10participatory Rural Appraisal

M UK <Sefli, y
r-
Y ^ h / s ^ Í,ÍS<- /
PARTICIPATORY RURAL APPRAISAL

METHODS AND APPUCATIONS1N RURAL PLAHNING
V I K A S P U B L I S H I N C H O U 5 E P V T LTD
576, Masjid Road, Jangpura, New Delh¡-110 014
© D R . AMITAVA MUKHERJEE for this collection. Copyright f o r individual contribu-

tion o w n e d by the respective authors/institutions.
First Published, 1995
ISBN 0-7069-8466-8
All rights reserved.
Printed at Vishal Printers, Delhi-110 032

Table of Contents
The Problematic
1. Rural A p p r a i s a l : Rapid, Relaxed and Participatory
( R O B E R T C H A M B E R S , Professor, Institule of Development Studies,
University ofSussex, U.K.)
Introduction
Some Sources of PRA
From RRA to PRA
Definition of PRA
The Principies of PRA
The Menú of Methods of RRA and PRA 12
Six'Discoveries'ofPRA 14
Utility: Practical Applications 21
Validity and Reliability 24
Reversáis and Reality 29
Explaining Our Past Ignorance 35
Dangers 36
Frontiers, Challengers and Potentials 38
The Paradigmatic S ignificance of PRA 48
Abbreviations and Addresses 50
Appendix-A Sources of Information 59
Appendix-B PRA: Start, Stumble, Self-Correct and Share 62
2. Micro-Level Planning for Rural D e v e l o p m e n t and Participatory
Rural Appraisal Techniques: Similarities & Potential. 64
( A M I T A V A M U K H E R J E E , Professor & Faculty Co-ordinator,
Centre for Micro-Planning and Regional Studies, Lal Bahadur Shastri
National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie)
Introduction 64
Micro-Level Planning in the Present Decade 65
Relevance of PRA Tools to Local Planning 65
Comparison and Training Implications 74
Chapter 1
Rural Appraisal: Rapid, Relaxed and

Participatory
Robert Chambers
Introduction
he past decade has witnessed more shifts in the rhetoric of rural development
than in its practice. These shifts include the now familiar reversáis from top-
down to bottom-up, from centralised standardization to local diversity, and
from blueprint to learning process. Linked with these, there have also been small
beginnings of changes in modes of learning. The move here is away from extractive
survey questionnaires and towards participatory appraisal and analysis in which more
and more the activities previously appropriated by outsiders are instead carried out by
local rural or urban people themselves.
In these changes, a part has been played by two closely related families of
approaches and of methods, often referred to as Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) which
spread in the 1980s, and its further evolution into Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)
which has come about fast and begun to spread in the 1990s. The purposes of this
paper are to outline the origins, principies, approaches, methods and applications of
both RRA and PRA; and for PRA, to explore and assess its strengths, weaknesses,
potentials and paradigmatic significance.
1. Some Sources of PRA

The approaches and methods described as PRA are evolving so fast that to
propose one secure and final definition would be unhelpful. As PRA further evolves,
there will be changes in what it can usefully mean. It has been called 'an approach and
method for learning about rural life and conditions from, with and by rural people'.
The prepositions have sometimes been reversed in order to read 'by, wiih and from'.
PRA is, though, more than just learning. It extends into analysis, planning and action.
PRA as a term is also used to describe a variety of approaches. To cover these, a recent
description is that PRA is: 'a family of approaches and methods to enable rural people
2' Participatory Rural Appraisal: Methods and Applications in Rural Planning
to share, enhance and analyse their knowledge of life and conditions, to plan and to
act'.
PRA as it exists in the early 1990s has evolved from, draws on, and resonates
with, several sources and traditions. Some of its methods do appear to be new; but
some have been rediscoveries (see for example some described in Whyte 1977; Pelto
and Pelto 1978; and Rhoades 1990). In understanding what has happened, it makes no
sense to try to separate out causes, effects, innovations, influences and diffusion as
though they follow straight lines. In a world of continuously quicker and closer
communication, transfers and sharing have become more and more rapid and
untraceable. So these sources and traditions have, like flows in a braided stream,
intermingled more and more over the past decade, and each also continúes in several
forms; but directly or indirectly all have contributed to a confluence in PRA; and as
with other confluences, the flow has speeded up, and innovation and change have
accelerated to cover new ground.
Five streams which stand out as sources and parallels to PRA are, in alphabetical
order:
1. activist participatory research,
2. agroeco system analysis,
3. applied anthropology,
4. field research on farming systems, and
5. rapid rural appraisal.
1.1 Activist Participatory Research

The term 'activist participatory research' is used to refer to a family of approaches
and methods which use dialogue and participatory research to enhance people's
awareness and confidence, and to empower their action. Activist participatory research
in this sense owes much to the work and inspiration of Paulo Freire, to his book
Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1968), and to the practice and experience of
consciencization in Latin America. The Freirian theme, that poor and exploited people
can and should be enabled to conduct their own analysis of their own reality has been
widely influential, even though it has remained a minority view among development
professionals as a whole. Two related schools have been known as participatory
research, and participatory action research (PAR)
Participatory research has been associated with the adult education movement
since at least 1975 (Convergence 1975; 1981; 1988:3). Regional networks were set up.
An African regional Workshop on Participatory Research was held in Tanzania in
1979 (Kassam and Mustafa 1982). In India, the Society for Participatory Research in
Asia (SPR in Asia 1982) has sought to spread the philosophy and practice of
participatory research. Participatory research has been conducted in widely differing
conditions (Rahman 1984). For example, in Bangladesh, as recorded in The Net
(BRAC 1983), poor and pcwerless people took part in investigation and analysis of the
power structure in ten villages, and of how benefits directed towards them by the
Rural Appraisal: Rapid, Relaxed and Participatory 3
G jvernment were intercepted by the local elite. In the United States, the Highlander
Centre in rural Appalachia has worked to enable underprivileged communities to gain
confidence in their own knowledge and abilities, and to take political action (Gaventa
and Lewis 1991).
For its part, participatory action research (PAR) has been parallel and overlapping
with participatory research, and has had strong associations with industry and
agriculture (Whyte 1991).
Activist participatory research has taken different forms and has been practised by
people with a range of ideological positions, from radical crypto-paternalism to open-
ended facilitation. Its special focus on the underprivileged and on political action has
threatened established interests, whether political or professional, and limited its
spread. In practice, much PRA has similarly been concerned with poverty and equity.
The contributions of the activist participatory research stream to PRA have been
more through concepts than methods. Key commonly shared ideas and imperatives
that stand out are:
(a) poor people are creative and capable, and can and should do much of their
own investigation, analysis and planning.
(b) outsiders have a role as convenors, catalysts and facilitators, and
(c) the weak should be empowered.
1.2 Agroecosystem Analysis

Agroecosystem analysis (Conway 1985, 1986, 1987) was developed in Thailand
from 1978 onwards, initially at the University of Chiang Mai, by Gordon Conway and
his colleagues (Gypmantasiri et. al. 1980). It spread first through Southeast Asia and
then elsewhere. Drawing on systems and ecological thinking, it has combined analysis
of systems and system properties (productivity, stability, sustainability, and
equitability) with pattern analysis of space (maps and transects), time (seasonal
calendars and long-term trends), flows and relationships (flow, causal, Venn and other
diagrams), relative valúes (bar diagrams of relative sources of income etc.), and
decisions (decisión trees and other decisión diagrams). The approach was further
developed by Conway and others with the Aga Khan Rural Support Programme
(Pakistan) for cost-effective application in villages in Northern Pakistan, where it took
a form which led quickly to identification and assessment of practical hypotheses for
action.
Agroecosystem analysis was so powerful and practical that it quickly overlapped
with and contributed much to RRA. In some cases, either or both labels could be used
to describe what was done. Some of the major contributions of agroecosystem analysis
to current RRA and PRA have been:
1. transects (systematic walks and observation)
2. informal mapping (sketch maps and drawn on site)
3. diagramming (seasonal calendars, flow and causal diagrams, bar charts, Venn
or 'chapad' diagrams), and
4. innovation assessment (scoring and ranking different actions).
1.3 Applied Anthropology

Social anthropology in its classical forms has been concerned more with
understanding than with changing, but especially in the 1980s, applied anthropology,
and development anthropology, became more recognized as legitímate and useful
activities. In the USA, the Institute for Development Anthropology established a
network and a regular Bulletin. A very small number of social anthropologists found
their way into the International Agricultural Research Centres, where they had an
influence disproportionate to their tiny numbers, and the social anthropologists in aid
agencies rose in numbers and status, though they were still few. Social anthropologists
helped development professionals generally better to appreciate the richness of the
validity of rural people's knowledge (e.g. IDS 1979; Brokensha, Warren and Werner
1980), and to distinguish the etic- the outsider's mental frame, categories and world
view, and the emic - those of the insider. And The Art of the Informal Agricultural
Survey (1982), by Robert Rhoades, a social anthropologist at the International Potato
Centre in Perú, was widely read and influential—far beyond the informal form of its
publication.
In one methodological stream, the approaches of social anthropology were
adopted in health and nutrition in rapid assessment procedures (RAP) (Scrimshaw and
Hurtado 1987) and in rapid ethnographic assessment (REA) (Bentley et al. 1988),
which variously used conversation, observation, informal interviews, and focus
groups.
PRA represents an extensión and application of social anthropological insights,
approaches and methods, cross-fertilized with others. Some of the many insights and
contributions coming from and shared with social anthropology have been:
the idea of field learning as flexible art rather than rigid science,
the valué of field residence, unhurried participant-observation, and conversations,
the importance of attitudes, behaviour and rapport,
the emic-etic distinction, and
the validity of indigenous technical knowledge.
1.4 Field Research on Farming Systems

Field research on farming systems, whether by social anthropologists,
geographers, agricultural economists or biological scientists, has revealed the
complexity, diversity and rationality of much apparently untidy and unsystematic
farming practice. D.G.R. Belshaw at Makerere in the 1960s, David Norman and his
colleagues at Ahmadu Bello University in Northern Nigeria in the 1970s, and Richard
Harwood in Thailand (Harwood 1979) were among those who showed the good sense
of practices like mixed cropping (e.g. Norman 1975). Farming systems research (FSR)
(Gilbert et. al. 1980; Shaner et. al. 1982; FSSP 1987) systematized methods for
investigating, understanding, and prescribing for farming system complexity, but
sometimes got bogged down in ponderous surveys and data overload.
A parallel stream of research drew attention to farmer's capabilities. Stephen
Biggs in describing 'informal R&D' (1980), Paul Richards in his classic Indigenous
Agricultural Revolution (1985), and Roland Bunch in Two Ears of Corn (1985) were
among those who showed and recognized that farmers were cxpcrimenters. Farmers'
participation in agricultural research became a focus (e.g. Farrington 1988; Farrington
and Martin 1988; Chambers, Pacey and Thrupp 1989; Ashby 1990). Clive Lightfoot
and his colleagues pioneered analytical and flow diagramming by farmers (e.g.
Lightfoot et al. 1991). In the latter 1980s and early 1990s it has been increasingly
recognized that farmers should and could play a much greater part in agricultural
research.
So field research on farming systems contributed especially to the appreciation
and understanding of:
the complexity, diversity and risk-proneness of many farming systems,
the knowledge, professionalism and rationality of small and poor farmers,
their experimental mindset and behaviour, and
their ability to conduct their own analyses.
1.5 Rapid Rural Appraisal

The philosophy, approaches and methods known as rapid rural appraisal (RRA)
began to emerge in the late 1970s. Workshops held at the IDS on rural development
tourism (1977), indigenous technical knowledge (1978), and RRA itself (1978, 1979)
were only some among the parallel moves in different parts of the world in search of
better ways for outsiders to learn about rural Ufe and conditions. RRA can be seen to
have had three main origins.
The first was dissatisfaction with the biases, especially the anti-poverty biases, of
rural development tourism - the phenomenon of the brief rural visit by the urban-based
professional. These biases were recognized as spatial (visits near cities, on roadsides,
and to the centres of villages to the neglect of peripheries); project (where projeets
weri being undertaken, often with special official attention and support); person
(meeting men more than women, elites more than the poor, the users more than the
non-users of services, and so on); seasonal (going in the dry and cool rather than hot
and wet seasons which are often worse for poor rural people); and diplomatic (where
the outsider does not wish to cause offence by asking to meet poor people or see bad
conditions). All these could combine to hide the worst poverty and deprivation.
The second origin of RRA was disillusionment with the normal processes of
questionnaire surveys and theirs results. Again and again, over many years and in
many places (see e.g. Moris 1970), the experience had been that questionnaire surveys
tended to be long-drawn-out, tedious, a headache to administer, a nightmare to process
and write up, inaccurate and unreliable in data obtained, leading to reports, if any,
which were long, late, boring, misleading, difficult to use, and anyway ignored.
The third origin was more positive. More cost-effective methods of learning were
sought. This was helped by the growing recognition of development professionals to
the painfully obvious fact that rural people were themselves knowledgeable on many
subjects which touched their lives. What became known as indigenous technical
knowledge (ITK) (IDS 1979; Brokensha, Warren and Werner 1980) was then
increasingly seen to have richness and valué for practical purposes. One major
question, as it seemed then, was how to tap ITK more effectively, as a source of
information for analysis and use by outsider professionals.
Towards the end of the 1970s, though most of those professionals who were
inventing and using methods which were quicker and more cost-effective than
'respectable' questionnaire surveys, were reluctant to write about what they did,
fearing for their professional credibility. They felt compelled to conform to standard
statistical norms, however costly and crude their applications, and obliged in their
reports and publications to use conventional methods, categories and masseurs. In a
classic statement, Michael Collinson (1980) described how he would take only a week
to conduct an exploratory survey to identify agricultural research priorities, but would
then feel obliged to follow this with a formal verification survey which represented the
major commitment of professional time and funds. This more costly exercise had
always confirmed the exploratory survey but the numbers which this formal survey
provides are the only hard evidence produced by the diagnostic process. This is
extremely important in convincing 'the Establishment' (ibid.:444). To convince, the
researcher had to be conservative; but the process was costly and decisions and action
were delayed.
In the 1980s, in some places, the situation was transformed. The family of
approaches and methods known as Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) gained increasing
acceptance. It began to be seen that it had its own principies and rigour (Chambers
1980; Belshaw 1981; Carruthers and Chambers 1981). In the early 1980s, RRA was
argued to be cost-effective, especially for gaining timely information, but still with
some sense that it might only be a second-best. But by the mid-1980s, the RRA
approaches and methods, when properly conducted, were more and more eliciting a
range and quality of information and insights inaccessible through more traditional
methods. Except when rushed and unself-critical, RRA carne out better by criteria of
cost-effectiveness, validity and reliability as compared to more conventional methods
(see Section 8). In many contexts and for many purposes, RRA, when well done,
showed itself to be not a second-best but the best.
In establishing the methods and principies of RRA many people and institutions
took part. No account can do justice to them, and with imperfect knowledge there is no
way of avoiding significant omissions. An earlier attempt to list countries where RRA
had been developed identified 12 in Africa, eight in South and Southeast Asia, three in
Latin America, three in Australasia and the Pacific, and one in Europe. Perhaps more
than any other movement, agroecosystem analysis in Southeast Asia introduced new
methods and established new credibility. In the mid 1980s, the University of Khon
Kaen in Thailand was a world leader in developing the theory and methods, especially
for multidisciplinary teams, and in institutionalizing RRA as a part of professional
training. The International Conference on Rapid Rural Appraisal held at the University
of Khon Kaen in 1985, and the published volume of papers which resulted on KKU
1987, were landmarks. The practical valué of RRA was confirmed, and its underlying
theory outlined (Beebe 1987; Gibbs 1987; Grandstaff and Grandstaff 1987a; Jamieson
1987). Then in the latter 1980s, RRA was further developed and disseminated through
extensive training by the International Institute for Environment and Development
(IIED) based in London, working with colleagues mainly in Africa and Asia, and
through its publications, especially the informal publication RRA Notes (1988-).
In specialised fields, too, there were parallel and overlapping developments. In
health and nutrition, for example, Rapid Assessment Procedures (RAP) (Scrimshaw
and Hurtado 1987) were practised in at least 20 countries. In agriculture, some
practitioners of farming systems research and extensión innovated with higher, quicker
methods in an RRA style. In irrigation, a small body of literature built up on RRA (e.g.
Potten 1985; Groenfeldt 1989), and 'hard' joumals published papers on RRA.
RRA began and continúes as a better way for outsiders to learn. In answering the
question-whose knowledge counts? - it sought, and continúes to seek, to enable
outsiders to gain information and insight from rural people and about rural conditions,
and to do this in a more cost-effective and timely manner. It was, and remains, less
exploitative than extractive questionnaire surveys where much is taken by the outsider,
and little or nothing is given back. All the same, like most past farming systems
research, its normal mode entails outsiders obtaining information, taking it away, and
analysing it. This is valid and useful activity which has and will continué to have its
place. Depending on one's point of view and the context, the normal practice of non-
participatory RRA can be described as extractive, or, more neutrally, elicitive.
2. F r o m RRA to PRA
In the mid 1980s, the words 'participation' and 'participatory' entered the RRA
vocabulary. They already had a long history in rural development. We cite two
examples. For some years in the 1970s and early 1980s, under the leadership of
Norman Uphoff and others, Cornell University published the Rural Development
Participation Review until USAID terminated its support, and participation was a
recurrent theme in the contributions to Michael Cernea's book, edited for the World
Bank, Putting People First (1985) which drew on experience from earlier years. It was
at the 1985 Khon Kaen International Conference that participation began, albeit
modestly, to be used in connection with RRA. Discussions at the Conference generated
a typology of seven types of RRA (KKU 1987: 17) of which 'participatory RRA' was
one. For this, the dominant purpose was seen as stimulating community awareness,
with the outsider's 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, and monitoring RRAs (McCracken et al. 1988).
In 1988, there were parallel developments in Kenya and India. In Kenya, the
National Environment Secretariat, in association with Clark University, conducted an
RRA in Mbusanyi, a community in Machakos District which led to the adoption in
September of a Village Resource Management Plan (Kabutha and Ford 1988). This
was subsequently described as a Participatory Rural Appraisal, and the method
outlined in two Handbooks (PID and NES 1989; NES 1980). Around the same time in
1988, the Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (India) was interested in developing
participatory RRA, and invited IIED to help. Jennifer McCracken carried out a four
week consultancy with AKRSP in Gujarat in September and October 1988 during
which participatory rapid rural appraisals were conducted by and with villagers and
AKRSP staff in two villages (McCracken 1988). In different ways, both the Kenya and
Indian experiences were seminal for understanding and for the development of PRA.
Subsequently, there was an explosion of innovation in India (for which see RRA
Notes 13) especially but not only in the NGO sector. MYRADA, based in Bangalore,
trained its sénior staff in PRA in early 1990 (Ramachandran 1990), and carne to play a
major role in training for other NGOs and for Government. AKRSP continued to
innóvate and broke new ground in showing how well village volunteers could
themselves be facilitators of PRA. ActionAid, Bangalore undertook a networking role.
Any listing of the NGOs that pioneered at an early stage would include (in alphabetical
order) ActionAid, Bangalore; Activists of Social Alternatives, Trichy; the Aga Khan
Rural Support Programme (India); Krishi Gram Vikas Kendra, Ranchi; MYRADA,
Bangalore; Seva Bharti, Midnapore District; SPEECH, Madurai; and Youth for Action,
Hyderabad. Government organizations that received and promoted training included
the Drylands Development Board, Karnataka, the District Rural Development
Agencies, Andhra Pradesh, and several Forestry Departments. PRA methods were
adopted by the National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie for the fieldwork of
its 300-odd Indian Administrative Service probationers each year, and by the Xavier
Institute of Social Services, Ranchi, which introduced PRA for the fieldwork of its
students.
At the same time, cross-fertilization and spread took place internationally. The
small group of the Sustainable Agriculture Programme at IIED, with support from the
Ford Foundation and SIDA, was decisively influential through its activities in Africa
and Asia, and spread PRA and its methods through 30 substantial field-based training
workshops in 15 countries and through publications and papers, especially RRA Notes:
Manuals were written (e.g. McCracken et al. 1988; Gueye and Freudenberger 1990,
1991; Theis and Brady 1991). Among international NGOs, Intercooperation (Berne)
and ActionAid (London) were prominent in seeking to promote PRA. Spread from
India took place to Nepal from the initiative of Winrock International and to Sri Lanka
on the initiative of Intercooperation. In early 1992, Action Aid, AKRSP and
MYRADA were hosts in India to an International Roving PRA Workshop with
14 people from 11 countries in the South, and PRA or PRA-type activities were con-
tinuing to evolve independently in many countries.
A sumnary comparison of what are normally described as RRA and PRA is given
in Table 1.
Table 1: RRA and PRA Compared
RRA PRA
Period of major development late 1970s, 1980s late 1980s,1990
Major innovators based in Universities NGOs
Main users Aid agencies, NGOs,

Universities Govt. field
organizations
Key resource earlier Local people's Local people's

overlooked knowledge capabilities
Main innovation Methods Behaviour
Predominant mode Elicitive, Facilitating,

extractive participatory
Ideal objectives Learning by Empowerment of

outsiders local people
Longer-term outcomes Plans, projects, Sustainable

publications local action
and institution
Now, in mid-1992, since activities described as PRA are spreading rapidly, taking
activities described as PRA, stock of the principies of PRA, its methods, applications,
strengths, weaknesses, potentials, and paradigmatic significance is overdue.
3. Defínition of PRA
It has been questioned whether it is useful to define PRA as separate from RRA.
One view is that labels do not matter. There is a plethora of labels for approaches
and methods of learning about rural life and conditions. Many of the sets of practices
overlap. There is continuous innovation, sharing and exchange. In this view, the only
importance of a label is the sense of pride of ownership and originality which it gives,
so strengthening commitment, enthusiasm and good work among its practitioners.
Otherwise, there would be no point in defining an exclusive territo'ry of activities for
PRA or any other set of approaches or methods.
The opposite view is that good PRA often implies radical personal and
institutional change, and that the term should not be debased by being used for
anything less than this. In this view, the claim that 'PRA is a simple methodology...'
(PID and NES 1989: 1) is misleading, since personal and institutional changes are so
rarely simple or easy. Moreover, if PRA becomes fashionable, many will label and
relabel their work PRA, though when in fact it is still extractive rather than
participatory, and when their behaviour and attitudes are unchanged.
A balanced view may be that since we are concerned here with static terms - RRA
and PRA - for combinations and fluxes of activities which are far from static, and
which take different forms in different places, labels can help to define what belongs
where. This may serve to encourage better performance. The legitimating label of
RRA has already been used quite widely to describe sloppy and bad work: see for
example, a critique of a quick but heavily biased 'RRA' survey in Zambia (Pottier
1991), and some of the observations in a wide-ranging review of RRA activities in the
Philippines (van Steijn 1991). The label of PRA could similarly be used to legitimate
bad work; it could also be misused to describe RRA-which is elicitive or extractive
rather than participatory. In this view, then, it would make sense to have sepárate
definitions, with RRA as a form of data collection by outsiders who then take it away
and analyse it; and PRA as more participatory, meaning that outsiders are convenors,
catalysts and facilitators to enable people to undertake and share their own
investigations and analysis. There is, then, a distinction between 'an RRA' and 'a
PRA'. An RRA is intended for learning by outsiders. A PRA is intended to enable
local people to conduct their own analysis, and often to plan and take action.
In practice there is a continuum between an RRA and a PRA. This can be
understood through a description of methods. Some methods, like direct observation,
and semi-structured interviewing, have been emphasized in RRA but can be a vital part
of good PRA. Other methods, like participatory mapping, where local people make
their own maps, and participatory diagramming, are emphasized in PRA but can also
be used in an RRA mode. The continuum is illustrated in Table 2.
Table 2: The RRA-PRA Continuum
Nature of process RRA PRA
Mode Extractive-elicitive Sharing-empowering
Outsiders' role Investigator Faciluator
Information owned, Outsiders Local People

analysed and used by
Methods used RRA PRA

Most of these principies have been induced rather than deduced: ihey have been
elicited by trying out practices, finding what works and what does not, and then asking
why. Different practitioners would list different principies underlying RRA and PRA
(see e.g. Grandstaff, Grandstaff and Lovelace 1987:9-13; McCracken, Pretty and
Conway 1988:12-13; Gueye and Freudenberger 1990:10-19) but most might agree to
include the following:
4. The Principies of PRA

For both RRA and PRA, good performance requires that practitioners and
facilitators follow basic principies. Some are fully shared, and some have been
additionally emphasized in PRA.
A. Principies Shared By RRA And PRA

A reversal of learning: to learn from rural people, directly, on the site, and face-
to-face, gaining from local physical, technical and social knowledge.
Learning rapidly and progressively: with conscious exploration, flexible Use of
methods, opportunism, improvisation, iteration, and crosschecking, not following
a blueprint programme but being adaptable in a learning process.
Offsetting biases: especially those of rural development tourism, by being relaxed
and not rushing, listening not lecturing, probing instead of passing on to the next
topic, being unimposing instead of important, and seeking out the poorer people
and women, and learning their concerns and priorities.
Optimizing trade-offs: relating the costs of learning to the useful truth of
information, with trade-offs between quantity, relevance, accuracy and timeliness.
This includes the principies of optimal ignorance - knowing what is not worth
knowing, and of appropriate imprecisión - not measuring more than needed. As
Keynes is reputed to have said: 'it is better to be approximately right than
precisely wrong'.
Triangulating: meaning using a range, (sometimes three), of methods, types of
information, investigators and/or disciplines to cross-check (Grandstaff,
Grandstaff and Lovelace 1987:9-10; Gueye and Freudenberger 1991: 14-16).
Seeking diversity: this has been expressed in terms of seeking variability rather
than averages (Beebe 1987:53-54), and has been described in Australia as the
principie of máximum diversity, or 'maximizing the diversity and richness of
information' (Dunn and McMillan 1991: 5,8). This can involve sampling in a non-
statistical sense. It goes beyond the crosschecking of triangulation; for defined
broadly it deliberately looks for, notices and investigates contradictions,
anomalies, and differentness.
B. Additional Principies Stressed in PRA

To these shared principies, PRA adds others:
Facilitating - they do it: facilitating investigation, analysis, presentation and
learning by rural people themselves, so that they present and own the outcomes,
and also learn. This has been expressed as 'handing over the stick' (or pen or
chalk). This often entails an cutsider starting a process and then sitting back or
walking away, and not interviewing or interrupting.
Self-critical awareness and responsibility: meaning that facilitators are
continuously examining their behaviour, and trying to do better. This includes
embracing error - welcoming error as an opportunity to learn to do better; and
using one's own best judgement at all times, meaning accepting personal
responsibility rather than vesting it in a manual or a rigid set of rules.
Sharing of information and ideas between rural people, between them and
facilitators, and between different facilitators, and sharing field camps, training
and experiences between different organizations.
All these principies are behavioural, since they are applied in practice by people
doing things. But those shared by RRA and PRA are more epistemological, while
those of PRA are more personal. And this difference indicates the new emphasis
placed in PRA on the behaviour and attitudes of outsiders in their interactions with
rural people, an emphasis which could usefully be part of future RRA as well as PRA.
5. The Menú of Methods of RRA and PRA

In its early days, RRA seemed to be largely organized commonsense. During the
1980s though, creative ingenuity was applied and more methods borrowed, adapted
and invented, many with a more participatory mode. A summary listing of headings
can give some indication of the types of methods being used in mid-1992 without
being exhaustive. All the methods can be used in both RRA and PRAs, but some are
more emphasized in one than the other.
Secondary sources: such as files, reports, maps, aerial photographs, articles and
books.
Do-it-yourself: asking to be taught to perform village tasks - transplanting,
weeding, ploughing, field-levelling, drawing water, collecting wood, washing
clothes, thatching, etc.
Key informants: enquiring who are the experts and seeking them out.
Semi-structured interviews: This has been regarded by some as the 'core' of good
RRA (Grandstaff and Grandstaff 1987b). It can entail having a mental or written
checklist, but being open-ended and following up on the unexpected. Increasingly,
it is using participatory visual as well as traditional verbal methods.
Groups: of various kinds (casual; specialist/focus; deliberately structured;
community/neighbourhood). Group interviews and activities are part of many of
the methods.
Sequences or chains of interviews: from group to group; or from group to key
informant; or a sequence of key informants, each expert on a different stage of a
process (e.g. men on ploughing, women on transplanting and weeding....) etc.
They do it: villagers and village residents as investigators and researchers: women,
poor people, school teachers, volunteers, students, farmers, village specialists.
They do transects, observe, interview other villagers, analyse data, and present the
results.
Participatory mapping and modelling: in which people use the ground, floor or
paper to make social, demographic, health, natural resource (soils, trees and
forests, water resources etc.) or farm maps, or construct three-dimensional models
of their land.
Participatory analysis of aerial photographs: (often best at 1:5000) to identify soil
type, land conditions, land tenure etc.
Transect walks: systematically walking with informants through an area,
observing, asking, listening, discussing, identifying different zones, local
technologies, introduced technologies, seeking problems, solutions and
opportunities, and mapping and diagramming resources and findings.
Time Unes: chronologies of events, listing major remembered events in a village
with approximate dates.
Trend analysis: people's accounts of the past, of how things cióse to them have
changed, ecological histories, changes in land use and cropping patterns, changes
in customs and practices, changes and trends in population, migration, fuels used,
education, health, credit... and the causes of changes and trends.
Ethno biographies: local histories of a crop, an animal, a tree, a pest, a weed.
Seasonal diagramming: by major season or by month, to show days and distribu-
tion of rain, amount of rain or soil moisture, crops, agricultural labour, non-
agricultural labour, diet, food consumption, types of sickness, prices, animal
fodder, fuel, migration, income, expenditure, debt etc.
Livelihood analysis: stability, crises and coping, relative income, expenditure,
credit and debt, múltiple activities, etc.
Participatory diagramming: of flows, causality, quantities, trends, rankings,
scorings - in which people make their own diagrams - systems diagrams, bar
diagrams, pie charts etc. 'Chapati' or Venn diagramming is one form, a method
for identifying individuáis and institutions important in and for a community, and
their relationships.
Well-being or wealth ranking: identifying clusters of households according to
welbeing or wealth, including those considered poorest or worst off (RRA Notes
15).
Analysis of difference: especially by gender, social group, wealth/poverty,
occupation and age. Identifying differences between groups, including their
problems and preferences. This includes contrast comparisons - asking one group
why another is different or does something different, and vice versa.
Scoring and ranking: especially using matrices and seeds to compare through
scoring, for example different trees, or soils, or methods of soil and water
conservation, or varieties of a crop.
Estimates and quantification: often using local measures, judgements and
materials such as seeds, pellets, fruits or stones as counters, sometimes combined

with participatory maps and models.
Key local indicators: such as poor people's criteria of welbeing
Key probes: questions which can lead direct to key issues such as - 'What do you
talk about when you are together?' 'What new practices have you or others in this
village experimented with in recent years?' 'What vegetable, tree, crop variety,
type of animal, tool, equipment....would you like to try out?' 'What do you do
when someone's hut or house burns down?'
Stories, portraits and case studies: such as a household history and profile, coping
with a crisis, how a conflict was or was not resolved...
Team contracts and interactions: contracts drawn up by teams with agreed norms
of behaviour; modes of interaction within teams, including changing pairs,
evening discussions, mutual criticism and help, etc. (The team may be just
outsiders, or a joint team with villagers).
Presentations and analysis: where maps, models, diagrams, and findings are
presented by villagers, or by outsiders, and checked, corrected and discussed.
Participatory planning, budgetting and monitoring: in which villagers prepare
their own plans, budgets and schedules, and monitor progress.
Brainstorming: by villagers alone, by villagers and outsiders together, or by
outsiders alone.
Short, simple questionnaires: (if at all) late in the process, designed to fill dummy
tables which are by then known to be needed.
Report writing: at once, either in the field before returning to office or
headquarters, or by one or more people who are designated in advance to do this
immediately on completion of the RRA or PRA.
6. Six 'discoveries' of PRA

PRA has broken new ground, but every historian knows that there is nothing new
under the sun, and what appear to be 'discoveries' are often only rediscoveries.
Perhaps it is safest to express this personally, and to say that for me there have been
discoveries, although some of them may be oíd hat for others. To understand more of
the background, let us look further at the contrast between traditional extractive
research and RRA on the one hand, and PRA on the other.
A major difference between research and RRA which are extractive, and PRA
which is participatory, is in behaviour, attitudes and roles. In extractive research and
RRA the outsiders - 'we' - are dominant. We determine the agenda, obtain and take
possession of information, remove it, organise and analyse it, and plan and write
papers and reports. We appropriate and come to own the information. We are
collectors, processors and producers of outputs. In PRA, this is largely reversed. ' W e '
encourage and allow 'them' to be dominant, to determine much of the agenda, to
gather, express and analyse information, and to plan. We are facilitators, learners and
consultants. Our activities are to establish rapport, to convene and catalyse, to enquire,
to help in the use of methods, and to encourage people to choose and improvize
methods for themselves. We watch, listen and learn. Metaphorically, and sometimes
actually, we 'hand over the stick' of authority.
'They' then do many of the things we formerly did (and believed, óften enough,
that only we could do). They make maps and models; they walk transects and observe;
they investígate and interview; they diagram and analyse; they present information;
they plan. In consequence, they are more in command of investigation, they own and
retain more of the information, and they are strongly placed to identify their priorities
for action, and then to determine and control that action.
The participatory orientation of PRA has given new Ímpetus to the development of
methods. One of the delights of PRA has been the lack of a blueprint. Participation
generates diversity; villagers play a part in interpreting, applying, and sometimes
inventing the methods themselves. Villagers and outsiders alike are encouraged to
improvize in a spirit of play. What is done is different each time, the outcome of a
creative interaction. In consequence, the three years to mid-1992 have witnessed many
inventions, especially but not only in India and Nepal. Reviewing the participatory
innovation of the past three years, six salient 'discoveries' stand out:
6.1 Villagers' Knowledge and Capabilities

The first discovery is that villagers have a greater capacity to map, model,
quantify and estímate, rank, score and diagram than outsiders have generally supposed
them capable of.
Participatory mapping and modelling (Mascarenhas and Kumar 1991) has been a
most striking finding. An earlier work on mental maps (Gould and White 1974) did not
reveal the richness of detail and discrimination expressed recently by villagers in India
and elsewhere through participatory mapping. A working hypothesis is that in general
rural people in the South have more extensive and detailed mental maps than urban
people in the North; and that given the right conditions and materials, they can express
this visibly on the ground or on paper, either as maps or as three-dimensional models
(for example of watersheds). They have now created many hundreds of such maps and
models in at least 12 States in India, and in countries as different as Botswana, Burkina
Faso (Hahn 1990), Cap Verde, Ethiopia, the Gambia, Honduras, Kenya, Nigeria,
Pakistan, the Philippines, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Vietnam, Zambia, and
Zimbabwe, either showing the huts and houses in a village (a social map) or the
surrounding village area (a resources map), or combining both. Most recently they
have been indicating social details, using local materials such as seeds, stones and
vegetables, or markers such as bindis (the small spots indian women place on their
foreheads). These are placed on cards or on the ground or on the maps or models to
indícate for each household the numbers of men, women, and children, assets owned,
wealth/poverty, the handicapped, immunization status, education, and other
information. With an informed group or person, a participatory census of a small
village can be conducted in less than an hour, and then much other information added
by 'ínterviewing the map'. Similarly, with quantification, estimating, ranking, scoring

and diagramming, when the methods and materials are right, villagers have shown
themselves capable of generating and analysing information far beyond normal
professional expectations.
To enable these capabilities to be expressed, the principie has been to assume that
people can do something until proved otherwise. It has been following the principie
that participatory mapping and modelling, Venn diagramming, matrix ranking and
scoring, and other methods have been 'discovered' not as one-off achievements, but as
near-universals, that people appear able to use largely independently of culture or
literacy. They then provide people with the occasion and means to reflect on and rank
problems and opportunities as they perceive them, and to express their preferences -
for improving their farming systems, for managing and using of common property
resources, for better livelihoods, for health interventions, for species mixes in tree
nurseries, for the qualities of new varieties of a crop, for amenities and their location,
for development actions in their communities, and so on.
In all this, both methods and materials have been important in enabling villagers'
capabilities to be expressed. But these in themselves are not enough.
6.2 Relaxed Rapport

The second discovery is that relaxed rapport between outsiders and rural people
can and should be established early in the process.
Rapport is a key to facilitating participation. Relaxed rapport between outsider and
villager, and some measure of trust, are mínimum predisposing conditions for PRA. In
the past, two extreme types of interaction between outsiders and rural people have
missed major opportunities: the rushed and unselfcritical rural development tourist had
neither the time and ñor the sensitivity to get far beyond formal mutual
misunderstanding; and the puré social anthropologist has allowed so much time and
shown such sensitivity that she or he has come to believe that only through prolonged
residence can good rapport and good insights be gained. The two 'cultures' - of rushed
visitor, and of resident expert - have conspired to conceal the potential for gaining
rapport early and well, and early enough and well enough for the honest and accurate
sharing of detailed knowledge and valúes. To a hardened 'oíd hand' at rural
development tourism (the sénior official: 'I was born and brought up in a village', 'I
am a farmer myself' 'You can't pulí the wool over my eyes') this might seem
unnecessary: he (most are men) knows it all and has an automatic good rapport with all
rural people. To a seasoned social anthropologist (the university professor: 'It took a
year before they would tell me that....') this might seem an affront: it would be unfair
if others in a short time could achieve what had taken her (relatively more are women)
so long. For anyone who has endured and struggled through months of residence and
participant-observation to achieve rapport and insight, learning a new language and
living a new life, it could seem unlikely and even unwelcome, that outsiders should
find ways to establish rapport and glean good insights more quickly and with pleasure,
participation and fun.
Empirically, though, the finding again and again with PRA is that if the initial
behav 'our and attitudes of outsiders are relaxed and right, and if the process can start,
the methods of PRA themselves foster further rapport. Early actions by outsiders can
include transparent honesty about who they are and what they are doing; and
participation in village activities, especially being taught and performing village tasks.
Personal demeanour counts, showing humility, respect, patience, and interest in what
villagers have to say and show; wandering around and not rushing; and paying
attention, listening, watching and not interrupting. Then villagers quickly lose
themselves in activities such as participatory mapping and modelling and matrix
scoring. In contrast with questionnaires, they do not have a sense that information is
being handed over, to be taken away. It is theirs. They own it, but share it. They often
enjoy the creativity of what they are doing, and what they see and learn through it. The
pleasure, fun and utility of what they have been helped to start doing express
themselves in rapport. By reinforcing rapport, PRA methods thus sustain and
strengthen the participatory process of which they are a part.
6.3 Diagramming and Visual Sharing

The third discovery is the popularity and power of participatory diagramming and
visual sharing.
Diagramming and visual sharing are common elements in much of PRA. With a
questionnaire survey, information is appropriated by the outsider. It is transferred from
the words of the person interviewed to the paper of the questionnaire schedule where it
becomes the possession of the interviewer. The learning is one-off. The information
becomes personal and private, unverified, and owned by the interviewer. In contrast,
with visual sharing of a map, model, diagram, or units (stones, seeds, small fruits, etc.)
used for ranking, scoring, counting or quantification, all who are present can see, point
to, discuss, manipúlate and alter physical objects or representations. Triangulation
takes place with people crosschecking and correcting each other. The learning is
progressive. The information is visible, semi-permanent, and public, and is checked,
verified, amended, added to, and owned, by the participants.
For example, in participatory mapping and modelling, villagers draw and model
their villages and resources, deciding what to include, and debating, adding and
modifying detail. Everyone can see what is being 'said' because it is being 'shown'. In
shared diagramming, information is diagrammed to represent, for example, seasonal
changes in dimensions such as rainfall, agricultural labour, income, indebtedness, food
supply and migration. Paper can be used for diagrams, but the ground and other local
materials have the advantage of being 'theirs', media which villagers, whether literate
or non-literate, can command and alter with confidence. The diagram also presents a
visible checklist or agenda which is theirs.
6.4 Sequences
The fourth discovery is the power and popularity of sequences of participatory
methods.
Some of the participatory methods have been known and used in the past
(Rhoades 1990). There are now some new ones, but perhaps more striking is the power
of combinations and sequences which has been revealed (Shah 1991). To take some
examples:
With participatory mapping, villagers draw not one, but several maps, which
become successively more detailed and useful, or which present new and
complementary information. (The same can apply with other methods).
Social mapping provides a basis for household listings, and for indicating
population, social group, health and other household characteristics. This can lead
to identification of key informants, and then to discussions with them. (This is a
useful sequence in many topic RRAs and PRAs).
A participatory resource map leads to planning transect walks in which villagers

who made the map act as guides for outsiders. The transects in turn lead to the
identification and discussion of problems and opportunities, which then lead to
listing and ranking options or 'best bets'.
A participatory resource map of an area of degraded forest, and a rootstock census

of quadrats in the forest carried out by villagers, leads to a calculation of numbers
of trees to be planted; and debate and analysis leads to people's decisions about
the proportions of different trees to be planted, and the numbers required in tree
nurseries (M. Shah forthcoming).
A village social map provides an up-to-date household listing which is then used
for well-being or wealth ranking of households which leads in turn to focus groups
with different categories of people who then express their different preferences,
leading to discussion, negotiation and reconcilation of priorities (combining
Mukherjee 1992 and Swift and Umar 1991).
Matrix scoring or ranking elicits villagers' criteria of goodness and badness of a

class of things (trees, vegetables, fodder grasses, varieties of a crop or animal,
sources of credit, market outlets, fuel types...) which leads into discussion of
preferences and actions.
Longer sequences have been devised and used in full PRAs. In Kenya these have
been part of a stepwise sequence (PID and NES 1989). In India, for example with the
Aga Khan Rural Support Programme, the sequences have been less codified and more
in a style of systematic improvisation, though with specialized sequences; for example
appraisal, planning and action with degraded forests, or with identifying and working
with the poorest.
The power of such sequences is four fold. First, the commitment of participants
increases, making further action more likely, more spontaneous, and more sustainable.
Second, sequences triangúlate, and reveal errors or omissions in earlier presentations
(see Pretty et al. 1992). Third, the different activities interact cumulatively, each
activity adding a dimensión and details which qualify and enrich others, so that taken
together the whole becomes more than the sum of the parts. Fourth, all concerned learn
through the process, through people sharing what they know, through observation and
througn analysis. In such ways as these, participatory methods fit well with a flexible
learning process approach which is even more open-ended and adaptable than much
earlier RRA; and they have the advantage that they usually enable villagers to use their
own categories and criteria, to generate their own agenda, and to assess and indícate
their own priorities.
6.5 Training and Reorientation for Outsiders

The. fifth discovery is that for some outsiders, initial training and reorientation
need not take long before they can go off and practice.
The duration of training or familiarization covers a wide range. To date,
Universities have usually taken longer and NGOs and Government shorter periods.
RRA training conducted at the University of Khon Kaen in Thailand in 1990 took six
weeks, which was considercd inadequate (Grandstaff et al. 1990). PRA training at
Egerton University in Kenya in 1990 took three wceks, and is being repeated. At the
other extreme, in one case in India, slides of participatory mapping and 'handing over
the stick' were shown for about an hour, and both were then adapted and adopted by a
large NGO. In between these extremes, there have been workshops and training of half
a day, a day, two days, and so on upto ten days.
Face-lo-face field experience is the key. The classroom insulates and inhibits; the
field exposes and liberates. No one can learn to swim without entering the water.
Participants in training often say they are not ready, that they need another day, more
practice, before starting. But, applying the principie of optimal unpreparedness, it is
usually best to start sooner than seems safe or sensible to newcomers; not to wait, but
to start, stumble, self-correct, and then share.
On these lines, much PRA training in India has taken three to five days spent
camping in or near a village (e.g. Ramanchandran 1990; Devavaram et al. 1991;
Jayakaran 1991; Joseph and Joseph 1991; Kumar 1991; Mascarenhas 1992). The camp
usually entails two processes: training and learning for the team of outsiders, using
various methods; and a participatory process which is 'for real', leading to plans
developed by and with villagers. Staying a number of nights in the village intensifies
and concentrates the experience. Attention is paid to outsiders' behaviour and
attitudeS. Villagers are encouraged to map, diagram, particípate in transect walks, and
plan. The major aim of the training for the outsiders is to facilítate changes in
perception and action, listening not lecturing, learning progressively, embracing error,
being critically self-aware, and themselves participating. For example reversing roles
by being taught by villagers to perform village tasks. For some outsiders, especially
those who have had a strictly formal professional training, this can threaten trauma.
They deserve sympathetic understanding, and no significant change may take place.
For some, though, there opens up a new range of possibilities and a sense of freedom
to experiment and innóvate. It is then not necessary to be trained in all the methods.
They can be tried, improvised and adapted subsequently, and new ones invented. The
outsider's creativity is released, as well as that of the villager.
Another approach is to smuggle in, participatory methods. Some professionals
resist PRA approaches and methods, considering them unscientific and inappropriate.
Methods which generate figures, matrices and tables can then sometimes help in
getting started, and making other methods more acceptable. Robin Mearns found in
Mongolia that wealth ranking was useful in this context as part of a 'hidden agenda' by
giving 'every appearance of being the kind of 'hard' statistical method that Mongolian
researchers and bureaucrats, like their counterparts in many parts of the world, have
been professionally socialised to use and expect' (Mearns et. al. 1992: 37). Similarly,
matrix scoring for varieties of a crop provides not only fascinating information but
also good-looking tables with figures. The question is whether scientists and others
will be so impressed by farmers' criteria, judgements and abilities as demonstrated in
matrix scoring, and by the resulting matrices, that they will go on from this method to
others, and progressively become more participatory.
<5.6 Sharing and Spread

The last discovery concerns the importance of sharing in the culture and spread of
PRA.
PRA in practice is recognized now to have three foundations: methods; behaviour
and attitudes; and sharing. At first, the methods appeared the most important; then the
behaviour and attitudes of outsiders were seen as primary, especially for rapport; and
now the third foundation, sharing, is recognized as having grown in importance. This
is partly because it has become the mode in which PRA spreads. PRA in India has a
culture of sharing which owes much to MYRADA and also to other NGOs. Village
camps have been open to people from other organizations. Typically, a training camp
organized by an NGO will include not just its own staff but also people from other
NGOs and from government. Sharing is part of the experience of the camp: sharing of
information by villagers, presenting it to each other and to outsiders; sharing of ideas
and experience concerning approaches and methods between outsiders and villagers;
sharing of self-critical appraisal of the process among outsiders; and sharing of food
by all.
If PRA is spreading through the sharing of experience and mutual learning, it is
also taking different forms in different places. People and organizations are inventing
their own combinations and creating their own cultures. Some emphasize one set of
methods; some another. Any one method - transect walks (Mascarenhas 1990), or
well-being ranking (RRA Notes 15) for example - now has several variants. To share
and exchange methods and experiences, interchanges of staff are efficient, with staff of
one organization spending time with other organizations in their PRAs. In all cases,
also, the creativity and inventiveness of villagers can come into play. In such ways,
innovations can be continuously stimulated. It is then through all forms of sharing -

training camps, trainers, ideas, experiences, methods, innovations - that takes place.
7. Utility: Practical Applications

The case for RRA and PRA aproaches is practical. It is the experience that they
work. The experiential and anecdotal evidence for the utility of well-conducted RRA
and PRA is now massive, but has not been adequately drawn together and analysed.
To document the applications of RRA and PRA to date would require a separate
paper and bibliography (but see for example Agricultural Administration, 1981 volume
on RRA; IDS Bulletin (1981); KKU 1987, especially Gibbs 1987, and the
bibliography; Lovelace, Subhadhira and Simaraks, 1988; PID and NES 1989; IIED
publications including cases from Cap Verde, Chile, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Fiji, the
Gambia, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, and Zimbabwe; RRA
Notes Passim, especially Number 13 reporting experience in India; and Forests, Trees
and People News Number 15/16, 1992. There have also been many articles (for an
earlier listing see Chambers 1985: 412-4 and numerous unpublished reports).
Regarding RRA, RRA approaches and methods have been used for appraisal,
analysis and research in many subject areas. These include agroecosystems; natural
resources, including forestry, fisheries and the environment; irrigation; technology and
innovation; health and nutrition; farming systems research and extensión; pastoralism;
marketing; disaster relief; organizational assessment; social, cultural and economic
conditions; and many special topics. As well as RRA, PRA, has also been or could be
applied to all these.
Regarding PRA, so much is being done so fast in so many places that any
inventory of PRA applications made in mid-1992 will be incomplete and quickly out-
of-date. However, most of the applications I know of can be separated into four types
of process, and into four major sectors:
participatory appraisal and planning,
participatory implementation, monitoring and evaluation of programmes,
topic investigations, and
training and orientation for outsiders and villagers.
The four major sectors are the following. The sources are now so voluminous that
only a few, and mainly very recent and accessible, references are given. For others see
IDS 1992. A bibliographical review is overdue.
7.1 Natural Resources Management

Watersheds, and soil and water conservation: e.g. participatory watershed
planning and management, including rapid catchment analysis (Pretty 1990).
Forestry: e.g. social and community forestry; degraded forest assessment,
protection, nurseries and-planting; identification of tree uses; uses and marketing
of minor forest producís. (See e.g. Case 1990; and for a strong PRA sequence M.
Shah forthcoming).
Fisheries.
Wildlife reserve buffer zones.
Rural energy assessments, andfuel and fodder budgeting.
Village plans: preparing Village Resource Management Plans (PID and NES
1990), Participatory Rural Appraisal and Planning (as developed by AKRSP), and
others.
7.2 Agriculture
Crops and animal husbandry, including farmer participatory research/farming
systems research by farmers.
Irrigation, including rehabilitation of small-scale gravity flow irrigation systems.
Markets: investigating markets and small holder marketing potential.
7.3 Programmesfor Equity

Women: participatory appraisal of problems and opportunities.
Credit: identification of credit needs, sources and interventions.
Selection: finding and selecting poor people for a programme, and deselecting the
less poor (e.g. Chandramouli 1991; PRA Notes 15 passim).
Income-earning: identification of non-agricultural income-earning opportunities.
7.4 Health and Nutrition

Health assessments and monitoring (e.g. Appleton 1992; Francis, Devavaram and
Erskine 1992; Joseph 1992). Applications include women's reproductive health
(Tolley and Bentley 1992; Cornwall 1992), disease problem ranking (Wélbourn
1992), unemployment and health (Cresswell 1992), identifying major illness,
healthcare providers and costs (Joseph 1992), and planning health projects
(Francies, Devavaram and Erskine 1992). (See also Heaver 1992 and RRA Notes
16: 101-106 for a fuller listing of actual or potential uses).
Food security and nutrition assessment and monitoring (Maxwell 1989; Appleton
1992; Buchanan-Smith 1992).
Water and sanitation assessment, planning and location.
These lists are to ¡Ilústrate known applications. They are by no means
comprehensive, and many more applications can be expected.
For several reasons, there are still (mid-1992) few case studies of the impact of
PRA. First, PRA is recent, and many PRA processes are still in their early stages.
Second, responding to demand and their own sense of priorities, experienced
practitioners have been mostly engaged in training and appraisal rather than
monitoring and evaluation, and this emphasis is reflected in the reports they have
written. Third, academic researchers have been slow to recognize what has been
happening, and have rarely studied PRA.
These are conditions in which negative experiences are liable to be overlooked.

More feedback is needed for whatever failures can be found, from those who have
experiencef 4 PRA and not subsequently adopted it, and from organizations where
attempts to introduce it have not been successful.
That said, positive evidence takes two main forms: the scale of adoption and use
by organizations and individuáis; and accounts of practical use.
First, the number of organizations which have to some degree adopted PRA is
large and growing. The estimates which follow mainly concern agriculture and natural
resources: I do not have a good sense of the scale of adoption and use in health, where
PRA is also spreading locally, especially through UNICEF. NGOs which are in some
places using PRA (mid-1992) must number at least a hundred, and perhaps several
hundred. At least a dozen universities and training institutes have some staff who are
exploring and using PRA (though almost everywhere they are a small minority) (see
Section 12.8). Government and parastatal organizations, all or parts of which have
espoused PRA, are a similar number. Among these, a few have sought to introduce it
throughout their programmes: among others, the Soil and Water Conservation Branch
of the Ministry of Agriculture in Kenya, which has officially adopted PRA approach
for its work in over 40 Districts; the Drylands Development Board in Karnataka, India;
and the District Rural Development Agencies, Andhra Pradesh, India. Government
programmes with donor support are introducing PRA training and approaches, as with
the ODA-supported Western Ghats programme in India, and the SIDA-supported
Vietnam-Sweden Forestry Cooperation Programme in Vietnam. Actual spread and use
in large field agencies, whether Government or NGO, is easily overestimated.
Sometimes resistance can be expected. Much depends on personal orientation and
choice, and on rewards. In smaller organizations with committed leadership, adoption
is possible in a shorter time. In large organizations, it is not by administrative fiat, but
by consistent high-level support, widespread training of good quality, and appropriate
systems of rewards, that actual spread will take place. With those caveats, the number
of people who have now chosen to use PRA as approach and process, not just PRA
methods, now numbers thousands, and is growing.
Second, accounts of practical use are innumerable but scattered in a large,
inaccessible, grey literature. Not surprisingly, most of this is strongly positive. All the
same, few PRA process have yet been thoroughly researched and analysed. Recent
evaluations though, are showing that where the PRA approach has been used compared
with just using T and V (training and visit), a range of agricultural and economic
indicators are much more favourable, such as higher agricultural yields, greater
diversity of crops, reduced soil erosión and sedimentation, greater net present valué
and benefit cost ratios, higher land prices, and higher wage rates (pers. comm. Jules
Pretty). Similar findings have been reported from the work of AKRSP in Gujarat.
A critical review of the other evidence and examples in the grey literature is
overdue. There is also a huge research agenda to understand better, the applications
and potentials, the processes and impacts, and shortcomings and strengths of PRA.
Some of these can, however, already be assessed in terms of data validity and
reliability.
8. Validity and Reliability

Those who become involved with PRA tend to become enthusiastic. There can be
an exhilarating sense of liberation and discovery. The presentation and analysis of
detailed local knowledge in maps, models, matrices, diagrams and the like by villagers
can impress outsiders deeply in a personal way which challenges preconceptions, and
affects beliefs and behaviour. This is reflected in remarks of NGO staff:
After participatory social maping "I have been working for eight years in this village,
but I never saw it like this before."
After PRA experience "I shall never go back to questionnaires."
After PRA training "I have been trying to get this information from this
village for six months and now we have it in two
afternoons."
The experience behind these and similar statements is a fact. For those who made
them, the evidence of personal experience is enough. But questions can and must be
asked about less personal and experiential means of assessing the validity and
reliability of PRA approaches and methods.
Validity here refers to the closeness of a finding to the reality, and reliability
refers to the constancy of findings. Highly valid findings are also highly reliable, but
where there is a systematic bias, reliability can be high but validity low. Validity and
reliability are not absolute valúes. There can be trade-offs, through optimal ignorance
and appropriate imprecisión, where lower validity and reliability can be more cost-
effective, and can enhance utility through less cost or greater relevance or timeliness.
At the outset, most large questionnaire surveys present any assessment of PRA
with low standards of comparison. (Certain routinised and repeated surveys like the
National Sample Survey in India are at least partial exceptions to what follows.)
Devastating critiques of rural questionnaire surveys have found them often badly
designed, badly implemented, and badly analysed (see e.g. Morís 1970; Campbell,
Shrestha and Stone 1979; Daane 1987; Gilí forthcoming). All too often, questionnaire
surveys are found wanting on many counts. And rarely are they subjected to full
critical scrutiny.
Comparison should, though, also be made with rural questionnaire surveys which
have been relatively well conducted. An example can illustrate. In 1973-74, I
collaborated in a large questionnaire survey in Tamil Nadu (reported in Farmer
1977:37-44). Since I was responsible neither for the training of the investigators who
conducted the interviews, ñor for the supervisión of the survey, it is not immodest to
say that the survey was well supervised, and the investigators were well trained and
keen. There were eight investigators for 12 villages, each of which differed sharply
from the other 11 (Chambers and Harriss 1977). Four investigators had only one
village each, but the other four each had two villages. On the basis of the survey data, I
wrote an article on agricultural extensión, and intended to submit it for publication.

But the more I looked at it, the more I sensed something was wrong. Eventually I took
the results from the eight shared villages and paired them by investigator. The results
from each village were more like those of its pair, shared by the same investigator,
than like any other village. It seemed likely that the main independent variable was the
investigator; and the basis for the article collapsed. By occurring in a well supervised
survey, this experience throws into question the creditbility of other surveys which do
not test for and report on individual interviewer bias. Few do. And the fact that the
literature on this bias is so sparse may reflect that even those who do carry out tests,
sin as I did in holding back from publishing the damning findings.
More generally, critical discussion of methodological problems so rarely
accompanies publications of survey results that the validity of the findings of much of
the survey industry is open to question. For our purposes here, the conclusión is that
the quality of data from questionnaire surveys is often so poor, that an improvement is
not difficult to achieve.
This, though, is no reason for anything less than strict critical rigour in assessing
the validity and reliability of RRA and PRA approaches and methods. The tests most
readily applied concern measurements and numbers. Let us therefore examine the four
main areas where RRA and PRA have generated numerical data which are available
for assessment. These are farm and household surveys; wealth and well-being ranking;
village censuses; and rainfall data.
8.1 Farm and Household Serveys

In five cases comparisons have been made between the findings of an RRA
approach and a conventional questionnaire survey.
Michael Collinson's (1981) Exploratory Survey of a farming system involving
some 20 professional person days was never contradicted in any major way by the
subsequent longer drawn-out and more expensive Verification Survey which
represented the major commitment of professional time and funds.
Steven Franzel and Eric Grawford (1987) systematically compared a quick and
light survey with a longer and heavier conventional survey in Kenya and found no
significant differences attributable to the methods.
Diane Rocheleau and her team (Rocheleau et. al. 1989) working on agro-forestry
in Kenya used a chain of informal in-depth interviews, and group interviews, and
compared the results with a survey of a formal randomized sample of 63 households.
They found that the formal survey took three times as long and reproduced the same
results as the group interviews and chain of interviews, with less detail and coherence.
(ibid: 21).
Andy Inglis (1990, 1991) led a team which used a repertoire of RRA techniques to
gather local forestry knowledge in Sierra Leone in an area where a lengthy
questionnaire with 278 questions had already been applied. The RRA results were
presented four days after the last location was surveyed, but the questionnaire report
was still not available six months after the eompletion of fieldwork. Comparisons of
the questionnaire survey and RRA data showed sharp discrepancies in two localities
where the questionnaire survey's findings were implausible and its validity had to be
suspect. As Inglis points out:
... if information is wrong to begin with, no amount of statistical manipulation will
enable it to help the project staff make good decisions ... In contrast, the RRA
survey was completed in a much shorter time, the results have been produced in
specific locational reports that can be individually used as discussion papers in the
field in follow up surveys. As research biases, mistakes and omissions are
admitted and not lost in a mass of questionnaire codes, the decisión maker can see
how the information was generated, how important factors were revealed, and how
the best bests were arrived at. (Inglis 1990: 107)
C.N. Bernadas (1991) reports that in Eastern Visayas in the Philippines, highly
structured questionnaire interviews identified declining soil fertility as the most
pressing problem of farmers. Bernadas explains that the staff themselves had
formulated the questions on the basis of what they felt to be priorities. The problem
areas considered were predetermined based on the outsider's point of view. Two,
needs and circumstances, and the developed technologies were not adopted by them.
An RRA approach was then used, with informal discussions and dialogues and open
ended interviews with guide topics. This led to the discovery that the most pressing
problem facing farmers was not soil fertility but the long fallow due to the growth of a
weed called cogon (Imperata cylindrica). Relevant research could then begin.
In these five cases, then, the results of the RRA approach, compared with the more
formal questionnaire, were variously more valid, less costly, more timely, and more
useful.
A cautionary counter example is a case of the worst of both worlds. This was a
one-week survey through interviews of 30 farmers by a researcher in Northern Zambia,
described as an RRA. Johann Pottier (1990) argües persuasively that in such hurried
interviews an insensitivity to the context, to who is being met, to what is being said,
and why, can lead to misleading conclusions, in this case that food security had been
enhanced by growing maize. The investigation was, it seems, rushed and wrong. The
lessons are many, and include that hectic one-off individual interviews are bad practice
whatever the label attached to them, and that rcspondents can reach by giving
responses which, for reasons such as prudence, politenesses and favourable
preservation of the self, are invalid but reliable, and thereby convincingly maintain
myths and mislead.
8.2 Ranking
Ranking and scoring have long been part of the repetoire of social anthropologists.
People in communities rank other individuáis or households for characteristics as
varied as aggressiveness, industriousness, or more commonly some concept of respect,
honour, well-being or wealth (Pelto and Pelto 1978: 82-87; RRA Notes 15, 1992).
The most common method is sorting cards into piles, carried out either by
individuáis in private, or by groups. Different informants often use a different number
of piles for the same community, but evidence is consistent in finding cióse
correlatic is in rank orders between informants. Sydel Silverman (1966:905) found that
there was high agreement in the relative rank of most persons when three informants in
an Italian community card-sorted households according to their criterion of rispetto
(approximately prestige). Polly Hill (1986: 41, 75) suggests that to villagers, relative
household living standards can be a matter of passionate concern. On the basis of
fieldwork in West Africa and India, she concluded that rural people (uniess themselves
too poor and disabled) are able to assess the relative wealth or well-being of members
of their community far more accurately than are towns people. This has been borne out
by much subsequent wealth or well-being ranking. Barbara Grandin (1988) found that
correlations (Spearman's Rho) across informants in 12 instances of wealth ranking
(using a total of 41 informants) averaged .77 (range .59-.96). The correlations of each
informant with final score averaged .91 (range .84-.98).
Silverman, Hill and Grandin are all social anthropologists and so might be
expected to have developed good rapport before the exercise. The test is whether
without a social anthropological training and relationship, the method can also be
reliable and valid. Those who have facilitated such ranking exercises have found them
easier than expected (see RRA Notes 15) and informally report high correlations
between the rankings given by different informants or groups. Some triangúlate
rankings through discussion. Poly Hill's three informants in Nigeria thrashed out
discrepancies between themselves (Hill 1972:59). In a PRA mode, on similar lines,
MYRADA in South India has evolved a method of successive approximation in which
separate groups rank households, and then meet to reconcile differences (per. comm.
Vidya Ramachandran), a procedure which is used in selecting households for anti-
poverty prog r ammes.
Another example is the ranking of the valué of 30 browse plants as feed to their
cattle by pastoralists in Nigeria (Bayer 1987, 1988). Rankings for the most important
plants were found to correspond closely between different groups of pastoralists.
Not all ranking exercises can be expected to yield reliable and valid data; but these
examples suggest cióse correlations between informants in three conditions: where
information is common knowledge; where criteria are commonly held and well
understood; and where what is ranked is a matter of intense interest.
8.3 Participatory Village Censuses

In participatory social mapping, villagers show the location of households. In
India in 1991 this was extented by Sheelu Francis and others into participatory
censuses. One variant is health mapping, in which symbols are used to indicate where
people of different types and with different conditions live in a village. In a census,
one common practice is for villagers to use seeds of different sorts to represent people.
Another, invented by Anusuda and Perumal Maicker of Kethanayakanpatty village
near Madurai in Tamil Nadu, is to have a card for each household and mark details
with symbols on the card.
Triangulation of censuses took place in Ramasamypatti village, near Tiruchuli, in
Tamil Nadu, in May 1991. In a PRA training organized by SPEECH, an NGO, four
groups of between 5 and 15 villagers used different methods of analysis and
presentation: two did social mapping direct onto paper; one made a ground model of
the village with a card for each household; and one did a census onto a map drawn on
a floor. All four independenüy generated a figure for the total population of the
village. All four carne to 355.
8.4 Rainfall Data
It has been found that farmers will often readily estímate rainfall by month. In
1988, two farmers in Wollo in Ethiopia estimated numbers of days of rainfall by
month for the previous five years, and also indicated the pattern they remembered from
their childhood (Conway 1988; ERCS 1988: 50-52). The most common method now is
for them to arrange a line of 12 stones for the months of the local calendar and then
estimate rainfall using either broken sticks for relative volume, or seeds for numbers of
days of rain by month, or both. Some farmers in India have preferred to indícate depth
of soil moisture by month as being more relevant for agricultural purposes (pers.
comm. J. Mascarenhas for Karnataka and Sam Joseph for Rajasthan). A refinement,
invented by women in Galkada village, Badulla District, Sri Lanka in January 1992, is
to space the seeds to indícate the distribution of days of rain within each month.
The question is how valid are such data? Farmers' data on rainfall have several
times been found to differ from those of nearby rainfall stations. At Nugu Dam in H.D.
Kote, Karnataka, in August 1990, a discrepancy was found but not further analysed. In
rapid catchment analysis in Kenya (Pretty 1990) when farmers' pattems of rainfall
differed in six different catchments and also differed from the 'real' data from a nearby
rainfall station, this was judged to reflect spatial heterogeneity, without ruling out the
possibility that the farmers were wrong (per. comm. J. Pretty). The only detailed
analysis of comparisons to date comes from Nepal. It was there in May 1990 near
Lumle that farmers for the first time indicated volume and numbers of days of rainfall
per month using seeds for days and sticks for volume. In 45 minutes, they presented
first a normal year and then a pattern which they said occurred one year in five. Gerard
Gill's (1991) painstaking analysis of their perceptíons compared with 20 years of daily
rainfall data at the nearby rainfall station defies brief summary. Suffice it to say here
that what initially appeared as discrepancies about whether the farmers were 'wrong'
turned out on closer examination to show respects in which the farmers' judgements
were superior to the averaged met station data. Gill's title 'But how does it compare
with the real data?' captures the irony of the assumption that 'scientifically' measured
data are necessarily superior. More balanced conclusions are that there are different
realities, that farmers' realities are likely to be linked to agricultural utility and
weighted by recent experience, and that the issue is whose reality counts, in what
contexts, and for what purposes.
These four sets of numerical evidence are all positive for RRA/PRA approaches
and methods. To the best of my knowledge and belief I have not excluded any
comparable negative evidence. All the same, a teminal caveat is in order. When the
four groups at Ramasmypatti all carne up with 355 as the population of the village, I
was excited. I collected the reporting maps and diagrams, labelled and arranged them,
and then photographed them. This positive evidence has since been disseminated
through copies of the slides. Only later did I think to ask whether there had been any
exchanges of information or of figures between the groups. In fact I believe there was
none. But had the groups come up with figures which differed the question is whether
reaction too would have differed. The danger is selective and has been meticulously
analysed by Gilí and published. But this was not done in the Kenya and Karnataka
cases. Had those discepencies been investigated further, they might, as in the Nepal
case have revealed a validity in the farmers' judgements; or they might not have. We
do not know with any certainty.
The lesson is to remain critically aware at all times with a positive scepticism, and
lo probé, investígate, report and learn from negative as well as positive experience.
With this camión, the finding from evidence available to date stands, that both
qualitative and quantitative data elicited by RRA and especially PRA methods have
usually proved more reliable and more valid than outsider professionals have expected.
As with all PRA, much depends on the behaviour and attitudes of the outsiders,
and whether they have the time, patience and will to get closer to reality. A final
example from Nepal illustrates a typical learning process through cross checking and
successive analysis and approximatíon. After the use of PRA methods, presentations
by two groups of outsiders on what villagers had shared with them on seasonality and
trends in agriculture gave conflicting information. The response was for both groups to
go back to their village the next day and reconcile the information, with their
respective groups of informants forming one combined group, and with the statement
'We got the information from you yesterday and there seems to be some difference.
Can you help us?' And of course they did. Information flowed, arguments and
discussions took place among the villagers, among the outside and between both
villagers and outsiders—as is typical of a good PRA exercise. Explanations were
given, corrections made, and it was a much more satisfiea group of researchers that
returned to the base camp that night. (pers. comm. James Mascarenhas). Discrepancies
are, as here, welcomed, in the spirit of embracing error, as opportu-nitíes to learn and
to get closer to the truth.
9. Reversáis and Reality

The power and utility of RRA and PRA are, then, empirical facts; and as such,
they demand explanation.
Some explanations lie in the effective application of the principies outlined in

sectiori 5 above. But cross cutting these, there are other angles from which PRA
experience can be examined and illuminated. So far, most of those who have innovated
in developing PRA have been practitioners, concerned with what works, and what will
work better, not academic theorists concerned with why it works. They have been
searching not for new theories or principies but for new and better ways of learning
and doing. The 'Why?' questions have been relatively neglected. There is now, enough
experience to allow us to induce some theory or explanations from practice.
The strongest explanations can be captured by the word 'reversáis'. Reversal is
used to describe a direction, away from normal practice and towards its opposite. The
overarching reversal is from etic to emic, from our knowledge, categories and valúes
to theirs. It answers the question 'whose reality counts?', initially with the reply
'theirs'. We start with their reality, not with ours.
Within the frame of the reversal, three clusters of reversal or change intertwine,
and are mutually reinforcing; reversáis of modes; reversáis of relationships; and
reversáis of action. None is absolute; but, all represent shifts from the normal in the
reverse direction.
9.1 Reversáis of Modes

a. From closed to open
Conventional investigations are preset. Almost all questionnaire surveys are
designed by outsiders, with outsiders' concerns and categories. They seek to elicit
responses to fill fixed boxes. Whatever the intentions that investigators shall probé
under the category 'other', which lies at the end of the list of precoded responses on
the sheet, they rearely do; and where they do, it presents problems later in coding and
analysis. The convenient truth fits our familiar frame.
The reversal here is from etic to emic, and from closed to open. In constrast with
questionnaire interviews, semi-structured interviews are more open, and conversations
even preset sequence of questions. A valué is set on probing, on pursuing leads, on
serendipity. Moreover, with other methods common in PRA such as participatory
mapping and modelling, matrix ranking, insiders are not only free to express their
knowledge and valúes; they are encouraged and enabled to do so. The shift is from
preset to participatory.
b. From individual to group

Questionnaire surveys require that interviews be with individuáis or households so
that commensurable data can be analysed. In RRA, semi-structured interviewing can
be with an individual or group, but with somewhat more emphasis on the individual
'interviewee' (see Grandstaff and Grandstaff Í987b: 135-7). In PRA, discussions with
individuáis can and do take place, but there is relatively more group activity. Cultural,
social and other differences can be expected. Groups have well-known disadvantages,
such as dominance by one or more individuáis. But the positive side, especially in
PRA mode, when rapport is good they have strengths. Paradoxically, and contrary to
common belief, sensitive subjects are sometimes more freely discussed in groups,
when individuáis would not wish to discuss them alone with a stranger. More
gene.ally, groups can build up collective and creative enthusiasm, especially with
mapping and modelling, leading to an unselfconscious showing, sharing, and checking.
Participants fill in gaps left by others and add or correct detail. Groups have an
overlapping spread of knowledge which covers a wider field and crosschecks.
c. From verbal to visual

With outsider-insider interactions, there is a scale of formalily-informality from
the structured interview with questionnaire, through the semi-sectutured interview with
checklist of topics (Grandstaff and Grandstaff 1987b), to the conversation (Scrimshaw
and Hurtado 1987). With the interviews, and sometimes also conversations, outsiders
ask questions and probé. Eye contact is common. The outsider maintains control, and
largely determines the agenda and the categories. The interviewee responds, conscious
of an interaction with a person who is seeking information. The transfer or exchange of
information is verbal.
With PRA methods, in constrast much of médium is visual, through forms of
participatory diagramming. This includes social and census mapping, resource
mapping and modelling, seasonal analysis, Venn and Chapati diagramming, trend
diagramming, and matrix scoring. The many forms of participatory diagramming are
all, by definition, often open to a group, not just to an individual or household.
With participatory diagramming, relationships change. The topic may be
determined, or at least suggested, by the outsider, but the role is not to extract through
questions but to initiate a process of presentations and analysis. The outsiders are
facilitators, the insiders actors. The outsiders hand over control, and insiders determine
the agenda, categories and details. The media and materials are often those of
insiders—the ground, stones, sand, seeds as counters, sticks as measures, and so on.
Eye contact, and insider's awareness of the outsider, are low. Information is built up
cumulatively, and cross checking is automatic. Often, several or many people are
involved, knowledge overlaps. If half a dozen women diagram a census map of their
village, showing women, men, children, handicapped persons, and so on, not
everything may be known by each; but two or more may know each item. Debate can
be lively because everyone can see what is being said. It can then be the diagrams
rather than the people who are interviewed.
Visual methods can also empower the weak and disadvantaged. Visual literacy
(Bradeley 1992) is independent of alphabetical literacy, and appears to be near
universal. Visual diagramming is thus an equalizer especially when it is done using the
accessible and familiar médium of the ground. On paper, too, the non-literate can
diagram. In Kiteto District in Tanzania, in June 1992, a non-literate Maasai young
man, though mocked by his literate colleagues, took a sheet of paper, and went off and
quietly drew from his mind, a very detailed map of a large village area and its
settlements. In Pakistan, in March 1992, several non-literate women drew complex

systems diagrams of their farms and households, with internal and external flows and
linkages (pers. comm. Jules Pretty). Describing the experience of the Neighbourhood
Initiatives Foundation (NtF) in the UK, Tony Gibson (1991) has pointed out that 'the
talkers nearly always win'. But with a physical model of their neighbourhood to play
with, timid people can physically put down their ideas. Often people who put down an
idea, wait for others to talk about it first, and then say themselves: 'I agree with you'.
Similarly, participatory mapping and matrices can enable marginaiized women to
express their preferences and priorities in a physical form, which does not entail
personal confrontation with otherwise dominating men.
Some contrasts between verbal and visual modes are presented in the table below:
Verbal Visual
(Interview, Conversation) (Diagram)
Outsdier's roles Investigator Initiator and catalyst

Outsider's mode Probing Facilitating
Outsider's interventions Continous and maintained Inicial and then reduced
Insider's roles Respondent Presenter and analyst
Insider's mode Reactive Creative
Insider's awareness of outsider High Low
Eye contact High Low
The médium and material are those of Outsider Insider
The poor, weaker, and women can be Marginalized Empowered
Detail influenced by Etic categories Emic perceptions
Information flow Sequential Cumulative
Accessibility of information Low and transient High and semi-permanent
to others
Initiative for checking lies with Outsider Insider
Utility for spatial, temporal Low High
and casual information, relations,
analysis, planning and monitoring
Ownership of information Appropriated by outsider Owned and shared
by insider
The shift from verbal to visual is one of emphasis in PRA. Diagrams are part of
the repertoire. They can be facilitated on their own early in interactions. They can also
be part of semi-structured interviews or conversations, introduced as a means for local
people to express, share and analyse their knowledge. Diagrams then present an
agenda for discussion. 'Interviewing the map', 'interviewing the matrix', and
'interviewing the diagram' are often the most fruitful, and also most neglected, stages
of a discussion and diagramming process. With the visual, 'a whole new set
of questions of discussions arises which does not in the verbal' (pers. comm.
James Mascarenhas). Combinations of visual and verbal, with early primacy to the
visual, can be strong, and stronger than either exclusively on its own.
d. From counting to comparing

Normal professional training is to make absolute measurements. So if trends or
changes are to be identified, or conditions compared between households or between
places, this is through measurements made either at different times or of different
things or in different places. Our preoccupation with numbers drives us to ask 'how
much?' For sensitive subjects like income, such questions commonly sow suspicion,
wreck rapport, ánd generate misleading data.
Often, though, all that is needed for practical purposes is relative valúes.
Comparing can be quicker. Comparisons without measurements have advantages.
Involving reflection and judgement, they are easier to express than measurements.
They can be elicited from trends and changes without baseline data. They are less
sensitive, as has been shown by wealth and well-being ranking, and by seasonal
analysis: asking how income compares between months, is both easier to judge and
less worrying to give than are absolute figures. And comparisons, as with matrix
ranking and scoring, can in a short time elicit a wealth of information and judgements
of valué inaccessible without great labour by other methods. Moreover, trends,
comparisons and weightage lend themselvs to visual sharing, with all its potential
gains in participation, triangulation and progressive approximation and learning,
comparing can be quicker, cheaper and more credible than counting.
9.2 Reversáis of Dominance: From Extracting to Empowering

Both the traditional questionnaire survey, and the classical social anthropoligical
investigation are extractive, even though their means of extraction differ.
In questionnaire interviewing, it is with the interviewer that power and initiative
lie. The questionnaire is 'administered to' the person interviewed. The interviewee is a
'respondent' a person who replies or reacts. The Latín resondere means to return like
with like. The questions and categories are those of the interviewer, who also records
the 'response'. In their textbook, Survey Methods in Social Investigation, Moser and
Kalton have only two entries for 'respondent', but 32 for 'response'. The professional
concern is less with people—the respondents—and more with what they provide, the
responses. It is the responses that matter more, for they are the raw material to be
mined, packaged, transponed and processed, the commensurable output to be
collected, categorized, coded, counted and correlated.
The ultímate aim of the classical anthropologist too has been to obtain data which
are then analysed and written up away from the field. Participant observation requires
sharply different relationships to those in questionnaire surveys, but the basic aim is
similar. There are of course qualificatíons to this. Development anthoropologists aim
to be useful through their work in a more direct manner; and many anthropologists
intervene in their field for ethical reasons. But the motivation has usually been, and
remains, that of a researcher. However useful and justified it may be, the consum-
mation sought is to process the data extracted into Ph.D., articles or a book.
In contrast, the thrust of PRA is to reverse the roles of who is dominant. The
objective is less to gather data, and much more to start a process. The initiative passes
to 'them'. The stick is handed over. The prime actors are the people. The outsider is
less the extractor, and more the convenor and catalyst.
A PRA process also seeks to enable outsiders to learn, but through the sharing of
information in a manner which enhances people's analysis and knowledge and leaves
them owning it. The actual and the ideal, here as elsewhere, will rarely correspond
exactly. But an ideal could be sketched as a process in which people are enabled to
collate, present and analyse information, making it explicit and adding to what they
already know. This happens, for example, through participatory mapping of a
watershed where the map is used by villagers to plot current conditions and plan
actions, and retained by them for monitoring action taken and changes made; or
through mapping and surveying degraded forest, deciding how to protect it and what to
plant, and then managing the resource; or through matrix scoring for varieties of a
crop, which enables them to specify the characteristics of a 'wish variety they would
like to try out'. The aim is to enable people to present, share, analyse and augment
their knowledge as the start of a process. The ultímate output sought is enhanced
knowledge and competence, an ability to make demands, and to sustain action. Instead
of imposing and extracting, PRA seeks to empower.
9.3 From Reserve to Rapport, From Tedium to Fun

i, The initial reserve of rural people towards outsiders and their careful responses in
the hope of gaining benefits or avoiding loss, are common place. RRA and more so
PRA stress the process of gaining rapport. Some social anthropologists have expressed
scepticism about the relative speed with which rapport can be established. For their
deeper and more fully emic understanding, there is a case for lengthy 'immersion'. But
it is a common experience with both RRA and PRA that when the outsiders' behaviour
and attitudes are right, and participatory methods used good, rapport usually comes
quickly. This happens through not rushing, through showing respect, through
explaining who you are, answering questions, being honest, and being interested and
asking to be taught, being taught, and learning village tasks.
The classical view of fieldwork is that it is painful, entailing long hours of
collecting and checking data. Moser and Kalton (1971:296) observe about
questionnaire surveys: 'An interviewer's interest is bound to flag after a time ...' Pelto
and Pelto (1978; 1978: 194-5) cite the case of an anthropologist, Kobben, who had to
'make a great sacrifíce of time, during a year of fieldwork, to collect... quantified data
on a mere 176 persons' and even then he felt rather unsure of the validity of some of
his data. The same authors go on to consider how extensive survey data from
questionnaires needs to be checked and qualified by other methods, and conclude:
Clearly, the quantified data of survey research or other standardized interviewing

require cióse support from participant—observation and general informal
interviewing. But the converse is equally true. The Iesson in all this, as Kobben
made clear, is that field research entails a great amount of tedious, time-
consuming work—both qualitative and numerical. (ibid: 194-95)
Earlier participatory research also suffered from being long-drawn-out. The pilot
project in appropriate technology for grain storage in Bwakira Chini village t in
Tanzania involved an outside team residing in the village for eight weeks. This was
considered a 'short period of dialogue', but even so the application of the dialogical
methodology was 'time consuming and tiresome' (Mduma 1973: 203, 213).
The contrast with RRA is sharp. Professional conversations are mutually
stimulating and interesting. Of cattle keepers in Nigeria who ranked browse plants,
Wolfgang Bayer (1988:8) wrote that 'Pastoralists were very willing to share their
knowledge about browse plants with us and appeared to enjoy the interviews as much
as we did'. Reflecting on the comparison between a topic RRA and a questionnaire
survey on forestry and fuelwood in Sierra Leone, Andy Inglis (1991:40) wrote that the
RRA approach enabled respondents "to enjoy a professional chat about their livelihood
or kitchen habits, instead of being subjected to an intrusive 278 question questionnaire
by bored enumerators."
With PRA the contrast is even sharper. Data are not collected by outsiders, but
presented by insiders. For outsiders, in John Devavaram's words (RRA Notes 13:10),
"One doesn't get bored repeating field work. It is always interesting." What is shared
is often unexpected and at times fascinating. For insiders, the creative act of
presentation and analysis is usually a pleasure, as is the process of learning through the
expression, sharing and augmenting of what they know. In matrix scoring for trees or
varieties of a crop, using the ground and seeds, it is a common experience for the
outsider to become redundant as the process takes off, as villagers debate and score on
their own. After village participants had made and analysed models (maquettes) of
their environment in Burkina Faso, 'tous les participants experiment le vif desir de
continuer ce travail et de I'approfondir" (Hahn 1991:3), quite often, dissatisfied with
their first attempt at a map, villagers scrub it out and start again with concentrated
enthusiasm. Again and again, villagers in India have lost themselves in mapping and
modelling, and outsiders have had to learn not to interivew, not to interrupt, not to
disturb their creativity. There is pride in what has been made, and pleasure in
presenting it to others. So often PRA is fun.
10. Explaining our Past Ignorance

There remains a puzzle, why it has taken until the 1990s for all this to come
together; for the confluence of streams (Section 1) to occur; for the principies (Section
4) to begin to emerge; for the menú of methods to reach its present richness (Section
5); for the practical applications to be made (Section 7); for the degree of validity and
reliability of RRA and PRA to become evident (Section 8); for the power of reversáis
of mode and dominance to be recognized (Section 9); and for the potentials for
empowerment, fascination and even fun to be expressed as they have. At a personal
level, I am bemused to understand how for several decades I have been working in
rural development without knowing about all this. More generally, it is a mystery why
it has taken so long for the development community as a whole to 'discover' the
richness not just of the knowledge, but of the creativity and analytical abilities of
villagers.
Some of the mystery disappears if we look for explanation in ourselves. The
beliefs, behaviour and attitudes of most outsiders have been the same all over the
world. Agricultural scientists, medical staff, teachers, officials, extensión agents and
others have believed that their knowledge was superior and that the knowledge of
farmers and rural people was inferior; and that we, the professional outsiders, had a
monopoly of powers of analysis. Most outsiders have then either lectured, holding
sticks and wagging fingers, or have interviewed, machine-gunning with rapid fire
questions, interrupting, and not listening beyond immediate replies. We have 'put
down' rural people. Out reality has blanketed theirs. Our beliefs, demeanour,
behaviour and attitudes have then been self-validating. Treated as incapable, rural
people have behaved as incapable, hiding their capabilities from us, and even from
themselves. Ñor have we known how to enable them to express, share and extend their
knowlege. The ignorance and inabilities of rural people have been not only an illusion,
but an artefact of our own arrogance and ignorance.
For participatory approaches and methods to take off, a stage had also been
reached when different conditions could come together: recognition of past error and
inadequacy, as with agricultural research for resóurce-poor farmers; greater confidence
and professionalism in rural NGOs; approaches like agro-ecosystem analysis which
simply did not exist before the 1980s; and finally, the emergence of an international
community of communication with a critical mass and momentum in which
approaches and methods could be shared between disciplines, countries, and
organizations, as at IDS in 1979, Khon Kaen in 1985 (KKU 1987), and Bangalore in
1991 (Mascarenhas et. al. 1992). Perhaps, then it is understandable that these new
participatory approaches and methods, in their many forms and with their many labels,
are now clustering and coalescing more, as philosophy, approaches, repertoire and
practice. Their time may have come.
11. Dangers
Any such up-beat statement must at once be qualified. For RRA and PRA five
dangers stand out.
The first danger is faddism. Like farming systems research, RRA and PRA could
be discredited by over-rapid adoption and misuse, and by sticking on labels without
substance. The waming signs are there: demand for training which exceeds by far the
tiny cadre of competent trainers; requirements that consultants 'use RRA* or now 'use
PRA' and then consultants who say they will do so, when they do not know what RRA
or PRA entail or are the wrong sort of people to be able to do them well; and the belief
that good RRA or PRA are simple and easy, quick fixes, when they are not.
The second danger is rushing. The word 'rapid', necessary in the late 1970s and
early 1980s, is now a liability. It has been used to legitimize brash and biased rural
development tourism. Much of the rationale for RRA/PRA has been to make time to
find the poorest, to learn from them, and to empower them. Hurry and lack of
commitment, compound errors and mean that the poorest are once again, neither seen,
listened to, ñor learnt from. The R of RRA stands better for 'relaxed', allowing plenty
of time.
The third danger is formalism. In the long term, this may prove the most difficult.
With any innovation, there is an urge to standardize and codify, often in the ñame of
quality. Manuals are called for and composed. They can indeed be useful as
compilations of experience, as cookbooks that widen the choice of recipies, as sources
of ideas, especially for trainers. But manuals can also harm. With any new approach or
method, manuals start short but grow fast. Paragraphs proliferate as intelligent authors
seek to cater for every condition and contingency. Some farming systems research
gave rise to manuals the weight and volume of which was itself a problem. (For
example, the four volumes of Farming Systems Support Project Manuals (FSSP 1987)
weighted, on our kitchen scales, approximately 3.6 kg). The dangers are evident.
Training is based on the text, and takes longer. More time is spent in the classroom,
teaching the theory and less in the field learning the practice. Spontaneity is inhibited
and spread slowed, stopped or reversed.
The intial lack of manuals for PRA in India has then been an advantage. Would-be
practitioners have been forced to learn, not from books, and not by rote, but from
colleagues, through sharing, and from their own improvisations and experi&aees in the
field. Many of the best innovations have happened when practitioners have not known
or followed whatever rules for matrix ranking. The first guidelines for wealíh ranking
(Grand in 1988) presented individual interviews in prívate as the preferred method, but
many practitioners have now found ways of using group interviews; by mid-1991,
MYRADA had conducted over two hundred wealth rankings by groups (pers. comm.
Vidya Ramachandran). Ñor has the criterion for ranking remained some concept of
'wealth'. More commonly now, more complex and diverse concepts of well-being as
defined by rural people themselves, are used.
The largest and heaviest manual in India in mid-1992 is that produced by Ravi
Jayakaran of Krishi Gram Vikas Kendra. The reader opens it to find printed boldly on
the first page:
Use Your Own Best Judgement at All Times
The other pages are all blank.
The lesson is that practitioners must take responsibility for what they do. They
must feel free to start, to make mistakes, and to learn on the run. It is not books of
instructions, but personal commitment, critical awareness, and informed impro-
visation, which can best assure quality and creativity.
»
38 Participatory Rural Appraisal: Methods and Applications in Rural Planning
A linked, fourth, danger is role. Practitioners and trainers fall into habits and
routines. There are many different ways of doing participatory mapping and
modelling, transects, walks, seasonal analyses, group interviews, ranking and scoring,
identifying special groups of people, and the like. But practitioners in any organiza-
tion, or even región, show signs of slipping into unvarying standard practices
overlooking other options. Of course, some routinization and repetition are inevitable,
even desirable. But experimenting, inventing, testing, adapting and constantly trying to
improve are parts of the potential strength of PRA. To nurture and keep that spirit, one
method is, exchanges of trainers between organizations, countries and continents, to
share approaches, methods and experiences in the field.
A final danger or difficulty is rejection. Some of the many pioneers who
contributed to the streams—participatory research, participatory action research,
applied anthropology, agro-eco-system analysis, farming systems research, and RRA
itself, which have fed into PRA, feel that they have not received due recognition, when
what they should really feel is pleasure and pride. Others, especially academics, may
feel excluded, bypassed or threatened, by the developments described in this paper,
and reject them. At worst this will mean that students in colleges and Universities, and
staff in field organizations, are denied access to and the opportunity to use PRA
approaches and methods. At best, this will mean a positive contribution through
constructive criticism which will sharpen the rigour and add to the repertoire of PRA.
It can only be hoped that the spirit of sharing will encourage and allow all
professionals to use and develop PRA approaches and methods, for this is the
monopoly of no person or group. As it grows, PRA is, and should remain, an open
access resource.
12. Frontiers, Challenges and Potentials

The future presents many frontiers, challenges and potentials. Eight stand out.
12.1 Beyond Farming Systems Research (FSR)

Farming systems research faces problems because of the diversity, complexity and
uncontrollability of many farming systems, especially rainfed farming in the South.
Participatory approaches known variously as farmer-back-to-farmer (Rhoades and
Booth 1982), farmer participatory research (Farrington and Martin 1988) and farmer to
first (Chambers, Pacey and Thrupp 1989) have moved towards involving farmers to
undertake their own analysis. This is potentially parsimonious in the use of scientists'
time (Chambers and Jiggins 1986) but its methods are still in an early stage of
development.
Pioneering work by many of those working in India, and by Jacqueline Ashby of
CIAT, Clive Lightfoot of ICLARM, Jules Pretty of IIED, and others has shown that^
farmers have diagramming and analytical capabilities which were not hitherto
suspected. In India and Malawi, Lightfoot and others have facilitated ground
diagramming by farmers of nutrient flows on their farms, and elsewhere, diagramming
of their farming systems by farmers. Añil Shah of AKRSP, in March 1991, facilitated
the diagramming on paper by a farmer, Savasi Bhura, of Gadhechi Village,
Surendranagar District, Gujarat, of a complex flow and causal diagram of the impact
of irrigation. Jules Pretty, in Pakistan in early 1992 found during a training exercise
that non-literate as well as literate farmers could make detailed diagrams of flows and
causality on their farms, including an impressive diagram by a non-literate woman.
Elsewhere in 1992, in India and Bostswana, matrix scoring for varieties of a crop has
been developed by asking analysts to add a 'wish' variety in which farmers specify the
characteristics they would like extensión and scientists to provide for them.
The challenge now is for outsider professionals to further develop and disseminate
approaches and methods to help farmers do their own analysis and make their own
needs and priorities known to scientists. If such efforts continué to be successful, the
implications for activities, procedures, training, rewards and institutional cultures in
agricultural education, research and extensión will be little short of revolutionary.
12.2 Policy Research and Change

At a policy level RRA/PRA have recently begun to be a strong source of insights.
Examples from Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Chad and Nepal illustrate the potential.
In Zimbabwe, in November 1991, RRA with PRA methods were used to
investígate the effects on agriculture of structural adjustment policies. RRAs were
conducted by a team of researchers over two weeks in two Communal Areas. Their
findings and recommendations, in a report (FSRU 1991) completed straight after the
fieldwork, provided immediate feedback from the field concerning marketing,
transport, input supply, prices, food security, and farmers' attitudes towards
agricultural structural adjustment policies, and provided policy makers with insight
into the farmers' eye-view and their intentions.
In Chad, in 1991 a survey was undertaken on a national scale using RRA
techniques to try and understand how people perceived their food security problems,
and what solutions they proposed (Buchanan-Smith 1992). Thirteen survey
enumerators worked in 55 representative villages, spending about a day in each
village. A group interview with a checklist as guide was followed by household
interviews, particularly oriented towards somen (who were rarely represented in the
group interview). Three years of different weather conditions were used as reference
points. Organizing and analyzing the mass of data was achieved despite difficulties,
and lessons were learnt for improving this sort of survey. Three categories of
administrative areas were found, each with a distinctive household food security
strategy. The results challenged the conventional thinking in N'djamena which held
that the key to raising production was promoting free market systems for agricultural
produce. The survey showed that the local people knew methods and technologies to
increase production but were constrained by lack of credit for ploughs, oxen, improved
seeds, and more efficient irrigation, and that more was needed than developing
agriculture marketing alone.
Another striking example is provided by land policy in Tanzania (Johansson and

Hoben 1992). As a contribution to a Government reassessment of land policies, the
Institute of Resource Assessment at the University of Dar es Salaam organized four
RRAs for mid-level policy-makers. Four villages were chosen to represent a range of
conditions. Four teams were formed, and each spent five days in one of the villages.
Through the direct learning of the RRAs they concluded that the Government's top
down approach was wrong, that communities and people were already doing land use
planning, that imposing a land use map was misguided, and that new participatory
approaches were needed. They presented their findings to a seminar with high-level
policy makers. The resulting recommendations from the seminar entailed major
reversáis of policy, and seemed 'to indicate just how great an impression, such a short
visit to a rural area can have and how effective an RRA can be in providing relevant
insights for policy makers and planners' (ibid. 30).
These three examples were one-off efforts. A prototype for a more permanent
facility is being tested in Nepal. There, eight small Rapid Deployment Teams have
been trained in basic PRA methods and are in place at different locations in the terai
(lowland). The intention is that they will simultaneously use PRA methods to
investígate and report on aspects of policy and conditions, providing, comparative
insight for policy-makers (pers. comm. Gerard Gilí). A similar approach, but without
PRA methods and without teams, was developed with ten representative villages in Sri
Lanka in the mid 1970s (Senaratne 1976) but was not sustained. If the Nepal initiative
is effective, it could represent a breakthrough for wide application in other countries.
The potential here appears vast. So often the State is self-deceiving through
misleading information fed back through official channels (Chambers forthcoming).
Perhaps in contrast policy-makers could now, through improved RRA and PRA
approaches and methods, have available information and insights which are more
immediately up-to-date, reliable and credible.
12.3 Personal Behaviour, Attitudes and Learning

All too often sénior officials, scientísts and academics who pronounce and
prescribe on rural development Iack recent direct knowledge, and base their analysis
and action on ignorance or on personal experience in the ñame of science and
modernity even in the 1990s.
It is not a new idea, that rural development would gain if sénior officials and
policy-makers were able to spend time unofficially living and learning in rural
conditions, though little appears to have been done. An exception is the Exposure and
Dialogue Programme of the Germán Commission of Justice and Peace which for some
years has been enabling sénior outsiders to learn the life stories of village people
(Kochendorfer-Lucius and Osner 1991; Osner et. al. 1992). In a less structured
manner, sénior officials in India have appreciated the opportunities to spend time
incógnito in villages, with their interactíons unconstrained by official protocol. At a
personal level, the methods of PRA offer new scope, and make mini-sabatícals easier
to envisage. PRA approaches and methods provide ways in which officials, scientists
and academics can come face-to-face with rural people in an informal and non-
threatening mode which both sides can find rewarding. They can also provide
experience and learning which are intellectualy exciting, practically relevant, and often
enjoyable.
Behaviour and attitudes can, though, be an impediment, sometimes irremediable.
A sénior government officer, an able scientist, a distinguished academic, an
experienced NGO worker, a local-level extensionist or health worker—any of these,
depending on personality, experience and circumstances, can either take to PRA with
enthusiasm or reject it with passion. Much needs to be learnt about how, in the rural
context, to facilítate changes in outsiders' behaviour and attitudes.
Some methods have already been devised, such as Añil Shah's 'shoulder tapping'.
He has written that, taking District Officers in Gujarat on a transect walk to see the
problems of soil erosión, "I told them in advance that a transect in Participatory Rural
Appraisal (PRA) is for observation and to understand the knowledge and perception of
the farmers. We do not advise, but ask open-ended questions without implied advice. I
told them that this was very difficult for educated people, more so for those in
authority. Therefore, when I heard anyone giving advice or asking questions with
implicit advice, I would tap his shoulder and if necessary offer my services to rephrase
the advice or query into an open-ended question."
By the end of half a day, and several taps, a lot had been learnt that would
otherwise have been missed (Shah 1992). More such methods, and much more
experience with them, are needed.
The policy and personal potentials of RRA/PRA interlock. Their scope has
scarcely begun to be tapped. The frontier here is to see how to scale up, how to enable
many more policy-makers at all levels, as well as others at the local level, personally
to gain direct learning experience in the field from and with rural people, enabling
them to fit policy and action more to local conditions and priorities and to the needs of
the poor.
12.4 Spread with Quality Assurance

In strategic discussions about RRA and PRA quality has been a recurrent concern.
The term quality control has given way to quality assurance, since no person or
organization can exercise control. Increasingly, the conclusión has been that assurance
has to be personal, and that quality depends on the individual practitioner.
One dilemma here is how far to encourage would-be practitioners and trainers to
start on their own. The danger is that bad performance will lead to discredit and
disillusionment. The opportunity is for wider and faster spread. A problem is that
capability depends on personality. Some people have a facility for using the 'right'
language, especially at international conferences, but behave in the 'wrong' manner in
the field, dominating, lecturing, interfering, interrupting, and holding on to the stick.
One solution may be for more shared field experience, for trainers to conduct training
together, for more mutual 'shoulder tapping', and more learning from each other.
Appendix A, 'start, stumble, self-correct, share' is an attempt to encourage
launching out and trying PRA approaches and methods, and learnig by doing. Nothing
in rural development is ever a panacea; and PRA faces problems of spread, scale and
quality assurance. The potential realized will depend largely on practitioners and
trainers. The questions are whether critical self-awareness, embracing error, using
one's own best judgement at all times, and constantly trying to do better can be built
into the very genes of PRA; and if so, whether RRA and PRA can be not just self-
spreading, but self-improving.
12.5 Empowerment and Equity

Good PRA empowers. Those who, through PRA, express and share what they
already know, learn through that expression and sharing. Those who investígate and
observe add to their knowledge. Those who analyse become yet more aware and reach
new understanding. Those who plan and then implement what they have planned take
command, and further learn through the experience of action.
Whether empowerment is good depends on who are empowered, and how their
new power is used. If those who gain are outsiders who exploit, or a local elite who
domínate, the poor and disadvantaged may be worse off. Whether PRA is equitable
and good, depends then on whom it involves. The 'natural' tendeney is for this to be
men rather than women, the better off rather than the worse off, and those of higher
status groups rather than those of lower status. The challenge is then, to so introduce
and use PRA that the weaker are identified and empowered and equity is served.
Fortunately, tools available suit this task. Sequences such as participatory
mapping, household listing, well-being ranking, and livelihood analysis can identify
groups distinguished according to local valúes. Focus group discussions can then
identify the priorities and interests of different categories of people, including, or
especially, those who are disadvantaged. The contrasts can be sharp. Drawing on
application of PRA techniques in Sierra Leone, Ghana, Malawi and Bangladesh, Alice
Welboum (1991) has shown how significant can be differences of ethnic group, age,
gender and economic status, and combinations of these. With pastoralists in Kenya,
Jermy Swift and Abdi Noor Umar (1991:56) found marked and striking differences of
priority: out of a possible máximum of 100, livestock management was scored 87 by
the rich, but only 7 by the poor, and lack of livestock 0 by the rich but 49 by the poor.
Differentiating groups and interests can empower the poorer in several ways. It
can give them collective awareness and confidence to confront others and argüe their
case: Youth for Action, an NGO based in South India, has worked at first in some
villages only with Harijans (Untouchables), so that they gained in confidence and
capability, before later the rest of the village was involved. AKPSP (India) convenes
groups of women and men separately to choose the numbers of trees of different sorts
they want in their nursery, and then helps them reconcile their difference.
Differentiation through welath or well-being ranking can help an outside organization

select and deselect those with whom it will work: Action Aid and MYRADA, both in
South India, have used PRA methods to identify the poorer who then gain more from
their programmes.
PRA methods, such as diagramming can also be brought into play to clarify and
resolve conflicts. Agroecosystem diagramming, was used in the Philippines to make
explicit, the differénces of interests between groups after the construction of a small
dam at lake Buhi and to achieve consensus about priorities (Conway, Sajise and
Knowland 1989; Conway 1989). In the approach of the Neighbourhood Initiatives
Foundation in the UK, a large model of a neighbourhood allows people to address
conflicts by putting down suggestions, and using markers to agree or disagree without
needing to identify themselves. This 'depersonalises conflicts and introduces infor-
mality where consensus is more easily reached' (Gibson 1991).
The identification, expression and resolution of conflicts of interest remains a
frontier for participatory methods. The next years will show what potential there is.
The worst is that, participatory methods may so enhance the awareness of the
disadvantaged and encourage their organization and action that a backlash is provoked
which leaves them weaker and worse off. One hope can be thát diagrams can be used
to defuse tensión by focusing public debate. They can make differences permanently
explicit, and can direct discussion to a visible thing rather than to individual people.
To explore this frontier demands sensitive commitment, and time. PRA methods
to identify differences of interest and priority are well known. Methods for negotiation
and equitable conflict resolution are less so. It is perhaps in this domain more than any
other that there is need and scope for new participatory methods.
12.6 Substituting for Surveys
Rural questionnaire surveys are one of the largest rural industries. They are also
one of the most protected and inefficient. They have hitherto not been subjected to a
market challenge. Like Henry Ford's Model T automobile, mass produced, durable,
and all the same colour, they are routinely turned out in a standard form. In the case of
some repetitive national surveys, like the National Sample Survey in India, there may
be no full substitute. But other, adhoc, surveys are continuously being commissioned.
Administering questionnaires is still the normal mode of rural research.
Donors and governments alike have maintained demand for questionnaire surveys
through their concern for monitoring and evaluation (M&E). Funds are set aside for
baseline surveys so that later progress can be monitored and projects evaluated. Few
such baseline surveys have ever been useful, let alone worth the resources invested in
them. The reasons include difficulties in ensuring comparability in subsequent surveys,
in assessing the counter-factual (what would have happened without the project), in
finding comparable controls, and in identifying causality.
It is too early to say that the days of the standard questionnaire survey are
numbered. Like the Model T it is robust and durable, the public is fond of it, and it
employs many workers who lack other sk.ills. Some managers (academics, consultants)
like it because it keeps them off the shop floor (out of the field). But the market for the
Model T declined as better and more varied alternatives were developed, and with
large questionnaire surveys, there are similar straws in the wind, the wall: the National
Council of Applied Economic Research, probably the largest survey organization n
India apart from the National Sample Survey, has been trying out rapid and
participatory methods as an alternative or complement to questionnaire surveys, and
with positive results; a leading PRA practitioner and trainer, Sam Joseph, of Action
Aid, Bangalore, when challenged, was able to specify a more cost-effective PRA
method for obtaining all the items of data in a standard baseline survey; and as noted
above eight teams of researchers in Nepal, trained in PRA methods, are attempting to
generate simultaneous and comparable insights from different locations.
To take but one method, i.e. participatory mapping which has proved powerful as
part of an altemative. Selina Adjebeng-Asem of Obafemi Awolowo University, Ife-Ife,
Nigeria, has reported (pers. comm. July 1992) on its application in monitoring a
soyabean project:
I trained the ... Soyabean project group in the use of PRA for monitoring of the
project impact in 5 states of the Federation, i.e. Kaduna, Niger, Enugu, Anambra
and Oyó States of Nigeria. The group of 16 researchers were amazed about how
much easier it is to obtain in depth information through participatory mapping in
addition to other RRA techniques they have already known. We were able through
mapping to obtain all relevant socio-demographic information we required for the
project; for example, the number of households in a village, households involved
in soyabean production, gender issues in soyabean production, utilization of
soyabean, and preference rankings of various soyabean diets ... We gathered an
incredible amount of information within an hour and a half visit to the village ...
The researchers have been begging me to give more training in PRA ...
In cases such as this, PRA methods, used well, can be not only more cost-effective
than questionnaire surveys; they are also more popular with all concerned, researchers
and rural people alike.
The use of PRA methods in M&E and research, raises issues of comparability and
causality. Comparability of information shared in different contexts may become a big
question in the 1990s. Decentralized and democratic processes may generate disparate
data which central planners cannot then easily add-up or compare. More remains to be
learnt about how and how well PRA methods can genrate commensurable data (for
example demographic, health and agricultural information) from different places; and
to what extent central planners and officials can tolerate and manage
incommensurability, and variability in the form of locally shared information and
locally generated plans.
With causality, PRA methods have advantages over questionnaire surveys.
Statistical correlations and regressions do not establish causality. People who live in an
área have a comparative advantage in knowing and interpreting what has happened
there, and PRA now has relevant tools to help them conduct their own analysis.
The need now is to multiply and assess more tests, experiments and innovations,
like those of the NCAER in India, of Winrock in Nepal, and of Adjebeng-Asem in
Nigeria, in order to learn how rapid, relaxed and participatory approaches and methods
can substitute for, and improve upon, questionnaire surveys.
12.7 Spread by Villagers

A finding of the PRA experience has been (see 6.1 above) that rural people can do
much that outsiders have thought they could not do. One by one the dominoes have
fallen as they have shown that they can map, model, rank, score, estimate, diagram and
analyze more and better than expected. Often, too, they can do this better than
outsiders. The working rule has become to assume that people are capable of
something until it is proved otherwise.
One frontier then becornes the development and spread of PRA and related
approaches and methods by villagers themselves. Extensión has in recent decades been
thought of as an activity for the field staff of Government organizations or of NGOs,
usually with high recurrent costs. The question is whether, and if so how, to 'hand over
the stick' to farmers and villagers themselves, and whether this can be sustainable
through local demand for the service provided.
Farmers' own extensión has a long history, probably as oíd as farming itself.
Deliberate training of farmers as extensionists though is more recent. As one example,
in the 1980s in Central America, World Neighbours trained volunteer extensionists and
gradually handed over responsibilities for experiments and extensión to them (Bunch
1985). In India, both MYRADA and SPEECH have invited villagers who had already
gained experience of PRA to take part as facilitators of training in other villages.
The Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (India) has taken this further. In the late
1980s, it developed village volunteers as an approach in which villagers were trained
as facilitators both for their own and for other villages. The village volunteers were not
just to be extensionists, but to facilítate the PRA approach and methods (Shah 1989:
Shah, Bharadwaj and Ambastha 1991). The village volunteers carne to provide
services for which people were prepared to pay, not only from their own but from
other villages. They also were enabled to form teams to conduct PRA exercises in
other villages. These teams are doing these exercises in a number of villages involving
mapping, transect diagramming, interviewing, group discussions, prioritization and
preparation of a village natural resources management plan. It is observed that they
enjoy the process ..." (Shah et. al. 1991:87-88). In February 1992, a team of village
volunteers demonstrated their skills as facilitators to an intemational group of visitors
in Kabripather village, Bharuch District, Gujarat. In one day, the village volunteers
enabled villagers to map their degraded forest, count and measure rootstock in five
quadrats on the ground, assess numbers of nursery plants needed, and through matrix
scoring, analyse needs and choose numbers of each species (M. Shah, forthcoming). In
July 1992 it was reported that village volunteers conducting PRAs had told AKRSP
staff that now 'they need not bother to attend'.
The question now is, whether spread through village volunteers can become self-
sustaining and self-irnproving. The incentive systems evolved by AKRSP and villagers
involve payment by results, rewarding good performance. Demand exists from new
villages for the services of village volunteers. It remains to be seen whether village
volunteers on their own will be able and willing to train village volunteers in new
villages, who will then in turn be in demand. Were that to occur, and with market
incentives for good performance, what began as programme initiated from outside,
might become self-spreading. Were that not to occur, it might still be feasible for
organisations like AKRSP to foster spread with a light touch, training volunteers and
encouraging them to form teams that sell their services.
12.8 PRA in Institutions

Perhaps the biggest challenge is the establishemnt of PRA as a way of operating,
even as a culture, in organizations. Normal bureaucratic tendencies to standardise,
centralise, and impose top-down targets at best impede and at worst prevent the open-
endedness, flexibility, creativity and diversity of much good PRA. To establish PRA as
the norm in an organization, therefore, requires reversáis and a change of culture.
Three main types of organizations have been involved: NGOs; Government field
organizations; and universities and training institutes.
Those organizations which have embraced and developed PRA have shared three
characteristics. The leadership has been stable and committed to PRA; a substantial
proportion of staff have personally wished to use the PRA approach and methods; and
there has been recurrent training and reinforcement. Commitment of a director or
principal of an institution, is on its own not enough; ñor is, on its own repeated
training. Ñor does it seem useful to train at lower field level without a higher level
commitment. It is critical that the middle-level managerial staff in any organization,
genuinely, and not just verbally, wish to use or support PRA. If they do not, there are
innumerable small ways in which their lack of support can undermine and finally
elimínate PRA initiatives.
Not surprisingly, much of the initial innovation and spread has been among
NGOs, since their organizational cultures quite often share valúes with PRA. Some,
like IIED based in the UK, and MYRADA and AKRSP in India, have undertaken
training for Government field organizations, and have defined or begun to redefine
their roles to include PRA training for others. Adoption and use in Government field
organizations is more problematical (see Section 7 above). To learn more from
experience, already gained with strategy and tactics, is a priority that will be addressed
in a forthcoming issue of RRA Notes.
In the long term, universities and training institutes are strategically vital.
Currently, many of them disable those who pass through them, conditioning them with
attitudes and behaviour of superiority, and teaching methods, which then have to be
unleamt. Rehabilitation can then be tiresome, painful, costly, and far firom always
successful.
Globally, RRA and PRA have made little impression in universities and training
institutes till date. The scale of adoption of RRA and PRA remains minuscule
compared with the scope. The potential for applications in training and education
remains vast and almost entirely unrecognized. Only when more universities and other
tertiary institutions for education and training, introduce RRA and PRA into their
curricula, teaching and fieldwork, and a new generation of professionals are well
versed in their principies, methods, behaviour and attitudes which go with them, will
its acceptance and spread become truly wide.
To this absence in universities, four exceptions can be noted regionally.
First, in Southeast Asia, several universities in Thailand (notably the pioneering
University of Khon Kaen) and the Philippines (including the University of the
Philippines, Los Baños) have been using RRA for years. A comparative study is
overdue to understand why and how they carne to adopt it, and their experience in
legitimating, teaching and further developing it.
Second, among universities in sub-Saharan Africa, those with practitioners of
RRA and PRA include Egerton University in Kenya (with a link with Clark
University, Worcester, Mass., USA), Obafemi Awolowo University, Ife-Ife, Nigeria,
and the University of Zimbabwe, Harare.
Third, in the early 1990s, some key training institutions in India and Nepal started
to adopt and develop the PRA approach and methods. These include the National
Academy of Administration at Mussoorie, the Indian Institute of Forest Management
at Bhopal, the Xavier Institute of Social Service at Ranchi, and the Institute of Forest
Management at Pokhara in Nepal. All these are believed to be using PRA methods in
the village fieldwork of their students in place of questionnaire surveys. At the same
time, a number of Agricutlure Universities in India, including the Narendra Dev
University of Agriculture and Technology, Faizabad and other Eastern Indian
Agricultural Universities, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and the Hebbal
Agricultural University, Bangalore, have invited lectures, workshops and training in
PRA and related methodologies.
Fourth, staff in several Australian Universities have taken up and practised RRA
and PRA. Historically, this followed a paradigm shift in agricultural education, to
systems thinking and self-directed learning, in Hawkesbury Agricultural College (now
the University of Western Sydney), Hawkesbury; the School of Crop Sciences at the
University of Sydney (Ampt and Ison 1989; Ison n.d.); the School of Agriculture at
Charles Sturt University, Riverina (Dunn and McMillan 1991); and the Law School,
Mcquarie University (Voyce et. al. 1989). One RRA in Australia identified intra and
inter generational conflict and the transfer of the family farm as neglected topics of
concern to many farmers (Ampt 1988; Ampt and Ison 1988; Ison 1990) and then RRA
techniques were used to study the transfer of the family farm (Voyce et. al. 1989).
RRA has also been used for the identification of grassland research problems (Ampt
and Ison 1989). In September 1991, participants from several institutions combined
as a team to facilítate a PRA in the Kyeamba Valley which enabled landholders
and their families to identify and analyse issues of concern, and to plan action (PRA
Team 1991).
Pathways of dissemination are not easy to foresee, but this Australian example
may be a pointer. With this form of global sharing, the normal direction of transfer of
innovation is reversed, and approaches and methods evolved in developing countries
and adopted and adapted in rich counties.
13. The Paradigmatic Significance of PRA

One contribution to be sought from universities is a better understanding of
underlying theory. In Australia, RRA has been linked with soft systems theory
(Checkland 1981) and contextual science (Russell and Ison 1991). In making these
links, Australian researchers have begun to explore further the paradigmatic
significance of RRA and PRA.
The word 'paradigm' is used with various meanings. Here I shall use it to mean a
coherent and mutually active pattern of concepts, valúes, methods and action,
amenable to wide application.
In his paper (Jamieson 1987) "The paradigmatic significance of RRA", delivered
at the International Conference on Rapid Rural Appraisal at Khon Kaen in 1985, Neil
Jamieson argued that RRA, with its rapid learning, fitted and supported a new and
emerging paradigm of development. Despite ideological conflicts, Marxists, socialists
and capitalists had shared evolutionary, unilineal, universalistic, positivistic and
utilitarian assumptions, and a fervent belief in progress. Another view of development,
he said, was of human evolution as problem-solving under pressure, as adaptive
change. This fitted better with a cybernetic systems approach, which included the
concepts of feedback, of lead time (the time between receipt of information and when
it is too late to use it), and of lag time (the time between receipt of information and the
completion of action based on it), (see also Joseph 1991). Jamieson argued that change
had accelerated and unpredictability had increased, making accurate and timely
feedback more than ever vital for effective adaptive change.
Much that Jamieson wrote not only still applies, but applies now with more forcé
than in 1985. At a theoretical level, chaos theory has shown more clearly how pattems
and directions of change can be sensitive to small differences in starting conditions
(Gleick 1987). At the empirical level, changes in local and global conditions—
ecological, social and political—appear to be accelerating. In conditions of faster and
faster change, and of increasing unpredictability, it matters more even than before to
have timely, prompt learning and rapid adaptive responses.
Perhaps more significanüy, parallel shifts of paradigm are now occurring in three
domains: in science; in business management; and in development itself.
In science, conventional approaches, using hard systems and reductionist
assumptions and methods, are in crisis when faced with many of our important
problems (Mearas 1991; Appleyard 1992). Scientific methods are not competent to
predict or prescribe for the complex open systems which matter most. Global
environmental issues involve huge uncertainties and demand what Funtowicz and
Ravetz (1990) cali a 'second order science' in which judgement plays a more
recognized part. Precise understanding prediction and prescription for local agroeco-
social systems can be similarly elusive. This is not a new discovery, Jeremy Swift
wrote in 1981:
... a major World Bank livestock development project in Mali is based, for crucial
calculations of sustainable grazing pressure, on the report of a highly competent
ecologist in 1972; the calculations were redone in 1977/78 by a different, equally
well-qualified ecologist, who halved the earlier carrying capacity. Nobody is to
blame; the science is inexact. But the consequences could be disastrous for the
project, and more so for the pastoralists involved. (Swift 1981:487)
Perhaps no one was to blame then. But now we know more about what is not
knowable using the standard methods of 'disciplines'. When so much is so
unknowable and so unpredictable, solutions have to be sought through methodological
pluralism, through flexible and continuous learning and adaption, and through the
exercise of judgement.
In business management, the parallel shift has been from the valúes and strategies
of mass production to those of flexible specialization (see e.g. Kaplinsky 1991:7).
Standardizaron has been replaced by variety and rapid response, hierarchical
supervisión by thrust, and punitive quality control by personal quality assurance at
source. Much in Tom Peters' book of advice to American business managers, Thriving
on Chaos: Handbook for a Management Revolution (1987), applies equally in PRA.
He advocates, for example, 'achieving flexibility by empowering people', learning to
love'change, becoming obsessed with listening, deferring to the front line, and
'building systems for a world turned upside down'. A highly successful Brazillian
manager, when he took over a company, abolished norms, manuals, rules and
regulations, and put the company's employees in the demanding position of using their
own judgement' (Semler 1989: 79). It has been the discipline of the market and
opportunities from new technology which have driven and drawn business
management to decentralized flexibility, to diversification, and to finding and
exploiting transient niche markets. For PRA and related approaches, the discipline is
what works with people and communities, and the opportunities of the new approaches
and methods, which drive and draw. In both business management and PRA, valué is
placed on decentralization, sharing knowledge, empowerment, diversity, and rapid
change and feedback. So it is that the philosophy and approahces of PRA can be seen
as one expression of a wider paradigm for effective action in the contemporary world.
In development theories of universal economic growth as the main means to a
better life are less credible than ever (see e.g. Ekins 1992, Sachs 1992 passim). As
economic growth ceases 'to be a simple, universal objective, as it is recognised as
environmentally harmful among the richer, and as economic resources are recognized
as fínite, so it matters more to enhance the quality of life through other more
sustainable means. For the rich, the question is how to be better off with less; for the
poor, it is how to gain more and be better off with what they can gain, but without
repeating the errors of the rich. These objectives can be served by enabling local
people to identify, express and achieve more of their own priorities. In line with this,
the emergent paradigm for human living on and with the earth brings together
decentralization, democracy and diversity. What is local, and what is different, is
valued. In this paradigm, the trends towards centralization, authoritatianism, and
homogenization are reversed. Reductionism, linear thinking, and standard solutions
give way to an inclusive holism, open systems thinking, and diverse options and
actions.
RRA, and more so PRA are part of general paradigm shift. They resonate with the
support methodological local people's priorities and democratic local diversity. Like
'future development', the future of PRA is unknowable; but the promise is there. How
much of that promise is realized, how soon, and how well, will be determined by
professionals in NGOs, Government services, training and research institutes, and
universities. Closed or open, conservative or radical, reductionist or pluralist, timid or
bold, as guardians of the oíd or as inventors of the new, they will determine this
through personal choice.
Abbreviations and Addresses

ActionAid Action Aid, 2 Rest House Road, Post Box 5406, Bangalore 560 001,
India.
AKRSP Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (India), Choice Premises, Swastik
Cross Roads, Navarangpura, Ahmedabad 380 009, India.
IDS Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1
9RE, UK.
IIED Sustainable Agricultura Programme, International Institute for
Environment and Development, 3 Endsleigh Street, London WC1H ODD,
UK.
MYRADA MYRADA, 2 Service Road, Domlur Layout, Bangalore 560 071, India.
NCAER National Council for Applied Economic Research, 11 I.P. Estate, New
Delhi 110 002, India.
NIF Neighbourhood Initiatives Foundation, Chapel House, 7 Gravel
Leasowes, Lightmoor, Telford TF4 3QL, UK.
ODI Overseas Development Institute, Regent's College, Inner Circle, Regent's
Park, London NW1 4NS.
PRA Participatory rural appraisal.
RRA Rapid rural appraisal.
SPEECH 14 Jeyaraja Illam, Kiruba Nagar, Madurai 625 014, India.
References
Action Aid, 1991, Jamkhed: "Participatory Rural Appraisal in Identifying Major Illness",
Healthcare Providers and Costs, Action Aid, Bangalore.
Ampt, P.R., 1988, "Rapid Rural Appraisal", Forbes Shire, February 1988 Initial Report, School
of Crop Sciences, University of Sydney.
Ampt, P.R. and Ison, R.L., 1988, "Report of a Rapid Rural Appraisal to identify problems and
opportunities for agronomic research and development in the Forbes Shire, NSW", School
of Crop Sciences, University of Sydney, December.
1989, "Rapid Rural Appraisal for the identification of grassland research problems",
Proceedings of the XVI International Grassland Congress, Nice, France, pp. 1291-92.
Appletion, Judith, 1992, "Notes from a food and nutrition PRA in a Guinean fishing village",
RRA Notes, 16, pp. 77-85.
Appleyard, B., 1992, Understanding the Present: Science and the Soul ofModern Man, Picador,
Published by Pan Books, London.
Ashby, J.A., 1990, "Evaluating Technology with farmers: A Handbook", IPRA Projects, Centro
Interactional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), A A 6713, Cali, Colombia, December.
Bawden, R.J., Macadam, R.D., Packham, R.J. and Valentine, I., 1984, "Systems thinking and
practice in agricultural education", Agricultural Systems, 13, pp. 205-25.
Bayer, W., 1987, "Browse quality and availability in a farming area and a grazing reserve in the
Nigerian sub-humid zone", Report to the ILCA Sub-humid Zone Programme, Kaduna,
Nigeria, Gottingen, May.
Bayer, W., 1988, "Ranking of browse species by cattlekeepers in Nigeria", RRA Notes, 3, pp. 4-
10, December.
Beebe, J., 1987, "Rapid Appraisal: The evolution of the concept and the defintion of issues", in
KKU Proceedings, pp. 47-68.
Belshaw, D., 1981, "A theoretical framework for data-economising appraisal procedures with
applications for rural development planning", in R. Longhurst (ed.), IDS Bulletin, Vol. 12,
No. 4, pp. 12-22.
Bentley, Margaret E„ Pelto, Gretel H., Straus, Walter L., Schumann, Debra A., Adegbola,
Catherine, de la Pena, Emanuela, Oni, Gbolahan A., Brown, Kenneth H. and Huffman,
Sandra L., 1998, "Rapid ethnographic assessment: applications in a diarrhoea management
programm", Social Science in Medicine, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 107-116.
Bemadas, C.N, Jr., 1991, "Lesson in upland farmer participation: the case of enriched fallow
technology in Jaro, Leyte, Philippines", Forest, Trees and People Newsletter, 14, October,
pp. 10-11.
Biggs, S„ 1980, "Informal R&D", Ceres, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 23-26.
BRAC, 1983, The Net: Power Structure in Ten Villages, Bangladesh Rural Advancement
Committee, 66 Mokhahali Commerical Area, Dhaka 12.
Bradley, Sarah Murray., 1992, "Visual literacy: a review with an annotated bibliography",
mimeo, IIED, London.
Brokensha, David W, Warren, D.M. and Werner, O., 1980, Indigenous Knowledge Systems and
Development, University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland.
Buchanan-Smith, M., 1992, "Finding out how people prioritize their food security problems in
Chad: the challenges of RRA at national level", mimeo, IDS, Sussex.
Bunch, R., 1985, Two Ears of Corn: A Guide to People-Centred Agricultural Improvement,
World Neighbors, 5116, North Portland, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112.
Campbell, G.J, Shrestha, R. and Stone, L., 1979, The Use and Misuse of Social Science
Research in Nepal, Research Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies, Tribhuvan University,
Kirtipur, Kathmandu.
Carruthers, lan and Chambers, Robert., 1981, "Rapid Appraisal for rural development",
Agricultural Administración, Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 407-422.
Case, D'Arcy Davis, 1990, "The Community's Toolbox: The Idea, Methods and Tools for
Participatory Assessment, Monitoring and Evaluation in Community Forestry, Community
Forestry Field Manual 2, FAO, Rome.
Cernea, Michael, (ed.), 1985, Putting People First: Sociological Variables in Development
Project, the Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.
Chambers, Robert, 1981, "Rapid Rural Appraisal" "rationale and repertoire", IDS Discussion
Paper, No. 155, IDS, Sussex.
1992, "The self-deceiving state", IDS Bulletin, Vol. 23, No. 4, IDS, Sussex.
Chambers, Robert and Harriss, John, 1977, "Comparing twelve South Indian villages: in search
of practical theory", in B.H. Farmer (ed.), Green Revolution? Technology and Change in
Rice Growing Area of Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka, pp. 301-322.
Chambers, Robert and Jiggins, Janice, 1986, "Agricultural research with resource-poor farmers:
a parsimonious paradigm", IDS Discussion Paper 220, IDS, Sussex.
Chambers, Robert, Pacey, Amold and Thrupp, Lx>ri Ann., (eds.), 1989, Farmer First: Farmer
¡nnovation and Agricultural Research, Intermediate Technology Publications, London.
Checkland, P.B., 1981, Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, John Wiley, Chichester.
Collinson, M., 1981, "A low cost approach to understanding small farmers", Agricultural
Administration, Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 433-50.
Convergence, 1975, Vol. 7, No. 2, 1981, Vol. 14, No. 2, and 1988, Vol. 21, Nos. 2 and 3; special
issue on participatory research.
Conway, G., 1985, "Agroecosystem analysis", Agricultural Administration, 20, pp. 32-55.
1986, Agroecosystem Analysis for Research and Development, Winrock International
Instituto for Agricultural development, PO Box 1172, Nana Post Office, Bangkok 10112.
1987, ''Rapid Rural Appraisal and Agroecosystem analysis: a case study from Northern
Pakistan', in KKU Proceedings, pp. 228-54.
1988, "Rainbow over Wollow", New Scientist, 5 May.
1989, "Diagrams for farmers", in R. Chambers, A Pacey and L.A. Thrupp (eds.), Farmer
First, pp. 77-86.
Conway, G., Sajise, P. and Knowland, W., 1989, "Lake Buhi: resolving conflicts in a
Philippines development project", Ambio, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 128-35.
Cornwall, Andrea, 1992, "Body mapping in health RRA/PRA", RRA Notes, 16, pp. 69-76.
Cresswell, Teresa, 1992, "Unemployment and health: the development of the use of PRA in
identified communities in Staveley, North Derbyshire", RRA Notes 16, pp. 27-30.
Daane, J.R.V., 1987, "Quelle Methode poru I' Analyse de Systemes do Production en Zone
Rurale Tropicale: Le Dilemme entre Demarche Quantitative Peu Biable et Demarche
Qualitativé Peu Generalisable", Contribution au eme Seminaire d'Economie Rurale,
CIRAD, Montpellier.
Devavaram, John, Nalini, J. Vimalnathan, Abdul Sarkar, Krishnan, A.P. Mayandi and
Karunanidi., 1991, "PRA for Rural Resource Management", RRA Notes 13, pp. 102-111.
Dunn, A.M., 1991, "New challenges for extensionists: targeting complex problems and issues",
paper for the lOth European Seminar on Extensión Education, Universidade de Tras-os-
Montese Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal, September.
Dunn, Tony and McMillin, Alian, 1991, "Action research: the application of Rapid Rural
Appraisal to learn about issues of concern in land care areas near Wagga Wagga, NSW",
p.per presented to a Conference on Agriculture, Education and Information Transfer,
Murrumbigee College of Agriculture, NSW, September 30 to October 2, 1991.
ECRS, 1988, Rapid Rural Appraisal: a Closer Look. at Rural Life in Wollo, Ethiopian Red
Cross Society, Addis Ababa and the IIED, London.
Ekins, P„ Hillman, Mayer and Hutchinson, Robert, 1992, Wealth Beyond Measure: an Atlas of
New Economics, Gaia Books, London.
Farmer, B.H., 1977, Creen Revolution? Technology and Change in Rice-Growing Areas of
Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka, Macmillan, London and Basingstoke.
Farrington, John, (ed.), 1988, Experimental Agriculture, Vol. 24, Part3.
Farrington, John and Martin, Adrienne, 1988, "Farmer participation in agricultural research: a
review of concepts and practices", Agricultural Administration Occasional Paper No. 9,
ODI London.
Francis, Sheelu, Devavaram, John and Erskine, Arunothayam., 1992, 'Training workshop on
participatory rural appraisal for planning health projects", RRA Notes 16, pp. 37-47.
Franzel, Steven and Crawford, Eric., 1987, "Comparing formal and informal survey techniques
for farming research: a case study from Kenya", Agricultural Administration 27, pp. 13-33.
Freire, Paulo., 1968, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, The Seabury Press, New York.
FSRU, 1991, "Structural adjustment and communal area agriculture in Zimbabwe: case studies
from Mangwende and Chivi communal areas: a report of a rapid rural appraisal exercise",
Farming Systems Research Unit, Department of Research and Specialist Services, Ministry
of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Settlement, Harare, Zimbabwe, November.
FSSP, 1987, Diagnosis, Design and Analysis in Farming Systems Research and Extensión,
Volumes I, II and III, and Trainer's Manual, Farming Systems Support Project, Institute of
Food and Agricultural Science, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611,
December.
Funtowicz, S.O, and Ravetz, J.R., 1990, Global Environemntal Issues and the Emergence of
Second Order Science, Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
Gaventa, John and Lewis, Helen, 1991, "Participatory education and grassroots development:
the case of rural appalachia", Gatekeeper Series 25, IIED, London.
Gibbs, Christopher, 1987, "Rapid Rural Appraisal: an overview of concepts and applications', in
KKU Proceedings, pp. 193-206.
Gibson, Tony, 1991, "Planning for real: the approach of the Neighbourhood Initiatives
Foundation in the UK", RRA Notes 11, pp. 29-30.
Gilbert, E.H. Norman, D.W. and Winch, F.E., 1980, "Farming Systems Research: a critical
appraisal", MSU Rural Development Paper No. 6, Department of Agricultural Economics,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824.
Gilí, G., 1991, "But how does it compare with the real data?" RRA Notes 14, pp. 5-14 (also
Research Report Series Number 16, HMG Ministry of Agriculture-Winrock International,
Kathmandu, January 1992).
Forthcoming, "Participatory methods in policy analysis for natural resource management",
in Natural Resource Economics of India: a Guidebook for Researchers and Policy Makers,
Oxford and IBH, New Delhi.
Gleick, J., 1987, Chaos: making a New Science, Heinemann, London.
Gould, P, and White, R., 1974, Mental Maps, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, UK.
Grandin, Barbara, 1988, Wealth Ranking in Smallholder Communities: a Field Manual,

Intermedíate Technology Publications, 103, Southampton Row, London.
Grandstaff, Terry B, and Grandstaff, Somluckrat W., 1987a, "A conceptual basis for
methodological development in Rapid Rural Appraisal", in KKU Proceedings, pp. 69-88.
1987b, "Semi-structured interviewing by multidisciplinary teams in RRA", in KKU
Proceedings, pp. 129-143.
Grandstaff, Somluckrat W., Granstaff, Terry B. and Lovelace, George W., 1987, "Summary
Report", in KKU Proceedings, pp. 3-30.
Groenfeldt, D., 1989, "Guidelines for rapid assessment of minor irrigation systems in Sri
Lanka", Working Paper No. 14, International Irrigation Management Institute, Sri Lanka.
Gueye, Bara and Schoonmaker, Freudenberger, Karen, 1990, "Introduction a la Methode
Acceleree de Recherche Participative (MARP)", Centre de Recherches pour le
Development International, BP 2435, Dakar, Senegal, October.
Gueye, "Bara and Karen Schoonmaker Freudenberger, 1991, Methods Accelerr de Recherche
Participative", IIED, London, August.
Guijt, Irene, and Manneh, Karafa, Martin, Mary and Sarch, Terri, 1992, "Reflections on the
training: process and prospects", in From Input to Impact: Participatory Rural Appraisal
for Action Aid The Gambia, Action Aid, the Gambia and IIED, London, March pp. 1-19.
Guijt, Irene and Pretty, Jules N., forthcoming, Participatory Rural Appraisal for Farmer
Participatory Research in Punjab, Pakistan, IIED, London.
Gypmantasiri et. al. and Conway, Gordon, 1980, "An Interdisciplinary Perspective of Cropping
Systems in the Chiang Mai Valley: Key Questions for Research", Múltiple Cropping
Project, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Chiang Mai, Thailand, June.
Hahn, H„ 1991, "Apprendre avec les yeux, s'exprimer avec les mains: des paysans se forment a
la gestión du terrior", AGRECOL, Oekozentrum, CH-4438 Langenbruck, Switzerland.
Harwod, R., 1979, Small Farm Development: Understanding and Improving Farming Systems in
the Humid Tropics, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Hill, Polly., 1972, Rural Hausa: A Village and a Setting, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
IDS, 1979, "Whose Knowledge Counts?', IDS Bulletin, Vol. 10, No. 2.
1992, "Some Sources on Rapid and Participatory Rural Appraisal".
Inglis, Andrew Stewart., 1990, "Harvesting local forestry knowledge: a field test and evaluation
of rapid rural appraisal techniques for social forestry project analysis", dissertation
presented for the degree of Master of Science, University of Edinburgh.
1991, "Harvesting local forestry knowledge: a comparison of RRA and conventional
surveys", RRA Notes 12, pp. 32-40.
Ison, Raymond, I., (1990), "Rapid Rural Appraisal: A participatory 'problem' identification
method relevant to Australian agriculture", School of Crop Sciences, University of Sydney,
2206.
Jamieson, N., 1987, "The paradigmatic significance of RRA", in KKU Proceedings, pp. 89-102.
Jayakaran, Ravi, 1991, "PRA Camp at Mahilong, Bihar, 27-30, November 1990: Krishi Gram
Vikas Kendra", RRA Notes, 13, pp. 118-122.
Johansson, Lars, and Hoben, Alian, 1992, "RRA's for land policy formulation in Tanzania",
Forests, Trees and People Newsletter, 14/15, February pp. 26-31.
Joseph, S„ 1991, "Lead time, lag time: RRA/PRA in Action Aid", Action Aid, Post Box 5406, 3
Resthouse Road, Bangalore-560 001.
1992, "Participatory Rural Appraisal in identifying major illness, healthcare providers and
costs", RRA Notes 16, pp. 53-56.
Joseph, Thomas, and Joseph, Sam., 1991, "PRA in Malda District, West Bengal: report of a
training workshop for Action Aid India and Tagore Society for Rural Development", RRA
Notes 13, pp. 95-101.
Kabutha, Charity, and Ford, Richard, 1988, "Using RRA to formúlate a village resources
management plan, Mbusanyi, Kenya", RRA Notes 2, October, pp. 4-11.
Kaplinsky, R., 1991, "From mass production to flexible specialization: a case study from a semi-
industrialized economy", IDS Discussion Paper 295, IDS, Sussex, November.
Kassam, Yusuf, and Mustafa, Kemal, (Eds.), 1982, "Participatory Research: An Emerging
Altemative Methodology in Social Science Research", Society for Participatory Research
in Asia, 45 Sainik Farm, Khanpur, New Delhi 110 062.
KKU, 1987, Proceedings of the 1985 International Conference on Rapid Rural Appraisal, Rural
Systems Research and Farming Systems Research Projects, University of Khon Kaen,
Thailand.
Kochendorder-Lucius, O, and K. Osner, 1991, "Development Has a Face: Life stories of
Thirteen Women in Bangladesh on People's Economy", Results of the International
Exposure and Dialogue Programme of the Germán Commission of Justice and Peace and
Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, October 14-22, 1989, Gerechtigkeit and Frieden Series,
Deutsche Kommission Justice et Pax, Kaiserstrasse 163, D-5300 Borní 1.
Kumar, Alok, 1992, 'Trends in Health Care", RRA Notes 16, pp. 48-52.
Kumar, Somesh, 1991, "Anantapur experiment in PRA training", RRA Notes 13, pp. 112-17.
Lightfoot, Clive, et. al., 1991, Training Resource Bookfor Participatory Experimental Design,
Narendra Dev University of Agriculture and Technology, Faizabad, UP, India; International
Centre for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines; International Rice
Research Institute, Manila, Philippines.
Longhurst, R„ (ed.), 1981, "Rapid Rural Appraisal", IDS Bulletin, Vol. 12, No. 4.
Lovelace, Geroge W, Subhadhira, Sukaesinee and Simaraks, Suchint, (eds.), 1988, "Rapid Rural
Appraisal in Northeast Thailand: Case Studies", KKU-Ford Rural Systems Research
Project, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
McCracken, J.A., 1988, "Participatory Rapid Rural Appraisal in Gujarat: A Trial Model for the
Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (India)", IIED, London, November.
1990, "BOBP tries out RRA in Chinnamedu, Tamil Nadu", Bay of Bengal News, June
1990, pp. 2-5.
McCracken, J.A., Pretty, Jules N. and Conway, Gordon R„ 1988, An Introduction to Rapid
Rural Appraisal for Agricultural Development, IIED, London.
Mascarenhas, J., 1990, 'Transects in PRA", PALM Series IV E, MYRADA, 2 Service Road,
Domlur Layout, Bangalore 560 071.
Mascarenhas, J, and P.D. Prem Kumar, 1991, "Participatory mapping and modelling user's
notes", RRA Notes 12, pp. 9-20.
Mascarenhas, J, et. al., 1991, "Participatory Rural Appraisal: Proceedings of the February 1991
Bangalore PRA Trainers Workshop", RRA Notes Number 13, IIED, London and Myrada,
Bangalore, August.
Maxwell, Simón., 1989, "Rapid food security assessment: a pilot exercise in Sudan",
RRA Notes 5.
Mduma, E.K., 1982, "Appropriate technology for grain storage at Bwakira Chini Village", in
Kaswsam and Mustafa (eds.), Participatory Research, pp. 198-213.
Meams, R., 1991, "Environmental implications of structural adjustment: reflections on scientific
method", IDS Discussion Paper 284, IDS, Sussex, February.
Mearns, Robín, Shombodon, D., Narangerel, G, Turul, U, Enkhamgalan, A., Myagmarzhav, B,
Bayanjargal, A. and Bekhsuren, B., 1992, "Direct and indirect uses of wealth ranking in
Mongolia", RRA Notes 15, pp. 29-38.
Moris, Jhon R., 1970, "Multi-subject farm surveys reconsidered: some methodological lessons",
paper for the East African Agricultural Economics Society Conference, Dar es Salaam, 31
March to 4 April, 1970.
Moser, C.A, and Kalton, G., 1971, Survey Methods in Social Investigation, second edition,
Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., London.
Mukherjee, Neela, 1992, "Villagers' perceptions of rural poverty through the mapping methods
of PRA", RRA Notes 15, pp. 21-26.
NES, 1990, Participatory Rural Appraisal Handbook, National Environment Secretariat, Kenya,
Clark University; Egerton University; and the Centre for International Development and
Environment of the World Resources Institute, February.
Norman, D.W., 1975, "Rationalizing mixed cropping under indigenous conditions: the example
of Northern Nigeria, Samaru Research Bulletin 232, Institute for Agricultural Research,
Samaru, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria (also Journal of Development Studies
n.d. pp. 3-21).
Osner, Karl, Kochendorfer-Lucius, Gudrun, Muller-Glodde, "Ulrike, and Warning, Claudia.,
1992, Exposure-und Dialog programme: Eine Handreichung fur Teilnehmer und
Organisatoren", Justitia et Pax, Kaiserstrasse 163,5300 Bonn 1.
Palm Series 1-5, MYRADA, 2 Service Road, Domlur Layout, Bangalore 560 071.
Pelto, Pertti J, and Pelto, Gretel H„ 1978, Anthropological Research: the Structure of Inquiry,
second edition, Cambridge University Press.
PID and NES, 1989, An Introduction to Participatory Rural Appraisal for Rural Resources
Management Programme for International Development, Clark University, Worcester,
Mass. and National Environment Secretariat, Ministry of Environment and Natural
Resources, Nairobi, November.
Ponen, D., 1985, "Rapid Rural Appraisal—emergence of a methodology and its application to
irrigation: a bibliographical review", paper for the Review and Development Seminar on
Selected Issues in Irrigation Management, International Irrigation Management Institute,
Sri Lanka.
Pottier, J., 1991, "Representation and accountability: understanding social change through Rapid
Appraisal, with reference to Northern Zambia", mimeo, Department of Social
Anthropology, SOAS, University of London, April.
PRA Team, 1991, The Kyeamba Valley: "Issues of Concern to Landholders and Their Families,
identified in a Participatory Rural Appraisal by Members of the Kyeamba Valley
Community, September 1991", complied by a PRA team with the following connections:
Landcare, Department of Conservaron and Land Management, New South Wales
Agriculture, School of Agriculture, CSU-R, Centre for Conservation Farming, CSU-R,
School of Crop Sciences, the University of Sydney and Wagga Wagga City Council.
Pretty, Jules N., 1990, "Rapid Catchment Analysis for Extensión Agents" Notes on the 1990
Kericho Training Workshop for the Ministry of Agriculture, Kenya, Sustainable
Agriculture Programme, IIED, London, November.
Pretty, Jules, Subramanian, S., Ananthakrishnan, D., Jayanthi, C., Muralikrishnasamy, S. and
Renganayaki, K., 1992, "Finding the poorest in a Tamil Nadu Village: a sequence of
mapping and wealth ranking", RRA Notes 15, pp. 39-42.
Rahman, Md Anisur, (ed.), 1984, Grassroots Participation and Self-reliance, Oxford and IBH,
New Delhi.
Ramachandran, Vidya, 1990, "A Workshop on Participatory Learning Methods, 8th to 12th
January 1990", MYRADA Talavadi Project, PRA/PALM Series No. 1, MYRADA,
Bangalore.
Rhoades, Robert, 1982, "The Art of the Informal Agricultural Survey", International Potato
Centre, Apartado 5969, Lima.
1990, "The coming revolution in methods for rural development research", User's
Perspective Network (UPWARD), International Potato Centre (CIP), PO Box 933, Manila.
Rhoades, R.E, and Booth, R., 1982, "Farmer-back-to-farmer: a model for generating accetable
agricultural technology", Agricultural Administration, Vol. 11, pp. 127-37.
Richards, P., 1985, Indigenous Agricultural Revolution, Hutchinson, London and Westview
Press, Colorado.
Rocheleau, Diane, Wachira, Kamoji, Malaret, Luis and Muchiri Wanjohi, Bernard, 1989, "Local
knowledge for agro-forestry and native plants", in R. Chambers, A. Pacey and L.R. Thrupp
(eds.), Farmer First, pp. 14-24.
RRA Notes 1-16 and continuing, Sustainable Agriculture Programme, International Institute for
Environment and Development, 3 Endsleigh Street, London WC 1 HODD.
Russell, David B, and Ison, Raymond L., 1991, "The research-development relationship in
rangelands: an opportunity for contextual science", Plenary Paper for Fourth International
Rangelands Congress, Montpellier, France, 22-26 April.
SPR in Asia, 1982, Participatory Research: an Introduction, Society for Participatory Research
in Asia, 435 Sainik Farm, Khanpur, New Delhi 110 062.
Sachs, Wolfgang, (ed.), 1992, The Development Dictionary: a Guide to Knowledge as Power,
Zed Books, London, and New Jersey.
Scoones, I., 1988, "Learning about wealth: a example from Zimbabwe", RRA Notes, No. 2.
Scrimshaw, S. and Hurtado, E., 1987, "Rapid Assessment Procedures for Nutrition and Primary
Health Care: Anthropological Approaches for Improving Programme Effectiveness",
United Nations University, Tokyo; UNICEF/UN Children's Fund; and UCLA Latin
American Centre, Los Angeles.
Semler, R., 1989, "Managing without managers", Harvard Business Review, September-
October, pp. 76-84.
Senaratne, S.P.F., 1976, "A program of micro-level studies in rural Sri Lanka" mimeo, no source
given, 12 pages.
Shah, Añil C., 1991, "Shoulder tapping: a technique of training in participatory rural appraisal",
Forests, Trees and People Newsletter 14, October, pp. 14-15.
Shah, Meera, forthcoming, "Participatory afforestation programmes", sequence adopted by Aga
Khan Rural Support Programme, India.
Shah, Parmesh, 1989, "Concept of people's participation in the watershed development-
extension volunteer approach", mimeo, AKRSP, June.
1990, "Economic classification of a community using localy generated criteria", RRA
Notes, no. 8.
1991, "Sequences in Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Background Note for the 24
October 1991 Joint IIED/IDA Workshop", IDS.
Shah, Parmesh, Bharadwaj, Girish, and Ambastha, Ranjit., 1991, "Farmers as analysts and
facilitators in participatory rural appraisal and planning", RRA Notes 13, pp. 84-94.
Sharner, W.W., Phillipp, P.F., and Schemehl, W.R., 1982, Farming Systems Research and
Development: Guidelines for Developing Countries, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Silverman, Sydel F., 1966, "An ethnographic approach to social stratification: prestige in a
central Italian community", American Anthropologist, Vol. 68, No. 4: 899-921 (quoted in
Pelto and Pelto 1978: 82-4).
Swift, J., 1981, "Rapid Appraisal and cost-effective research in West Africa", Agricultural
Administration 8, 6 November, pp. 485-92.
Swift, Jeremy and Umar, Abdi Noor, 1991, "Participatory Pastoral Development in Isiolo
District: socio-economic research in the Isiolo Livestock Development Project", Isiolo
Livestock Development Project, EMI AS AL Programme, Isiolo, Kenya.
Van Steijn, T., 1991, "Rapid Rural Appraisal in the Philippines: report of a study on the
application of RRA by Philippines NGOs, GOs and University Institutes", draft versión for
comment, Council for People's Development, 1758, Kamias Road, Quezon City, Metro
Manila, Philippines, July.
Theis, J, and Grady, H., 1991, "Participatory Rapid Appraisal for Community Development: a
Training Manual Based on Experiences in the Middle East and North Africa", Save the
Children and IIED, London.
Tolley, Elizabeth and Bentley, Margaret E., 1992, "Participatory methods for research on
women's reproductive health", RRA Notes, 16, pp. 63-68.
Voyce, M., et. al., 1989, "The transfer of the family farm", National Farmer (Australia), 10
March, 1989, pp. 1-17.
Welboum, A., 1991, "RRA and the analysis of difference", RRA Notes 14, pp. 14-23, December.
1992. "A note on the use of disease problem ranking with relation to socio-economic well-
being; an example from Sierra Leone", RRA Notes 16, pp. 86-87.
White, A.V.T., 1977, Guidelines for Field Studies in Environmental Perception, UNESCO,
Paris.
White, William Foote, (ed.), 1991, Participatory Action Research, Sage Publications, Newbury
Park, London, New Delhi.
Wignaraja, Ponna, Akmal Hussain, Harsh Sethi and Ganeshan Wignaraja, 1991, Participatory
Development: Learning from South Asia, United Nations University Press, Tokyo and
Oxford University Press, Karachi.
Appendix A
Sources of Information
RRA Notes are a major source on PRA, and are free on request. RRA Notes 13 is
recommended to any reader seeking a good introduction. RRA Notes are available on
request from The Sustainable Agriculture Programme at IIED, 3 Endsleigh Street,
London, WCICh ODD.
The interest in RRA Notes is growing fast, and the series will continué to be sent
out to those on the mailing list. A growing number of requests are being received for
the complete set of back issues. This is not only costly, but also means the occasional
reprinting of backcopies. IIED have therefore started a system of charging for
backcopies of RRA Notes. This will be on sliding scale as follows:
1. In future, IIED will send up to two backcopies free of charge.
2. For requests for more than 2 copies, IIED will charge £ 2.50 per issue. This
includes the costs incurred for reprinting and for postage.
3. For a full set of 15 backcopies the charge will be £ 33.00.
For information about field experience and training opportunities contact:
In Austrialia: A.M. Dunn

School of Agriculture
Charles Sturt University
Riverina
PO Box 588, Wagga Wagga
NSW 2650
tel: 61-69-222385; Fax: 61-69-222812
In Botswana: S.Nkhori
Production Systems Programme
Department of Agriculture Research
P.O. Box 10, Mahalapye
tel: 267-410677
In India: Sam Joseph

Action Aid
3 Rest House Road
Bangalore-560 001
Tel: 91-812-586682/586583; Fax: 91-812-586284
Telex: 845 2142 AAIN IN
In Kenya: Mahesh Mishra

OXFAM
PO Box 40680
Nairobi
Tel: 254-2-442123/445168
In Nepal: Gerard Gilí

Winrock International
P O B o x 1312
Kathmandu
Tel: 977-1-212987/222904; Fax: 977-1-222300
Telex: 2305 APROSC NP
In Nigeria: Selina Adjebeng-Asem

Technology Planning and Development Unit
Faculty of Technology
Obafemi Awolowo University
Ife-Ife
Tel: 234-36-230290
In Senegal: Bara Gueye

ENEA
BP 5579
Dakar
Tel: 221-253176
In Sri Lanka: Mallika Samaranayake

Intercooperation
92/2 D S Senanayake Mawatha
Colombo 8
Tel: 94-1-691215; Fax: 94-1-685 979
Telex: 22151 or 21208 HPT CE atten:
Intercooperation
In the UK: Sustainable Agriculture Programme

IIED
3 Endsleigh Street
London WC1H ODD
Tel: 071-388-2117; Fax: 071-388-2826
Telex: 261681 EASCAN G
Rural Appraisal: Rapid, Relaxed and Participatory
In Vietnam: Le Minit Tue

Trung tana nghien unu lam nghiep (FRC)
Pteu Ninh
Phone Chau
Vinh Phu
Vietnam
In Zimbabwe: Saiti Makuku

Natural Resources Department
Ministry of Environment and Tourism
PO Box 8070
Causeway, Harare
Tel: 263-4-729'36/705661/705671; Fax: 263-4-720738
Telex: 26082 SIMTOUR
Appendix B
PRA: Start, Stumble, Self-Correct, Share
Participatory Rural Appraisal is a label. More and more people are adopting it, and
calling what they do PRA. More and more influential organizations are requesting or
requiring that PRA be carried out.
This brings dangers and opportunities.
The dangers are that the label will be used or claimed for activities where
behaviour and atttitudes are not participatory; that these activities will do badly; and
that good PRA will be discredited. There is a danger too, that the demand for training
in PRA will so outstrip good supply and that people will claim to be PRA trainers
when they have no direct personal experience of good PRA. This has already
happened.
The opportunities are hard to assess but look big. Time will show. Perhaps we
have in good PRA one among a family of approaches for reversing centralization,
standardizaron, and top-down development; and for enabling and empowering rural
communities take command more of their lives and resources, and to improve their
well-being as they define it.
So what is the core of good PRA?
We will all have different answers. It is more important to ask the question, and to
puzzle about good answers, than to have one right answer. It is more important for
each person and each group to invent and adapt their own approach, methods,
sequences and combinations than to adopt a ready-made manual or model. Let a
thousand flowers bloom (and why only a thousand?), and let them be flowers which
bloom better and better, and spread their seeds.
Here is one personal set of answers. If you read them, criticise them. Reject them.
Think out your own, from your own ideas and experience.
In the words of the one-sentence manual: 'Use your own best judgement at all
times'.
The core of good PRA is our behaviour and attitudes.
It involves:
being self-sware and self-critical,
embracing error,
handing over the stick,
sitting, listening and learning,
improvising, inventing, adapting,
using our own best judgement at all times.
So we can ask:
who lectures? who holds the stick? whose finger wags?
whose knowledge, analysis and priorities count?
Ours? Theirs, as we think they should be? Or theirs as they freely express them?
Good PRA is empowering, not extractive.

Good PRA makes mistakes, learns from them, so is self-improving.
Good PRA spreads and improves in its own.
So Start. Do not wait. Get on with it. Relax. Try things. Learn by doing. Fail
forwards. Experiment. Ask-what went well? What went badly? What can we learn?
How can we do better? How can we help others to do better?
Remember the three pillars:
PRA becomes self-improving and self-spreading: self-improving through critical

awareness, embracing error, and learning what works; and self-spreading through
fharing.
Start with behaviour and attitudes. Ours. And use the methods at once to help.
Or start with a method, and observe and reflect on your behaviour and attitudes as
you use it. Relax. List. Keep quiet. Allow fun. Learn. And learn how to do better.
PRA is what we make of it. It is a potential, not a panacea. If you do not like it,
leave it. No one will mind. It is not for everyone. But if you like it, and use it, share it
and help others to share.
Have a go. Why not?

10participatory Rural Appraisal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10participatory Rural Appraisal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10participatory Rural Appraisal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

M UK <Sefli, y

PARTICIPATORY RURAL APPRAISAL

© D R . AMITAVA MUKHERJEE for this collection. Copyright f o r individual contribu-

First Published, 1995

All rights reserved.

Printed at Vishal Printers, Delhi-110 032

Rural Appraisal: Rapid, Relaxed and

1. Some Sources of PRA

1.1 Activist Participatory Research

1.2 Agroecosystem Analysis

1.3 Applied Anthropology

1.4 Field Research on Farming Systems

1.5 Rapid Rural Appraisal

Period of major development late 1970s, 1980s late 1980s,1990

Major innovators based in Universities NGOs

Main users Aid agencies, NGOs,

Key resource earlier Local people's Local people's

Main innovation Methods Behaviour

Predominant mode Elicitive, Facilitating,

Ideal objectives Learning by Empowerment of

Longer-term outcomes Plans, projects, Sustainable

Table 2: The RRA-PRA Continuum

Nature of process RRA PRA

Mode Extractive-elicitive Sharing-empowering

Outsiders' role Investigator Faciluator

Information owned, Outsiders Local People

Methods used RRA PRA

4. The Principies of PRA

A. Principies Shared By RRA And PRA

B. Additional Principies Stressed in PRA

5. The Menú of Methods of RRA and PRA

materials such as seeds, pellets, fruits or stones as counters, sometimes combined

6. Six 'discoveries' of PRA

6.1 Villagers' Knowledge and Capabilities

by 'ínterviewing the map'. Similarly, with quantification, estimating, ranking, scoring

6.2 Relaxed Rapport

6.3 Diagramming and Visual Sharing

A participatory resource map leads to planning transect walks in which villagers

A participatory resource map of an area of degraded forest, and a rootstock census

Matrix scoring or ranking elicits villagers' criteria of goodness and badness of a

6.5 Training and Reorientation for Outsiders

<5.6 Sharing and Spread

innovations can be continuously stimulated. It is then through all forms of sharing -

7. Utility: Practical Applications

7.1 Natural Resources Management

7.3 Programmesfor Equity

7.4 Health and Nutrition

These are conditions in which negative experiences are liable to be overlooked.

8. Validity and Reliability

wrote an article on agricultural extensión, and intended to submit it for publication.

8.1 Farm and Household Serveys

8.3 Participatory Village Censuses

9. Reversáis and Reality

Some explanations lie in the effective application of the principies outlined in

9.1 Reversáis of Modes

b. From individual to group

c. From verbal to visual

settlements. In Pakistan, in March 1992, several non-literate women drew complex

Outsdier's roles Investigator Initiator and catalyst