticipatory, and when their behavior and attitudesare still dominant, top-down and unchanged.

The labels themselves have been questioned. It hasbeen said of RRA that it need be neither rapid, norrural, nor appraisal, but that otherwise it fits what itdescribes. Urban applications have proliferated, lead-ing to the suggestion of PUA (participatory urbanappraisal) or PLA (participatory local appraisal -more inclusively, both rural and urban). With PRA,participatory has similarly been challenged, sinceparticipation can be used to mean peoples partici-pation in outsiders projects, when much PRA hasevolved to establish ownership of plans, actions andprojects more with rural (or urban) people themselves.In addition, the processes which begin as appraisalnow usually include analysis, and often lead on toplanning, action, and participatory monitoring andevaluation, carrying the PRA label with them.

In practice there is a continuum between an RRAand a PRA, as illustrated in Table 2.RRA methods are more verbal, with outsidersmore active, while PRA methods are more visual,with local people more active, but the methods arenow largely shared. The major distinction is betweenan RRA (extractive-elicitive) approach where themain objective is data collection by outsiders, and aPRA (sharing-empowering) approach where the mainobjectives are variously investigation, analysis, leam-ing, planning, action, monitoring and evaluation byinsiders.5. THE MENU OF METHODS OF RRA AND PRA

In its early days, RRA seemed to be largely orga-nized common sense. During the 1980s though, cre-ative ingenuity was applied and more methods wereborrowed, adapted and invented, many with a moreparticipatory mode. Some of these were codified andwritten up in guidelines and manuals.One view was that manuals of methods should be

avoided; that the PRA principle of use your own bestjudgement at all times permitted and encouraged cre-ativity; that manuals led to teaching and learning byrote, the ritual performance of methods for their ownsake, and a loss of flexibility. Basic descriptions ofmethods (as in Mascarenhas, 1992) were consideredenough. In early 1994, most of the leading PRA prac-titioners were working in this mode but a number ofmanuals, handbooks and sourcebooks had been com-piled.3A summary listing of headings can indicate someof the main modes and methods being used by early1994. All the methods can be used in both RRA andPRA, but some are more emphasized in one than theother. RRA has tended to stress the use of secondarysources, verbal interaction especially through semi-structured interviewing, and observation: so these aresometimes described as RRA methods. For its part,a distinctive aspect of PRA has been the shared visualrepresentations and analysis by local people, such asmapping or modeling on the ground or paper; estimat-ing, scoring and ranking with seeds, stones, sticks orshapes; Venn diagramming; free listing and card sort-ing; linkage diagramming; and presentations forchecking and validation: so these are often describedas PRA methods. A recent paper (Cornwall, Guijtand Welboum 1993, p. 22) has usefully groupedmethods under the three headings of visualized analy-ses; interviewing and sampling methods; and groupand team dynamics methods. Since methods andsequences overlap, however, they are listed togetherhere, using the categories and terms in common use:

-Secondary sources: such as tiles, reports, maps,aerial photographs, satellite imagery, articles andbooks;- Semi -str uctured int erv iew s. This has beenregarded as the core of good RRA (Grandstaffand Grandstaff, 1987). It can entail having a men-tal or written checklist, but being open-ended andfollowing upon the unexpected. Increasingly it isusing participatory visual as well as traditional ver-bal methods;- Key informants: enquiring who are the expertsand seeking them out, sometimes through partici-patory social mapping;- Groups of various kinds (casual;


8/17


specialist/focus; deliberately structured; commu-nity/neighbourhood). Group interviews and activi-ties are part of many of the methods;- Do-it-yourself: asking to be taught, beingtaught, and performing village tasks - transplant-ing, weeding, ploughing, field-levelling, muddinghuts, drawing water, collecting wood, washingclothes, stitching, thatching. ;- They do it : villagers and village residents asinvestigators and researchers -women, poor peo-ple, school teachers, volunteers, students, farmers,village specialists. They do transects, observe,interview other villagers, analyse data, and presentthe results. This is a widespread element inPRA.- Part ici pat ory anal ysis of secondary sources.The most common form is the analysis of aerialphotographs (often best at 1:SOOO) o identify soiltypes, land conditions, land tenure etc (Dewees1989; Meams 1989; Sandford, 1989); satelliteimagery has also been used (personal communica-tion Sam Joseph);- Parti cipatory mapping and modeli ng, in whichlocal people use the ground, floor or paper to makesocial, demographic, health, natural resource(soils, trees and forests, water resources etc), ser-vice and opportunity, or farm maps, or constructthree-dimensional models of their land (Hahn,199 1; Mascarenhas and Kumar 199 1);- Transect w alk s - walking with or by local peo-ple through an area, observing, asking, listening,discussing, identifying different zones, soils, landuses, vegetation, crops, livestock, local and intro-duced technologies, etc; seeking problems, solu-tions and opportunities; and mapping and diagram-ming the zones, resources and findings(Mascarenhas, 1990); general types of transectwalk include slope, combing, and loop. A seabot-tom transect has been conducted the Philippines (J.Mascarenhas, personal communication).- Time li nes and trend and change anal ysis:chronologies of events, listing major rememberedevents in a village with approximate dates; peo-ples accounts of the past, of how things close tothem have changed, ecological histories, changesin land use and cropping patterns, changes in cus-toms and practices, changes and trends in popula-tion, migration, fuels used, education, health,credit and the causes of changes and trends, oftenin a participatory mode with estimation of relativemagnitudes;- Oral histories and ethno biographies: oral his-tories (Slim and Thompson, 1993), and local histo-ries of, for example, a crop, an animal, a tree, apest, a weed (Box, 1989);- Seasonal calendars - by major season or bymonth to show seasonal changes such as days anddistribution of rain, amount of rain or soil mois-

ture, crops, agricultural labor, nonagriculturallabor, diet, food consumption, types of sickness,prices, animal fodder, fuel, migration, income,expenditure, debt, etc;- Daily time use analysis indicating relativeamounts of time, degrees of drudgery etc of activi-ties, sometimes indicating seasonal variations;-Livelihood analysis - stability, crises and cop-ing, relative income, expenditure, credit and debt,multiple activities, often by month or season;- Part icipatory l i nkage diagramming - of link-ages, flows, connections and causality;- Inst i tut ional or Chapati or Venn diagram-ming - identifying individuals and institutionsimportant in and for a community, or within anorganisation, and their relationships (for examplessee Guijt and Pretty, 1992);- Well -being and w ealt h grouping and ranki ng- identifying groups or rankings of householdsaccording to wellbeing or wealth, including thoseconsidered poorest or worst off (Grandin, 1988;Swift and Umar, 1991; Mearns et al . 1992; RRANotes, No. 15 passim); often leading to the identi-fication of key indicators of well-being.- Ana ly sis of di fference, especially by gender,social group, wealth/poverty, occupation and age.Identifying differences between groups, includingtheir problems and preferences (Welboum, 1991).This includes contrast comparisons - asking onegroup why another is different or does somethingdifferent, and vi ce versa (Bilgi, 1992);- M atri x scoring and ranki ng, especially usingmatrices and seeds to compare through scoring, forexample different trees, or soils, or methods of soiland water conservation, or varieties of a crop(Drinkwater, 1993);-Estimates and quantification, often using localmeasures, judgements and materials such asseeds, pellets, fruits, stones or sticks as counters,sometimes combined with participatory mapsand models, matrices, card sorting and othermethods;- Key probes; questions which can lead direct tokey issues such as - What do you talk aboutwhen you are together? What new practices haveyou or others in this village experimented with inrecent years.7 What vegetable, tree, crop, cropvariety, type of animal, tool, equipment. wouldyou like to try out? What do you do when some-ones hut or house burns down?;- Stor ies, port rai ts and case studi es such as ahousehold history and profile, coping with a crisis,how a conflict was or was not resolved;- Team contract s and int eracti ons - contractsdrawn up by teams with agreed norms of behavior;modes of interaction within teams, includingchanging pairs, evening discussions, mutual criti-cism and help; how to behave in the field, etc. (The


9/17

PARTICIPATORY RURAL APPRAI 4L 961

team may be just outsiders, or a joint team with vil-lagers);- Presentation and analysis - where maps,models, diagrams, and findings are presented bylocal people, or by outsiders, and checked, cor-rected and discussed;- Sequences: the use of methods in sequence -for example participatory social mapping leadingto the identification of key informants or analysts,or leading to the sequence: household lists -wealth or well-being ranking or grouping - focusgroups - matrix scoring and preference ranking.Sequences of analyses by experts on differentstages of a process (e.g., men on ploughing, womenon transplanting and weeding. . . ) etc;- Participatory planning, budgetting, implemen-tation and monitoring, in which local people pre-pare their own plans, budgets and schedules, takeaction, and monitor and evaluate progress;- Group discussions and brainstorming, by localpeople alone, by focus groups of local people, bylocal people and outsiders together, or by outsidersalone;-Short standard schedules orprotocols either forvery short and quick questionnaires, or to recorddata (e.g., census information from social map-ping) in a standard and commensurable manner.-Report writing without delay, either in the fieldbefore returning to office or headquarters, or byone or more people who are designated in advanceto do this immediately on completion of an RRA orof a sequence of PRA activities.

6. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONSRRA approaches and methods have been used forappraisal, analysis and research in many subject areas.These include agroecosystems; natural resources,including forestry, fisheries, wildlife management, and

the environment; irrigation; technology and innovation;health and nutrition; farming systems research and exten-sion; pastoralism; marketing; disaster relief (Slim andMitchell, 1992); organizational assessment; social, cul-tural and economic conditions; and many special topics.PRA approaches and methods have evolved andspread so fast that any inventory is likely to be incom-plete? In early 1994, most of the known applicationscan be separated into four types of process, and intofour major sectors.The four major types of process are:- participatory appraisal and planning;- participatory implementation, monitoring andevaluation of programs;-topic investigations;- training and orientation for outsiders and vil-lagers.The four major sectors are:

(a) Natural resources management- Watersheds, and soil and water conservation:e.g., participatory watershed planning and man-agement (Pretty, 1990; Kerr, 1991; Devavaram etal., 1991; Neefjes, et al. 1993; Shah, 1993);- Land policy (Johannson and Hoben, 1992);- Forestry, including: social and communityforestry; degraded forest assessment, protection,nurseries and planting; identification of tree uses;and uses and marketing of forest products. (Seee.g. Case, 1990; Inglis, 1991; Freudenthal andNarrowe, 1991; SPWD, 1992);- Fisheries (McCracken, 1990; Mascarenhas andHildalgo, 1992; Colaco and Bostock, 1993);- biodiversity and wildlife reserve buffer zones(Kar, 1993);- Village plans: preparing Village ResourceManagement Plans (PID and NES, 1989),Participatory Rural Appraisal and Planning (asdeveloped by AKRSP - Shah, Bharadwaj andAmbastha, 1991a, 1991b, andothers).

(b) Agriculture- Farmer participatory research/farming systemsresearch and problem identification and analysisby farmers (Ampt and Ison, 1988, 1989; Kar andDatta, 1991; Dunn and Macmillan 1991; FSRU,1991; PRA Team, 1991; Guijt and Pretty, 1992;Lightfoot et al., 1992; Chambers, 1993;Drinkwater, 1993; Lightfoot and Noble, 1993);- Livestock and animal husbandry (Leyland,1993; Maranga, 1993; Sonaiya, 1993; Young,1993; RRA Notes No. 20: Special Issue ofLivestock, 1994);- Irrigation, including rehabilitation of small-scale gravity flow irrigation systems (especially inTamil Nadu);-Markets: investigating markets and smallholdermarketing potentials (Holtzman 1993)

(c) Poverty and social programs- Credit: identification of credit needs, sourcesand interventions;- Selection: finding and selecting poor people fora program, and deselecting the less poor (e.g.,Chandramouli, 1991; RRA Notes 15, Pretty,Subramanian and Ananthakrishnan, 1992);- Income-earning: identification of nonagricul-tural income-earning opportunities.- Women and gender: participatory appraisal ofproblems and opportunities (Welboum, 199 1;Grady et al., 1991; The Women of Sangams,Pastapur and Pimbert, 1991; Tolley and Bentley,


10/17


1992; Bilgi, 1992; Kar et al., 1992; Sheelu andDevaraj, 1992; Robinson, 1993);- Adult literacy (ActionAids pilot programs inBangladesh, Uganda and El Salvador using PRAdiagramming modules as a stepping stone tospelling (personal communication David Archer);- Participatory poverty assessments (as part ofthe World Bank-supported Country PovertyAssessments) in Ghana and Zambia, both initiatedin 1993.

(d) Health andfood security- Health assessments and monitoring with appli-cations including womens reproductive health(Tolley and Bentley, 1992; Cornwall, 1992), dis-ease problem ranking (Welbourn, 1992), unem-ployment and health (Cresswell, 1992), identify-ing major illness, healthcare providers and costs(Joseph, 1992), and testing methods for establish-ing baselines and monitoring (Adams, Roy andMahbub, 1993), planning health projects (Francis,Devavaram and Erskine, 1992); (see also Heaver,1992 and RRA Notes 16, pp. 101-106 for a fullerlisting of actual or potential uses).- Food security and nutrition assessment andmonitoring (Maxwell, 1989; Appleton, 1992;Buchanan-Smith et al., 1993; Lawrence Haddadpersonal communication)-Water and sanitation assessment, planning andlocation (Narayan 1993)

These lists illustrate the main known applications.They are not comprehensive. A further application hasbeen the appraisal of organizational cultures(Kievelitz and Reineke, 1993) and more applicationscan be expected.

7. SPREAD AND IMPACT OF PRAFor several reasons, there are still, in early 1994,few case studies of the impact of PRA as developmentprocess. First, PRA is recent, and many PRAprocesses are still in their early stages. Second,

responding to demand and their own sense of priori-ties, experienced practitioners have been mostlyengaged in training and appraisal rather than monitor-ing and evaluation, and this emphasis is reflectedin the reports they have written. Third, in the firstyears of PRA, academic researchers were slow to rec-ognize what was happening. These were conditionsin which negative experiences were liable to beoverlooked. In the mid-1990s more feedback isneeded from failures, from those who have experi-enced PRA and not subsequently adopted it, and fromorganizations where attempts to introduce it have notbeen successful.

That said, evidence takes two main forms: first, thescale of adoption and use; and second, reports of prac-tical use and evaluations.First, the number of countries in which PRAappears strongly established and spreading is rising.Any listing will be based on incomplete knowledge,liable to error, and soon out of date. Early in 1994 suchcountries and regions include Bangladesh, Botswana,Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Kenya, India, Mali, Nepal,Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Senegal, Sri Lanka,Uganda, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe, not to mentioncountries in Latin America. The number of organiza-tions across a much larger number of countries whichhave to some degree adopted PRA is large and grow-ing. Southern NGOs which are using PRA (mid-1993)number hundreds, while many Northern NGOs andInternational Agencies have now supported the spreadof PRA. Universities were at first slow to recognizePRA or adopt PRA methods, but now tens of universi-ties and training and research institutes have somestaff who are exploring and using it. Government andparastatal organizations, all or parts of which haveespoused PRA, are a similar number. Among these, afew have sought to introduce it throughout their pro-grams on a national or statewide scale. These includethe Soil and Water Conservation Branch of theMinistry of Agriculture in Kenya, which has officiallyadopted a PRA approach for its work in over 40 dis-tricts; the District Rural Development Agencies,Andhra Pradesh, India; and the Forest Departments ofseveral Indian States. Government programs withdonor support are introducing PRA training andapproaches, as with IFAD-supported programs inIndonesia and Sri Lanka, the ODA-supported WesternGhats Environmental Programme in India, the SIDA-supported Vietnam-Sweden Forestry CooperationProgramme in Vietnam, and UNICEF-supported pro-grams in India and Kenya.Because the PRA label, and to a lesser extent itssubstance, appear in early 1994 to be spreading expo-nentially, the scale of applications is difficult toassess. In 1992, ActionAid Nepal completed partici-patory mapping in approximately 130 villages as ameans of monitoring and evaluating the utilizationof services (ActionAid, 1992). In 1993 ActionAidPakistan completed wealth/well-being ranking with38,000 people as a stage in identifying the poorerpeople (personal communication, Humera Malik).UNICEF, Lucknow, is reported to be planning onethousand PRA training sessions over the next fiveyears.Despite these examples, the actual spread and useof PRA in large field agencies, whether government orNGO, is easily overestimated to the extent that as PRAbecomes politically correct, so reports of PRA arelikely to be inflated. Sometimes, too, resistance hasoccurred. Much depends on personal orientation andchoice, and on rewards. In smaller organizations with


11/17


committed leadership, adoption has often taken placequickly. In large organizations, it has not been byadministrative fiat, but by consistent high-level sup-port, widespread training of good quality, and appro-priate systems of rewards, that actual (in contrast withapparent) spread has occurred. Despite the slowspread implied by these conditions, the number ofpeople in large organizations who have now chosen touse PRA as approach and process, and not just PRAmethods, probably runs into thousands, and is grow-ing.Second, reports of practical use are innumerablebut scattered in a large, inaccessible grey literature;and in early 1994 evaluations are still few. Mostreports have been positive. There are dangers of selec-tive perception and reporting, but some reports(including those from IIED see e.g., Guijt, 1992) gainin credibility through self-critically presenting anddiscussing problems and errors.By early 1994, the most systematic impact analysisof PRA compared with alternatives has been a partici-patory study conducted in Kenya in April-May 1993(Pretty and Thompson, 1993). Six areas of theCatchment Approach Program of the Soil and WaterConservation Branch of the Ministry of Agriculturewere studied. Performance indicators included maizeyields, diversity of crops, reappearance of springsand/or increase in surface water flow, continuingactivity by a catchment committee, and awareness andadoption in neighboring communities. The studyshowed that performance had been worst in a show-case catchment where the approach had not been par-ticipatory. The impact indicators were generallyhigher where catchment committees were freelyelected, and where farmers had participated in plan-ning and layout, and they were consistently best in thecatchment where the program had begun with aninterdepartmental PRA.

There remains a research agenda to understandbetter the applications and potentials of PRA, itsprocesses and impacts, and its shortcomings andstrengths.

8. EXPLAINING OUR PAST IGNORANCEAny positive assessment is faced with a problem of

explanation. If PRA approaches and methods arepowerful and popular, the puzzle is why it has takenuntil the 1990s for the methodological streams tocome together and further evolve; for the menu ofmethods to reach its present range and versatility; andfor the many actual and potential applications tobecome evident. At a personal level, fieldworkers nowin their 50s or 60s can wonder how for decades theyhave been working in rural development without

knowing about all this. More generally, it is a mysterywhy it has taken so long for the development commu-nity as a whole to discover in this way the richnessnot just of the knowledge of villagers, but of their cre-ative and analytical abilities.Much of the mystery disappears if explanation issought not in local people, but in outsider profession-als. For the beliefs, behavior and attitudes of most out-siders have been similar all over the world.Agricultural scientists, medical staff, teachers, off-cials, extension agents and others have believed thattheir knowledge was superior and that the knowledgeof farmers and other local people was inferior; andthat they could appraise and analyze but poor peoplecould not. Many outsiders then either lectured, hold-ing sticks and wagging fingers, or interviewed impa-tiently, shooting rapid fire questions, interrupting, andnot listening to more than immediate replies, if that.Outsiders reality blanketed that of local people. Theyput down the poor. Outsiders beliefs, demeanor,behavior and attitudes were then self-validating.Treated as incapable, poor people behaved as inca-pable, reflecting the beliefs of the powerful, and hid-ing their capabilities even from themselves. Nor didmany outsider professionals know how to enable localpeople to express, share and extend their knowledge.The ignorance and inabilities of rural people werethen not just an illusion; they were an artifact of out-siders behavior and attitudes, of their arrogant andignorant manner of interacting with local people.For participatory approaches and methods to takeoff, a stage had also to be reached when different con-ditions could come together: recognition of past errorand inadequacy, as has occurred with much agricul-tural research for resource-poor farmers; greater con-fidence and professionalism in rural NGOs; the inven-tion of approaches such as agroecosystem analysiswhich simply did not exist before the 1980s; and theemergence of an international community of commu-nication. This has required a critical mass and momen-tum in which approaches and methods could be sharedbetween disciplines, countries, and organizations, asfor RRA at the Institute of Development Studies at theUniversity of Sussex in 1979 and at Khon KaenUniversity in 1985 (KKU, 1987). and as for PRA atBangalore in 1991 (Mascarenhas et al. 1991). Themost important element of all has been the insight thatin facilitating PRA the behavior and attitudes of out-siders matter more than the methods and their correctperformance. Perhaps then it is understandable that ithas taken so long for these participatory approachesand methods, in their many forms and with their manylabels, to evolve, cluster and coalesce, and to spread,as philosophy, repertoire and practice. Perhaps, in the199Os, their time has come.


12/17


NOTES1. Any listing of the NGOs that pioneered at an earlystage in India would include (in alphabetical order)

ActionAid, Bangalore; Activists for Social Alternatives,Trichy; the Aga-Khan Rural Support Programme (India);Krishi Gram Vikas Kendra, Ranchi; MYRADA, Bangalore;Seva Bharati, Midnapore District; SPEECH, Madurai; andYouth for Action, Hyderabad.

2. Among international foundations, agencies and NGOsactive in supporting and promoting PRA at an early stagewere the Ford Foundation (in India, Bangladesh and EastAfrica), Winrock International (in Nepal), Intercooperation(Beme and in Sri Lanka), the Overseas DevelopmentAdministration (UK), ActionAid (London and in South Asia,West Africa and elsewhere), the Aga Khan Foundation (inIndia), the Near East Foundation and the Centre forDevelopment Services (Cairo and the Middle East), theWorld Resources Institute (Washington and Latin America),and in various countries CARE, Save the Children, OXFAM,UNICEF and World Neighbours; while others includingGTZ, IDRC, IFAD, NOVIB, the Paul Hamlyn Foundation,SAREC, SDC and SIDA provided support.

3. Several manuals, guides and handbooks have, how-ever, been compiled. In addition to a number on RRA, othershave used a PRA label or have been in a PRA tradition. InEnglish these include a step-by-step manual ParriciparoqRural Appraisal Handbook (NES et al., 1990) based on earlyPRAs in Kenya; Part icipatory Rapid Appraisal forCommunity Development (Theis and Grady, 1991) based onexperiences in the Middle East and North Africa; an illus-trated guide PRA for Nepal: Concept s and Methods(Campbell and Gill, 1991); a two-volume Field M ethodsManual including methods and applications of PRA for JointForest Management in India (SPWD, 1992); a resource man-ual of papers for trainers and practitioners of PRA (Leurs,1993); a manual for productivity systems assessment andplanning in the Philippines (Dilig, 1993); A Handbook for

PRA Practit ioners, based on PRA training in South Africa(Participants in Bulwer Workshop, 1993); An ntroduct ion toRapid and Part icipatory Rural Appraisal in BRAC (Howes,1993); and Rapid Apprai sal Methods for CoastalCommunities (Townsley, 1993). Others have been publishedand made available in French (Gueye and Freudenberger,1990, 1991), Spanish (Rietbergen-McCracken, 1991), andGerman (Schonhuth and Kievelitz, 1993); and in early 1994the International Institute for Environment and Development(IIED), London is in the late stages of preparing severalsource books for PRA methods and training.

4. To document the applications of RRA and PRA to date(early 1994) would require a separate full paper and bibliog-raphy. For accessible sources on RRA see Agricul turalAdmi nistrat ion, 1981; Longhurst, 1981; KKU, 1987, espe-cially Gibbs, 1987, and the bibliography; and Lovelace,Subhadhira and Simaraks, 1988. For recent accessiblesources on PRA see publications of the SustainableAgriculture Programme of the International Institute forEnvironment and Development (3 Endsleigh Street, LondonWClH ODD) including cases from Cape Verde, Chile,Ecuador, Ethiopia, Fiji, the Gambia, India, Indonesia,Kenya, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, and Zimbabwe; RRANotes 1988, passim, especially Number 13 reporting experi-ence in India; PALM Seri es; Forests, Tr ees and Peopl eNewsletter Number 1506, 1992; Leurs, 1993; and OUT-REACH (1993-). Separate annotated bibliographies onRRA/PRA concerning agriculture, food security, forestry,gender, health, industrial country applications, irrigation,livestock and pastoralism, monitoring and evaluation, PRAmethods, soil and water conservation, training, urban appli-cations, and other sectors are in preparation at the Institute ofDevelopment Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton BNI9RE, UK. A computerized data base of over 1,000 items onRRA and PRA at IDS and IIED has been compiled. In early1994, unpublished sources on PRA experiences number sev-eral hundreds.

REFERENCESActionAid, Part icipatov Rural Appraisal : Ut i l izat i on

1CDDR.B Joint Projeci in Matlab (Cambridge, MA:Harvard Center for Population and Development

Survey Report, Part I Rural Development Area,

Studies, September 1993).

Singhupalchowk, Monitoring and Evaluation Unit(Kathmandu: ActionAid, 1992).

Adams, Alayne, Rita Das Roy and Amina MahbubParticipatory methods to assess change in health andwomens lives; An exploratory study for the BRAC- lY85 Int ernati onal Conference on Rapid Rural

Appleton, Judith, Notes from a food and nutrition PRA in a

Appraisal (Kbon Kaen, Thailand: University of KhonKaen, 1987). pp. 47-68.

Guinean fishing village, RRA Not es, No. 16 1992).p.77-85.

Ashby, J. A., Evaluat ing Technology w it h Farmers: AHandbook (Cali, Colombia, CIAT, December 1990).

Beebe, J., Rapid appraisal: The evolution of the concept andthe definition of issues, in KKU, Proceedi ngs of t he

Ampt, P. R., and R. L. Ison, Rapid rural appraisal for theidentification of grassland research problems,Proceedings of the XVI I nternational GrasslandCongress (Nice, France: 1989) pp.1291-1292.

Ampt, P., and R. Ison, Report of a rapid rural appraisal toidentify problems and opportunities for agronomicresearch and development in the Forbes Shire, NSW(Sidney: School of Crop Sciences, University of Sydney,December 1988).

Belshaw, D., A theoretical framework for data-economiz-ing appraisal procedures with applications for ruraldevelopment planning, in R. Longhurst (Ed.), l&SBulletin, Vol. 12, No. 4 (1981), pp. 12-22.

Bentley, Margaret E., Gretel H. Pelto, Walter L. Straus,Debra A. Schumann, Catherine Adegbola, Emanuela dela Pena, Gbolahan A. Oni, Kenneth H. Brown and SandraL. Huffman, Rapid ethnographic assessment:Applications in a diarrhea management program, Social


13/17


Science in M edicine, Vol. 27, No. 1 (1988), pp.107-116.

Biggs, S., Informal R and D, Ceres, Vol. 13, No. 4 (1980),pp. 23-26.

Bilgi, Meena, Unpublished correspondence on analysis ofwomens time use by men, available from HelenMcLaren, IDS, University of Sussex, Brighton BNl9RE, UK (1992).

Box, Louk, Virgilios Theorem: A method for adaptiveagricultural research, in R. Chambers, A. Pacey and L.Thrupp (Eds.), Farmer First (London: IT Publications1989) pp. 61-67.

BRAC, The Net: Pow er Str ucture in Ten Vi ll ages (Dhaka:Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee, 1983).Brokensha, David W., D. M. Warren, and 0. Werner,Indi genous Know ledge Systems and Development,(Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1980).

Buchanan-Smith, M. et al., Finding out how people priori-tise their food security problems in Chad: The challengesof RRA at national level,RRA Not es, No. 18 (1993), pp.33-43.

analysis: A case study from Northern Pakistan, in KKU,Proceedi ngs of th e I 985 In ternat io nal Conference onRapid Rural Appraisal (Khan Kaen, Thailand:University of Khon Kaen, 1987). pp. 228-254.

Conway, G., Agroecosystem Anal ysis for Researchand Development, (Bangkok: Winrock International,1986).

Conway, G., Agroecosystem analysis, AgriculturalAdministrat ion, Vol. 20 (1985), pp. 31-55.Cornwall, Andrea, Body mapping in health RRA/PRA,RRA N otes, No.16 (1992), pp. 69-76.

Cornwall, Andrea, Irene Guijt and Alice Welboum,Acknowledging process: Challenges for agriculturalresearch and extension methodology, Discussion Paper333 (Brighton: Institute of Development StudiesDecember, 1993).

Cresswell, Teresa, Unemployment and health: The devel-opment of the use of PRA in identified communities inStaveley, North Derbyshire, RRA Not es, No. 16 (1992),pp. 27-30.

Bunch, R., TWO Ears of Corn: A Gui de to People-CenteredAgricultural Zmprovement (Oklahoma City: WorldNeighbors, 1985).

Campbell, G. J., R. Shrestha and L. Stone, The Use andM i suse of Soci al Sci ence Research in Nepal (Kirtipur,Kathmandu: Research Centre for Nepal and AsianStudies, Tribhuvan University, 1979).

Campbell, Loma, and Gerard J. Gill, PRA for Nepal:Concept s and M ethods, Research Support SeriesNumber 4 (Kathmandu: HMG Ministry of Agriculture-Winrock International, February 1991).

Carruthers, Ian, and Robert Chambers, Rapid appraisal forrural development, AgriculturalAdministrat ion, Vol. 8,No. 6 (1981), pp. 407-422.

Daniels, P. W., S. Holden, E. Lewin, and Sri Dadi (Eds),Livestock Services for Smallholders, Proceedings of anInternational Seminar held in Yogyakarta, IndonesiaNovember 15-16 1992 (Bogor, Indonesia: IndonesiaInternational Animal Science, Research and Develop-ment Foundation, 1993).

Dewees, Peter, Aerial photography and household studiesin Kenya, RRA Not es No.7 (1989), pp. 9-12.Devavaram, John, Nalini J. Vimalnathan, Abdul Sarkar,Krishnan, A. P. Mayandi and Karunanidhi, PRA for

rural resource management, RRA Not es, No. 13 (1991),pp. 102-l 11.

Case, DArcy Davis, The Communit ys Toolbox: The IdeaM ethods and Tools for Part icipat ory Assessment ,M onitori ng and Evaluation in Communit y Forestry,Community Forestry Field Manual 2 (Rome: FAO,1990).

Cemea, Michael (Ed.), Putting People First: SociologicalVari ables in Development Proj ects (Baltimore: TheJohns Hopkins Press, 1985, second edition 1991).

Chambers, Robert, Rapid rural appraisal: Rationale andrepertoire, ID S Di scussion Paper (Brighton) (No. 155,September 1980).

Chambers, Robert, Arnold Pacey and Lori Ann Thrupp(Eds), Farmer First : Farmer Innovat ion andAgricultural Research (London: IntermediateTechnology Publications, 1989).

Chambers, Robert, Methods for analysis by farmers: Theprofessional challenge, Journal for Farming SystemsResearcWExtension, Vol. 4, No. 1 1993). pp. 87-101.

Chandramouli, K., Pass on the pen approach: Identifyingthe poorest of the poor families, RRA Notes, No. 14,(1991). pp. 29-32.

Dilig, Rutcheli A Manual on the Estat e/Barangay-l evelProducti vi ty Syst ems Assessment and Planni ng (PSAPJM ethodology, published for the Tripartite Partnership forAgrarian Reform and Rural Development (Quezon City,Philippines: Phil DHRRA, September 1993).

Drinkwater, Michael, Sorting fact from opinion: The use ofa direct matrix to evaluate finger millet varieties, RRANo t es, N o. 17 (1993), pp. 24-28.

Dunn, Tony and Allan McMillan, Action research: Theapplication of rapid rural appraisal to learn about issuesof concern in landcare areas near Wagga Wagga, NSW,Paper presented to a conference on Agriculture, Educa-tion and Information Transfer, Murrumbigee College ofAgriculture (New South Wales: September 30-October 21991).

Farrington, John (Ed.), Experimental Agriculture, Vo1.24,Part 3 (1988).Farrington, John, and Adrienne Martin, Farmer participa-tion in agricultural research: A review of concepts and

practices, Agricultural Administration OccasionalPaper, No. 9 (London: ODI, 1988).

Forests, Trees and People New slett er (International RuralDevelopment Center, Box 7005, S-75047 Uppsala,Sweden).Colaco, Peter, and Tim Bostock, Post-harvest goes partici-patory: Participating and learning in a fishing village,Bay of Bengal New s (September 1993). pp. 6-l 1.Collinson, M., A low cost approach to understanding smallfarmers, Agricultural Administrat ion, Vol. 8, No. 6(1981), pp. 433450.

Francis, Sheelu, John Devavaram and Arunothayam Erskine,Training workshop on participatory rural appraisal forplanning health projects, RRA N otes, No.16 (1992) pp.3747.

Freire, Paulo, Pedagogy of t he Oppressed (New York: TheSeabury Press, 1968).Convergence (various issues and special issues). Freudenthal, K. and Narrowe, Focus on Peopl e and Trees: aConway, G., Rapid rural appraisal and agroecosystem guide to designing and conducti ng communit y baseli ne


14/17


studies for communit y forestry, Report No. 20, Develop-ment Studies Unit, Department of Social Anthropology(Stockholm: Stockholm University, 1991).

FSRU, Structural Adjustment and Communal Area Agri-culture in Zi mbabwe: Case Studiesfrom M angwende andChivi Communal Areas: A Report of a Rapid RuralAppraisal Exercise, Farming systems Research Unit,Department of Research and Specialist Services, Ministryof Lands, Agriculture and Rural Settlement (Harare,Zimbabwe: Ministry of Lands, November 1991).

FSSP, Di agnosis, Design and Anal ysis i n Farming SystemsResearch and Extensio n, Volumes I, II and III, andTrainers M anual (Gainesville, FL: Farming SystemsSupport Project, Institute of Food and AgriculturalSciences, University of Florida, December 1987).

Gaventa, John, and Helen Lewis, Participatory Educationand Grassroots Developm ent: The Case of RuralAppalachia, Gatekeeper Series 25 (London: IIED, 1991).

Gibbs, Christopher, Rapid rural appraisal: An over view ofconcepts and applications, in KKU, Proceedi ngs of t he1985 Int ernat ional Conference on Rapid RuralAppraisal (Khon Kaen, Thailand: University of KhonI&en, 1987). pp. 193-206.Gilbert. E. H.. D. W. Norman and F. E. Winch, FarmingSystems Research: A Crit ical Appr aisal , MSU RuralDevelopment Paper No. 6, Department of AgriculturalEconomics (East Lansing: Michigan State University,1980).

Grady, H., et al., Assessing womens needs in Gaza usingparticipatory rapid appraisal techniques, RRA Notes,No.10 (February 1991), pp. 12-19.Grandin, Barbara, Wealth Ranking in Small holderCommuniti es: A Field M anual (London: IntermediateTechnology Publications, 1988).

Grandstaff. Tenv B.. and Somluckrat W. Grandstaff, Aconceptual basis for methodological development inrapid rural appraisal, in KKU, Proceedi ngs of t he 1985Int ernati onal Conference on Rapid Rural Apprai sal(Khon Kaen, Thailand: University of Khon Kaen, 1987),pp. 69-88.

Grandstaff, Somluckrat W., and Terry B. Grandstaff, Semi-structured interviewing by multidisciplinary teams inRRA, in KKU, Proceedings of the 1985 Int ernati onalConference on Rapid Rural Apprai sal (Khan Kaen,Thailand: University of Khon Kaen, 1987), pp. 129-143.

Groenfeldt, D., Gui delines for Rapid Assessment of M inorIrrigation Systems in Sri Lanka, Working Paper No. 14(Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Irrigation Manage-ment Institute, 1989).

Gueye, Bara and Karen Schoonmaker Freudenberger,M ethode Acceleree de Recherche Part ici pat i ve (London:BED, August 1991).Gueye, Bara, and Karen Schoonmaker Freudenberger,In tr oducti on 6 la M ethode A ccel eree de RecherchePart ic ipat ive (MARP) (Dakar, Senegal: Centre deRecherches pour le Dtveloppement International,October 1990).

Guijt, Irene (Ed.), From Input to mpact: Participatory RuralAppraisal for Acti onAid the Gambia (London: BED,1992).Guijt, Irene, and Jules N. Pretty (Eds.), Participatory RuralApprai sal for Farmer Part icipat ory Research in Punjab,Pakistan (London: IIED, September 1992).

Gypmantasiri et al., and Gordon Conway, n

Int erdi scipl inar y Perspecti ve of Cropping Syst ems in theChiang M ai Val ley: Key Questions for Research(Chiang Mai, Thailand: Multiple Cropping Project,Faculty of Agriculture, University of Chiang Mai, June1980).

Hahn, H., App rendre avec l es yeux, sexpri mer avec l esmains: des paysans se forment a la gesti on du terroi r,(Langenbruck, Switzerland: AGRECOL, 1991).

Harwood, R., Smal l Farm Development: Understandi ng andImprovi ng Farming Syst ems in the Humi d Tropi cs(Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1979).

Heaver, Richard, Participatory rural appraisal: Potentialapplications in family planning, health and nutrition pro-grammes, RRA Not es, No. 16 (1992), pp. 13-21.

Holtzman, John S., Rapid appraisal methods in a diagnosticassessment of vegetable seed marketing, in KrishnaKumar (Ed.), Rapid Appraisal M ethods (Washington,DC: The World Bank, 1993), pp. 112-135.

Howes, Mick, An Intr oducti on to Rapid and ParticipatoryRural Appraisal (Brighton: Institute of DevelopmentStudies, University of Sussex, October 1993).

IDS, Whose know ledge counts?, ID S Bul leti n, Vol. 10, No.2 (1979).Inglis, Andrew Stewart, Harvesting local forestry knowl-edge: A comparison of RRA and conventional surveys,RRA Not es, No. 12 (1991). pp. 3240.

Jamieson, N., The paradigmatic significance of RRA,KKU, Proceedi ngs of th e 1985 I nt ernat i onal Conferenceon Rapid Rural Appraisal (Khon Kaen, Thailand:University of Khon Kaen, 1987). pp. 89-102.

Johansson, Lam, and Allan Hoben, RRAs for land policyformulation in Tanzania, Forests, Tr ees and PeopleNew slet t er, No. 14115 (February 1992). pp. 2631.Joseph, S., Participatory rural appraisal in identifying majorillness, healthcare providers and costs, RRA Notes, No.16 (1992). pp. 53-56.

Kabutha, Charity, and Richard Ford, Using RRA to formu-late a village resources management plan, Mbusyani,Kenya, RRA Not es, No. 2 (October 1988), pp. 4-l 1.

Kar, Kamal, Participatory rural appraisal for understandingthe man-environment conflict and its impact on the lossof bio-diversity of wetlands ecosystem at BhitarkanikaMangrove area in Orissa, (Seva Bharati, Kapgari,Midnapore District, West Bengal, India: 1993).Kar, Kamal, D. C. Banerjee, Manjushree Kaviraj and SumitN. Datt a,Participatory Rural Appraisalfor; Developmentof Women and Childr en in Rural A reas, DdEument ofefforts of village women of Bhagawampur, districtHooghly, West Bengal, India, in planning their commu-nity services (Seva Bharati, India: 1992).Kar, Kamal, and Sumit N. Datta, Participatory RuralApprai sal for Development of Rainf ed Areas, Report ofJuly 1991 training workshop (SevaBharati, India: 1991).

Kassam, Yusuf, and Kemal Mustafa (Eds.), ParticipatoryResearch: n Emerging Al ternative M ethodology inSocia l Science Research (New Delhi: Society forParticipatory Research in Asia, 1982).Kerr, J. M. (Ed)., Farmers Practi ces and Soil and Wat erConservation Programmes, Summary proceedings of aworkshop, June 19-21 1991, ICRISAT Center(Patancheru, India: 1991).Kievelitz, Uwe, and Rolf-Dieter Reineke, Rapid appraisalof organisational cultures: A challenge for field work,RRA Notes, No. 17 (March 1993), pp. 57-63.


15/17


KKU, Proceedings of he 1985 I nrernar ional Conference onRapid Rural Appraisal (Khon Kaen, Thailand: RuralSystems Research and Farming Systems ResearchProjects, University of Khon Kaen, 1987).

KllrIlar, Krishna (Ed.), Rapid Appraisal Methods(Washington: The World Bank, 1993).Leurs, Robert, A Resource Manual for Trai ners andPractitioners of Participarory Rural Appraisal (PRA),Papers in the Administration of Development No. 49,Development Administration Group, Institute of LocalGovernment Studies, University of Birmingham(Birmingham: March 1993).

Leyland, Tim, Participatory rural appraisal in Afghanistan,in P. W. Daniels et al. @Ids.), L ivestock Servi ces forSmallholders (Bogor, Indonesia: Indonesian Inter-national Animal Science Research and DevelopmentFoundation, 1993).

Lightfoot, C., and D. Minnick, Farmer-first qualitativemethods: Farmers diagrams for improving methods ofexperimental design in integrated farming systems,Jour nal for Farmi ng Systems Research-Ex tension, Vol.2, No. 1 (1991), pp. 57-71.

Lightfoot, Clive, and Reg Noble, A participatory experi-ment in sustainable agriculture, Journal for FarmingSysrems Research/Extension, Vol. 4, No. 1 (1993). pp.1 l-34.

Lightfoot, C., R. Noble and R. Morales, Training ResourceBook on a Participatory Method for Modelli ngBioresource Flows, ICLARM Educational Series(Manila: International Center for Living AquaticResources Management, 1991).

Lightfoot, C., P. Dalgaard, M. Bimbao and F. Fermin,Farmer participatory procedures for managing andmonitoring sustainable farming systems, Paper pre-sented at the Second Asian Farming SystemsSymposium, BMICH (Colombo, Sri Lanka: November1992).Longhurst, R. (Ed.), Rapid Rural Appraisal, IDS Bull etin,Vol. 12, No. 4 (1981).

Lovelace, George W., Sukaesinee Subhadhira and SuchintSimaraks (Eds.), Rapid Rural Appraisal in Norr heasrThail and: Case dies (Khon Kaen, Thailand: KKU-Ford Rural Systems Research Project, Khon KaenUniversity, 1988).

McCracken, J. A., BOBP tries out RRA in Chinnamedu,Tamil Nadu, Bay of Bengal News (June 1990), pp. 2-5.

McCracken, J. A., Participarory Rapid Rural Appraisal inGujarar: A Tri al Model for rhe Aga Khan Rural SupportProgramme (I ndia) (London: IIED, November 1988).

McCracken, J. A., Jules N. Pretty and Gordon R. Conway,AnIn troduction to Rapid Rural Appraisal for AgriculruralDevelopment (London: IIED, 1988).

Maranga, Stella, Participatory information collection inKenya and Zimbabwe, in P. W. Daniels er al. (Eds.),L ivestock Servi ces for Smallholders (Bogor, Indonesia:Indonesian International Animal Science Research andDevelopment Foundation, 1993).Mascarenhas, J., Participatory rural appraisal and participa-tory learning methods, Fores Trees and PeopleNewsletter, No. 15/16 (February 1992), pp. 10-17.

Mascarenhas, J., Transect in Pe, PA, Series IV E(Bangalore: MYRADA, 1990).Mascarenhas, J., and R. Hildalgo, Experi ence of a

Participatory Rural Appraisal Exercise (Silang, Cavite,Philippines: International Institute for Rural Reconstruc-tion, 1992).

Mascarenbas, J., and P. D. Prem Kumar, Participatory map-ping and modelling: Users notes, RRA Notes, No. 12(1991). pp. 9-20.

Mascarenhas, J. etal.. (Eds.), Participatory Rural Appraisal:Proceedings of the February 1991 Bangalore PRATrainers Workshop, RRA Notes, No. 13 (London: IIEDand Bangalore: MYRADA, August 1991).

Maxwell, Simon, Rapid food security assessment: A pilotexercise in Sudan, RRA Notes, No. 5 (1989).Meams, Robin, Aerial photographs in rapid land resourceappraisal, Papua New Guinea, RRA Notes, No. 7 (1989),pp. 12-14A.Meams, Robin, D. Shombodon, G. Narangerel, U. Turul, A.Enkbamgalan, B. Myagmarzhav, A. Bayanjargal and B.

Bekhsuren, Direct and indirect uses of wealth ranking inMongolia, RRA Notes, No. 15 (1992), pp. 29-38.

Moris, Jon R., Multi-subject farm surveys reconsidered:Some methodological lessons, Paper for the EastAfrican Agricultural Economics Society Conference(Dar es Salaam: March 31-April4,1970).Mukherjee, Neela, Participatory Rural Appraisal:Merhodology and Applications (New Delhi: ConceptPublishing House, 1993).

Naragam, Deepa, Participatory Evaluation: Tools forManaging Change in Water and Sanitation, World BankTechnical Paper Number 207 (Washington, DC: TheWorld Bank, 1993).

Neefjes, Koos, with Hanneke Meijers, Pouk Sok, Pok Panhaet al., Parti cipatory Environmental Assessment andPlanning for Developmenr, Report on a workshop inCambodia, November/December 1992 (Oxford: Oxfam,1993).

NES, et al., Participatory Rural Appraisal Handbook,National Environment Secretariat, Kenya; ClarkUniversity; Egerton University; and the Center forInternational Development and Environment of theWorld Resources Institute (February 1990).

Norman, D. W., Rationalising mixed cropping underindigenous conditions: the example of NorthernNigeria, Samaru Research Bul lerin , No. 232 (Institutefor Agricultural Research, Samaru, Abmadu BelloUniversity, Zaria, Nigeria) (1975).

OUTREACH, Participatory Approach Development Series1 (Bangalore: Volunteers for Development, 1993).PALM Series (Bangalore: MYRADA, 1990).Participants of Bulwer Workshop, Toward Partnership in

Development: A handbook for PRA practitioners, basedon a PRA Training Workshop (Bulwer, Natal: April19-26 1993).

Pelto, Pertti J., and Gretel H. Pelto, Anthropological- Research: The Structure of I nquir y, Second edition(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978).PID and NES, An I nrr oduction to Participatory Rural

Appraisal for Rural Resources Management, Programfor International Development, Clark University,Worcester, Mass and National Environment Secretariat,Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources(Nairobi: PID and NES, November 1991).

Potten, D., Rapid rural appraisal - Emergence of amethodology and its application to irrigation: A biblio-graphical review, Paper for the Review and Develop-


16/17


ment Seminar on Selected Issues in Irrigation Manage-ment (Colombo, Sri Lanka: International IrrigationManagement Institute, 1985).

PRA Team, The Ky eamba Vall ey: I ssues of Concern toLandhol ders and Their Famil ies, Identi ft ed i n aParticipatory Rural Appraisal by M embers of theKy eamba Vall ey Communit y, September 1991, compiledby a PRA Team with the following connections: Land-CtWZ Department of Conservation and LandManagement, New South Wales Agriculture, School ofAgriculture, CSU-R, Centre for Conservation Farming,CSU-R, School of Crop Sciences, The University ofSydney and Wagga Wagga City Council (1991).

Pretty, Jules N., Rapid Catchment Anal ysis for ExtensionAgents: N otes on the 1990 Kericho Trai ning Work shopfor t he M ini stry of Agricult ure, Kenya, SustainableAgriculture Programme (London: BED, November 1990).

Pretty, Jules N., and John Thompson, Soil and Wat er Conser-vati on Branch, M ini stry of Agricult ure, Kenya: TripReport , 17Apri l- 5 M ay 1993 (London: BED, May 1993).

Pretty, Jules, S. Subramanian, D. Ananthakrishnan, C.Jayanthi, S. Muralikrishnasamy and K. Renganayaki,Finding the poorest in a Tamil Nadu Village: Asequence of mapping and wealth ranking, RRA Notes,No. 15 (1992), pp. 39-42.

Rahman, Md Anisur (Ed.), Grassroots Participation andSelf -reli ance (New Delhi: Oxford and IBH, 1984).

Ramachandran, Vidya, A Workshop on ParticipatoryLearning M ethod s, 8th to- 2th January 1990, M 4DATalavadi Project. PRAIPALM Series No. 1 (Banealore:MYRADA, i990).

Rhoades, Robert, The coming revolution in methods forrural development research, in N. S. Scrimshaw and G.R. Gleason (Eds.), Rapi d Assessment Procedures(Boston: INDFC, 1992) pp. 61-78.

Rhoades, Robert, The Art of the Informal AgriculturalSurvey (Lima: International Potato Center, 1982).Richards, P., Indigenous Agricultural Revolution (Boulder,CO: Westview Press, 1985).

Rietbergen-McCracken, Jennifer, Diagnostico RuralRauido: CJn M anual (Washington DC: 1991).

Robinson, Eva, Womens PRAm Hindupur, RRA Notes,No. 17 (1993), pp. 46-48.

RRA Nores (London: Sustainable Agriculture Programme,International Institute for Environment and Develop-ment, 1988-).Sandford, Dick, A note on the use of aerial photographs forland use planning on a settlement site in Ethiopia, RRANotes, No. 6 (1989). pp. 18-19.Schonhuth, Michael, and Uwe Kievelitz, Part iz ipat iveErhebungs- und Pl anungsmethoden i n der Ent-n,ickl ungszusammenarbeit : Rapid Rural Apprai sal,Parti cipator y Apprai sal: Eine kommenti ert e Einfuhrung,Schriftenreihe der GTZ Nr 231 (Eschbom: 1993).

Scoones, Ian, and John Thompson, Chall enging the Populi stPerspecti ve: Rur al Peoples Know ledge, Agri cult uralResearch and Extension Pra cti ce, IDS Discussion Paper332 (Brighton: Institute of Development Studies,December 1993).

Scrimshaw, Nevin S., and Gary R. Gleason (Eds), RAPRapi d Assessment Procedures: Qual i tat iveM ethodologies for Planning and Evaluation of Healt hRelated Programmes (Boston, MA: InternationalNutrition Foundation for Developing Countries, 1992).

Scrimshaw, S., and E. Hurtado, Rapid AssessmentProcedures for Nutri ti on and Primary Health Care:Ant hropologi cal Appr oaches.for Impr ovi ng ProgrammeEflectiveness (Tokyo: United Nations University; LosAngeles: UNICEF/UN Childrens Fund; and UCLALa& American Center, 1987).

Shah, Parmesh, Participatory watershed management pro-grammes in India: Reversing our roles and revising ourtheories, in Rural Peoples Know ledge, Agricul tur alResearch and Extension Pra cti ce, I I ED Research Seri es,Vol. 1, No. 3 (1993). pp. 38-67.

Shah, Parmesh, Girish Bharadwaj and Ranjit Ambastha,Participatory rural appraisal and planning (PRAP): Theexperience of the Aga Khan Rural Support Programme,RR4 Notes, No. 13 T1991a). pp. 69-83:Shah. Parmesh. Girish Bharadwai and Raniit Ambastha,Farmers as analysts and facilitators in participatory rural;;pr9tisal and planning, RRA Not es, No. 13 (1991b), pp.

Shaner, W. W., P. F. Philipp and W. R. Schmehl, FarmingSystems Research and Development: Gui deli nes forDeveloping Countries (Boulder, CO: Westview Press,1982).Sheelu, F., and S. Devaraj, Participatory Rural Appraisal:An Init iati on i n Tamil Nadu: Experience Sharing (TamilNadu, India: The Activists for Social Alternatives(ASA), June 1992).Slim, Hugo, and P. Thompson, Li stening for a Change: Or alTestimony and Development (London: PanosPublications, 1993).Slim, Hugo, and John Mitchell, The application of RAP andRRA techniques in emergency relief programmes, inScrimshaw and Gleason (Eds.), RAP Rapid AssessmentProcedures (Boston: INDFC, 1992), pp. 251-256.

Sonaiya, E. B., An integrative approach to the definition ofproblems and opportunities for smallholder rural poultryfarmers in Nigeria, P. W. Daniels et al. (Eds.), LivestockServices for Smallholders (Bogor, Indonesia: IndonesiaInternational Animal Science Research andDevelopment Foundation, 1993). pp. 130-132.

SPR in Asia, Participatory Research: An Introduction (NewDelhi: Society for Participatory Research in Asia, 1982).SPWD, Joint Forest M anagement Field M ethods Manual

Vol. I Di agnosti c Took for Supporti ng Joint ForestM anagement Systems, and Vol. 2 Communit y ForestEconomy and Use Patt erns: Parti cipator y RuralAppraisal (PRA) M ethods i n South Gujarat, India (NewDelhi: Society for the Promotion of WastelandsDevelopment, 1992).Swift, Jeremy, and Abdi Noor Umar, Participatory PastoralDevelopment in Isiolo D istri ct: Socio-economicResearch in the Isi olo Li vestock Development Proj ect(Isiolo, Kenya: Isiolo Livestock Development Project,EM1 ASAL Programme, 199 1).van Steijn, T., Rapid rural appraisal in the Philippines:Report of a study on the application of RRA byPhilippines NGOs, GOs and University Institutes, Draft(Quezon City: Council for Peoples Development, July1991).Theis, J., and H. Grady, Participatory Rapid Appraisal forCommunit y Developm ent: A Trai ning Manual Based onExperi ences in the M id dle East and Nort h Afri ca(London: Save the Children and BED, 1991).Tolley, Elizabeth, and Margaret E. Bentley, Participatory


17/17


methods for research on womens reproductive health,RRA Not es, No. 16 (1992) pp. 63-68.Townsley, Philip, Rapid ppraisalfor Coastal Communit ies(Madras: BOBP-FAO, 1993).The Women of Sangams, Pastapur and Michel Pimbert,Farmer Participation in On-farm Varietal Trials:Multilocational testing under resource-poor conditions,RRA Not es, No. 10 (February 1991), pp. 3-8.

Welboum, A., A note on the use of disease problem rankingwith relation to socio-economic well-being: an examplefrom Sierra Leone, RRA Notes, No. 16 (1992). pp.86-87.

Welboum, A., RRA and the analysis of difference, RRANot es, No. 14 (December 1991), pp. 14-23.

Whyte, A. V. T., Gui del in es for Field Studi es inEnvironmental Percepti on (Paris: UNESCO, 1977).

Whyte, William Foote (Ed.), Parti cipatory Acti on Research(Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1991).Young, John, Alternative approaches to the identification of

smallholder problems and opportunities, in P. W.Daniels et al . (Eds.), Li bestock Serv icesfor Smal lho lders(Bogor, Indonesia: Indonesian International AnimalScience Research and Development Foundation, 1993).

Chambers Pra

Documents

Transcript of Chambers Pra