Approaches to increase the effectiveness and speed of top-down development planning prompted the development of methods such as Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) more commonly referred to as RRA. RRA enables outsiders to understand rural conditions quickly. It combines methods from various disciplines to yield relevant data. The key principles in RRA are that it is a progressive and rapid learning process where triangulation (cross-checking data by multiple methods) is often used to quickly validate or refute findings; and it is a multidisciplinary learning process where a range of disciplines, local informants, and knowledge are brought together. The degree of participation in RRA stays at the information stance.

The evolution of RRA into a more participatory approach occurred in the mid 1980s with several Indian NGOs at the forefront. The associated methods gradually became referred to collectively as Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methods. PRA "proper" builds on RRA but goes much further. Consultation, joint planning and decision making are the prevailing degrees of participation reached by PRA. The difference is that PRA emphasises processes which empower local people, whereas RRA is mainly seen as a means for outsiders to gather information. Many researchers who use standard RRA methods claim that they are using PRA, when the "participation" is restricted to provision of information to the researcher by the community. The simple test is what is the value added and who owns the product. If the community draws a map because you ask them to, it's RRA. If they realize that the map belongs to them, and want to keep it for their own use, then it's PRA.

The benefits PRA brings to local communities can be intangible and even disappointing. More radical participatory approaches have evolved with the explicit aim to reach a higher degree of participation through empowerment; this is often referred to as Participatory Action Research (PAR). PAR, which owes more to a radical activist tradition from the work of Paulo Freire and others in Latin America, derives some of its rationale from an awareness that Participatory Rural Appraisal, for all its emphasis on participation, capability building, ownership of knowledge and empowerment, is still fundamentally an extractive and intellectual exercise. Participatory Action Research, by contrast, works directly with local political/development capacities to bring real, visible organizational structures, effective local advocacy, and a durable change in power relations with the center. If it can avoid the danger of entrenching a self-interested local elite, and address honestly the long-term choices that must be made on resource utilization, it perhaps has the most potential of all the methods described to secure the resources for sustainable livelihoods.

In recent years there has been a considerable convergence of ideologies surrounding the different movements concerned with participation. This has resulted in a sharing of ideas, experience and methods. Closely linked to this has been the shift in the development process from the production-focus of the past to more people-centred approaches which are established upon the belief in self-reliance, local initiative, involvement in decision-making and power transfers.

Despite the diversity of approaches, one can identify some common features:
• They have a defined methodology and systematic learning process
• Seek multiple perspectives
• Incorporate group learning processes
• Are context specific and flexible
• Concerned with facilitation of self development
• Lead to change