Participatory Methodologies and Participatory Practices: Assessing Pra Use in the Gambia

This research examines the conduct and consequences of the use of participatory rural appraisal techniques in four rural development projects in The Gambia. The research included a review of literature on PRA and the identification of a series of key themes that would allow an assessment of its utility. Fieldwork in The Gambia included reviews of project documentation, key informant interviews, and periods of village-based research using PRA methods. The conclusions of the study were presented and discussed in a national workshop. Research findings • PRA has had some positive effects, particularly on the agency side. It has served to motivate rural development workers, and instil a spirit of enquiry into support agencies; however, it is not certain if this initial enthusiasm can be maintained and translated into continuing benefits. • There are also some concerns about data quality and cost-effectiveness, as well as the high transaction costs of PRA use, particularly for villagers. • PRA has encouraged participation of the poor in data collection and the direction of project initiatives, but an idealisation of the nature of ‘community’ and a bias towards the literate draw into question its use for community mobilisation. • There is little evidence that PRA is effective in empowering the poor or challenging long-term power relations. Policy implications • Although methodological instruments like PRA have some potential for capacity building in development organisations and communities, institutional structures and relationships are likely to be more important. • Practitioners need to acknowledge the limitations of PRA as an analytical tool, particularly as a proxy for social analysis. PRA’s capacity to relate norms and values to other variables in the social system appears very limited, as is its utility to explore and challenge established social relationships. • PRA can help engender greater community participation in development, but it is necessary to guard against the substitution of tools and methods for more concerted efforts at changing social relationships; in addition, the use of PRA does not necessarily ensure equitable access by all community members.