Pound et al. 2003). Proponents and practitioners of participatory approaches
under the CGIAR can now be found across multiple disciplinary fields – including
molecular biologists, agronomists, ecologists, animal scientists, engineers, agricultural economists and rural sociologists. Participatory research is gaining further
currency through its recognition of local knowledge and its increasing call for
inter- and trans-disciplinary research in support of sustainable rural development
(Hoffmann et al. 2009b), yet the usefulness of participatory approaches within
agricultural research has always been discussed much more critically than has their
application to rural development issues. For example, critics have dismissed these
approaches for being pseudo-scientific, impressionistic and lacking analytical rigor
(e.g., Bentley 1994; El-Swaify and Evans 1999; cf. Neef 2003).
Within the field of development, the critique of participation has adopted a
different stance. Development sociologists and political scientists have accused
the existing participatory approaches to development, such as PRA and Participatory Poverty Assessment (PPA), of ignoring the complexity of power structures
within local communities and of over-estimating the expected benefits of devolving
decision-making to lower levels. One group of scholars has warned against a “new
tyranny” of participation (the title of a volume edited by Cooke and Kothari 2001),
stating that participatory approaches to rural development have often “failed to
achieve meaningful social change, largely due to a failure to engage with issues of
power and politics” (Hickey and Mohan 2005: 237). Another critique holds that the
evolution from RRA to PRA and on to PLA has acted as an unnecessary detour and
that the propaganda around PRA has ignored and swept away all meaningful
participatory approaches that were developed and practiced prior to the PRA
boom (cf. Hoffmann 2000: 273ff.; Hoffmann et al. 2009a: 231ff.).
9.1.2 The Emergence of Participatory Approaches to Research
and Development in the Southeast Asian Uplands
A major landmark in the emergence of participatory approaches within Southeast
Asia was the International Conference on Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), held in
Khon Kaen, Thailand in 1985, at a time when the words ‘participation’ and ‘participatory’ started to enter the RRA vocabulary (KKU 1987; Chambers 1994, 1997).
Within mainland Southeast Asia, Thailand has been one country in which participatory approaches have quickly gained popularity in watershed management and
integrated rural development projects since the late 1980s, fuelled primarily by a
need to develop alternative income opportunities for opium producers. Countries
such as Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia on the other hand, embraced participatory
approaches relatively late, following economic and political transformations and
increasing external interventions. In Vietnam; for instance, participatory approaches
emerged at the beginning of the 1990s when the political climate became more
favorable under the doi moi (renovation) policies initiated by the Vietnamese
9 Participatory Approaches to Research and Development in the Southeast. . .
325
under the CGIAR can now be found across multiple disciplinary fields – including
molecular biologists, agronomists, ecologists, animal scientists, engineers, agricultural economists and rural sociologists. Participatory research is gaining further
currency through its recognition of local knowledge and its increasing call for
inter- and trans-disciplinary research in support of sustainable rural development
(Hoffmann et al. 2009b), yet the usefulness of participatory approaches within
agricultural research has always been discussed much more critically than has their
application to rural development issues. For example, critics have dismissed these
approaches for being pseudo-scientific, impressionistic and lacking analytical rigor
(e.g., Bentley 1994; El-Swaify and Evans 1999; cf. Neef 2003).
Within the field of development, the critique of participation has adopted a
different stance. Development sociologists and political scientists have accused
the existing participatory approaches to development, such as PRA and Participatory Poverty Assessment (PPA), of ignoring the complexity of power structures
within local communities and of over-estimating the expected benefits of devolving
decision-making to lower levels. One group of scholars has warned against a “new
tyranny” of participation (the title of a volume edited by Cooke and Kothari 2001),
stating that participatory approaches to rural development have often “failed to
achieve meaningful social change, largely due to a failure to engage with issues of
power and politics” (Hickey and Mohan 2005: 237). Another critique holds that the
evolution from RRA to PRA and on to PLA has acted as an unnecessary detour and
that the propaganda around PRA has ignored and swept away all meaningful
participatory approaches that were developed and practiced prior to the PRA
boom (cf. Hoffmann 2000: 273ff.; Hoffmann et al. 2009a: 231ff.).
9.1.2 The Emergence of Participatory Approaches to Research
and Development in the Southeast Asian Uplands
A major landmark in the emergence of participatory approaches within Southeast
Asia was the International Conference on Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), held in
Khon Kaen, Thailand in 1985, at a time when the words ‘participation’ and ‘participatory’ started to enter the RRA vocabulary (KKU 1987; Chambers 1994, 1997).
Within mainland Southeast Asia, Thailand has been one country in which participatory approaches have quickly gained popularity in watershed management and
integrated rural development projects since the late 1980s, fuelled primarily by a
need to develop alternative income opportunities for opium producers. Countries
such as Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia on the other hand, embraced participatory
approaches relatively late, following economic and political transformations and
increasing external interventions. In Vietnam; for instance, participatory approaches
emerged at the beginning of the 1990s when the political climate became more
favorable under the doi moi (renovation) policies initiated by the Vietnamese
9 Participatory Approaches to Research and Development in the Southeast. . .
325