9.2.2.2 PRA’s Closeness to Development Aid and Villagers’ Expectations
Local people’s previous experiences, together with PRA’s focus on people’s needs
and problems, can create specific and sometimes problematic expectations among
villagers. Most villages in which the Uplands Program has conducted research have
been visited by foreigners on previous occasions, and in some cases residents recall
researchers, but most of their memories are of foreign development workers.
Accordingly, villagers’ expectations frequently echo the activities of former and
specific development projects, such as the provision of credits or investment in a
village school or water facilities. In those cases where contact with researchers
preceded our own, the reactions of villagers towards us were more specific. For
instance, in one case a Kho Mu village headman negotiated with the Uplands
Program group the appropriate level of compensation to be paid to a villager in
order to guide them to distant fields, by referring to the amount paid by a researcher
who had previously worked in the village. In another case, while guiding a social
science research group through the village’s territory, a Hmong guide repeatedly
voiced interest in fodder grass being planted in the village, referring to the more
tangible potential benefits offered by a pasture management project. In a final case,
villagers at first supported or at least accepted researchers, but became impatient
and irritated after repeatedly granting interviews, to the point of rejecting further
research.
These examples illustrate how villagers tend to believe that researchers in
principle can and should contribute to their interests through material provision
and specific technologies. Research activities in the cases cited were more or less
tolerated and accepted; however, the researchers involved often felt they were
mistakenly identified as development workers and so felt compelled to clarify at
the beginning of the interviews held that they had no funds beyond courtesy gifts to
invest in the villages, and that they were there merely to learn about the villagers’
lives or other, specific issues (cf. Neef and Heidhues 2005 for a discussion on how
this can affect the setting of research priorities).
9.2.2.3 Gender, Ethnic Culture and Socio-economic Status
The gender, ethnicity, culture and socio-economic status of respondents influence
their communication behavior, and notable differences surfaced during our group
interviews with the Black Thai women on the subject of risk management.
Participants from the two respondent groups (of five persons each) were selected
in accordance with the village head’s wealth ranking list; the first included a group
of rich women and the second a group of poor women. Whereas the wealthier group
participated actively and a very relaxed atmosphere predominated during the
interviews and the following meal, the women in the poorer group were very
hesitant to engage with the researchers. In both cases, men were present in the
houses where the interviews were conducted, joined the group during the interviews
330
A. Neef et al.
Local people’s previous experiences, together with PRA’s focus on people’s needs
and problems, can create specific and sometimes problematic expectations among
villagers. Most villages in which the Uplands Program has conducted research have
been visited by foreigners on previous occasions, and in some cases residents recall
researchers, but most of their memories are of foreign development workers.
Accordingly, villagers’ expectations frequently echo the activities of former and
specific development projects, such as the provision of credits or investment in a
village school or water facilities. In those cases where contact with researchers
preceded our own, the reactions of villagers towards us were more specific. For
instance, in one case a Kho Mu village headman negotiated with the Uplands
Program group the appropriate level of compensation to be paid to a villager in
order to guide them to distant fields, by referring to the amount paid by a researcher
who had previously worked in the village. In another case, while guiding a social
science research group through the village’s territory, a Hmong guide repeatedly
voiced interest in fodder grass being planted in the village, referring to the more
tangible potential benefits offered by a pasture management project. In a final case,
villagers at first supported or at least accepted researchers, but became impatient
and irritated after repeatedly granting interviews, to the point of rejecting further
research.
These examples illustrate how villagers tend to believe that researchers in
principle can and should contribute to their interests through material provision
and specific technologies. Research activities in the cases cited were more or less
tolerated and accepted; however, the researchers involved often felt they were
mistakenly identified as development workers and so felt compelled to clarify at
the beginning of the interviews held that they had no funds beyond courtesy gifts to
invest in the villages, and that they were there merely to learn about the villagers’
lives or other, specific issues (cf. Neef and Heidhues 2005 for a discussion on how
this can affect the setting of research priorities).
9.2.2.3 Gender, Ethnic Culture and Socio-economic Status
The gender, ethnicity, culture and socio-economic status of respondents influence
their communication behavior, and notable differences surfaced during our group
interviews with the Black Thai women on the subject of risk management.
Participants from the two respondent groups (of five persons each) were selected
in accordance with the village head’s wealth ranking list; the first included a group
of rich women and the second a group of poor women. Whereas the wealthier group
participated actively and a very relaxed atmosphere predominated during the
interviews and the following meal, the women in the poorer group were very
hesitant to engage with the researchers. In both cases, men were present in the
houses where the interviews were conducted, joined the group during the interviews
330
A. Neef et al.