researcher bias in participatory rural appraisal
TRANSCRIPT
BY BRIT ANELLOMSC. CANDIDATE, SEDRD, UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH,
CANADA
Examining Researcher Bias in Participatory Rural Appraisal Through an IDRC Perspective
Why Focus on the International Development Research Centre?
Interdisciplinary approach to international development research
Nationally (Canada) funded – Limits corporate interests in research
Excellent database of prior research done Including research done with different qualitative
and quantitative (or mixed) methods
“IDRC funds researchers in the developing world so they can build healthier, more prosperous societies” 3/20/2013
Why Use Participatory Methods?
Researchers and participants can learn from and with each other (Zeeuw and Wilbers, 2004)
Participants become stakeholders and “own” the process, becoming engaged and empowered (Dodge and Bennett, 2011)
Research can become a catalyst for ‘social transformation’ (McAllister and Vernooy, 1999)
Participatory Research
Stakeholder Empowerment
Social Transformation 3/20/2013
The Qualitative Researcher
Researcher must know their personal and cultural bias Self-reflection to promote objectivity in qualitative
research Understand socio-political and cultural
context of research participants Holistic understanding of context will create profound
understanding of resultsAs creator of a strong and robust research
design, researcher must allow for flexibility Plan for change
3/20/2013
Defining Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)
PRA is intended to enable people to conduct and share their own investigations and analysis. (Zeeuw and Wilbers, 2004) Uses methods which facilitate this discussion such as:
participatory video, mapping, network analysis etc.PRA operates under the assumption that local
citizens have the knowledge the researcher wants, so it is beneficial to work together (Zeeuw and Wilbers, 2004)
Appraisal: learning leading to action (www.caledonia.org.uk) “...all actors [are] in a continuing process of learning...” (i.e.
Including researcher)
3/20/2013
Gender and PRA (Zeeuw and Wilbers, 2004)
Many issues to consider when conducting research in either gender-specific socio-political ‘jobs’ or in contexts where gender is valued differently Researcher gender must be taken into account –
perhaps have a research team with both genders on it Sensitivity to cultural gender values is essential to
harmony in researchIn rural contexts, is it important to keep in
mind the balance of male and female responses and participants – both voices are important
3/20/2013
The Possible Problem of Researcher Bias in PRA
Language barriers – leads to a misinterpretation during fieldwork or mistranslation in analysis Ideally initial coding scheme should come in dialogue with
local participants (www.caledonia.org.uk)
Cultural barriers – leads to disintegration of important relationships with key informants in research context Loss of guide, supporter or aide is devastating when research
is on a timelineBeing too emotionally invested in research scenario
that ability to think clearly is compromised Especially important in contexts with vulnerable participants
3/20/2013
The Possible Problem of Researcher Bias in PRA (cont.)
Reliance on one sole key informant that researcher gets comfortable with Especially relevant if researcher does not speak local
language Lack of triangulation leads to crumbling of research
validity (Kalim for www.bdeduarticle.com)
Researcher believes he/she is the expert Researcher may well be tempted to see participants
not as partners, but as students (caledonia.org.uk)
3/20/2013
Summary of Researcher Bias
All of the aforementioned scenarios fit into 2 categories (Onwuegbuzie et al, 2008):
Effect of researcher on participant unacknowledged
Effect of participant on researcher unacknowledged
So, where do we go from here?Onwuegbuzie et al, argue for a systematic,
reflexive debriefing of the researcher To see how researcher bias formed the questions asked
in the methodology and provide true clarity within internal logic of research design
3/20/2013
Combating Researcher Bias
Self-aware researcher will not allow personal/cultural bias influence research analysis or process (Onwuegbuzie et al, 2008)
Prior education in research context absolutely essential Even better if researcher is able to visit research
location beforehand Partaking in research context culture will help gain
insight into participants
Academic Researcher Education
Full Contextual Understanding
3/20/2013
Works Referenced
de Zeeuw, H.; Wilbers, J. (2004). PRA Tools for Studying Urban Agriculture and Gender. IDRC. Retrieved: http://hdl.handle.net/10625/33988.
Dodge, C.P.; Bennett, G. (2011). Changing Minds: A Facilitated Guide to Participatory Planning. IDRC. Retreived: http://hdl.handle.net/10625/4641.
McAllister, K.; Vernooy, R. (1999). Action and Reflection: A Guide for Monitoring and Evaluating Participatory Research. IDRC. Retrieved: http://hdl.handle.net/10625/22617
3/20/2013
Works Referenced (cont)
Onwuegbuzie, A.J.; Leech, N.L.; Collins, K.M.T. (2008). Interviewing the Interpretive Researcher: A Method for Addressing the Crises of Representation, Legitimation and Praxis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(4). International Institute of Qualitative Methodology: Alberta, Canada.
IDRC images from www.idrc.caGraphics: author’s own
3/20/2013
For Further Research…
http://www.idrc.ca/EN/Pages/default.aspxhttp://www.caledonia.org.uk/pra.htm
Fantastic overview of the methodology, advantages and pitfalls in PRA
http://www.bdeduarticle.com/research/192-participatory-rural-appraisal-pra-for-qualitative-research Great source of list of PRA techniques that could be
usedhttp://www.iisd.org/casl/caslguide/pra.htm
Excellent for core PRA ideals and key problems PRA faces
3/20/2013