Talk:Participatory rural appraisal

Is participatory rural appraisal a form of participatory action research? 204.225.33.254 17:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, action research/appraisal.

Recent changes
My last edit [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Participatory_rural_appraisal&diff=prev&oldid=766468157 was reverted] by 59.96.162.117, and I do not understand the edit summary justifying the reversion. It appears that we disagree on some or all of this content, but it is not clear exactly what our disagreements are. There is much here to discuss point by point so that we can reach consensus. Please explain objections here in detail. Biogeographist (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble, I did this in a haste by seeing a massive removal of cited content. Now I see its condensed and I also feel GIS should be added because of its rising importance in the field. Its also well cited. Reading https://www.socialworkhelper.com/2013/12/10/using-gis-mapping-tell-better-story/ makes it more clear. Thank you for bringing it up for discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.242.252.199 (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. Here is an explanation of my recent edits:


 * I removed the external links section because none of these external links that 117.242.252.199 added mention participatory rural appraisal (PRA). This article should be focused on PRA, because PRA is the subject of the article. There are separate articles on asset-based community development and participatory GIS.


 * I removed the sentence "PRA approach is about community mapping and participatory asset communication" because that sentence is not true. Community mapping is only one technique used in PRA; it is not a description of the entire approach.


 * I restored the word "some" to the sentence "Since the early 21st century, some practitioners have replaced PRA with the standardized model of community-based participatory research (CBPR)", because if you're going to claim that all practitioners have replaced PRA with CBPR, you need to support that claim with reliable sources. Also, if what you are really trying to describe is CBPR, then you should be editing the article on CBPR. This article should be focused on PRA.


 * I removed the paragraph on GIS, because there is a separate article on participatory GIS. It is acceptable to mention GIS briefly, but I see no justification for devoting a long paragraph to GIS, especially when none of the sources that were cited even mention PRA. Again, if what you are really trying to decribe is participatory GIS, then you should be editing the article on participatory GIS. This article should be focused on PRA.


 * In summary, the primary reason for these changes is that the removed passages do not focus on PRA. The cited sources were not about PRA, and did not even mention PRA. There are separate articles on similar or related approaches such as asset-based community development, community-based participatory research, and participatory GIS. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 12:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * To understand your point of view can you provide information on what you meant by "Community mapping is only one technique used in PRA; it is not a description of the entire approach." Because from what I see per https://books.google.com/books?id=neGfBQAAQBAJ&pg=PR16 and https://books.google.com/books?id=z1nvDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA111 is that PRA and CBPR are same and alternative approaches where the latter is used nowadays. Both basically involves participatory community mapping and asset identification. A little bit of explanation of inter-mix topics are allowed in Wikipedia. I look forward to see your POV more clearly in light of identifiable reliable sources. Kindly avoid less popular individual methods that lacks substantial support. Dont misread the collaborative tone is for WP:WINNING but for keeping the article as a good resource for readers.59.96.161.45 (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. I have added more references on PRA to the article. The sources that you cited above support the idea that PRA and CBPR are different. The first source that you cited says: "two kinds of participatory research—participatory rural appraisal and community-based participatory research merit mention here...". Notice that the text says "two kinds". The second source that you cited says "applied anthropologists use a number of methods", and then goes on to separate CBPR, PRA, and REA under different bullet points. Finally, notice that Wikipedia has separate articles for CBPR, PRA, and PAR.


 * When I said "community mapping is only one technique used in PRA; it is not a description of the entire approach", what I meant is that if you look at any list of PRA techniques/methods, you will see that participatory mapping is only one of many techniques/methods used in PRA. For example, the very widely cited text lists the following as PRA methods: participatory analysis of secondary sources, semi-structured interviews, participatory mapping and modeling, transect walks, time lines and trend and change analysis, oral histories and ethno biographies, seasonal calendars, daily time use analysis, livelihood analysis, participatory linkage diagramming, institutional or "Chapati" or Venn diagramming, well-being and wealth grouping and ranking, analysis of difference (especially by gender, social group, wealth/poverty, occupation and age), matrix scoring and ranking, estimates and quantification, key probes, stories, portraits and case studies, team contracts and interactions, presentation and analysis, participatory planning, budgeting, implementation and monitoring, etc. Notice that mapping is only one of those techniques/methods. Participatory mapping is not the whole of PRA. Similar lists can be found in sources such as:
 * Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)