In this section of the discussion document the concept of participation is explored, not just in relation to research but to research and development in its widest sense. The terms used in participation are sometimes confusing and an attempt is made to clarify some of the terms. The section encapsulates, in simplified form, the evolution of participatory approaches over recent years and looks at how the approaches differ. Lastly the reasons supporting or promoting greater participation are discussed in terms of their functional, empowering and philosophical value.
1.1 Participation: an evolving concept
Participation is a term that has become very widespread within the research and development world in recent years. Its use is so common now that some feel that there is a danger that the term will become devalued (Farrington, 1998). Others feel that the use of the term has become so central to development that there is talk of a paradigm shift in thinking (Chambers, 1995). The increased use of the term reflects, in part, an almost statutory requirement by most funding agencies involved in development-related activities, to refer to it. This creates problems in separating the rhetoric of participation from the reality (Okali, Sumberg and Farrington, 1994).
Within the research and development context, terms relating to participation are often used interchangeably and as Oakley and Marsden (1984) comment, participation defies definition due to its multiple uses. This has led to considerable confusion about what is, and what is not, participation. Participation itself describes both an act and, as Oakley (1991) says, an umbrella term for a supposedly new style of research and development intervention. It can also be viewed as a desired end point related to the degree of involvement in decision-making achieved, a concept of considerable importance in the current governance debate. Oakley and Marsden (1984) describe a continuum of participation which spreads from collaboration to empowerment. Oakley (1991) elaborated on the description of this continuum for use when considering participation in projects. He identifies stages of participation moving from co-operation by people in activities defined and controlled externally, through greater involvement of the people in the decision-making process, to increased control over resources, and ultimately to much greater level of influence over the direction and control of the whole process and the distribution of benefits from it. In assessing the quality of participatory processes in projects Adrian (1992: p29) identifies 6 critical features as shown in Box 1.
| Box 1: Criteria for Assessing the Quality of Participatory Processes |
|---|
| 1. Transparency | Whether all stages of project activities are publicly visible including decision-making processes |
| 2. Access to information | Whether there is inadequate and timely access to project information for all? |
| 3. Accountability | Whether the agencies involved in. protect management and implementation are procedurally and periodically answerable to. the people in the, impact areas, as well as the citizens of the country in general? |
| 4. Meaningful choice | Whether, people can participate in a voluntary manner without being compelled, constrained or otherwise left with no other choice? |
| 5. Comprehensiveness | Whether people have been consulted from the very outset in defining the nature of the problem prior to any project being decided upon, as contrasted to consultation during subsequent stages of the project cycle? |
| 6. Non-Alienation | Whether people have participated in away, that they do not feel distanced and. alienated from the project management, the implementation process and the eventual outcomes? |
| From Adnan, 1992 |
Despite its recent popularity, participation has along. history. Pateman (1970) relates it back to the political philosophers J. J. Rousseau, J.S. Mill and J. Bentham and their work on democracy. In relation to development, Richards (1985) discusses the involvement of farmers in the development processes of 191 century America and Russia. Richards also notes the pioneering work of some of the colonial administrations in recognising the knowledge base of indigenous communities and actively involving them in the development process. There has also been a diversity of approaches which have involved farmers and other primary producers in research and development (Biggs, 1989, Okali et al., 1994). For instance in agriculture, farming systems research played an important part in gaining greater involvement of farmers in the development process (Morris and Copestake, 1993).
Participation has also been a major force in the political liberation movements of some oppressed elements of communities during this century. The major changes that have occurred in the education thinking in Latin America can be related back to participation by local people in their own development processes as recorded by people such as Ivan Illich (1971), Paulo Freire (1972) and Orlando Fals Borda (1985). The concern for the specific role of women in the research and development process has also contributed to the evolution of wider participation theory (Schrijvers, 1995). The development of participatory action research (PAR) as a self-mobilising mechanism for marginalised communities has a long and involved history (Fals Borda and Rahman, 1991; Foote Whyte, 1991; Rahman,1993; and Greenwood and Levin, 1998). It has been used as a major means for enabling and empowering communities. It has also been used by development planners and problem solvers as a quick, and often effective, method of designing interventions, although the extent of participation has sometimes been limited.
Approaches to increase the effectiveness and speed of top-down development planning prompted the development of approaches such as Rapid Rural Appraisal more commonly referred to as RRA (Khon Kaen University, 1985), rapid rural reconnaissance and rapid assessment procedures (Morris and Copestake, 1993). 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 (Mikkelsen, 1995). Some now refer to PRA as Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) which is considered to reflect more accurately the process involved. In addition there are more than 24 other approaches which are variations, adaptations or developments of these (Cornwall et al.,1993; Prettey et al., 1995). Other participatory approaches have evolved to facilitate participation in specific parts of the research and development processes (see section 1.2).
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 (Korten and Klauss, 1984). Despite the diversity of approaches, Pretty et al. (1995: 56) identify some common features:
A unifying framework, which offers the opportunity for building on, uniting and complementing a wide range of participatory approaches to development, is the Sustainable Livelihoods Approache (SLA). This, in a variety of forms, has now been mainstreamed by a range of NGO and donor agencies such as Oxfam, Care, UNDP (United nations Development Programme) and DFID (the UK government's Department for International Development).
1.1.4 Participation in Fisheries Development
Participation in fisheries has been explored from several perspectives. Much of this interest has come out of the work on customary marine tenure systems and the recognition of the existence, value and application of traditional ecological knowledge to resource management (see Alexander, 1982; Christy, 1982; Ruddle and Johannes, 1985; Scudder and Connelly, 1985; Cordell, 1989; and Johannes, 1994) The rapid appraisal methods adapted and developed under FAO-implemented projects such as the Bay of Bengal Programme (Townsley, 1993a) were more widely adopted through training programmes in other areas (Townsley 1993b). Participatory approaches have been adapted to the urban environment (Reusen and Johnson, 1994), for port development (Johnson and Camara,1997), for incorporation into the analysis, monitoring and evaluation of interventions in fishing communities (Maine et al, 1996), and to suit the aquaculture sector (Townsley, 1996). Linkages between participation at the micro-level and policy frameworks at the macro-level have been explored through research funded by DFID (Campbell and Townsley, 1996; Campbell 1996; and Campbell and Townsley, 1997). There has also been a widespread use of participation across more general development interventions in fisheries (see IIED, 1997 for example).
In some fisheries development programmes the concept of participation has now been institutionalised. As Satia (1996: 4) says of the FAO/DANIDA project Integrated Development of Artisanal Fisheries in West Africa (IDAF): "Community empowerment lies at the very heart of IDAF's strategy for sustainable development and management of artisanal fisheries ...But the legitimacy of the strategy depends on community participation". The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, which was globally agreed by the international community in 1995, makes repeated reference to the participation of fishers in the planning and policy-making of the sector. The recently started DFID-funded and FAO-implemented, Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods Project will use participation as a core approach throughout its implementation in 25 countries in West Africa.
Whilst the interest in using participatory approaches to fisheries development (throughout the text development includes fisheries management) has been significant, the interest in participation in fisheries research has been much less pronounced. This will be explored in more detail in section 3.
1.2 Approaches and Methods of Participation
There is often con fusion between the terms approaches or methodologies and methods in participation. As Chambers (1998:123) says: "...methodology (and approach) refers to a system of principles and methods. Methods, refer to a way of doing something".
Within this document we have used approaches and methods to refer to different levels of thinking and action. Approaches include the systems and processes, the philosophy of why participation is being used, the relationships and the power balance. Methods are the tools used to make the approach come alive.
Different approaches often reflect different motives for engaging in participatory research or development (see section 1.3). Willingness to allow limited levels of involvement of the community members in research or development often reflects the external agent's acknowledgement of the benefits of being closer to the real-world situation but this is often constrained by his/her desire to retain control of the process.
Greater involvement tends to reflect a recognition of the value of people's experience and knowledge which might contribute to a better understanding of problems and how to solve them. A further level of involvement is more concerned with approaches that aim to place the villagers, rather than technology or resources, at the centre of development. Such approaches have been progressively more concerned with empowerment of people and linking their needs and aspirations to the policy process.
Participation in its more empowering sense is not just a change of tools and mechanisms that development workers use. Such participation involves a change. in relationship "between the external workers and members of the communities with whom they work. This relationship becomes more equitable, with the external worker being a facilitator rather than teacher or controller. There is also a sharing of knowledge rather than an extraction of knowledge. The research and development processes incorporate greater levels of awareness raising and capacity building of the communities concerned and the processes are more action oriented and empowering. The approaches also involve a change of attitude by the researcher towards the communities concerned, from that of the professional using the knowledge and facilities of the villagers, to one of a partnership in the research and development processes.
Associated with each participatory approach is a set of methods which that approach would tend to use most frequently and which would be adapted to suit the approach. With the growing convergence of approaches many of the methods are now shared. Different approaches to participation are discussed below in 1.2.1 and different methods are discussed in 1.2.2.
1.2.1 Approaches to participation
The journals and grey literature surrounding participation in both research and development contain a wide diversity of approaches and of methods. These move away from the transfer of technology approaches of the past, towards approaches which focus on the generation of knowledge and innovation of technologies through collaborative approaches. In the agricultural sector these have been referred to as “farmer first” approaches (Chambers, 1989).
Some examples of key approaches are given below.
Participatory Action Research (PAR)
In PAR the social group is helped to formulate a critical analysis of its own situation: its problems,
weaknesses, needs, strengths, and resources. By identifying and consolidating the knowledge and skills
which they already possess, poor women and men can use these as tools for their own empowerment.
Historically PAR reflected a much more stand-alone approach to participation, building on the capacities
of the disempowered to make their own changes.
Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA)
Whilst RRA is not a participatory approach it did provide the foundation for many of the methods used in participatory approaches. 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.
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)
PRA grew out of RRA but the community members are much more actively involved in the generation and analysis of information. PRA is generally a continuing participatory process, unlike RRA which is more a one-off process. PRA supports the direct participation of communities, with rural people themselves becoming the main investigators and analysts. Rural people set the priorities; determine needs; select and train community workers; collect, document, and analyse data; and plan and implement solutions based on their findings. Actions stemming from this research tend to serve the local community. Outsiders are there to facilitate the process but do not direct it.
Participatory Assessment, Monitoring and Evaluation (PAME)
PAME is an approach which is based on the premise that beneficiaries of interventions monitor and evaluate these interventions de facto either by adopting changes or discontinuing them as soon as external inputs are withdrawn. This is people-led and gender is explicitly incorporated as a perspective on development.
Participatory Research (PR)
PR is an approach to research which aims to involve community members in the research process to varying degrees. In many instances the community acts as an agent of the external researcher or may collaborate in some aspects of the research such as data collection or analysis. A more developed view of PR is where the community has control of the research process. There are close links between PR and indigenous knowledge (see section 3).
Participatory and Integrated Policy (PIP)
PIP developed within the fisheries sector from a recognition that different policy objectives can conflict and that taking a sectoral approach to policy formulation and implementation has the inherent flaw of increasing this potential for conflict. It also acknowledged that those whose lives are going to be affected by policy processes should be involved in those processes and be linked to national policy frameworks. PIP aims to involve all key stakeholders in the policy process and to integrate these processes across sector and between administrative levels from the community, through local and national, to the international level.
Linkages between Approaches
There are many approaches to participation, each reflects, inter alia, the circumstances of its development, the motives driving it and what part of the development process it aims to address. The growing convergence of these different approaches (as mentioned in 2.1.3 above) is a recognition that each has a complementary role to play in relation to the others. PAME provides a basis for monitoring the effectiveness and impact of PAR and PRA approaches used within communities. PR can provide data, which utilises indigenous knowledge, for the policy processes of PIP PIP can in turn help to create the structures and processes needed to support the effectiveness of PRA and PAR. The relationship between some of the approaches and the research and development cycles is shown in box 2.
Each approach draws upon approach-specific methods (e.g. qualitative and quantitative research methods in PR) for its implementation. It also draws upon a growing number of participatory methods which can be called upon and adapted to the specific needs of each approach.
1.2.2 Methods used in participatory approaches
Many of the methods associated with participatory approaches were developed under RRA and became more participatory as they were adapted for PRA. Examples of these methods include; mapping and modelling, transect walking, historical transects, community walks, historical profiles, ranking and scoring, well-being ranking, seasonal calendars, time-use profiles, venn diagrams, systems/flow/impact diagrams, pie diagrams, case studies, secondary data review, workshops, direct observations, do-it-yourself, semistructured interviews, local researchers and village analysts, matrices, traditional management systems and local-resource collections, etc.
A list of some of the methods and their potential application to fisheries is given in Annex A.
1.3 Reasons for Interest in Participation
The evolution of much of the work on participation in the development process originated from two positions. Firstly, in the international development agencies in the 1970s there was a desire to improve the effectiveness of the development process through greater inclusion of the rural poor in that process (Oakley, 1984). Secondly, in many of the grass roots political movements in Latin America the focus was again on the poor but the emphasis was on a wider form of poverty encompassed by oppression. Both approaches questioned the prevailing development philosophy and sought to increase participation of the excluded to both the process of change and the beneficial products of that change. It has been said that over the last decade there has been a consolidation of this dichotomy into two broad implementation camps: the public sector which generally uses participation to enhance the function of technology design and use, and NGO approaches which aim for empowerment of weaker groups (Farrington, 1998). There is a third, and less obvious, camp which deals more with the philosophy of science and has been less influential in the practical realities of field research but has contributed significantly to the theoretical debate underpinning the subject.
These reasons can be broadly defined as: functional, empowering, and philosophical. These are outlined below and summarised in box 3.
It has long been recognised that greater participation by those who are to be affected by research or development can improve the efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of those processes and their outputs. Where. such benefits are the reasons for encouraging participation the motive can be broadly described as functional. Chambers (1995) notes several functional reasons for the growing interest in greater participation: (1) that the imposition of standard "top-down" interventions on diverse local realities have failed to address local needs, (2) the greater involvement of local people may have positive cost implications, and (3) the more local people are involved in development initiatives, the more likely they are to shoulder the ongoing cost of maintaining such initiatives.
Richards (1985:12) says, in regard to West African agriculture, that: "Intellectuals, development agencies and governments have all pursued environmental management problems at too high a level of abstraction and generalisation. Many environmental problems are, in fact, localised and specific, and require local, ecologically particular, responses" . He advocates mobilising and building on existing local skills and experiences as one response to this. This response has been echoed in fisheries where traditional management regimes, based on a strong foundation of indigenous ecological knowledge, have been seen as a valuable basis on which to build management partnerships between government and the community.
In addition participation is seen as an important mechanism for gaining compliance with laws and policies. It may be said that whilst the threat of punishment may act as a deterrent to some, for compliance by the majority of people the law must be built upon a basis of morality and self interest (Honors, 1995). In the fisheries management context: "Fishermen are more likely to comply with management measures when they are able to see the benefits which will arise from those measures and where they have been involved in the formulation of the measures" (FAO, 1986: 10). From an international agency's perspective it is recognised "that national governments are less likely to ignore international opinion when it is buttressed by popular, grassroots support" (Redclift 1992: 37) and this may be a growing factor in the emphasis on participation in both research and development.
Participation for functional reasons is generally passive and seen as a manageable input to an externally defined process of research or development (Oakley and Marsden, 1984). However, whilst functional participation may have started in this way it has progressively informed and influenced a more fundamental shift towards people-led development, and this includes a parallel shift in research. Chambers says that "Arguably, the big shift of the past two decades has been from a professional paradigm centred on things to one centred on people"(1995:32). In fisheries this shift has been marked by the change in emphasis from research into biological resources and technology, to one which encompasses a greater focus on people as entrepreneurs, consumers, employees, the poor, political participants, men and women and integral parts of wider rural communities.
There are reasons for supporting greater participation in research and development which deal with people's right to be involved in activities concerning their lives. These reasons are broadly related to empowerment in that they deal, inter alia, with access, power, decision-making, prioritisation, agenda setting quid distribution of benefits. Central to empowerment-level reasoning on participation is a reaction against centralisation, bureaucratisation, rigidity and remoteness of the state (Midgley, 1986). In extreme cases it is a reaction to the oppression .of one group of people by another and the exclusion of their perceptions of reality from the research and development process (Freire, 1972).
The recent World Conference on Science (ICSU and UNESCO, 1999) said in its post-conference declaration: "What distinguishes the poor (be it people or countries) from the rich is not only that they have fewer assets, but also that they are largely excluded from the creation and the benefits of scientific knowledge". Participation from an empowerment perspective is seen as a process which is both a means and an end in itself. Participation, in both research and development, is then seen as the driving force of the development process and not just a factor for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of "topdown" activities.
In its widest political sense it can be said that "...the recent upsurge in demands for more participation raises a central question of political theory; the place of `participation' in a modern, viable theory of democracy." (Pateman, 1970:1). There is certainly a growing recognition within the debate on good governance that people have a right to become involved in generating, analysing and using knowledge which will directly affect their lives.
There are also reasons for supporting greater participation in research and development which relate to the philosophy underpinning the way we describe, understand and explain the world we live in. The evolution of participatory processes has led some researchers to the belief that there are multiple realities and that "...professional realities are constructed differently from those of local people." (Chambers, 1998:107). This belief is shared by a small but growing group. The predominant view, however, remains that there is one `correct' knowledge system and the success or failure of research to generate knowledge is measured in its adherence in approach to that system. Redclift (1992: 34) says: "Sustainable development is usually discussed without reference to epistemological4 issues. It is assumed that the system of acquiring knowledge in the North, through the application of scientific principles, is a universal epistemology. Anything less than the `scientific knowledge' hardly deserves our attention. Such a view, rooted as it is in ignorance of the way we ourselves think, as well as of other cultures' epistemology, is less than fruitful".
This philosophical approach to different knowledge systems influences not only attitudes to participation in the research and development process but also the value placed on indigenous knowledge (see section 4). For policy purposes, science-generated knowledge is generally regarded as more valuable than knowledge generated through indigenous processes (Redclift, 1992). As Chambers and Richards say: "In the dominant model of development, useful knowledge was only generated in central places - in universities, on research stations, in laboratories..." (1999: xiii). This situation is gradually changing and traditional ecological knowledge is playing an important role in fields such as ecology (Berkes, 1993). An important, if rather patronising, step towards greater participation of traditional communities and their knowledge systems has been that indigenous knowledge which has been `extracted' using social research methods and placed in a scientific framework, has a value-added quality.
Much of the above discussion has considered participation in the wider development context. This section focuses on participation in research and begins to develop a framework for reviewing participation in fisheries research.
2.1.1 Research in natural and social sciences
The evolution of our understanding of research is both ongoing and well documented (Hammersley, 1996; Couvalis 1997; McKenzie, 1997; May 1997; and Wallerstein,1998). It is not appropriate to go into the detail of this evolution here but it is important to place research into the context of different knowledge systems.
Research in modern science can be described as the systematic and rigorous collection and analysis of data to describe or explain observations. This process can generate hypotheses or test them, and the quality of the research carried out is measured in terms of its validity and reliability.
In the natural science field, the emphasis of research has tended to be on the use of quantitative methods in controlled circumstances to develop generalised theory with wide application. Whilst there is a strong historic parallel with this in parts of the social science field, the emphasis is much more on localised descriptive research which emphasises the uniqueness of human behaviour in different societies faced with different problems in different physical environments. Social science has promoted and advanced the use of qualitative methods more than has the natural sciences. At least within the sphere of development research there is a progressive convergence of these positions. Researchable constraints are seen less as sectoral issues and more as interdisciplinary and holistic problems involving both the natural and social worlds. As the effectiveness and efficiency of working purely sectorally is questioned (Canvey, 1998) and the past production focus of development moves to more of a people focus (Korten and Klauss, 1984), so the need to combine approaches to research becomes a priority.
2.1.2 Research's contribution to development
Formal research within development has a particularly strong link with policy. The purpose of research is very often seen as being to inform policy (situational analysis, problem identification, agenda setting, policy formulation), to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of policy implementation, to allow monitoring and evaluation of policy, and to inform the desired distribution of the benefits of policy. As DFID (1998:131) says: "Research is based on the collection and analysis of data which are processed to create knowledge. The subsequent application of knowledge to effect a desirable outcome is the process of development. Thus every development paradigm is ultimately dependent upon the creation and application of new knowledge or the application of existing knowledge in new ways".
2.1.3 Research and different knowledge systems
There is a growing recognition of the importance of indigenous knowledge and of indigenous knowledge systems in development (Haverkort and Heimstra,1999; and Warren et al., 1999) and in fisheries (Ruddle, 1999). The resultant exploration of alternative knowledge systems has raised questions about the modern approach to research. The over-emphasis on systematic and rigorous processes in formal science excludes others from participating in the research process except in ways which are subservient to the professional researcher. Research then becomes `what researchers do'. Those at the interface between natural and social sciences are challenging this view. If we are to value and use indigenous knowledge then we must accept that the ways in which that knowledge is generated are also of value to the research process. If the processes which generate indigenous knowledge do so in ways which provide reliable and valid data, even if the methods used do not conform to modern science's views of what is `systematic and rigorous', then they are worthy of further investigation. Indeed, whilst they may not be systematic and rigorous by formal science's knowledge system, they may be so by the knowledge system within which they were generated (see Richards, 1985 and Fujisaka, 1999).
It is at the interface between these knowledge systems that participation in research is likely to make its most significant advances in the medium-term. This will include assisting to understand the complexity of different knowledge systems and providing ways of meshing the systems together.
Biggs (1989) has suggested four levels of participation in farming research.: contract, consultative, collaborative and collegial. These levels represent the extent and type of relationship between the researcher and farmer. This classification, adapted to the fisheries sector, is shown in box 4.
Such approaches tend to imply that participation is a process where members of traditional communities participate to varying degrees in an externally defined research process.
Richards (1985) however, suggests that participatory research might be thought of as a self help concept and that the external scientist becomes a consultant providing guidance when required. It must also be recognised that some research is implemented by traditional communities without any involvement of outsiders. In at least some situations this is done in systematic and rigorous ways (Richards, 1985 and Fujisaka,1999. See also van Veldhuizen et al.,1997, for a diversity of examples of farmer research in practice). Pretty et al. (1995) (see box 5) and Okali and Sundberg (1994) have developed this framework to incorporate self-mobilisation by the community as a further step. Participation can occur at some or all stages of research (from research prioritisation, design, data collection, analysis, interpretation and action) and to lesser or greater degrees.
Box 4 Levels o Fishers' Participation in Fisheries Research Contract: The out side researcher uses the facilities or resources of the fishers to carry out his or her research e.g. research carried out in village fish ponds or gear trials using traditional craft. Consultative: The researcher consults the fishers to identify problems and then find solutions The fishers play a fairly passive role. Collaborative: The researcher and the fishers work together in the design and carrying out of the research and discuss the implementation continuously. Collegial: Researchers actively encourage informal research and. development by the fishers where they play a major role in designing the research defining the methods; implementing the Work and analysing and interpreting the data. |
Participation in the research process clearly has several dimensions such as: 1) the relative balance of participation by insiders and outsiders; 2) the quality of that participation (see box 1 for criteria used by Adnam); 3) the stage in the research-policy cycle where the participation occurs; 4) the degree of empowerment; and 5) the degree of perceived benefit derived by each stakeholder as measured in their own terms. MacAllister (1999:50) discusses monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of participation in research and identifies a wide range of dimensions that can be used. In conclusion she says: "The many contextual variables which influence participatory research processes make monitoring and evaluating participatory dimensional and complex. The diversity of natural resource management research projects which apply participatory research methods, as well as the differences in understanding of what "participation" in research implied makes it difficult to compare successes and failures between projects or to generalise about successful participatory research approaches. Furthermore, because the different groups involved in participatory research projects have different indicators and criteria for project success, it is important to understand whose perspectives are needed in order to inform on specific issues or outcomes, and to seek these views in evaluation".
2.2.2 Constraints to participation
A major constraint to the participation process is that surrounding who is included and who is excluded from the participation process (Scoones and Thompson, 1994).
A major concern of the participatory research process over the years is that in the past the community members have often been thought of as a single group with common needs, aspirations and capacities to participate in the research process. This is clearly not the case. Participants consist of many groups of stakeholders differentiated, amongst other things, by gender, age, occupation, wealth, power, access to resources, education, social characteristics and religion. The notion that fishers or any other group of rural people in traditional communities are a homogeneous community working in harmony for the common good is rarely confirmed by experience and such views represent a real barrier to our understanding of participation (Eyben and Ladbury, 1995).
Who actually participates is dependent on a variety of factors including the research objectives, the time involved, the skills required and the interests of the potential partners (Okali, 1994). However, there are additional issues which need to be considered. As Farrington (1998:2) says: "Farmers in the middle and higher income ranges, for instance, may `participate' ...through the market by contracting advisory services...". Wealthier community participants often have farming, aquaculture and fishing processes which mirror those used for experimentation by the research stations and this makes them more attractive to researchers (Chambers et al., 1989).
The situation for the low-income participants is quite different. Not only do they lack the resources to buy into the research process, they often lack the time, infrastructure and the confidence to participate, they may be too vulnerable to risk involvement, or they may be excluded from the process because of their status within the community. In aquatic environments the poor are often located in the most adverse sites where natural disasters such as floods, cyclones, tidal waves are common. These do not lend themselves well to controlled research conditions. Adrian (1992) gives an account from Bangladesh how poor people in a difficult environment can be marginalized from the very development processes that are designed to help them.
Box 5. An Alternative Typology of Participation
From Pretty et al 1995 |
Marginalisation from external research is particularly acute for women in rural areas who face a layer of structural and cultural constraints which restrict and bias their participation (Oakley and Marsden, 1984). It is not enough to add women onto the research agenda as just another participant. FAO, recognising the extent to which gender can affect participation in research has initiated an expert consultation on participatory research methods and gender, particularly in relation to information generation, storage and use (FAO, 1999).
In many fishing communities some of the people are migrants to the area. In some situations they may be seasonal wage labourers who have joined the fishery to complement farm incomes in difficult times. Others may be migrant fishermen and women who follow a particular stock of fish from one location to another, or migrate to make use of varying abundance in different locations. There are important questions to be asked about how these people can and/or should participate in the research process. Another concern for participatory research is that the professional researcher are often specialists in specific fields of knowledge which tend to be divided into sectors and sub-sectors. Community members, on the other hand, tend to be more multi-sectoral in their needs and knowledge.There is a likelihood therefore that they will approach research from different perspectives. Those in control of the research are likely to pick partners with similar research interests.
These points lead to three key problems for the potential participants who are poor. Firstly they are less likely to lead participation in research; secondly the physical conditions of their world are difficult to replicate in a research station; and thirdly they may need support from outside agencies to identify and articulate their priorities for technical change and to help their management of common pool resources to become established (Farrington, 1998).
2.3 Towards a New Framework for Participation in Research
2.3.1 The language of participation
The language of participatory research is emotive and loaded. The term itself implies that one group (the participants) are being invited/allowed/encouraged to participate in the activities, processes or systems of the researchers. The implication being that the researchers are professionals operating in the scientific research framework e.g. in the case of participatory research in fisheries, fishers would tend to participate in the research process of fisheries scientists. In some situations the use of such language is specifically intended to imply different roles for the different participants and may be intended to ensure that the control of the research process remains in the hands of the professional researcher. However, this use of language denies the importance of the role of fishermen and women in their own research and innovation. Their knowledge of the ecology and behaviour of fish (Johannes, 1981), of the weather and oceanographic conditions, of navigation (Worsley, 1997), of fishing methods (von Brandt, 1972), of vessel design and propulsion, of processing methods and trade, has been generated to overcome specific localised problems and to enable them to utilise local resources . Such indigenous technical knowledge (ITK) combines with traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and fits within a wider social, and cultural framework of knowledge to create what has been referred to as rural people's knowledge or RPK (Scoones and Thompson, 1994).
Traditional knowledge has evolved over hundreds if not thousands of years often in relatively stable social, economic and environmental circumstances. With the rapidly changing social and environmental conditions affecting these communities indigenous knowledge is no longer able to respond quickly enough to the changes and challenges currently facing fisheries globally. As traditional systems begin to break down, traditional knowledge is eroded. There is a growing need for formal science and traditional knowledge to come together to address these urgent issues. This need for transformation is not restricted to fisheries, but goes right across the renewable natural resources spectrum.
2.3.2 An expanded framework for participation in research
The approach to research which is dominated by the professional researcher is changing and there are many moves towards a greater level of partnership which is more in line with Biggs' collaborative level of participation (see box 4). There is still, however, a tendency to think of participation in research as a process where those in the community participate in the research framework of the outside researcher. Considering the widespread availability of indigenous knowledge and the long history of innovative and investigative practices by traditional communities to generate such knowledge, it is difficult to see why this is so. To avoid perpetuating this formal-science bias to discussions of research it is perhaps more appropriate to talk about participation in research rather than participatory research. This also acknowledges that participation does not just occur in research itself but can be included in all parts of the research-policy cycle.
Acknowledging the possibility of alternative knowledge systems and of indigenous research without involvement of formal scientific researchers, the remainder of this paper will refer to the participants in the research as though they approached research from two ends of a spectrum. At one end are professional research participants, and at the other are community-based research participants. The professional research participants are those who are employed by governments, project's, NGOs, academic institutions, and consultancy companies to "do research" for a living or as a significant part of a development activity. Community-based participants refers to those people, such as farmers, fishermen, foresters, and processing women, who engage in the research process as an auxiliary part of their normal productive economic activities within the community.
Whilst reference to the innovative and investigative skills of fishers as research is likely to generate debate, it is done so here to encourage a broadening of our view of research and open up the opportunities for new approaches.
Using this approach the levels of participation of Biggs (1989) can be expanded to create a framework that incorporates a greater diversity of levels of possible participation in the research process which is less biased towards the professional research participants and their knowledge system (box 6). Nine types of relationships exist in this framework which range from Type A where the professional research participants are implementing research without any form of involvement of the community through to Type I where community-based research participants are generating their own knowledge without any form of outside involvement. Type A tends to be generated by formal research establishments, Type I was in the past concerned with sustainable livelihoods but is now more and more to do with survival.
This framework will be used in the remainder of the report to explore relationships in the research process in fisheries and other sectors. This framework only represents one dimension in the participation continuum and, where possible, consideration is also given in the analysis to the stages in the research cycle where the participation occurs and to some extent the degree of empowerment that is achieved. In the following sections a distinction is made in the following discussion between (a) formal fisheries research, conducted by professional research participants mainly through Type A research in the framework, (b) indigenous knowledge generation conducted by community-based research participants mainly through Type I research, and (c) various forms of collaboration between the two groups. Formal research is discussed in section 3, indigenous knowledge in section 4, and collaborative research in section 5.
