PRA and RRA (Extension)

1. RRA AND PRA
TOOLS-:MATRIX RANKING,TIMELINE & WEALTH
RANKING
PRESENTED BY:-
Dr. Bhoopendra Mishra
Jyoti Jha
Neha Thakur
Ram Naresh Meena
Shasya Agrawal

2. DEFINING PRA
This technique of data collection aims to
incorporate the knowledge and opinions
of rural people in the planning and
management of development projects
and programmes.

3. PRA
 Appraisal – The finding out of information about
problems, needs, and potential in a village. It is
the first stage in any project.
 Participatory – Means that people are involved in
the process – a “bottom-up” approach that
requires good communication skills and attitude of
project staff.
 Rural – The techniques can be used in any
situation, urban or rural, with both literate and
illiterate people.

4. OBJECTIVES OF PRA
 Stimulate the community to identify the causes of its
problems and collective aspirations;
 Facilitate communication with the community;
 Help the community to identify resources, experiences,
and potential improvement;
 Identify interests and conflicts; and
 Motivate communities to develop self reliance in project
development and management

5. CORE CONCEPTS OF PRA
 Empowerment
 Respect
 Localization
 Enjoyment
 Inclusiveness

6. METHODS USED IN PRA
 Secondary data reviews
 Observation
 Semi-structured interviews
 Analytical games
 Stories and portrays
 Diagrams
 Workshop

7. GOOD FEATURES OF PRA
 “Learning-as-you-go” Principle
 Innovative
 Interactive
 Informal
 In the community

8. SOME TYPICAL DANGERS AND
LIMITATIONS OF PRA
 Difficulty in getting exact information
 Difficulty in finding the right questions to ask
 Not enough time to spend in the village
 Danger of „rural development tourism‟
 Difficulty in finding the right interdisciplinary team
 Lack of experience of team members, particularly lack
of skills in the field of communication, facilitation,
and conflict negotiation
 Team members do not show the right attitude, fail to
listen, and lack respect

9. RRA VS PRA
Category RRA PRA
Major Development Late 1970s, 1980s Late 1980s, 1990s,
Major innovation in Universities NGOs
Main uses Aid agencies, NGOs, Government field
Universities organizations
Key Resources Local people’s Local people’s
overlooked after knowledge capabilities
Main innovation Methods Behaviors
Outsiders’ Role Obtaining Facilitating
Objectives Data Collection Empowerment
Main actors Outsiders Local people
Long-term outcomes Plans, projects, Sustainable local action
publications and institutions

10. MATRIX RANKING AND MATRIX SCORING
Technique to findout the advantages and
disadvantages against a product or service
Use to
Compare services or products available

11. PROCEDURE
 Selection of an issue to investigate with a family or group of farmers.
For example, different varieties of rice, different methods of compost
making, or different seed .storage vessels;
 A serial number should be given to each product or service
 A symbol for eachshould be made
 Talking about the advantages and disadvantages of each item
 Turning them into criteria and list them in a column on the paper
 Farmers asked to rank in order of performance against each criteria)
 When complete, matrix ranking will show why one item is more used
locally than others, even though others might be better.
 Matrix scoring is a variation of matrix ranking. Instead of ranking each
item against each criteria, score them out of 10.

12. MATRIX RANKING OF DIFFERENT VARIETIES OF
RICE
Tillering Yield Crop ROI
Duration
Shatabdi 9 8 8 9
Lal Swarna 7 6 7 5
Jalprabha 6 7 8 7
Ranking is done on a scale of 1 to 10

13. TIMELINE
The facilitators meet small groups of villagers and
discuss with them the most important events in
the community’s past and prepare with the
information a historical timeline which serves
as the base for further work.

14. TIME LINE OF NIAM
•FAO expert consultation in Kuala
1975 Lampur
•Was established
1988
•PGDABM started
2001

15. WEALTH RANKING:
This is a particularly useful method of
(1) discovering how the community members
define poverty,
(2) to find who the really poor people are, and
(3) to stratify samples of wealth. This is best
done once you have built up some rapport with
the community members.

16. EXAMPLE:
Category Criteria No. of
households
Rich >10 acres 18
land
Medium 2-5 acres 63
land
Poor <2 acres 69
land

17. THANK YOU
