Lecture 17. Participatory
research methods
Summary
The term "participatory" has
been used for a wide variety of methods
and projects. Michel Pimbert and Jules
Pretty have proposed a framework to
distinguish between various types of
participatory approaches. How can this
framework be applied to characterize
basic and applied research in
ethnobiology, including resource
inventories, biodiversity prospecting and
participatory rural appraisal?
International conventions, national
laws, codes of ethics and research
guidelines – which are having an
increasing impact on ethnobiological
research – often promote
participatory approaches. How can we
continue to work as ethnobiologists while
formulating and respecting emerging
guidelines for correct practice? How can
we balance biodiversity conservation and
the needs of local communities?
Questions for
discussion:
- How can we characterize the
various types of participatory
approaches used in ethnobotanical
research?
- What is the difference between
"codes of ethics" and
"research guidelines"
- What are the key codes and
guidelines designed for
ethnobiological research?
Readings:
Brandon, K., K.H. Redford and S.E.
Sanderson. 1998. Parks in Peril:
People, Politics and Protected Areas.
Corry, S. 1993. ‘Harvest
Moonshine’ taking you for a ride: a
critique of the ‘rain forest
harvest’ - its theory and practice.
London, Survival International.
Cox, P.A. 1997. Nafanua: Saving the
Samoan Rain Forest. New York,
Freeman.
Ghimire, K.B. and M.P. Pimbert. 1997.
Social change and conservation: an
overview of issues and concepts. Pages
1-45 in Ghimire, K.B. and M.P. Pimbert,
editors, Social Change and
Conservation. London, Earthscan.
Larson, P.S., M. Freudenberger and B.
Wyckoff-Baird. 1998. WWF Integrated
Conservation and Development Projects:
Ten Lessons from the Field 1985 –
1996. Washington, World Wildlife
Fund.
Pelkey, N. 1996. PRA & RRA: a
dangerous paradigm? European Tropical
Forest Research Network News
18:18-20. [Reprinted from the
International Network for Bamboo and
Rattan Newsletter, volume 3, number 4).
Pimbert, M.P. and J.N. Pretty. 1995. Parks,
People and Professionals: Putting
‘Participation’ into Protected
Area Management. UNRISD Discussion
Paper DP57. Geneva, United Nations
Research Institute for Social
Development.
Selener, D. 1997. Participatory
Action Research and Social Change.
Ithaca, Cornell Participatory Action
Research Network. Chapter 2.
Participatory research in community
development, Chapter 5. Farmer
participatory research.
Perspective for
discussion:
On Professional Society Standards for
Biodiversity Research (from a draft
chapter by Sarah Laird and Darrell Posey,
to be included in a People and Plants
Manual):
"A number of professional
research societies have developed and
issued documents to articulate ethical
values embedded in research, and set
standards for "best practice".
These documents are variously referred to
as codes of ethics, voluntary codes,
codes of practice, statements on ethics,
guidelines, and research protocols. In
many cases there is little distinction
between them; for the purposes of this
chapter we will use the terms codes of
ethics (codes) and research
guidelines (guidelines) to
describe two broad categories of
documents. Codes of ethics articulate
underlying principles, and the
philosophical basis for research.
Research guidelines outline standards of
practice, and although some stand alone,
they are also appended to codes of ethics
to provide practical guidance. These
might include: guidelines for
publications and databases; guidelines
for disposition of collected materials;
guidelines for students; or guidelines
for commercial research…
"From the outset, the importance
of the process of developing these
documents must be emphasized. Through
internal dialogue on ethical and
practical issues associated with
research, awareness is raised and
standards evolve within the research
community in ways that allow researchers
to more effectively address the evolving
ethical and legal "envelope" in
which their work takes place. This has
included in recent years responding to
the demands and concerns of indigenous
people and local communities as expressed
in a range of declarations and
statements. Codes and guidelines focus
dialogue, and create "talking
points" to guide this process, and
help researchers – often from very
different backgrounds and perspectives
– to share understanding and develop
frameworks for equity as a
community…
At the same time that this process and
these documents respond to external
events, they also help shape those
events. For example, in rapidly emerging
ethical areas with no existing legal
framework – such as biodiversity
research, and what is known as
"access and benefit-sharing"
– codes and standards of practice
are often used to guide or inform
legislative processes. Numerous draft
access and benefit sharing laws, such as
that in Brazil, were informed by, or
directly drew language from, statements,
declarations, and codes of ethics drafted
by researchers and indigenous
peoples’ groups..."
What is a Code of Ethics?
"A code of ethics is a
"public moral system" in that:
1) all persons to whom it applies
understand behavior the system prohibits,
requires and encourages; and 2) it is not
irrational for any of them to accept
being guided or judged by such a document
.
A public moral system includes ideals
which encourage certain types of
behavior, and rules which must be
followed (AAA Commission, 1998). As
O’Riordan (1996) put it: "Any
code of practice has to be believed in,
with emotional conviction, it should not
just be regarded as a rule of good field
research."
Codes of ethics, therefore, include
general principles that underlie and
pre-date all equitable research
activities (e.g. rights of communities
and ecosystems studied), as well as those
that guide research practices (e.g.
honesty, transparency, and
confidentiality).
The International Society of
Ethnobiology (ISE) Code of Ethics, for
example, is introduced with a broad range
of principles – e.g. Principles of
Prior Rights; Self-determination;
Inalienability; and Traditional
Guardianship – as well as those that
guide the research relationship itself
– e.g. Principle of Active
Participation; Full Disclosure; Prior
Informed Consent and Veto;
Confidentiality; Respect; Active
Protection; Precaution; Compensation and
Equitable Sharing; Supporting Indigenous
Research; the Dynamic Interactive Cycle;
and Restitution.
What are Research Guidelines?
Research guidelines provide detail on
current standards of best practice in
research, and are most effectively
drafted to deal with what the AAA (1998)
refers to as "special context"
research. Thus, the Society of Economic
Botany, and the American Society of
Pharmacognosy have issued
"guidelines" – a more
moderate effort to address some of the
issues raised by their particular
research niches. Guidelines at their most
effective will provide specific
information and guidance on researcher
behavior and practice, including
language; social and environmental
impacts; sampling methods; prior informed
consent; disposition of research results
and collections; and publication and
entry into databases of information. The
more narrow the research area, the more
specific the guidelines can be drafted.
The ISE, for example, developed and has
appended to its code of ethics Guidelines
for Research, Collections, Databases, and
Publications. While still quite general,
the guidelines offer detail on practical
issues associated with acquiring and
distributing data not covered in the
Code.
In 1989, in response to a noted
absence of national government regulation
of the collection and exchange of plant
genetic resources, the FAO issued a Draft
International Code of Conduct for Plant
Germplasm Collecting and Transfer.
The Code of Conduct was intended to
provide guidance to national governments,
until such time as they implement
national access and benefit sharing
measures. The Code includes: objectives
and definitions; nature and scope;
relationship with other legal
instruments; collectors’ permits
(authority for issuing, contents of an
application for collection, granting of
permits); responsibilities of collectors
and appropriate behavior pre-, during and
post- collection; responsibilities of
sponsors, curators, and users; and
reporting, monitoring, and evaluation of
observance of the Code. There also exist
on-going efforts on the part of genetic
resource collections to issue codes of
conduct, or guidelines for the transfer
and exchange of material.
In Guidelines for Equitable
Partnerships in New Natural Products
Development: Recommendations for a Code
of Practice (1993), Tony Cunningham
provides guidelines on the type of
consent required from government,
responsibilities and procedures that
should be followed by researchers before,
during, and after collection,
responsibilities of sponsoring
organizations, and monitoring and
evaluation. In another example, the
Indigenous Plant Use Newsletter in South
Africa published Useful guidelines and
tips for fieldworkers that provide
general guidance on ways to establish
equitable relationships with communities,
as well as detail on recording
appropriate information on ecological,
botanical, and medicinal use of species
(Gericke, 1996)...
Combined Codes and Guidelines
In other cases, "codes"
– "outlining public moral
systems" – are combined with
guidelines. The Pew Conservation Fellows
Biodiversity Research Protocols (1996),
for example, begin with "Principles
Underlying these Guidelines". The
Guidelines themselves then provide
relatively concrete information on how
researchers might go about acquiring PIC
from communities; negotiations and
compensation associated with commercial
research; and steps that might be taken
by professional societies, academic
institutions, and funding agencies to
further ethical research practices. The
Guidelines remain quite general, however,
given the range of research practices and
issues they address, and the "highly
varied" political, cultural, social,
environmental, and economic contexts in
which researchers work. Recommendations
for researchers are classified into those
that "must", "usually
should", and "might" be
carried out.
The Manila Declaration (1992), on the
other hand, grew out of a meeting of
Asian scientists working on medicinal
plants, spices, and other natural
products, and the result is much more
directed guidance. The Declaration begins
by addressing the broad ethical issues
associated with the use of Asian
biological resources, but then includes
in appendices both a "code of
ethics" for foreign collectors of
biological samples (resembling something
more like guidelines), and "contract
guidelines", which provide specific
detail on amount of material collected,
payments and broader benefit-sharing.
Exercise:
After presenting the following table
and giving examples from ethnobotanical
research, ask participants to split into
small groups to discuss their own
research experiences. Participants should
give an example of a current
ethnobotanical project in which they know
or are currently involved, and
characterize the type of participation by
local people. When possible, they should
indicate how participation has evolved
over time. Results are shared in with the
whole group.
A typology of local people's
participation in projects on biodiversity
conservation and cultural continuity
(modified from Pimbert and Pretty 1995).
| Participants |
Type of participation |
Description of dynamic |
| 'Victims' or
'beneficiaries' of development |
Passive participation |
People participate by
being told what is going to
happen or what has already
happened. It is unilateral
announcement by an administration
or project management without
listening to people's responses.
The information being shared
belongs only to external
professionals. Examples include
introducing improved varieties of
crop plants, distributing
pharmaceutical products through
health clinics and relocating
local people to make way for dam
reservoirs or other development
initiatives. Depending on the
compatibility of these external
development projects with local
desires, people may benefit or be
victimized. |
| Informants, interviewees
& survey respondents |
Participation by
providing information |
People participate by
answering questions posed by
researchers and project managers
using questionnaires or similar
approaches, which do not always
require face-to-face interaction.
People may not have the
opportunity to influence
proceedings, in part because the
project design or findings of the
research are not always shared or
checked for accuracy. Survey
approaches favored by rural
sociologists exemplify this type
of participation. |
| Interlocutors |
Participation by
consultation |
People participate by
being consulted, and external
agents listen to their views.
These external agents often
define both problems and
solutions, and may modify these
in the light of people's
responses. Such a consultative
process does not necessarily
concede any share in
decision-making. Professionals
are under no obligation to accept
people's views, but the direct
contact and personal
relationships they form during
the consultation often influence
them. Conventional methods of
anthropologists, including
interviewing and
participant-observation, fall
into this category. |
| Parataxonomists, plant
collectors & research
assistants |
Participation for
material incentives |
People participate by
providing resources, for example
labor, in return for food, cash
or other material incentives.
Much in-situ research and
bio-prospecting falls in this
category, as rural people provide
the resources but are not
involved in experimentation or
the process of learning. Local
people often have no stake in
prolonging activities when the
incentives end, but they may
employ the skills they have
acquired to design and implement
their own community projects.
Many floristic and ethnobotanical
inventories carried out with
local people depend on this kind
of participation. |
| Governmental health,
nutrition and cultural promoters |
Functional participation |
People participate by
forming groups (or modifying
existing ones) to meet
predetermined objectives related
to the project, which can involve
the promotion of externally
initiated social organization.
Although local involvement does
not tend to be at early stages of
planning but only after major
decisions have been made, there
are usually opportunities for
community feedback during the
course of the project. The
community institutions tend to be
dependent on external initiators
and facilitators, but may become
independent later. Many
governmental training programs
for local health, nutrition and
cultural promoters fall in this
category. |
| Community promoters |
Interactive
participation |
People participate in
joint analysis, including
participatory rural appraisal,
which leads to action plans and
the formation of new local groups
or the strengthening of existing
ones. The analysis tends to
involve interdisciplinary
methodologies that seek multiple
perspectives and make use of
systematic and structured
learning processes. These groups
take control over local
decisions, and so people have a
stake in maintaining structures
or practices. |
| Community researchers |
Self-mobilization |
People participate by
taking initiatives independent of
external institutions. Such
self-initiated mobilization and
collective action may or may not
challenge existing production
systems or distributions of
wealth and power. External
collaborators may be invited at
certain stages of the project, or
they may be excluded entirely.
Some inventories of crop genetic
resources or wild useful plants
carried out by communities or
indigenous groups exemplify this
level of participation. |
BACK
|
