For development processes to be truly community-centric, they must actively and intentionally give agency to the community. While seemingly obvious, there exist conflicting interests. On one hand, development professionals are tasked with particular goals and outcomes influenced from donors, government schemes, and institutional focuses. In other words, development actors have set boundaries. On the other hand, the true needs and desires of the community are not so easily predetermined; community members themselves must inform development professionals of their preferences (Townsley, 6.2). This creates a chicken and egg dilemma: development projects must be flexible enough to adapt to the revealed preferences of the community, but such processes are not concrete enough to secure proper funding and support.
To begin to alleviate this contention, the practice of development has evolved over the last fifty years, incrementally turning the decision-making process to the community. This trend has reoriented “from top-down to bottom-up, from centralized standardization to local diversity, and from blueprint to learning process.” (Chambers, 953). The first major advancement was the introduction of Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) methods by academic institutions as a way to decentralize and localize the knowledge learning process. RRAs originated as an alternative to “rural development tourism” where urban-based professionals lacked proper contexts forming disparaging biases; instead, RRAs posited a more holistic approach to knowledge sharing than formal, static surveys (Chambers, 956).
While a start, RRAs still lacked full community agency. Critics noted that these methods still prioritized the outsiders’ learning and analysis. Even more, outsiders themselves utilized this information for their own decision-making or to advance their academic knowledge (Townsley, 6.1).
Participatory Rural Appraisal
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) evolved from RRA by the 1990s with the direct goal of allowing communities to conduct their own analysis and decision making. Robert Chambers is largely credited with advancing PRA methodology. Defining PRA as “a family of approaches and methods to enable rural people to share, enhance, and analyze their knowledge of life and conditions, to plan and to act,” Chambers utilized tenets from activist participatory research, agroecological analysis frameworks, applied anthropology, field experience, and RRA (Chambers, 953-954). PRA realizes that field learning is ever changing and not rigid, indigenous knowledge is paramount, and building trust and rapport is a necessary step (Chambers, 955). To the last point, the history of development extension, particularly in Tribal communities, led to distrust and suspicion of outsider motives. Relationship building today seeks to slowly correct such past experiences.
PRA is inherently concerned about poverty and equity, believing that people who experience poverty are creative and capable of initiating change themselves; to do so, PRA teams should actively incorporate and prioritize local actors, especially as facilitators. PRA also realizes the hyper-specification of experiences communities face; rural issues are complex and diverse where rural people actively and inherently employ innovation and experimentation.
Outsiders should act as conveyors, catalysts, and facilitators to empower marginalized communities, providing technical expertise and novel solutions whose approval is ultimately decided by the community itself (Chambers, 954-955). At the end of the day, active communication between outsiders and community members is critical. Therefore, the goal is to empower the community to perform their own analysis, reach their own conclusions, and strategize their own solutions (Townsley, 6.1, 6.5).
The Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the UN identifies a multitude of advantages of PRA: identification of genuine priorities for target group, devolution of management responsibilities, motivation and mobilization of local development workers, forming better linkages between communities and development institutions, use of local voices, mobilization of community resources, and more sustainable development activities (Townsley, 6.3).
A non-exhaustive list of PRA tools outlined by Robert Chambers include
- Semi-structured interviews
- Focus groups
- Participatory mapping and modeling
- Social mapping
- do-it-yourself (of village tasks)
- They-do-it (of PRA tools)
- Participatory analysis of secondary sources
- e-PRA
- Transect walks
- Timelines & trend/change analysis
- Oral histories & ethno-biographies
- Seasonal calendars
- Daily time use analysis
- Livelihoods analysis
- Institutional venn diagrams
- Wellbeing and wealth grouping and ranking
- Analysis of difference
- Matrix scoring and ranking
- Estimates and quantification
- Stories, portraits, and case studies
- Team contracts and interactions
- Participatory planning, budgeting, implementation and monitoring
- Group discussions and brainstorming
- Short standard schedules or protocols
- Report writing
Field Training: Kadiri, Andhra Pradesh (11-13 November, 2025)
WASSAN hosted a PRA Training workshop in Kadiri, Andhra Pradesh. The first day of the workshop was dedicated to learning the philosophy, impact, and best practices of PRA. One important logical exercise is the “Johari Window.” Depicted below, this psychological model helps development professionals understand the learning process from the “We don’t know, they don’t know” quadrant to the “we know, they know” quadrant first via the “We don’t know, they know” quadrant. It is better to listen first than to present solutions – let them teach us their knowledge. We also discussed the three pillars of PRA. 1. Attitude and behavior: the best practice is to “hand over the stick” to the community, sit with them in a comfortable setting, and be ready to learn and unlearn. 2. Methods (listed above), and 3. Sharing – of local knowledge, shared experiences, and NGO resources.
Following the previous day’s lessons, the participants were divided into two groups to complete PRA in different villages: Maripurivalipalli and Peddapalli. Each group was led by a PRA expert and various experienced PRA facilitators to demonstrate how to utilize these tools in action. I visited Maripurivalipalli, where after following a pakka (concrete) road that quickly turned into a patchy dirt road, we arrived at the village local school. The school was centrally located with a large yard shaded by a sprawling eucalyptus tree.
After chatting with various farmers, school teachers, and local women, we congregated over a dozen community members to initiate the participatory tools. The first was a Fasal Chakra (crop wheel). To begin, draw a large circle on the ground with rangoli colors divided into 12 segments, one for each month. (Note: check which calendar the community uses for their agricultural seasons, it may differ from the Gregorian calendar). Then, determine the types of land the community differentiates between. This could mean different elevations, different soil types, irrigation status, etc. After determining 2-5 types of land, draw smaller circles to make subdivisions of each month segment for each land type, reserving the innermost circle for water availability. Maripurivalipalli divided their land types into white, red, and sodic soil. The end result allows the mapping out of water availability and crop season for each soil type. This information can illustrate critical sowing times, resource needs, and potential off-seasons. To the last point, off-seasons can correspond with migration pressure which may or may not be alleviated with implementing resilient cover crops.
We then completed daily activity schedules for both men and women in the village. This exercise is vital to understand not only how labor is divided unequally amongst gender, but how any proposed solutions/interventions may disproportionately impact certain members of the community. For example, if women rear cattle or collect water more than men, then livestock initiatives may impact women negatively.
We then spent time with the farmers to understand the pros and cons of each type of groundnut variety they grow. To do so, we completed a Matrix Ranking graph depicted below. Choosing a crop variety is not a straightforward task as market price is often inversely related to quantity, duration, and risks associated with cultivation. By weighting the various variables, this exercise can show farmers how various factors offset each other to make more holistic decisions.
Lastly, we completed two transect walks around Maripurivalipalli with community members to identify social and physical zones, soils, land usage, crops, livestock, technology, infrastructure, etc. This information can identify geographic problem points.
On the final day of the training, we returned to Maripurivalipalli with organized graphs and information to share with the community. We then had a three-hour discussion to review our findings and to list community-identified problems in a problem solving matrix. Such a matrix should follow the below format.
In order of importance, the community identified the following problems: roads, labour issues, market facilities, wild animals, ovulation failure, soil health, (invasive) weeds, MLA availability, livestock health, and milk productivity. The road to the village we initially experienced ended up being the community’s biggest issue as it greatly reduced their accessibility.
PRA → Participatory Methodology
Since the 1990s, India has experienced massive transformational change. In 1990, 26% of India’s total population was urban with over 63% working in agriculture. By 2023, 36% was urban and only 44% worked in agriculture. As a result, PRA has increasingly been utilized in urban and non-agricultural contexts with many professionals now calling such practices as Participatory Methods (PM).
Challenges to Overcome
Participatory Methodology is largely seen as the best method to empower local communities to implement positive change in their communities. However, the FAO identified a list of cautionary disadvantages of PRA in which proper attention can partially mitigate such adverse consequences.
- Raising expectations which cannot be realized
- Proposal of development plans which participating agencies cannot respond to
- Risk of “capture” by activities by local interests
- Failure to take account of stratification in communities
To expand on the above, it is imperative to consider who is at the decision-making table from both the community and facilitator side. Simply ensuring representation during PRA exercises is generally not sufficient: gender, age, education status, socioeconomics, caste, and religion all impact societal influence. Members of these communities may speak less, change their answers, or under-prioritize their own issues. Therefore, finding ways to truly include these individuals such as separate focus groups may reveal important nuances.
Secondly, even if outsiders come with the intention of handing over the process to the community, who they lean on may reiterate certain biases. For example, outsiders may rely on literate or educated individuals or even community members with previous exposure to such exercise. Unfortunately, this transfer may still reinforce the previously mentioned power dynamics. This relates to the FAO’s caution #3 – if certain local members are able to dominate the development process, then increased inequality, corruption, and even harm to others can occur. Therefore, PRA facilitators must actively monitor and account for such possibilities.
Lastly, PRA facilitators must ensure the information they are presenting is accurate. Importantly, they must perform due diligence and warn of any risk factors associated with any interventions suggested. For example, the mathematical rigor of a matrix ranking may seem like an ensured manner for farmers to decide which variety to grow. However, there is room for bias in such mathematical processes: correlated variables could skew the numbers in one direction or other. Therefore, facilitators have a responsibility to present all positive and negative information.
While RRA, PRA, and PM are seen as quicker, cost-effective, and more comprehensive than traditional data collection methods, professionals are forced to validate these findings with formal surveys for the sake of credibility. This confirmation undermines the speed and savings these processes enable (956). Furthermore, “PRA often implies radical personal and institutional change, and it would debase the term to use it for anything less than this,” (958-959). However, established interests and academic paradigms continue to hinder PM’s potential.
Future of Participatory Methodology
Participatory Methods are increasingly relying on modern technologies to utilize increased sources of secondary information: e-PRA. One such example is presenting GIS spatial information to the community. By printing out a resolute and large map of the village, community members can draw boundaries, identify resources, and even witness drought/season change/crop failure over time.
Sources
Chambers, Robert. The Origins and Practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal. Universität Hohenheim, entwicklungspolitik.uni-hohenheim.de/uploads/media/Day_4_-_Reading_text_8.pdf. Accessed 17 Nov. 2025.
“Participatory Methods.” ParticipatoryMethods.org, Institute of Development Studies, participatorymethods.org/. Accessed 17 Nov. 2025.
Townsley, Philip. “Participatory Rural Appraisal.” Rapid Rural Appraisal, Participatory Rural Appraisal and Aquaculture, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 358, FAO, 1996,
www.fao.org/4/w2352e/W2352E06.htm#ch6. Accessed 17 Nov. 2025.
World Bank. “Employment in Agriculture (% of Total Employment) – India.” World Development Indicators, The World Bank, data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS?locations=IN. Accessed 17 Nov. 2025.
World Bank. “Urban Population (% of Total Population) – India.” World Development Indicators, The World Bank, data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS?locations=IN&start=1980. Accessed 17 Nov. 2025.
