Participatory appraisal
Practical Action
As would be expected, the organisations with less presence in the community such as the
government and less active NGOs (Group 3) have the weakest relationship and are considered
the least important and least accessible to the community. Community policing, although central
to the society, was also placed in this group as residents feel there is both a weak and a one way
relationship. It appears that community policing is perhaps mistrusted by the residents in the
group and communication could be improved.
Core community institutions such as those in Group 1 – The church, village-based CBOs and
some particularly active NGOs, are considered the most important, most accessible to the
community and with the strongest relationships to the community. The residents chose to
position Practical Action close to the community which signifies they feel they are a highly
accessible institution and indicated that the relationship is both strong and two-way. This is a
positive indication that the residents feel they can both contribute to and gain from their
relationship with the NGO and that there is a good level of communication and most likely trust.
However, Practical Action was ranked as the 6th most important institution to the community
which is at the lower end of this group, not surprisingly, the CBOs are more central to the
community and were therefore ranked higher. Interestingly the residents chose to indicate that
the top six institutions (CBOs and NGOs) all influence one another.
Group 2, which consists mainly of various organisations that work with communities and between
communities and governments were represented as both medium and low importance. Three of
the group are healthcare providers, but the village Chief was also placed in this category. As
Chief, this person links between the government and local community, so this middle position is
as might be expected.
Summary
As has been demonstrated, PA offers a technique by which the voice of the poor can be
captured. It is an interactive rather than extractive process that requires researchers to recognise
the value of local knowledge. There is much evidence to show that information shared by
communities via PA shows high validity and reliability. However, challenges for the facilitator do
exist, therefore facilitation must be very carefully conducted. Participatory appraisal has the
potential to enable communities to develop their own systems and support for a paradigm shift
towards decentralisation, local diversity and empowerment (Chambers 1992).
References
• Chambers, R. (1992). IDS Discussion paper 311. Rural appraisal: rapid, relaxed
and participatory October 1992. ISBN 0 90371584 8.
• Chambers, R. (1994). Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Challenges,
Potentials and Paradigm. World Development, Vol. 22, No. 10, pp.1437-1454,
1994. Elsevier Science Ltd.
• Chambers, R. (1994). The Origins and Practice of Participatory Rural
Appraisal. World Development, Vol 22, No. 7, pp 953-969, 1994. Elsevier
Science Ltd.
• Cronin, V. (2011). Slum Upgrading in India and Kenya: Investigating the
Sustainability. Doctoral Thesis. October 2011.
• Jones, M. (2008). Qualitative Research Methods Lecture Handouts. Cambridge
University Judge Business School.
• World Bank (1999). Consultations with the Poor: Methodology guide for the 20
country study for the World Development Report 2000/2001. Poverty Group,
Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network. February 1999.
9