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