Reversing the paradigm: Quantification, participatory methods and pro-poor impact assessment

Journal of International Development

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 271-298

  Mayoux, Linda ^a   Chambers, Robert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT METHOD; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH;

EID: 16344396315     PISSN: 09541748     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jid.1214     Document Type: Review

References (112)

1. Abbot J, et al. 1999. Participatory GIS: opportunity or oxymoron?. PLA Notes 33: 27-33, International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
2. Abeyasekera S. 2001. Analysis approaches in participatory work involving ranks or scores, statistical guides series, Statistical Services Centre, University of Reading: Reading. www.ssc.reading.ac.uk [Accessed November 2004].
3. Absalom E, et al. 1995. Participatory methods and approaches: sharing our concerns and looking to the future. PLA Notes 22 5-10.
4. ActionAid-Nepal. 1992. Participatory Rural Appraisal Utilization Survey Report Part 1: Rural Development Area Sindhupalchowk, Monitoring and Evaluation Unit, ActionAid-Nepal: Kathmandu.
5. Adato M, Nyasimi M. 2002. Combining qualitative and quantitative techniques in PRA to evaluate Agroforestry Dissemination Practices in Western Kenya (Draft). International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC.
6. ADB. 2002. Preparing a Methodology for development planning in poverty alleviation under the new poverty strategy of PRC. TA3610-PRC July.
7. Barahona C, Levy S. 2003. How to generate statistics and influence policy using participatory methods in research: reflections on work in Malawi 1999-2002. IDS Working Paper 212. IDS: Sussex.
8. Barnes C. 1997. Empowering women and coping with financial crises. Management Systems International: Washington.
9. Barnes C, Morris G, Gaile G. 1998. An assessment of the impact of microfinance services in Uganda: baseline findings. MSI AIMS: Washington, DC.
10. Barnes C, Keogh E. 1999. An assessment of the impact of Zambuko's microenterprise program in Zimbabwe: baseline findings. Management Systems International: Washington, DC.
11. Barnes C, Sebstad J. 2000. Guidelines for microfinance impact assessments. Paper for discussion at CGAP 3 virtual meeting 1999. CGAP: Washington. http://www.cgap.org/assets/images/Cgap3.pdf [Accessed November 2004].
12. Beneria L, Bisnath S. 2001. Gender and Development: Theoretical, Empirical and Practical Approaches (2 Vols). Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA.
13. Bolt VJ, Bird K. 2003. The intrahousehold disadvantages framework: a framework for the analysis on intra-household difference and inequality. Chronic Poverty Research Centre, Institute for Development Policy Management: Manchester.
14. Booth D, Holland J, Hentschel J, Lanjouw P, Herbert A. 1998. Participation and combined methods in African poverty assessment: renewing the agenda. Report commissioned by DFID for the Working Group on Social Policy, Special Program of Assistance for Africa.
15. Booth D. 2003. Towards a better combination of the quantitative and the qualitative: some design issues from Pakistan's Participatory Poverty Assessment. In Qual-Quant, Kanbur R (ed.).
16. Brock K. 1999. It's not only wealth that matters-it's peace of mind too': a Review of Participatory Work on Poverty and Illbeing, Consultations with the Poor. Prepared for Global Synthesis Workshop 22-23 September 1999, Poverty Group, PREM, Washington, DC: World Bank.
17. Brock K. 1999. (unpublished) Analysis of consultations with the poor wellbeing ranking and causal diagramming data. Participation Group, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK.
18. Burn RW. 2000. Quantifying and combining causal diagrams. Statistical guides series, statistical Services Centre. University of Reading: Reading. www.reading,.ac.uk/ssc/
19. Chambers R. 1997. Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. Intermediate Technology Publications: London.
20. Chambers R. 2003. Participation and numbers. PLA Notes 47: 6-12.
21. Chant S. 2003. New contributions to the analysis of poverty: methodological and conceptual challenges to understanding poverty from a gender perspective, Mujer y desarrollo. Santiago, CEPAL, Women and Development Unit, United Nations: Chile.
22. Chen MA, Snodgrass D. 1999. An assessment of the impact of SEWA bank in india: baseline findings. Management Systems International: Washington, DC.
23. Chen M, Snodgrass D. 2001. Managing resources, activities and risk in urban India: the Impact of SEWA Bank. Management Systems International AIMS project: Washington, DC.
24. Cloke J. 2001. The gendered household: who really knows what's going on? In mimeo. University of Loughborough. Available through Microfinance Gateway.
25. Conway G. 1985. Agroecosystem Analysis. Agricultural Administration 20: 21-55.
26. Cromwell E, Kambewa P, Mwanza R, Chirwa R, with KWERA Development Centre. 2001. Impact Assessment Using Participatory Approaches: 'Starter Pack' and Sustainable Agriculture in Malawi. Network Paper No 112. Agricultural Research and Extension Network, Overseas Development Institute: London, January.
27. Dewees P. 1989. Aerial photography and household studies in Kenya. RRA Notes 7: 9-12.
28. Drinkwater M. 1993. Sorting fact from opinion: the use of a direct matrix to evaluate finger millet varieties. RPA Notes 17: 24-28.
29. Dwyer-D, Bruce J. 1998. A Home Divided. Stanford University Press: Stanford.
30. Eldridge 1995. Methodological notes, instructions to facilitators, household responses to drought study in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Save the Children: UK.
31. Eldridge C. 1998. Summary of the Main Findings of a PRA Study on the 1992 Drought in Zimbabwe. Save the Children: UK.
32. Eldridge C. 2001. Investigating change and relationships in the livelihoods of the poor using an adaptation of proportional piling. Save the Children: UK.
33. Estrella M, Blauert J, Campilan D, Gaventa J, Gonsalves J, Guijt I, Johnson D, Ricafort R (eds). 2000. Learning from Change: Issues and Experiences in Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation. Intermediate Technology Publications: London.
34. Fielding WJ, Riley J, Oyejola BA. 1998. Ranks are statistics: some advice on their interpretation. PLA Notes 33: 35-39.
35. Fielding WJ, Riley J. 2000. Preference ranking: a cautionary tale from Papua New Guinea. PLA Notes 37: 113-117.
36. Freudenberger K, Schoonmaker. 1995. The historical matrix-breaking away from static analysis. Forests, Trees and People Newsletter 26/ 27: 78-79.
37. Gill GJ. 1993. OK, The Data's Lousy, But It's All We've Got (Being a Critique of Conventional Methods). Gatekeeper Series 38, IIED: London.
38. Gladwin CH, Peterson JS, Mwale AC. 2002. The quality of science in participatory research: a case study from Eastern Zambia. World Development 30(4): 523-543.
39. Grandin B. 1988. Wealth Ranking in Smallholder Communities: A Field Manual. Intermediate Technology Publications: London.
40. Guijt I. 2000. Methodological issues in participatory monitoring and evaluation. In Learning from Change, Estrella with others (eds); 201-216.
41. Hargreaves JR, Morison LA, Gear JSS, Porter JDH, Makhubele MB, Kim JC, Busza J, Watts C, Pronyk PM. 2004. Hearing the Voices of the Poor: Assigning poverty lines on the basis of local perceptions of poverty; a quantitative analysis of qualitative data from participatory wealth ranking in rural South Africa. Paper for Q-Squared in Practice: a Conference on Experiences in Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Poverty Appraisal, Centre for International Studies, Toronto, May www.people.cornell.edu/pages/sk145 [Accessed November 2004].
42. Hill P. 1986. Development Economics on Trial: The Anthropological Case for a Prosecution. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
43. Hopkins R. 2000. Impact assessment study of Oxfam fair trade. Oxfam: Oxford.
44. Howe G, McKay A. 2004. Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in assessing chronic poverty: the case of Rwanda. Paper for Q-Squared in Practice: a Conference on Experiences in Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Poverty Appraisal, Centre for International Studies, Toronto, May www.people.cornell.edu/pages/sk145 [Accessed November 2004].
45. Howes M. 1992. Linking paradigms and practice: key issues in the appraisal, monitoring and evaluation of British NGO projects. Journal of International Development 4(4).
46. Hulme D. 2000. Impact assessment methodologies for microfinance: theory, experience and better practice. World Development 28(1): 79-88.
47. Jayakaran R. 2002. The ten seed technique. World Vision: China, [ravi_jayakaranωvi.org]
48. Jones C. 1995. Matrices, ranking and scoring: participatory appraisal 'methods' paper. Participation Group, IDS, University of Sussex.
49. Jordan G. 1999. Public participation and GIS: report back. PLA Notes 34: 16-17.
50. Kabeer N, Joekes S. 1991. Researching the household: methodological and empirical issues. IDS Bulletin. Brighton: IDS.
51. Kabeer N., 1994. Reversed Realities. Verso: London.
52. Kabeer N. 2001. Conflicts over credit: re-evaluating the empowerment potential of loans to women in rural Bangladesh. World Development 29(1): 63-84.
53. Kanbur R (ed.). 2003. Qual-Quant: Qualitative and Quantitative Poverty Appraisal: Complementarities, Tensions and the Way Forward. Permanent Black: Delhi.
54. Kar K. 2003. Subsidy or self-respect? Participatory total community sanitation in Bangladesh. IDS Working Paper 184. IDS, Sussex, September.
55. Kar K, Datta D. 1998. Understanding market mobility: perceptions of smallholder farmers in Bangladesh. PLA Notes 33: 54-58.
56. Khon K. 1987. Proceedings of the 1985 international conference on rapid rural appraisal. University of Khon Kaen, Thailand.
57. Kirkpatrick C, Hulme D, Mayoux L, Pinder C, Gavin T, George C. 2001. Basic impact assessment at project level: EDIAIS Core Text. EDIAIS http://www.enterprise-impact.org.uk/word-files/CoreText2doc [Accessed November 2004].
58. Lacoste J-P. 2002. Livelihood strategies of poor women in Zimbabwe. Graduate Institute of Development Studies. University of Geneva: Geneva.
59. Levy S. 1999. Are we targeting the poor? Lessons from Malawi. PLA Notes 47: 19-24.
60. Leyland T. 1994. Planning a community animal health care programme in Afghanistan. RRA Notes 20: 48-50.
61. Li X, Remenyi J. Whose poverty? Making poverty mapping and monitoring participatory (draft).
62. Manoharan M, Velayudham K, Shunmugavalli N. 1993. PRA: an approach to find felt needs of crop varieties. RRA Notes 18: 66-68.
63. Marsland N, Wilson IM, Abeyasekera S, Kleih UK. 2000. A methodological framework for combining quantitative and qualitative survey methods. Statistical Guide, Statistical Services Centre, University of Reading: Reading. www.reading.ac.uk/ssc/ [Accessed November 2004].
64. Maxwell S, Duff B. 1995. Beyond ranking: exploring relative preferences in P/RRA. PLA Notes 22: 28-35.
65. Mayoux L. 2001a. What do we want to know? Selecting indicators, EDIAIS. http://www.enterpriseimpact.org.uk/informationresources/toolbox/ selectingindicators.shtml
66. Mayoux L. 2001b. Whom do we talk to? Issues in Sampling, EDIAIS. http://www.enterpriseimpact.org.uk/informationresources/toolbox/ sampling.shtml
67. Mayoux L. 2002. From impact assessment to sustainable strategic learning, EDIAIS. http://www.enterprise-impact.org.uk/overview/ index.shtml#Strategic
68. Mayoux L. 2003a. Thinking it through: using diagrams in impact assessment, EDIATS. http://www.enterprise-impact.org.uk/ informationresources/toolbox/thinkingitthrough-usingdiagramsinIA.shtml
69. Mayoux L. 2003b. Empowering enquiry: a new approach to investigation, EDIAIS. http://www.enterprise-impact.org.uk/informationresources/toolbox/ empoweringenquiry.shtml
70. Mayoux L. 2003c. Grassroots learning, EDIAIS. http://www.enterprise-impact.org.uk/informationresources/toolbox/ grassrootsactionlearning.shtml
71. Mayoux L. with ANANDI. 2005. Participatory action learning in practice: experience of Anandi, India. Journal of International Development 8 (this volume).
72. Mayoux L. 2005. Quantitative, qualitative or participatory? Which method, for what and when? In Doing Development Research, Potter R, Desai V (eds). Sage: London.
73. Mearns R. 1989. Aerial photographs in rapid land resource appraisal, Papua New Guinea. RRA Notes 7: 12-14.
74. Mearns R, Shombodon D, Narangarel G, Turul U, others. 1992. Direct and Indirect Uses of Wealth Ranking in Mongolia. RRA Notes 15: 29-38.
75. Mikkelsen B. 1995. Methods for Development Work and Research: A Guide for Practitioners. Sage Publications: Delhi, Thousand Oaks, London.
76. Moser C. 2003. Apt Illustration or Anecdotal Information? Can Qualitative Data be Representative or Robust?. In Qual-Quant, Kanbur R (ed.).
77. Moser C, Holland J. 1997. Urban poverty and violence in Jamaica, World Bank Latin American and Caribbean studies viewpoints. World Bank: Washington, DC.
78. Moser C, McIlwaine C. 2000a. Urban poor perceptions of violence and exclusion in Colombia, Latin American and Caribbean Region, environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Sector Management unit. World Bank: Washington, DC.
79. Moser C, McIlwaine C. 2000b. Violence in a post-conflict world: urban poor perceptions from Guatemala, Latin America and Caribbean Region, Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Sector Management Unit. World Bank: Washington, DC.
80. Mosse D. 1994. Authority, gender and knowledge: theoretical reflections on the practice of participatory rural appraisal. Development and Change 25(3): 497-526.
81. Mukherjee N. 1995. Participatory Rural Appraisal and Questionnaire Survey: Comparative Field Experience and Methodological Innovations. Concept Publishing: New Delhi.
82. Mukherjee N. 2001.Participatory Learning and Action, with 100 Field Methods. Concept Publishing: New Delhi.
83. Mukherjee N, Jena B (eds). 2001. Learning to Share: Experiences and Reflections on PRA and Other Participatory Approaches, Vol. 2. Concept Publishing: New Delhi.
84. Mukherjee N, van Wijk C (eds). 2003. Sustainability planning and monitoring in community water supply and sanitation, a guide on the methodology for participatory assessment (MPA) for community-driven development programs. The World Bank, Washington DC and IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, The Netherlands.
85. Mustafa MK. 2004. The use of qualitative and quantitative indicators for local-level poverty assessment: the experience of a pilot survey in Bangladesh. Paper for Q-Squared in Practice: a Conference on Experiences in Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Poverty Appraisal, Centre for International Studies, Toronto. www.people.comell.edu/pages/ sk145 [Accessed November 2004]
86. Narayan D. 1997. Voices of the Poor: Poverty and Social Capital in Tanzania. Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Network: World Bank.
87. Narayan D, Chambers R, Shah MK, Petesch P. 2000. Voices of the Poor: Crying Out for Change. Oxford University Press for the World Bank: New York.
88. Nierras RM. 2002. Generating numbers with local governments in the Philippines. Working Draft, IDS, Sussex.
89. NRI, SSC. 2001. Combining quantitative and qualitative survey work: methodological framework, practical issues, and case studies. NRI Report No 2591, Natural Resources Institute, DFID, and Statistical Services Centre, University of Reading, March.
90. PRAXIS. 1997. PRA Reflections from the Field and Practitioners. Institute for Participatory Practices: Patna, India.
91. PRAXIS. 2001. The Politics of Poverty: A Tale of The Living Dead in Bolangir. Books for Change Bangalore.
92. Rambaldi G, Callosa-Tarr J. 2000. Manual on Participatory 3-Dimensional Modelling for Natural Resource Management, Essentials of Protected Area Management in the Philippines, Vol. 7. NIPAP, PAWB-DENR: Philippines.
93. Richards M, Davies J, Cavendish W. 1999. Can PRA methods be used to collect economic data? A non-timber forest product case study from Zimbabwe. PLA Notes 36: 34-40.
94. Roche C. 1999. Impact Assessment for Development Agencies: Learning to Value Change. Oxfam Novib: Oxford.
95. RRA Notes. 1992. Special Issue on Applications of Wealth Ranking, Vol. 15. International Institute for Environment and Development: London.
96. Sandford D. 1988. A note on the use of aerial photographs for land use planning on a settlement site in Ethiopia. RRA Notes 6: 18-19.
97. Selener D, Endara N, Carvajal J. 1999. Participatory rural appraisal and planning. International Institute of Rural Reconstruction: Philippines, Kenya, Ecuador and USA.
98. Shah MK. 1999. A step-by step guide to popular PLA tools and techniques. In Embracing Participation in Development, Shah et al. (eds); 31-78.
99. Shah MK, Kambou SD, Monahan B (eds). 1999. Embracing Participation in Development: Worldwide Experience from CARE's Reproductive Health Programs. CARE: Georgia.
100. Shah MK, Zambezi R, Simasiku M. 1999. Listening to Young Voices: Facilitating Participatory Appraisals on Reproductive Health with Adolescents. CARE International: Zambia.
101. Sharp K. 2003. Measuring destitution: integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches in the analysis of survey data. IDS working Paper 217. IDS: Sussex.
102. Simanowitz A, Nkuna B. 1998. Wealth Ranking Operational Manual. Small Enterprise Foundation: Tzaneen.
103. Simanowitz A. 1999. Pushing the limits of mapping and wealth ranking. PLA Notes 34: 4-8.
104. Simanowitz A. 2000. Targeting the poor-comparing visual and participatory methods. Small Enterprise Development 11(1): 29-39.
105. Swift J, Noor Umar A. 1991. Participatory pastoral development in Isiolo district, socio-economic research in the Isiolo Livestock Development Project. Final Report, EMI ASAL Programme, Kenya.
106. Temu A, Due J. 2000. Participatory appraisal approaches versus sample survey data collection: a case of smallholder farmers wellbeing ranking in Njombe District, Tanzania. Journal of African Economies 9(1): 444-462.
107. UNDP, Bangladesh. 1996. UNDP's 1996. Report on Human Development in Bangladesh: Poor People's Perspectives, Vol. 3. UNDP: Dhaka.
108. Van Wijk-Sijbesma C. 2001. The best of two worlds? Methodology for participatory assessment of community water services. Ageningen Agricultural University and IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, The Netherlands.
109. Watson K. 1994. Proportional piling in Turkana: a case study. RRA Notes 20: 131-132.
110. Woldon J. 2004. at www.chinadevelopmentbrief.com
111. World Bank. 1999. Consultations with the poor: process guide for the 20 country study for the World Development Report 2000, 01. Poverty Group, PREM Network, The World Bank: Washington, DC.
112. World Bank. 2000. World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty. Oxford University Press for the World Bank: New York.