Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)

PRA evolved from Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) during the early 1990s. RRA was itself an attempt to steer a middle course between brief unstructured visits to rural communities which bore a risk of bias towards more accessible areas and more powerful interests ("development tourism"), and questionnaire surveys which were costly and time-consuming to analyse. RRA sought methods which were rapid and cost-effective but allowed outsiders to tap into the indigenous knowledge of farmers.

PRA took this further by encouraging farmers not only to give information, but to determine the methods and categories used to get information, and to participate in the use of that information. It has spread rapidly so that it is used virtually worldwide (in developed as well as developing countries), by a variety of institutions (large donors and governments as well as NGOs and researchers), in a variety of sub-sectors, and for a variety of objectives (research, project identification, project planning, project monitoring). At the same time the menu of "PRA tools", primarily visualisation techniques, has grown. A growing body of PRA training techniques means that outsiders from many backgrounds and disciplines can participate in PRA (e.g. administrators and natural scientists as well as social scientists). PRA can be practised either as a one-off event (at various stages of the project cycle) or as an extended process which allows feedback and mutual learning between farmers and outsiders, and direct local input into development planning. Some would argue that only the latter can truly be called PRA, but in practise many institutions use "PRA" to refer to one-off, informal information gathering, without any subsequent process of participatory planning.

Chambers (1994) lists a number of key principles shared by RRA and PRA:

- a reversal of learning: outsiders learning from local people
- learning rapidly and progressively
- offsetting the usual biases of development enquiry towards the powerful and the accessible
- optimising tradeoffs between the costs and the benefits of detailed research
- triangulating or cross-checking between methods
- seeking diversity

and a number of principles additionally stressed in PRA

- facilitating investigation, analysis, presentation and learning by local people
- self-critical awareness of the investigators
- personal responsibility
- sharing of information and ideas

In practice, PRA is best known for the repertoire of techniques, largely visual, it uses to gain information to farmers, feed it back to farmers and present it to a wider audience. Some of the best known techniques (and those most relevant to livestock-environment interactions) are:

- semi-structured interviews, the use of flexible checklists rather than questionnaires
- time-lines, verbal or visual chronologies of important trends or events
- transect walks, to gain information on different natural resource zones and forms of land use around a community
- participatory mapping, by which farmers draw maps showing environmental variability, seasonal movements, traditional territories etc.
- seasonal calendars, showing e.g. availability of different feeds
- wealth ranking of households into different classes defined by local indices of wealth or well being
- matrix scoring or ranking, e.g. of livestock species by the attributes or outputs for which they are most valued.

Some proponents of PRA would argue that excessive concentration on these tools diverts attention from the participatory ethos and objective of good PRA, and allows donors and governments to use "PRA" for non-participatory approaches. Others argue that the tools are less culturally-neutral than is sometimes claimed, and that PRA is a poor substitute for prolonged research by anthropologists or other professional social scientists.

It is important to be clear on the objectives of "PRA" and the degree to which an organisation is using PRA for participatory planning or to gain information which will be analysed and used elsewhere. The latter is in many contexts a perfectly valid objective. If there is clarity of objectives the tools, used wisely, can be very useful in a variety of contexts.

There are now formal or informal networks of PRA practitioners in most developing countries. Those wishing to carry out PRA are advised to seek training from recognised trainers with prior experience.

Key References - General

Chambers, R. 1994. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Analysis of Experience. World Development, Vol.22, No.9 pp 1253-1268.

Chambers, R. Introduction to Participatory Approaches and Methodologies. http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/particip/intro/introind.html

Chambers, R. 1997. Whose Reality Counts: Putting the Last First London, IT Publications.

Grandin, B. 1998. Wealth Ranking in Smallholder Communities; A Field Manual London, IT Publications.

IIED, 1994. RRA Notes No.20: Special Issue on Livestock London, IIED.

IIED, 1995. PLA Notes No. 24: Critical Reflections from Practice London, IIED.

Nabasa, J., Rutwara, G., Walker, F. and Were, C. 1995. Participatory Rural Appraisal: Practical Experiences. Chatham, NRI.

Pretty, J., Guijt, I., Scoones, I. and Thompson, J. 1995. A Trainer's Guide for Participatory Learning and Action London, IIED.

Waters-Bayer, A. and Bayer, W. 1995. Planning with Pastoralists: PRA and More; a Review of Methods Focused on Africa GTZ Division 422 Working Paper, Eschborn, GTZ.

The IIED Resource Centre provides a service for those seeking practical information and support on all aspects of research on participatory methodologies. Further information can be found at: http://www.iied.org/resource/index.html

> > [Livestock & Environment Toolbox Home]