and interfered with them. During our interview with the wealthier women, the male
host, who had hitherto been sitting passively by the fireplace, passed a note to his
wife at one point so that she could read his answer to us. When she could not read
everything he had written, he continued answering our questions, but using noticeably longer phrases than the women. During our interview of the poor women, those
men who were incidentally present ended up dominating the interview – physically
by sitting in front of the women, and verbally – to a degree that virtually silenced
them. While it is well known that poor people, and in particular poor women, are
less likely to express themselves publicly and verbally due to their subordinate
social roles, these examples show that it may not always be practicable for
researchers to control who participates in interviews. Following the PRAinstruction, which is to divide respondents into homogenous (that is, single-sex)
groups, would; however, impose the researcher’s priorities upon local customs. As
a result, the contribution of PRA methods to solving the methodological problem of
access to low-status segments of a local society is somewhat limited.
9.2.3 The Limitations and Pitfalls of Applying PRA Tools
Campbell (2001) emphasized the need to meticulously document the processes that
lead to the typical ‘physical’ outputs of PRA sessions, such as village maps,
diagrams and matrices. Yet many practitioners tend to take these outputs as the
final results of a PRA exercise and so do not see the need to carry out further
analysis of this ‘data’. To stand the test of scientific validity; however, a thorough
documentation of the deliberations that took place, in the local language, is necessary. Many of the visual tools applied in PRA need a high degree of “visual
literacy” (ibid: 383) to decode the graphical representations of reality, and it cannot
be taken for granted that local people and external researchers and practitioners will
have knowledge of these same cognitive concepts. Kothari (2001: 150) stated that
designing a seasonal agricultural cycle requires “a clear, visual presentation of what
in reality is often a more variable and less easily compartmentalized process”. Our
own experience in northern Vietnam and northern Thailand confirms that such
visual products as a seasonal calendar tend to mask inequalities within local
communities, such as when local elites who occupy land with good access to
water are able to transplant paddy rice much earlier than more marginalized farmers
who cultivate their plots further downstream. As Henkel and Stirrat (2001: 182)
commented, “it is also crucial to recognize that to a large extent PRA already
presupposes the frame of what can and cannot be done as it canonizes the kinds of
visualizations acceptable”.
Another danger is that PRA methods can become routine instruments, since
many communities may have already undergone several such procedures, and the
appeal of such methods can decrease drastically when local people are repeatedly
invited to participate in them. This can be further aggravated by the tendency
among younger, less experienced researchers to use ‘blueprint’ methods and
9 Participatory Approaches to Research and Development in the Southeast. . .
331
host, who had hitherto been sitting passively by the fireplace, passed a note to his
wife at one point so that she could read his answer to us. When she could not read
everything he had written, he continued answering our questions, but using noticeably longer phrases than the women. During our interview of the poor women, those
men who were incidentally present ended up dominating the interview – physically
by sitting in front of the women, and verbally – to a degree that virtually silenced
them. While it is well known that poor people, and in particular poor women, are
less likely to express themselves publicly and verbally due to their subordinate
social roles, these examples show that it may not always be practicable for
researchers to control who participates in interviews. Following the PRAinstruction, which is to divide respondents into homogenous (that is, single-sex)
groups, would; however, impose the researcher’s priorities upon local customs. As
a result, the contribution of PRA methods to solving the methodological problem of
access to low-status segments of a local society is somewhat limited.
9.2.3 The Limitations and Pitfalls of Applying PRA Tools
Campbell (2001) emphasized the need to meticulously document the processes that
lead to the typical ‘physical’ outputs of PRA sessions, such as village maps,
diagrams and matrices. Yet many practitioners tend to take these outputs as the
final results of a PRA exercise and so do not see the need to carry out further
analysis of this ‘data’. To stand the test of scientific validity; however, a thorough
documentation of the deliberations that took place, in the local language, is necessary. Many of the visual tools applied in PRA need a high degree of “visual
literacy” (ibid: 383) to decode the graphical representations of reality, and it cannot
be taken for granted that local people and external researchers and practitioners will
have knowledge of these same cognitive concepts. Kothari (2001: 150) stated that
designing a seasonal agricultural cycle requires “a clear, visual presentation of what
in reality is often a more variable and less easily compartmentalized process”. Our
own experience in northern Vietnam and northern Thailand confirms that such
visual products as a seasonal calendar tend to mask inequalities within local
communities, such as when local elites who occupy land with good access to
water are able to transplant paddy rice much earlier than more marginalized farmers
who cultivate their plots further downstream. As Henkel and Stirrat (2001: 182)
commented, “it is also crucial to recognize that to a large extent PRA already
presupposes the frame of what can and cannot be done as it canonizes the kinds of
visualizations acceptable”.
Another danger is that PRA methods can become routine instruments, since
many communities may have already undergone several such procedures, and the
appeal of such methods can decrease drastically when local people are repeatedly
invited to participate in them. This can be further aggravated by the tendency
among younger, less experienced researchers to use ‘blueprint’ methods and
9 Participatory Approaches to Research and Development in the Southeast. . .
331