This document discusses researcher bias in participatory rural appraisal (PRA) research. It examines this issue through the lens of the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), which funds research by developing world researchers. The document outlines how PRA aims to be collaborative but is susceptible to biases based on researchers' personal and cultural backgrounds as well as language and power imbalances. It argues that researchers must critically self-reflect on how their identities and preconceptions shape a study and work to establish trust and understand local contexts and perspectives.

1. Examining Researcher Bias in
Participatory Rural Appraisal Through
an IDRC Perspective
BY BRIT ANELLO
M S C . C A N D I D AT E , S E D R D , U N I V E R S I T Y O F G U E L P H , C A N A D A

2. Why Focus on the International Development
Research Centre?
 Interdisciplinary approach to international
development research
 Nationally (Canada) funded –
 Limits corporate interests in research
 Excellent database of prior research done
 Including research done with different qualitative and
quantitative (or mixed) methods
“IDRC funds researchers in the developing world so
they can build healthier, more prosperous societies”
3/20/2013

3. Why Use Participatory Methods?
 Researchers and participants can learn from and
with each other (Zeeuw and Wilbers, 2004)
 Participants become stakeholders and “own” the
process, becoming engaged and empowered (Dodge and
Bennett, 2011)
 Research can become a catalyst for „social
transformation‟ (McAllister and Vernooy, 1999)
Participatory Stakeholder Social
Research Empowerment Transformation
3/20/2013

4. The Qualitative Researcher
 Researcher must know their personal and cultural
bias
 Self-reflection to promote objectivity in qualitative research
 Understand socio-political and cultural context of
research participants
 Holistic understanding of context will create profound
understanding of results
 As creator of a strong and robust research design,
researcher must allow for flexibility
 Plan for change
3/20/2013

5. Defining Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)
 PRA is intended to enable people to conduct and share
their own investigations and analysis. (Zeeuw and Wilbers,
2004)
 Uses methods which facilitate this discussion such as:
participatory video, mapping, network analysis etc.
 PRA operates under the assumption that local citizens
have the knowledge the researcher wants, so it is
beneficial to work together (Zeeuw and Wilbers, 2004)
 Appraisal: learning leading to action (www.caledonia.org.uk)
 “...all actors [are] in a continuing process of learning...” (i.e.
Including researcher)
3/20/2013

6. Gender and PRA
(Zeeuw and Wilbers, 2004)
 Many issues to consider when conducting research in
either gender-specific socio-political „jobs‟ or in
contexts where gender is valued differently
 Researcher gender must be taken into account – perhaps have
a research team with both genders on it
 Sensitivity to cultural gender values is essential to harmony in
research
 In rural contexts, is it important to keep in mind the
balance of male and female responses and
participants – both voices are important
3/20/2013

7. The Possible Problem of Researcher Bias in PRA
 Language barriers – leads to a misinterpretation
during fieldwork or mistranslation in analysis
 Ideally initial coding scheme should come in dialogue with
local participants (www.caledonia.org.uk)
 Cultural barriers – leads to disintegration of
important relationships with key informants in
research context
 Loss of guide, supporter or aide is devastating when research is
on a timeline
 Being too emotionally invested in research scenario
that ability to think clearly is compromised
 Especially important in contexts with vulnerable participants
3/20/2013

8. The Possible Problem of Researcher Bias in PRA
(cont.)
 Reliance on one sole key informant that researcher
gets comfortable with
 Especially relevant if researcher does not speak local language
 Lack of triangulation leads to crumbling of research validity
(Kalim for www.bdeduarticle.com)
 Researcher believes he/she is the expert
 Researcher may well be tempted to see participants not as
partners, but as students (caledonia.org.uk)
3/20/2013

9. Summary of Researcher Bias
 All of the aforementioned scenarios fit into 2
categories (Onwuegbuzie et al, 2008):
 Effect of researcher on participant unacknowledged
 Effect of participant on researcher unacknowledged
 So, where do we go from here?
 Onwuegbuzie et al, argue for a systematic, reflexive
debriefing of the researcher
 To see how researcher bias formed the questions asked in the
methodology and provide true clarity within internal logic of
research design
3/20/2013

10. Combating Researcher Bias
 Self-aware researcher will not allow
personal/cultural bias influence research analysis or
process (Onwuegbuzie et al, 2008)
 Prior education in research context absolutely
essential
 Even better if researcher is able to visit research location
beforehand
 Partaking in research context culture will help gain insight into
participants
Academic Full Contextual
Researcher Understanding
Education 3/20/2013

11. Works Referenced
 de Zeeuw, H.; Wilbers, J. (2004). PRA Tools for Studying Urban
Agriculture and Gender. IDRC. Retrieved:
http://hdl.handle.net/10625/33988.
 Dodge, C.P.; Bennett, G. (2011). Changing Minds: A Facilitated Guide
to Participatory Planning. IDRC. Retreived:
http://hdl.handle.net/10625/4641.
 McAllister, K.; Vernooy, R. (1999). Action and Reflection: A Guide for
Monitoring and Evaluating Participatory Research. IDRC. Retrieved:
http://hdl.handle.net/10625/22617
3/20/2013

12. Works Referenced (cont)
 Onwuegbuzie, A.J.; Leech, N.L.; Collins, K.M.T. (2008).
Interviewing the Interpretive Researcher: A Method for
Addressing the Crises of Representation, Legitimation and
Praxis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(4).
International Institute of Qualitative Methodology: Alberta,
Canada.
 IDRC images from www.idrc.ca
 Graphics: author’s own
3/20/2013

13. For Further Research…
 http://www.idrc.ca/EN/Pages/default.aspx
 http://www.caledonia.org.uk/pra.htm
 Fantastic overview of the methodology, advantages and pitfalls
in PRA
 http://www.bdeduarticle.com/research/192-
participatory-rural-appraisal-pra-for-qualitative-
research
 Great source of list of PRA techniques that could be used
 http://www.iisd.org/casl/caslguide/pra.htm
 Excellent for core PRA ideals and key problems PRA faces
3/20/2013