Participatory appraisal
Practical Action
• Key local indicators – such as poor people’s criteria of wellbeing.
• Key probes – questions that lead to key issues such as, ‘What do you talk about when
you are together?’ ‘What do you do when someone’s hut burns down?’ ‘What
vegetable/tree/crop/animal/tool/equipment would you like to try out?’
• Stories, portraits and case studies – e.g. household history and profile, coping
with a crisis, conflict resolution.
• Team contracts and interactions – where maps, models, diagrams and findings
are presented by villagers or outsiders and checked, corrected and discussed.
• Participatory planning, budgeting and monitoring – in which villagers prepare
their own plans, budgets and schedules and monitor progress.
• Brainstorming
• Questionnaires – short simple surveys.
• Report writing – writing observational field notes.
(Adapted from Chambers 1992)
Case Study Application
Using Participatory Appraisal techniques to evaluate upgraded water and sanitation infrastructure
in a low-income urban community in Silanga, Kibera, Kenya.
New toilets, water kiosks and shower facilities have been constructed in a community. An
independent researcher visited the community one year after completion to investigate the
sustainability of the process of building the new infrastructure by an international NGO, Practical
Action, and the impact of the new infrastructure upon the community’s lives. Participatory
Appraisal techniques were used to gather data in a number of areas.
For this investigation group discussions and exercises were developed to capture the perceptions
of the resident recipients of the slum upgrading intervention. The researcher sought to use
Participatory Appraisal techniques via group discussions which were triangulated with individual
semi-structured interviews. The group discussions were conducted among relatively homogenous
groups of people (e.g. a group of poor women, a group of business owners), in most cases these
were made up of individuals from already established community based organisations (CBO), and
with groups of no more than twelve people to aid conversation and encourage all individuals
to participate. During the group meetings, the researcher was assisted by a local research
assistant for help with translation and recording the data as well as to build rapport with the
community. At the start of each discussion a record of attendance was taken along with some
basic socio-economic data. Information was recorded by drawing on large flip-chart paper with
the use of Post-itâ„¢ notes of different sizes and colours, and marker pens. Some parts of the
conversations were audio and visually recorded and later transcribed or used in the making of
short films. A clear distinction was maintained between the issues and terminology used by the
people and that introduced by the facilitators. When selecting community groups to conduct the
discussion with, the researcher tried to gain access to different community groups, i.e. men,
women, youth, disabled, separately to obtain separate gender disaggregated data. The
facilitators sought to use simple language and prompting, probing and pausing techniques to
encourage full responses during discussion and to cross-check and clarify responses. The PA
techniques used were Group discussions, Visual tools for analysis, Cause – Impact diagrams,
Institution – Perception mapping, Listing, Scoring, Ranking, Trend analysis, Representation.
As well as individual interviews, a group discussion was conducted with eleven members of an
existing community CBO, the Kibera Silanga Usafi Group (KISUG). The group discussions
resulted in various diagrams as well as recorded audio and video footage. Inspiration was taken
from the methodology designed for Consultations with the Poor for the World Bank’s World
Development Report 2000/2001 (World Bank 1999).
3