|
Workshop
Review:
1. All methods
learnt in the workshop have enormous potential and value for use in the
field.
2. PRA methods can
be a useful way of orienting new staff to the field of rural development;
it is also good for a quick orientation to staff who are handing over and
taking over new positions and responsibilities.
3. The use of colour
can transform communication into something more efficient than if colour
is absent.
4. Where MYRADA
Projects are working in close collaboration with the Government and can
rope them in for some training (e.g. Dharmapuri) it is worth planning a
PRA workshop for them.
5. We must think in
terms of developing a PRA kit for the use of practitioners.
6. One useful
contribution of the workshop has been to provide models for documentation
of findings in easier, more attractive, and more understandable ways. The
next time such a workshop is held, more time should be spent on the
subject of documentation itself.
7. The next such
workshop should also include a separate session on the use of diagrams and
illustrate how different diagrams are suitable for representing different
kinds of materials.
8. It is very
important to inject professionalism into the practice of PRA methods;
otherwise, it can easily be misused or become an end in itself rather than
a means to an end.
9. If PRA assumes
that all knowledge is available with the people themselves, where does it
fit into the development philosophy? It was clarified that PRA is a method
of participatory learning; it is not
that all people know everything there is to know; it
is a method from which we can find out what it is that the people know,
what the people believe in,
and the reasons why some things are what they are. It gives us a clue
to the way people think, which is always a good basis for planning
development programmes.
10. It was pointed
out that though there had been a classroom session on learning to
discriminate between fact, hearsay and opinion, field presentations had
not been analysed to find out
if the discrimination had, in fact, been used in sifting through information.
11. Developing case
studies was seen as a very useful form of learning.
12. Time management
had not been very good, possibly because the group size was so large and
there were so many presentations scheduled for each day. Perhaps the ideal number for such a training
programme in future should be 15 to 24.
Follow-up
Plans:
a) To draw from
among senior staff of MYRADA projects a few persons who can be sent for
more PRA trainings when they are held elsewhere, and who can form a core
team within MYRADA to be used where required.
b) To hold PRA
training sessions within all projects and use PRA methods extensively
(wherever appropriate) in our day-to-day work.
c) To organise a
separate PRA training workshop exclusively for the staff of H.D.Kote,
Madakasira and Dharmapuri Projects.
d) To organise PRA
training programmes for Government staff wherever possible.
e) To write up PRA
field experiences for circulation among a wider circle of development
people.
f) To hold a review
workshop for this same group of participants on 7th, 8th and 9th August
1990 to study the work put in by them in the interim period.
g) To establish
inter-agency collaborations for sharing of development experiences.
(1)
The base paper used for this
discussion - RRA/PRA APPROACHES & METHODS contains more details and has been
circulated to all participants. Additional copies available on request.
(2)
For details see Dr.Robert Chambers’
book titled RURAL DEVELOPMENT - PUTTING THE LAST FIRST. Copies are available
with all MYRADA Projects. Extra copies (cyclostyled) of relevant chapters
available on request.
(3)Matrix Ranking was not detailed at
this workshop.
|
M
Y R A D A
PRA - PALM Series 1
|
No.2,
Service Road
Domlur Layout
BANGALORE 560 071 |
A Workshop On
PARTICIPATORY
LEARNING
METHODS
|
Conducted
By
|
:
Dr.Robert Chambers
|
|
Dates
|
: 8th
to 12th January 1990
|
|
Venue
|
: Rural
Training Centre
MYRADA Talavadi Project |
|
|
|
Case Study
referred to on Page 16:
MUDDAMMA'S STRUGGLE FOR SURVIVAL &
UPLIFTMENT |
|
|
|
Family
Profile:
|
Muddamma
Laurence (her son)
Laurence’s wife
Laurence’s children
|
Age
55 – Illiterate
Age 28 – 2nd Std.
Age 24 – 4th Std.
Age 8 (F) - 3r d std.
Age 6 (M)
Age 3 (M)
|
|
House:
|
Pucca –Tiled
|
3 rooms and
kitchen
|
|
Land:
|
Nil
|
|
|
Livestock:
|
1 goat
|
|
|
Occupation:
|
Agriculture labour, silk worm rearing
Son runs
bicycle shop, daughter-in-law works as an Ayah.
|
|
Income:
|
From
bicycle shop
From Sericulture
From Ayah work
|
Rs.3,250.00
Rs.2,000.00
Rs. 950.00
|
|
|
|
Rs.6,200.00
|
|
Credit:
|
Loan taken
|
Rs.2,500.00
|
|
|
Repaid loan
|
Rs.1,200
|
|
Muddamma's
Life Story:
1935 : Born in a poor family – Mudiyannur.
Childhood: Living on alms and casual work.
1950 : Married to an equally poor person in Gundalpet.
1951 : First son born.
1954 : Loses her husband. Back to Mudiyannur with her son.
For livelihood – casual work and Missionaries help.
1956 : Migrated to Bangalore – working with nuns.
1960 : Comes back to the missionaries in Panakahally.
1961 : Finds her new marriage partner – Bhagyarathnam.
1962 : Bhagyarathnam ex-communicated & returns to Mudiyannur. The
first son is
placed in bondage. Second son born.
1964 : Life’s struggle worsens – drought.
1965 : Has a third son – unable to feed children, sickness in the family
– forced to seek alms. Has another son
and daughter in succession.
1970 : Second and third son placed in bondage in order to release the
eldest and get him married.
1972 : Worst drought – no drinking water – walks 5 kms. to Doddapuram
for water.
1980 : Eldest son releases one of his brother’s and gets him married.
1982 : Loses her husband.
1985 : MYRADA’s intervention in second son’s development (Laurence)
– Sericulture;
crossbred calf.
1986 : Second son releases both brothers and gets the elder married.
1987 : Moves to Government allotted house with Laurence’s family –
gets her daughter married.
1988 : Participants in the development attempt of Laurence – IRDP loan
– bicycle shop.
1990 : Narrates her life struggle – 2 meals a day. Freedom from
struggle.
Looking forward. . . . . |
GROUP - I
WEALTH RANKING & LIVELIHOOD ANALYSIS PROCESS
|
As we entered the
village, we saw the people waiting for us due to previous ground work
done by our extension staff. They took us to the community centre, where
we found that they had already arranged
for us to meet with a group of Harijan farmers
only. We wanted to sit with one person and do the wealth ranking. But all the members wanted to sit with us to have a
discussion as usually happens in their sangha
meetings. Then we had to use a technique - we were four. We divided into two groups; two each. Two members took one
member into a room and started interviewing.
The other two started the group interview. This gave us the opportunity
to have two interviews i.e. -
1> Individual interview - on wealth ranking.
2> Individual interview - in the group consisting of 26 members - on
livelihoodanalysis.
We used stories, examples and some incidents from the
nearby villages and sanghas to
convey our purpose of meeting them. Through this they understood that they
were the resource persons for us during the
meeting. During the time of interview one
used to record each group. After completing our interview with the group;
the other group interviewing the person
had joined us. The wealth ranking exercise was repeated once again in the
group and the person who was individually interviewed earlier
was asked to keep quiet and he did.
Reported by Mr.B.R.Bhat
Village : Marur
Interviews done by :
Vidya, Anil Nayak, B.R.Bhat, Shivarudrappa
Story Used : Selling of an old deceased donkey.
Example : Invention of "Kapila" (lift irrigation).
GROUP II
WEALTH RANKING AT MARUR
Group Members: Mr.K.V.Rao, Mr.Blaise, Mr.Holajjer,
Mr.Radhakrishnan, Mr.A.K.Shivaraja.
Process:
|
a>
|
Our
group was formed by the organisers of the RRA and were asked to go
to the above village.
|
|
b>
|
Mr.Blaise
joined our group at Marur.
|
|
c>
|
While
going to the interview spot the group members discussed and assigned
the responsibilities as under:
Introduction & Interviewing : Mr.A.K.Shivaraja
Recording : Mr.Radhakrishnan and Mr.K.V.Rao
Observers : Mr.Holajjer & Mr.Blaize
Mr.Holajjer also translated for Mr.Blaize.
|
|
d>
|
Met
three initial informants at the entrance of the village. These informants were selected by the Talavadi staff.
|
|
e>
|
Selected
a site for interview which happened to be the shade of a pongamia tree, 200 yards from the village.
|
|
f>
|
All
sat in a circle.
|
|
g>
|
Individual
introductions was done by all.
|
|
h>
|
The
purpose of the visit was explained by Mr.Shivaraja and Mr.Rao.
|
|
i>
|
The
number of informants increased as a few more joined the group in the
middle.
|
|
j>
|
The
interviewer asked the informants whether they knew all the families
in the village and their status.
|
|
k>
|
Explained
to the informants about what they had to do and requested them to do the wealth ranking of the families of their
village.
|
|
l>
|
The
informants developed criteria for classifying the families as rich,
middle and poor.
|
|
m>
|
Used
three different size stones for easy identification of categories.
|
|
n>
|
The
family name slips were given one by one to one informant after
reading the names out loud.
|
|
o>
|
The
informants started classifying as per the consensus of the group.
|
|
p>
|
One
informant from the Harijan colony joined us as per our request to clarify some doubtful families.
|
|
q>
|
Random
checks on some families to confirm with the criteria.
|
|
r>
|
The
classified figure ideas as below:
Rich : 0
Middle : 4
Poor : 49
Total : 53
|
|
|