JOHNSON, H. and L. MAYOUX (1998).
Investigation as Empowerment: Using Participatory Methods.
Finding out Fast: Investigative Skills for Policy and Development. A. Thomas, J. Chataway and M. Wuyts. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, Sage, Open University: 147-172.
PLA/ empowerment/ research methods/ participatory methods/
Participatory methods of investigation and policy development are increasingly promoted by development agencies of varying perspectives and influence, including World Bank and NGOs. In many Northern aid agencies, participatory approaches are a required component for funding development programmes. Given the explicit link often made between participatory investigation, participatory development and empowerment is important to know whether and how participatory methods can have an empowering effect, as well as understanding their limitations and pitfalls.
This paper suggests some areas of investigation where participatory methods of investigation can be potentially empowering, and discusses some of the limitations of trying to use participatory approaches as an empowering process. The first section examines the concept of empowerment and its presumed relationship to participatory approaches to investigation and action. The second section reviews some of the empowering experiences of using participatory methods while section three looks at some of the pitfalls. The final section summarises some of the critical issues which need to be addressed in using participatory approaches.
MAYOUX, L. (2001)
Qualitative Methods
http://www.enterprise-impact.org.uk/informationresources/toolbox/qualitativemethods.shtml
impact assessment/ qualitative methods/ Research methods/
Qualitative methods are an essential complement to both quantitative and participatory methods in any impact assessment. They are necessary to increase understanding of:
· complex and sensitive impacts and processes
· differential impacts between stakeholders and the reasons for these
· potential consequences of any practical recommendations
Although it is possible to do an impact assessment using only qualitative methods, the focus of this paper is on how qualitative methods can complement other methods as part of an integrated impact assessment.
· Section 1: What are qualitative methods? Principles and uses gives an overview of what is meant by qualitative methods and how these can complement quantitative and participatory methods.
· Section 2: Using qualitative methods: challenges and ways forward reviews the main methods: informal interviews, Case Studies, and direct observation and how their rigour and reliability can be increased for particular types of enterprise impact assessment.
· Section 3: Qualitative methods and integrated impact assessment,: commissioning and assessing qualitative research gives summary guidelines for commissioning and assessing qualitative methods in different types of enterprise intervention.
MAYOUX, L. (2002)
How Do We Find Out? Issues in Collecting Information
http:///www.enterprise-impact.org.uk/informationresources/toolbox/howdowefindout.shtml
impact assessment/ survey/ research methods/ quantitative methods/ qualitative methods/ participatory methods/ questionnaires/
All impact assessments involve collecting information. This is done mainly through asking questions of various types, but also through observation. The process of collecting information however involves much more than listing a few questions and then asking them in the field or conducting a few PRA exercises. Whatever methods are used, a number of different steps are involved. All these steps are important for the reliability, relevance and cost effectiveness of the investigation: reviewing existing information, establishing and maintaining rapport, recording the information, checking for reliability, ending the investigation.
This paper discusses ways in which different methods can be cost effectively integrated at each stage to increase the reliability of information obtained. The discussion is based on a number of underlying assumptions about the nature and purpose of impact assessment:
· The assessment should be able to make realistic recommendations for improvement in programmes and policies
· Any one assessment should as far as possible contribute to setting up of sustainable learning systems for programme and policy improvement over time
· Stakeholder participation particularly of the poor and most vulnerable, is essential to both making realistic recommendations and improving programmes and policies in the longer term.
These requirements mean that the assessment can itself be a cost-effective contribution to development rather than an additional cost. However they require rather a different approach which fully integrates concerns of programme/policy change, sustainable learning and stakeholder participation at all stages of the investigation, rather than treating them as an additional frill in the form of one dissemination/policy workshop at the end of the assessment. The implications of these assumptions for the investigation process are discussed in detail in the paper.
MAYOUX, L. (2002)
What Do We Do with the Information? From Practical Conclusions to Influencing Change
http:///www.enterprise-impact.org.uk/informationresources/toolbox/whatdowedo.shtml
impact assessment/ dissemination/ survey/ quantitative methods/ qualitative methods/ participatory methods/ research methods
The usefulness of any impact assessment depends not only on its design and ways in which information is collected but: how the information is analysed and how the information is disseminated and to whom. In integrated assessment both the analysis of information and its dissemination are iterative and cumulative processes of
comparing and crosschecking information from participatory
workshops, qualitative investigation as well as quantitative
surveys. There should be periodic pauses in the assessment
to take stock. This will involve dissemination of ‘work in progress’ to
relevant stakeholders in order to draw on their insights
and expertise and also to ensure that practical recommendations
are widely discussed as an integral part of the assessment
process. This will help to ensure their feasibility
and increase their likelihood of acceptance by different
stakeholder groups.
It is with these processes of analysis and dissemination of information that this paper is concerned. It is argued that there is a need for:
· greater rigour in use of quantitative, qualitative and participatory data analysis to address justifiable concerns about inherent limitations in all methodologies
· greater clarity and honesty in presentation of findings and how practical inferences are made
· greater attention to the information needs and skills of different audiences and how these can be addressed
· better use of all opportunities for discussion with the different stakeholders at all stages of the assessment process.
MAYOUX, L. (2005).
Quantitative, Qualitative or Participatory? Which Method, for What and When?
'Doing Development Research'. R. Potter and V. Desai, Sage.
research methods/ participatory methods/ quantitative methods/ qualitative methods/
Research methods are conventionally divided into quantitative, qualitative and participatory each with differing underlying approaches, tools and techniques. Traditional disciplinary divides are however becoming increasingly breached. Moreover new tools and new solutions to the shortcomings of old tools are continually being developed.
This paper focuses on how the different methods can be integrated into a coherent research process which builds on the relative strengths and weaknesses of each. Underlying the discussion are assumptions about the main criteria for choosing between methods:
· relevance of the information to the questions being asked and to context.
· reliability and credibility of the information and analysis.
· ethical considerations in both means and ends of research.
· manageability in relation to skills, resources and time available.
The main focus is on small-scale research projects of the types in which BA and MA students are likely to be involved. The first section presents the conventional wisdoms about the main lines of divide between the different methods in terms of underlying disciplines, goals, questions and specific tools and techniques. The second section then challenges some of the claims and counterclaims of relative strengths and weaknesses in the light of recent innovations. The final Section proposes an integrated research process building on participatory methods as a means of linking and focusing qualitative and quantitative methods.