handbook style prescriptions of PRA tools, or for experienced practitioners to just
play out their standard repertoire of visualization techniques. Other limitations refer
(1) to the ‘illusion of participation’ when reducing a PRA to a purely managerial
exercise, (2) to the phenomenon of ‘local political correctness’, as PRAs are always
conducted in the public sphere within which underlying conflicts are rarely
communicated to outsiders, (3) to the ‘one-shot’ character of PRA workshops,
leaving them open to accidental influences, and (4) to the influence of moderators’
agendas and group dynamics. There is also a tendency among many PRA
practitioners to take insufficient account of the wider socio-political contexts in
which the procedures are embedded. We argue that thoroughly contextualizing
participatory research approaches can help to overcome some of the dilemmas of
PRA, such as not raising the expectations of participants with regard to immediate
development assistance being forthcoming and not over-emphasizing local
problems analysis and local solutions.
9.2.4 Concluding Remarks
We conclude that PRA methods are inappropriate as ‘stand-alone’ research
techniques, but may be particularly useful when combined with other, conventional
research methods, and that such methodical integration can open-up promising
research avenues. First, the openness of PRA methods can help gain relatively
quick access to the study area, to the socio-cultural context and to local
perspectives, particularly for natural scientists and field researchers who only
have experience with standard research tools such as questionnaires. Second,
PRA methods provide space and flexibility for improvisation and ad hoc corrections
of the approach in an exploratory research phase, and third, the interactive character
of PRA allows data sharing, face-to-face dialogue and joint interpretations by
researchers and local people. Yet, our experience shows that this requires a longterm, intensive and trusting relationship to have developed. Embedded in such a
research framework, PRA methods lose their ‘one-shot’ character and can become
useful instruments only during structured communications between outsiders and
locals, as well as an effective tool for feedback and the validation of preliminary
research results.
9.3 Stakeholder Participation in a Priority Setting;
The Modeling of Land Use Changes and
in Environmental Valuation
This section scrutinizes the potential of involving farmers in priority setting
for research and development (Sect. 9.3.1), and discusses the challenges faced by
stakeholder participation when modeling land use changes and resource
332
A. Neef et al.
play out their standard repertoire of visualization techniques. Other limitations refer
(1) to the ‘illusion of participation’ when reducing a PRA to a purely managerial
exercise, (2) to the phenomenon of ‘local political correctness’, as PRAs are always
conducted in the public sphere within which underlying conflicts are rarely
communicated to outsiders, (3) to the ‘one-shot’ character of PRA workshops,
leaving them open to accidental influences, and (4) to the influence of moderators’
agendas and group dynamics. There is also a tendency among many PRA
practitioners to take insufficient account of the wider socio-political contexts in
which the procedures are embedded. We argue that thoroughly contextualizing
participatory research approaches can help to overcome some of the dilemmas of
PRA, such as not raising the expectations of participants with regard to immediate
development assistance being forthcoming and not over-emphasizing local
problems analysis and local solutions.
9.2.4 Concluding Remarks
We conclude that PRA methods are inappropriate as ‘stand-alone’ research
techniques, but may be particularly useful when combined with other, conventional
research methods, and that such methodical integration can open-up promising
research avenues. First, the openness of PRA methods can help gain relatively
quick access to the study area, to the socio-cultural context and to local
perspectives, particularly for natural scientists and field researchers who only
have experience with standard research tools such as questionnaires. Second,
PRA methods provide space and flexibility for improvisation and ad hoc corrections
of the approach in an exploratory research phase, and third, the interactive character
of PRA allows data sharing, face-to-face dialogue and joint interpretations by
researchers and local people. Yet, our experience shows that this requires a longterm, intensive and trusting relationship to have developed. Embedded in such a
research framework, PRA methods lose their ‘one-shot’ character and can become
useful instruments only during structured communications between outsiders and
locals, as well as an effective tool for feedback and the validation of preliminary
research results.
9.3 Stakeholder Participation in a Priority Setting;
The Modeling of Land Use Changes and
in Environmental Valuation
This section scrutinizes the potential of involving farmers in priority setting
for research and development (Sect. 9.3.1), and discusses the challenges faced by
stakeholder participation when modeling land use changes and resource
332
A. Neef et al.