Beyond “Whose reality counts?” New methods we now need?1

Activities called PRA, and its equivalents in other languages, have evolved from a confluence, sharing and adaptation of methodologies, 2 2 In this paper methodology refers to a system of principles and methods. Method refers to a way of doing something. PAR, agro-ecosystem analysis, and PRA are examples of methodologies. Semi-structured interviews, transects and matrix scoring are examples of methods. methods and participatory traditions. Synergies have generated new things to do and new ways to do them, including visual forms of analysis. A conjunction of conditions has produced an explosion of activities and applications, and spread to many countries and organisations - NGOs, Government departments, and even universities, and raised questions of ethics and of sharing methodologies. Coming from our different traditions, should we seek places of convergence and spring-boards for action? If so, could the concept of responsible wellbeing, and the question “Whose reality counts?” provide us with common ground? They fit with eclectic pluralism, a celebration of diversity, and democratic reversals of dominance. They raise shared issues of how we teach, learn, and construct realities, of dominant institutions and their cultures, and of personal power. They point towards responsible wellbeing for “uppers” being sought in empowering and privileging the realities of “lowers”. Do we now have a phenomenal opportunity? We have participatory methodologies which are powerful, popular and self-spreading. We have new space opened up by government and donor agency policies for participation and poverty reduction. Rapid spread has brought much bad practice. At the same time, PRA and other participatory methodologies have also shown a potential to contribute to changes at levels which are policy-related, institutional and personal. To make the most of these opportunities invites sharing methods and experience between different traditions, and inventing new methods. Five methodological challenges now (May 1997) stand out as points of leverage. These are how better to: 1. enable the realities and priorities of poor and marginalised people to be expressed and communicated to policy-makers 2. enable trainers to facilitate attitude and behaviour change 3. make normal bureaucracies more participatory 4. build self-improvement into the spread of participatory methodologies 5. enable people with power to find fulfilment in disempowering themselves Could it be that effective repertoires for these could lead to much good change? Could convergences and sharings of experiences and approaches among us contribute to such repertoires? Could we between us seize these opportunities in the new spaces which are opening up?