Part II

Methodology
1. Epistemological and methodological qualities of Participatory Action
Research
2. Principles of PAR
3. Facilitators role in Participatory Processes
4. The fields of action PAR
5. The participatory cycle in the field

1. Epistemological and methodological qualities of Participatory Action Research (PAR)

PAR was born nurtured by the reflection of people who were taking part in anti colonialist
liberation movements in Latin America and Africa way back in the sixties. Due to that origin it is
different from the Anglo-Saxon current of Action Research because it goes beyond the cognitive
and practical horizons of scientific Eurocentric reductionism. PAR cannot be confined to the
study of linear causalities of social or natural phenomenon, nor it is interested in drawing
universally valid explanations independently of particular place and frame of mind. Moreover,
PAR is intellectually far away from Cartesian positivism, mechanical Newtonian and Parsons
functionalism and has the audacity to propose a paradigm shift with the idea of experience, the
source of thinking, feeling and acting.
What inspires and enriches PAR are praxeologies (reflected practices) that contain the seeds of
live fulfilment coming from persons who share with imagination the creativity of researching
their reality, who support one another to endure with enjoyment the process of learning how to
face complexity, dynamics and diversity of life. Persons who engage in conversations about how
peoples all over the world who are discovering own values to regenerate life with old and new
practices join PAR research. They understand that research is an open-ended process, an
experience of history and culture that has not been written or preconceived in static abstract
models. Engaging in PAR requires breaking the asymmetry of researcher, object relationship and
interacting as partners of a friendly dialogue. That creates a mutual esteem as subjects that feel
part of and interconnected with a natural, social and cultural network and reinforcing the hope
that this World can be imagined, recalled, recreated with the power of ideas attributing new
meanings to reality.
The interactions that take place in the life web of PAR strengthen the voices of historically
discriminated peoples and the very humble act listening actively triggers manifold
transformations of knowledge into action.
Action in PAR takes place in a field of power tensions. It starts in the mini universe of dialogical
interactions and flows in an ongoing cycle of reflection- action-reflection. This iterative
experience makes possible the personal growth of all partners into beings with a greater capacity
of transformation in wider spheres, from the individual to the family, from the community to the

1
region and so on. It all happens by unfolding capacities to remember, imagine, sensing
possibilities that are desirable, and anchored in values like:
• Authenticity and engagement with the community processes related to their practices that
strive towards life fulfilment
• Antidogmatism that makes possible to discover multiple existing truths without
minimizing the differing voices
• Dialogue, by exchanging different perceptions that bring about a common understanding
• Acknowledgment of individual, group, community differences creating space for further
conversations
• Visualization of ideas rooted in people’s artistic capacity, their own cultural
representations, the subtleties of oral images, music expressions,
• Revaluating cosmovisions to bridge life philosophies, value orientations and spirituality.
In PAR action does not mean introduction of new practices, products or ideas. On the contrary,
action follows reflection that help recognizing the own cognitive and practical capacities that
unfold our thinking, feeling and acting modalities that makes us take part in the cultural
affirmation of community life.
Taking part in community life, the feeling of interconnectedness with the environment, social
and cultural life has been since the origin of PAR, a central idea. Very different than the
understanding of participation of the neoliberal school of thought or the manipulative
connotations that this idea has when the powerful put it into practice. Sometimes participation is
a condition that governments put into play to animate the powerless to accept de development
agenda that politicians have designed.
In PAR participation is an ongoing methodological issue throughout the process of interaction
between subjects. Participation becomes visible in every step of applying the methods and tools
that result in new spaces and rhythms of reflection and visualization of ideas that are the key to
the empowerment based on the self recognition of meaningful experiences.
Participation acquires a political dimension when it arrives to the autonomy spiral in which the
subjects decide how to transform into actions their visions, their dreams and their deepest
desires.

2. PAR Principles
The overall methodological process of PAR is a learning experience to recognise oneself which
is a fundamental theoretical and conceptual distinction between research methods that defend the
status quo, and participatory approaches that combine knowledge generation that brings about
political action. PAR is a method committed to people’s power via a process of mutual learning,
common understanding of the situation, critical analysis and practice.
There are four basic principles:
1. Collective research, since the aim of PAR is to produce and diffuse knowledge to gain
power of action that is self determined by the group involved, therefore it is important to
build teams that work on the basis of diversity of skills and responsibilities who will
involve elders with a great deal of stored experiential knowledge, women who have

2
 different gender perspectives, and children and youth that will add a more recent
perspective to the topics.
2. Critical recovery of history is achieved by focusing on selected events in the past that
are very meaningful to the group, is a way of engaging people through remembering
these experiences. This can rely on collective memory narrations, as well as material
cultural objects like seeds, a building, or tools or by the graphic representation of
historical diagrams.
3. Valuation and affirmation of culture is to uncover deeper meanings of daily routine of
rural people in which their culture is anchored. Food habits, diet, personal spiritual
behaviour, daily cycles, care and love for animals and plants, ways of learning within the
family, poetry, and dances are just some of the aspects that communicate the knowledge
that helps people to survive.
4. Generation and diffusion of new knowledge refers to the forms in which the ideas,
perceptions, and beliefs of rural people are conveyed through a PAR process and then
communicated to different audiences. The higher responsibility of the research teams is
to facilitate the ‘devolution’ of knowledge to the group involved in research, in several
moments. One is during the direct feedback while interacting in joint visualization.
Another moment is a group sharing of the different visualized methods that can include a
larger audience who gives feedback. The classical devolution takes place when the
research team documents the process (can be photo series, a monograph, a video …) and
gives it back to the community as well as communicating it to other external agents. With
a further elaboration, the knowledge generated in a participatory process can be
disseminated as an academic thesis, a book, a publication with the sole condition to give
the corresponding credits to the people who took part in the research process.
These four methodological aspects have an empowering impact on all those involved in the
research process, starting with one self.

3. The paradigm shift: from Researcher to Facilitator

In broad methodological terms, PAR considers research the process in which persons engage
imaginatively in the exploration of the meaning of life actions. Moreover, the outcome of this
reflective interaction might lead into unexpected directions, out of a pre set agenda. The persons
involved in PAR might agree in designing steps for further joint actions, to meet again and to
continue exploring, to build a network, to make themselves visible in another community setting,
to gain confidence to articulate their voices, to take a spiritual path related to the continuity of
life, to organizing themselves to achieve an objective, to claim rights. All these actions and other
more that arise from decision to the Transform. Ideas into action can be seen as the political
consequences of participatory research.
To make participation a possible process, the facilitator:
• Opens his mind to deal with dynamic complexities
• Practices a holistic approach integrating nature, culture, spirituality and well-being
• Is an interlocutor in the dialogue, listening with sentient intelligence
• Values the diversity of perceptions about reality, the particular cultural cosmovisions and
ways of knowing

3
 • Is a mirror in the process of reflection, opening up to see and appreciate difference
• Shows curiosity of the different, genuine
and authentic knowledge expressions and
modalities
• Respects autonomous decisions of the
partner regarding generation, control and
ownership of knowledge resulting from
the PAR process
• Is creative and respectful of the
visualization of ideas that express the
aesthetic and the cultural perceptions of
the local partners
• Is flexible to apply a variety of methods
and tools by which the partners articulate
and visualise their perceptions
• Acts as nurturer of metaphoric ideas,
memories, images about human
interactions with nature and with the
more-than human-world beyond that
allow the re-enchantment of this world
with ecological and spiritual values of
life.

The facilitators work in the field as a team, which means they agree on the research plan. They
decide on a division of labour where 1 to 3 persons inquire about one specific topic (Teams can
be up to 10 persons) and the application of specific tools. Each day in the field during specific
times they exchange their experiences and adjust their plans. This can happen during lunch
breaks, dinner or before breakfast and during moments, when villagers are too busy to join the
research.
It is important that all members of the team (which may include outsiders as well as members of
the community) know about the overall plan and the special topics. By this way each member
can associate within his or her topic links to other topics, or identify specialists for other topics.
We are looking for clues and for traces of local wisdom, which can contribute to enhance the
village livelihood as a local response to globalisation and modernisation and the relation between
gender and generations for future wellbeing.
Fals-Borda, Orlando 1988, Lesson two: Learning to
recognise oneself, in: Knowledge and People’s power, p.
52 - 82. Delhi, Indian Social Institute
Marshall, Judy; Reason, Peter 2007, Quality in research as
‘taking an attitude of inquiry’. Management Research
News.

4
4. The fields of action of PAR

The outcomes of participatory action research cover a wide range of possibilities as they arise
from diverse aspirations of people’s life situations. Nowadays local people are facing the impact
of globalization in everyday life that affects their eating habits, their territorial rights, the
legitimacy of their institutions, their cultural identities, the transmission of knowledge from
generation to generation, which are configurating some trends in the mobilization of people in
the world.
Fals Borda 2000 has identified local responses in three clusters that are not mutually exclusive:
The defence of territory and natural resources as response to destructive global processes,
people get engage to stop urbanization of their rural areas, negotiate for the collective use of
water, the preservation of the forest, for food sovereignty, their local seeds as the source of
biodiversity.
Fals Borda, Orlando, 2000. Peoples’ space-times in global
processes: the response of the local, in: Journal of World-Systems
Research, VI, 3, pp. 624-634.

One example of a defence of territory is described by Veronica Strang in Chapter 9 of her book,
Mapping the country: Representations of the Landscape. She presents the characteristics of the
most influential representations that groups of Aborigines have produced depicting the

5
relationship between things, human beings and land and particular visions of the cultural
landscape. These “maps” according to the author are representations, because they are full of
meaning, they are spatial stories and therefore tools for negotiation of the Aborigines. She
highlights that this function is achieved if the people themselves have expressed their cultural
values towards the landscape.
The author takes us step by step into the process of indigenous construction of the meaning of
landscapes putting a priority in the name of places. Another step to gain insights about the
landscape is following directions like references to places of ancestral beings, people, or where
important events have occurred.
Aboriginal maps require some contextual understanding that is best explained by themselves
with their oral and graphic skills. Sometimes these vary in degree of symbolism that demands
many layers of de- codification of meaning. The author insists in building a face-to-face
relationship with the communities to construct these maps. She also takes us to reflecting upon
the complex cognitive (mental) nature of these constructions that challenges us to be aware of
our own mental frames.
Strang, Veronica, 1997. Mapping the country:
representations of the landscape, chapter 9 in: Uncommon
Ground, Cultural landscapes and Environmental Values, p.
216 - 233. Oxford, Berg

Food Sovereignty
Throughout the world, civil society, indigenous peoples and new social movements, - rather than
academics or professional policy think tanks -, are the prime movers behind a newly emerging
food sovereignty policy framework. At its heart, this alternative policy framework for food
andagriculture aims to guarantee and protect people’s space, ability and right to define their own
models of production, food distribution and consumption patterns. This notion of “food
sovereignty” is perhaps best understood as a transformative process that seeks to recreate the
democratic realm and regenerate a diversity of autonomous food systems based on equity, social
justice and ecological sustainability.
“Food Sovereignty is the right of peoples to define their own food and agriculture; to protect and
regulate domestic agricultural production and trade in order to achieve sustainable development
objectives; to determine the extent to which they want to be self reliant; to restrict the dumping
of products in their markets; and to provide local fisheries-based communities the priority in
managing the use of and the rights to aquatic resources. Food Sovereignty does not negate trade,
but rather it promotes the formulation of trade policies and practices that serve the rights of
peoples to food and to safe, healthy and ecologically sustainable production.”
(www.viacampesina.org).
Indeed, the emerging food sovereignty policy framework identifies the need for several mutually
supportive national and international policies to strengthen the autonomy and resilience of more
localised food systems.
It recognises that a) today there are still many diverse, local food systems throughout the world,
particularly in developing countries; and b) most of the world’s food is grown, collected and
harvested by over 2.5 billion small-scale farmers, pastoralists, forest dwellers and artisan
fisherfolk. This food is primarily sold, processed, resold and consumed locally, with many
people deriving their incomes and livelihoods through work and activities at different points

6
along the food chain—from seed to plate. Such localised food systems provide the foundations
of peoples’ nutrition, incomes, economies and culture throughout the world. They start at the
household level and expand to neighbourhood, municipal and regional levels. And localised food
systems depend on many different local organisations to co-ordinate food production, storage
and distribution, as well as people’s access to food. Moreover, the ecological and institutional
contexts in which diverse food systems are embedded also depend on the co-ordinated activities
of local organisations for their renewal and sustainability.
Pimbert, Michel, 2008. Towards food sovereignty:
reclaiming autonomous food systems. IIED. London

Affirmation of Cultures that responds to seeking alternatives from within to the hegemonic
influence of mainstream national culture, for example young Australian Aborigines use their
own music to fight the alienation of alcoholism, the critical assessment of official education vis-
à-vis the local learning institutions,
Jorge Ishizawa deals with an example of this type of process in an article. He poses the question
about ensuring the continuity and regeneration of the mega-biodiversity of Andean cultures,
which is considered to be their contribution to our planet’s survival. Communities that nurture
biodiversity rely on a sophisticated set of knowledge that has survived five centuries of western
colonization and many decades of modernization of agriculture. In spite of the erosion of
biological diversity and cultural subordination, the practices of Andean nurturance and the
knowledge implied, are considered suitable due to a particular way of understanding the world’s
reality and living within it. This is what Ishizawa-Oba refers to as the cosmovision.
The author addresses the question of whether it is possible to build dialogue between
cosmovisions. He reflects upon the pre-conditions for such dialogue such as a basic attitude of
mutual learning, acknowledging the incommensurability of both, that both are different, distinct,
but accessible via interpersonal accompaniment. He stresses that the current emphasis in
techniques, tools and methods to obtain information or validation of the knowledge are a sterile
effort to reach understanding between cosmovisions..
Another condition is to recognise some attributes of knowledge and wisdom, which will enrich
an attitude of cultural affirmation, a continuous and animated conversation between equal-to-
equal partners, who learn to find the best in the other. Empathy, affection, and peaceful
agreements are forms of understanding and modes of life, contends the author, regenerate life in
the Andes and all over the planet.
Equally important in a process of cultural affirmation is rethinking education as a mutual
learning process of revaluing the cosmovision, in which the knowledge of the persons in the
communities is embedded. A conviction to, and responsibility for, the cosmovision, and also
rituals towards the life experience of local communities, ensures an enriching dialogue.
Ishizawa-Oba, Jorge, 2004. Notes for an Epistemology for
Cultural Affirmation in the Central Andes, Andean Project
of Peasant Technologies (PRATEC), Lima
Building countervailing powers: are cooperative mechanisms of peoples to defend their ways
of life, for example networks of shifting cultivators, establishing communal platforms of potato
growers, outcast women work together as video producers, giving a completely new perspective
of women’s right, landless people mobilizations create new social awareness of a solidarian
economy, farmers from different continents move ahead towards the defence of rural rights.

7
The complexity of building countervailing powers is approached by Berkes who raises the
methodological paradox that in spite of all the power behind Western scientific resource
management it seems unable to stop the depletion of resources and the degradation of the
environment. Partially this paradox is due to the epistemological principles of science that
reduces the significance of nature to a material resource with the only purpose of being utilized
in a utilitarian, exploitative and unsustainable way. Reductionist science and the laissez –faire
economy are the predominant forces that mobilise the spread of modern natural resource
management in most research and action approaches. Berkes arrives to the acknowledgement
that the loss of diversity due to the global expansion of monolithical science together with the
liberal market has created a reflection process among scientists. Especially among ecologists,
who are reconsidering their secular views and have come to a fundamental lesson: worldviews
and believes matter when approaching indigenous knowledge. Almost everywhere in the world’s
diverse cultures scenarios there is an ethic of respectful human –nature relationship, a sacred
ecology that is inseparable of indigenous knowledge.
Berkes opens insightful political considerations to the study of Indigenous Knowledge by
focusing on the role of empowerment of indigenous peoples since they depend not only on their
local resources to survive but the meanings they attribute to nature are part of the web of their
lives. Therefore he proposes mapping methodologies in which indigenous groups see their own
cultural information as means to reclaiming their knowledge as part of a revitalization
movement. He gives several examples of such processes as well as other methods such as
biographies, oral histories, resource use mapping and ethno-cartography,
Berkes summarizes three lessons on how to learn from Traditional Knowledge Resource
Management. First, with an orientation towards the Unity and diversity of Traditional Indigenous
Systems that means to be open to recognize with flexibility the existing variations from system
to system. Two, Participatory Community based Resource Management that Berkes refers as
giving a central role to Indigenous People’s property rights regarding the resources and the
possibilities of responding to their decisions based on self determination rights. Finally, the point
of the ethics of Sacred Ecology is according to Berkes, the new value basis of scientific premises
that address the shortcomings of science, the restoration of mind and nature and the
cosmovisions based in morality towards nature.
Berkes, Fikret, 1999. Towards the unity of mind and
nature, in: Sacred ecology, p. 163 – 183. Philadelphia,
Taylor & Francis

8
5. The PAR cycle in the field.

A. Prior informed Consent

A participatory process in the field poses the challenging opportunity to shift the role of
researcher into a facilitator whose main responsibility is to create a favourable setting in which
the expression, generation, representation and exchange of knowledge can take place.
Assuming a facilitator’s role means to have come to an agreement with the community leaders
about:
• the purposes of participatory process,
• the time frame for the application of the tools,
• the information and consent of individuals and groups from the community to take part in
the participatory process
• the devolution of the knowledge generated
Taking these steps ahead of time are a guaranty of a gratifying human encounter between the
team of facilitators and community members, a mini-universe of dialogue that takes place with
the application of the tools.

9
B. Dynamic Complexity of the Collective Research
The research takes place in a rural or urban community, with a group of people, within a space
with boundaries. The research process lasts between 1 and 10 days, depending on the scope of
the research topic, the extension of the territory and the size of the human community.
A normal inquiry process requires 5 days. During the informed consent and agreement the
researcher-facilitator explains the schedule for the collective research and agrees on the process
and on the possible partners. The process of inquiry is a learning process, a journey of discovery
of the wealth of life and wisdom of the community.
We have found out that this process has several steps:
After the first agreement, the facilitator guides the process of inquiry by starting with the
overview of space and time. He uses the tools of transect and mapping to understand the
perceptions of space of the community and the tools of time to approach the categories of time
like the history or the different forms of calendars, which provide the frame how to organise the
seasonal activities. This may last for one day. This includes the visit to important sites within the
community, where the facilitators can observe, ask questions, join the community activities in
the fields or forests and in the households, which then results into the representation of
community space and of the different time cycles (history, yearly calendar, daily cycle).
During the overviews of space and time we discover together the relevant topics resulting from
the understanding of the livelihoods of the local people, and we identify potential partners to
approach the wisdom of the uses of natural resources or the ways of knowing of the local
communities on specific topics, like seeds, weather forecast, agricultural cycle, harvest, cooking
food, crafts, organising the community for resource management, holding rituals for the dialogue
with nature and gods, etc.
During day 2 and 3 we focus on the wisdom of the knowers, the different groups and specialists
within the community and we apply the different wisdom tools to enter the specific universe of
knowledge and wisdom of specialists, differentiating gender perspectives and responsibilities.
The fourth day is reserved to a collective interpretation of results: each representation is
analysed, summarised in a key saying, given a title to the graphic. The results are then organised
into an exhibition of space, time and wisdom.
The last day focuses on the workshop of community members, which starts with the visit to the
exhibition and the identification of topics to be developed further eventually into collective
action as a community plan. This can be organised with a larger group of community members,
who divide into specific working groups according to the use of resources and community
activities (soils and seeds, animals, crafts, education, tourism, etc.). The results are discussed in
the plenary of all assembled members of the community proposing future action and
commitment.
Life is a dynamic complexity, and the process of learning and the discovery journey are not
predictable: the facilitator team plans ahead of time, but adjusts the research plan to the process,
findings and the local conditions and occurring events. As researchers we will join agricultural
activities, will try to practice some crafts during the stage in the village as a way to approach
local knowledge, take part in a ritual to homogenise with nature. This inquiry is a unique
process, not predictable nor replicable, and each inquiry brings a different but authentic result,
which is important to the people and members of the community.

10
C. The mini-universe of dialogue.
The encounter between the facilitator (can be a person or a team) and the local knower (can be a
person or a small group) is a dialogical situation that opens up the opportunity for mutual
learning based on the experience of applying the tools. In terms of process, it can be
characterized as ongoing moments of action-reflection-action.
1. The facilitator introduces him/herself, expresses an interest in a specific topic that is in the
knowledge repertoire of the member of the community. In case the topic requires to take a walk
to the forest, or collect plants, or see a water source, or go to the rice barn to get familiarized
with the seed diversity, this is the appropriate moment to carry out this activity and get involved
with the local perceptions.
2. Conceptualization, is a moment of reflection after the introduction and initial open
conversation exchanging ideas about the topic (see the Art of the Question box). It also helps to
know each other and create mutual trust. Sometimes silence can help the member of the
community to approach the topic with confidence from his very personal perspective.
3. Visualization (see documentation format box), is the beginning of a very active phase of the
dialogue. Once the community member feels confident about expressing his ideas about a topic
the facilitator proposes the use of a tool by providing markers and paper and the empty structure
to be elaborated with the knowledge of the community member mentioning the approximately
time that it will take to complete it.
All tools require several hours before they are transformed from an empty structure into a
meaningful visual representation. Let the person think, draw, and sketch his ideas by
encouraging him with positive feedback. If he needs your help to draw or write, give him the
necessary support including other persons who can take part in the visualization.
4. First joint Interpretation, (see interpretation box) while the tool is evolving gradually, the
facilitator can focus on some aspects that the community member is visualizing by asking about
the meaning and memorizing carefully some oral expressions of the person that can be consider
as the title of the representation. The engagement in this kind of interpretation takes place as a
moment of mutual reflection. Be aware to not put answers into the mouth of your partner by
asking suggestive questions, because it may be misleading or lend priority to secondary issues.
5. Presentation, once the author believes the representation contains what he or she wants to
express, it follows an explanation of the contents constructed in the own categories and
expressions of the community member. This is a second moment of joint interpretation (see
Interpretation box) another chance of mutual learning about how the topic has been elaborated by
the local person and the insights gained by having heard the presentation. This is the best
moment to synthesize an expressive title, which can reflect a key saying from the testimony of
the author of the representation.
D. Sharing knowledge, when several processes of interpersonal encounters resulting in the
application of different tools have taken place in the community. It is the appropriate moment to
organize an interactive session that involves a larger group of authors who present one by one the
depicted tools to members of the community or neighbours. The facilitator conducts a session to
create a common understanding of the topics and to clarify and reflect upon the local
perspectives. The feedback from the larger group is visualized in a separate sheet of paper by
using cards. This moment is the third joint interpretation for mutual learning of the topic.
This interactive session has an open end: it can evolve in a community planning process of action
(see community planning box) about the topics reflected upon as well as in the desire of meeting

11
again for further and deeper elaboration of the topics. It can also happen that the awareness
created by sharing knowledge flows into processes like envisioning de future of the community,
or deliberative exchange with other stakeholders, like citizens juries. These possibilities require a
new cycle of agreements and time frames to be carried out. If the session ends with a celebration
with music and dance is also a meaningful opportunity to share.
E. Devolution of Knowledge based on these ongoing moments of interpretation, the facilitator
and the community members have gained many new insights about local perceptions of the
community members’ knowledge. These are further elaborated in first place as a monograph in a
written form, a video, a slide show so that the community has a documentation of their research
process fur future deliberations. Another form of devolution of the knowledge generated is an
exhibition (see exhibition box) of the tools that can be displayed with a previous organization of
an event that requires some a special programme to involve the community and to invite
different types of audience.
In second place, the duty of the facilitators’ team is to disseminate the results to other audiences
like politicians, educators, universities or NGO’s as a medium to create awareness and
consciousness about the perceptions and visions of the local community. There is another
possibility that the facilitator in agreement and with consent of the community can transform the
knowledge generated into an academic article, a book or a thesis.

12
Box: THE ART OF THE QUESTION
Formulating questions is an art if you want to achieve a dialogue and mutual understanding with
your interview partner. Here some suggestions.

Questions which contribute to dialogue Hindering questions

• Are open questions, • Are closed questions, which lead to

• Stimulate the other person to explain and
display his or her life experiences.
• Address the personal perceptions and
emotions on a topic
• Bring about the ideas and values of the
other person, so that he or she feels
enhanced and recognized.
• Acknowledge the ideas of the other
person give positive feedback on what
you have understood
• Are formulated in understandable terms,
• Encourage the other person to answer in
local terms
answers like yes or no,
• Block dialogue.
• Induce the other person to give facts and
inhibits his or her personal opinion
• Have negative judgments that destroy
partnership.
• Relate to confidential aspects of the other
person, which she or he is unwilling to
talk about (money, conflicts, family
problems, private things…)
• Are suggestive, already include an
answer as they may narrow down the
range of responses and possibilities

Are an opportunity to talk about meaning, • Do not invite to reflect

•
as they contain the details of indigenous • Force to agree or disagree
knowledge. • Search for confirming truth or falsehood,
• Call for clarification of details and right or wrong, the best or worst
descriptions represented in the visualized
• Block positive feedback
tools.

13
BOX Documentation
The documentation is done at several levels starting from the beginning, as the Research Team
presents its research plan and eventually a poster explaining the main concern or topic of the
research team. This forms already part of the documentation.
All charts and representations during the whole PAR cycle are photographed with a digital
camera as a source for the documentation and devolution of the generated knowledge.
Each graphic representation has its own legend using the following format:
• Title – content and summary of the key saying resulting from the Testimony of
the local partner and author of the representation
• Name of place
• Date
• Name of person(s), age(s), and gender
• Name of facilitator
• Time duration (beginning and end)
The resulting charts and papers belong to the community and the authors of the representations.
The research team may take it to an exhibition for the University or the Public, under consent of
the community, and eventually with their involvement in a public presentation, but after the
exhibition it will be handed back to the community.
The whole process can be also videotaped, and the documentation resulting should be edited as a
testimony of the process and results, which then can become a media for further discussion and
awareness raising of community members and outsiders.
With the photos of the different dialogue moments and the results the research team can prepare
a monograph, which are the photos plus short explanatory texts for orientation, highlighting the
different issues having grown out of the interaction between team and community partners. This
monograph in first place is the documentation for the community, but it also can be an example
of PAR at community level to other interested communities, to outsiders be it members of the
civil society or government agencies, who could be influenced to provide better services to the
community.
Finally we also can prepare a slide show or elaborated powerpoint presentation as educational
material. The PAR research produces results, which are illustrative and authentic, and so become
attractive means to motivate and interest people to discuss issues of concern and to commit to
action from within or to solidarity by outsiders.

14
BOX: Interpretation
The art of the question in PAR invites us to discover and enjoy a deeper meaning about life that
is constructed in dialogue. Interpretation is an ongoing process of moments between two persons
who experience an encounter of two different worlds of knowledge, feelings and action and try
to make sense out of it because it is relevant for both.
The first moment takes place when the two persons meet focusing on the topic they will talk
about, without a particular imposition of one side. One person with the role of facilitator or
researcher poses explorative questions to motivate the other person to recall, or come up with
personal ideas about the theme that is the reason to interact for some longer period of time. For
example if the topic is climate change the facilitator can ask the community member…in your
life time what kind of summers do you remember? That is an open question that can trigger the
conceptualization of the idea of summer and the process of recalling. This way, the interpretation
starts by making sense of the idea of summer and how it has been registered in the memory of
the person.
The dialogue continues, by paraphrasing the terms used by the community member and
transforming them into new explorative questions that begin to outline a complex experience of
the community member about the topic. Here we have a different moment of interpretation,
maybe it is necessary to see, taste or be present regarding what the community member is
recalling or describing, don’t miss that opportunity to be guided into a new form of looking at
reality.
A third moment of interpretation is when the community member’s approach to the topic is
focused in such form that the joint visualization can begin. The facilitator’ s role is to provide the
empty structure of the tool by posing open questions. For example if the community member
recalls that twenty years ago there was a summer, very hot, long, and dry you can start making
columns locating one for time, other for season, another for temperature, another for duration,
another for special trait. The community member draws or writes in the columns stimulated by
the questions that elicit a conversation about other seasons, and memories of them that are
gradually visualized giving the principal role to the representations (by graphics or words) of the
community member. The facilitator follows the process of construction of meaning by trying to
understand how the community member is approaching the topic.
The next moment of interpretation is when the community member considers that representation
of the tool contains authentically what his experience is about and explains it to the facilitator. If
there are other persons, they can give their feedback, which is an enrichment, an added value to
the meaning in which everybody is engaging to clarify.
Another moment of interpretation is the display of the tools to a larger audience, in the form of
an exhibition. The facilitator is in charge of organizing the display by recalling the meaning that
the representation or tool entails and goes about it as it were a text. Taken for granted that the
terms, concepts and ideas presented by the community member have been clarified, the
facilitator follows the flow of ideas of the community member and summarizes them in form of
¨words of wisdom” that contains the authentic essence of the community member’s perception,
prevailing the meaning that has been constructed.

15
16
17
18
Box: Exhibition and community workshop

After each graphic representation and testimony has been interpreted – first on the spot but
secondly as a preparation for the exhibition – the team often integrated by some villagers starts to
design the exhibition. The testimonies are grouped into
A. General overview of space and time of the community or area
B. Specific topics with regard to village concerns and local knowledge
C. Conclusions and action proposals
D. Feedback chart
Each part receives a title and the key sayings are highlighted on strips of coloured paper. The
testimonies and representations are then hang on a wall as huge murals. With colours and arrows
the main findings are emphasized, so that attractive posters result.
The venue for the exhibition plus workshop should have large walls to hang the representation
for the exhibition, a space in the middle for a circle of chairs and enough space for break out
groups. If the climate permits, the working groups also can sit outside, under a tree, in the open
air (if it is not too hot). Some area is reserved for snacks and refreshments – please use local
products and no plastic.
The team of researchers has prepared announcements to invite the villagers to come to the
exhibition and to take part in the workshop, and has insisted to the interview partners and
neighbours to come and see the result of the collective research. In coordination with the village
leaders the participation of villagers (female and male, elders and children) is encouraged.
The program of the exhibition and community workshop is divided into the following parts:
• welcome and reception of the villagers who come to the event,
• guided tours through the exhibition (often the authors explain their charts),
• initial session of the plenary of all participants explaining objectives and issues for
discussion,
• working groups,
• presentation of action proposals and discussion,
• agreements and responsibilities,
• closure.
Often there is a ritual at the start of the plenary session or for the closure of the event. This
activity may last between 3 and 5 hours, and in coordination with the villagers the team fixes the
best time for the villagers to be able to join. There is no rule as in some villages it may be
convenient to hold the meeting in the evening, others prefer the afternoon session as there is still
daylight, and there are also cases where the workshops have to take place between 6 and 9
o’clock in the morning.
The team has to be prepared on time, if the exhibition is public and the villagers will come at a
certain time to see the exhibition and eventually join the village workshop to develop action
proposals based on the findings of the participatory research.

19
It takes nearly one day to analyse the representations, to design the murals and to hang and adorn
well the testimonies. The exhibition may also include the collection of seeds, crafts, tree leaves,
herbal medicinal plants with their respective matrix and legend.
The team agrees on a division of labour for the exhibition and consecutive workshop.
The reception team receives the villagers, who normally arrive at different moments, and after a
short welcome each member of the reception team guides a group of villagers along the
exhibition. This brings the visitors quickly into the issues raised during the research and avoids
long waiting times for the early arriving community members. Some of the authors of the
representations of space, time and wisdom may be present and the guide asks them to give an
explanation of their drawing. During the exhibition time (can last up to 1 hour) mixed groups of
researchers and villagers form clusters in front of specific parts of the mural and discuss about
the findings, may add ideas or give feedback.
The reception team after the first part of guiding through the exhibition may join other functions,
like documentation or the mechanics team.
There is a coordination and facilitation team: a group of 2 or 3 team members organises the time
and facilitates the community workshop. They see the high moment of the exhibition, before the
steam runs out of energy, and ask the participants to take a seat in the main circle. The main
facilitator explains the agenda and the objective of the workshop, and if from the exhibition
already some major issues have been crystallised, they read out the key issues for further
discussion. If other issues are named by the participants, these are added. Sometimes a short
clarification of the topics is helpful so that the participants can decide, in which topic group they
will discuss future action. The facilitators give time to work out action proposals and let the
working groups discuss and visualise their proposals for about 60 minutes. Each working group
presents their action plan, and comments from the plenary and additional ideas are added. Finally
the participants agree on next steps and with a ritual and fare well speech by the elders the
workshop is closed.
The documentation team registers with photos and eventually video the exhibition, the
interactive moments of discussion in front of the charts, the plenary session and the working
groups, plus their charts. They also note down the expressions from the participants, to add this
to the monograph of the research.
And there is a mechanics team who are in charge of coordinating to offer some small snacks and
drinks (no plastic please, if possible local snacks and juices or tea or water as refreshments). The
mechanics team takes care of the charts, helps out with moving chairs or boards, assists with
visualisation material - papers and markers for the working groups, for example. We also have
called this group the fire workers, as they sometimes have to solve quickly problems like charts
fell from the wall and need to be hang up again.
After finishing the workshop with the villagers everybody helps to put down the exhibition, to
pile and label the testimonies orderly, to organise the venue again and if necessary to clean up
the place.

20
21
Box: Community planning
The collective research may lead to a community planning process, according to the description
of the exhibition and planning workshop. This is an option, which can be taken by the villagers
and their leaders from the beginning of the research.
The research process achieves 2 impacts: first is the representation of the space and time
categories, and of the local wisdom, second comes a process of self-awareness of the different
interview partners and a curiosity to see how this can be developed into community action. The
results presented in the exhibition give insights and frame the discussions of the action plans –
either in group or in plenary. The agreements on action are autonomous decisions by the village
members – in case the community needs outside support (for example the monograph, a video,
advice and contacts for exchange of plants or seeds) the team can accept a commitment, but
should not push for a specific solution or project, for which the outsiders require the community
approval.
The PAR process provides with 2 achievements the ground for the community planning: the
representation of knowledge and ideas about the community livelihood and the process of
visualising knowledge and sharing of ideas, which democratises decision-making.
The resulting community action plan in first place is an internal plan to mobilise and organise the
community to defend their vision of the future, to defend their rights and culture and to improve
the well being of the community members. The community leaders may use their action plan and
vision to negotiate outside support from government or NGOs and to condition the supposed
development aid in terms of their own interest.

22
Box: Dangers and misuses of PAR
Facipulation
We easily can fall into the danger of manipulating PAR. This occurs when we manipulate the
process and results of the PAR processes for our own aims and interests. For example, we may
ignore the interests of the villagers by selecting just some of the contents of the representations
and twisting the testimonies to fit into an outsider worldview.
Burocratisation
By applying PAR mechanically we burocratise the methods and tools of PAR. Applying the
tools without curiosity and respect to the local partners and just fulfilling a plan leads to either
empty and superficial results, a flat process of participatory research and the similarity of
community plans even in diverse community situations.
Technocratism
The reduction of the PAR to one technical topic is a misuse of PAR for a one-sided application
to one technical topic, which is based on an outsider interest and does not reflect the authentic
needs of the population. This happens also if we deny the holistic perception of the local
villagers and restrict to the material culture and knowledge neglecting the cosmovision towards
nature and livelihood.
Instrumentalisation
To instrumentalise PAR for the purposes of an outside own agenda like improving research
results or implementing development project aims is a common misuse of PAR. The PAR-
researcher may justify a participatory position by applying some of the tools without being
interested really in the discovery of the joint learning process.

23
 Further readings
Scoones, Ian & Thompson, John 1994. Beyond Farmer First, rural people’s knowledge,
agricultural research and extension practice. London, Intermediate Technology Publications.
Grenier, Louise 1998, Working with Indigenous Knowledge, a guide for researchers, Ottawa,
IDRC
IIRR 1996. Recording and Using Indigenous Knowledge, a manual. Silang, Cavite, International
Institute of Rural Reconstruction.
Pimbert, Michel 2009. Transforming knowledge and ways of knowing. IIED, London
Reason, Peter
2004. Action research: forming communicative space for many ways of knowing.
Response to Md. Anisur Rahman. Dhaka
2005. Living as part of the whole: the implications of participation. For Curriculum and
Pedagogy.
Selener, Daniel 1997. Participatory Action Research and social Change, Cornell University,
Ithaca New York. USA

24