Full Library

In the beginning, there were methods. For many of us in the circle of enthusiasts of participatory approaches in the early 1990s, maps and models, calendars and Venn diagrams, matrices and rankings and the interactions and insights they produced defined what we did and what we had in common. It was this, too, that made participatory rural appraisal (PRA) – and rapid rural appraisal (RRA) before it – something that was very different from anything we’d known before. PRA bridged barriers that might otherwise have kept a social anthropologist and an irrigation engineer like us apart. And it brought us together with dozens of others, from a constellation of disciplines and professions, who shared our excitement about an approach that seemed to offer much for ‘doing development’ differently. In 1995, we co-edited PLA Notes 24 on Critical reflections on practice, in which we sought to engage practitioners and advocates in debate about the looming crises of quality that were to become so much a feature of PRA practice in the later 1990s. In this paper, we look back over more than a decade of engagement with PRA as ‘critical insiders’. Participatory Learning and Action has, naturally enough, served more as a vehicle for practitioners to share their successes and innovations than their critical reflections. Accordingly, we draw here on sources that go beyond it, including reflections from the Pathways to Participation project (see Cornwall and Pratt, 2003a, in PLA Notes 47, and contributions to Cornwall and Pratt 2003b), from work with gender and participatory development (Welbourn, 1992; Guijt and Kaul Shah, 1998; Cornwall 2000), and from the lively debates that we have had for more than a decade with colleagues the world over. These thoughts are our personal reflections, from standpoints associated with the two institutions – IIED and IDS – that were so much part of early efforts to promote and institutionalise PRA in international development practice. Our account is, therefore, very much a partial one. We offer it here as a means of locating some of the threads that have run through debates about PRA since the first issues of Participatory Learning and Action, and some of the challenges that practitioners of participatory learning and action methodologies continue to face. In it, we reflect on distinct phases in the development of PRA (see Figure 1), during which a series of issues emerged as themes for critical reflection. The phases indicated in the diagram relate generally to the prevailing sentiment and practice. Clearly there are exceptions – there have been critical voices and some were using PRA to address issues of power from day one, just as there is still innovation and excitement in some quarters today.