We examine the roles of the diverse co-inquirers involved in the power-equalizing action research project known as Prajateerpu. While privileging neither official expertise nor experiential knowledge over the other, we suggest the need to create arenas where expert knowledge is put under public scrutiny as a means of contributing to a redressing of the power imbalance that exists between the poor and elite social groups. We emphasize the important tensions that arose in Prajateerpu between the views of those participants whose analysis had become marginalized from decision-making processes and those who were in positions of power. Having reflected on the role of various actors in the two-year process, we look at the potential contributions processes such as Prajateerpu could make towards processes that aim to democratize knowledge and promote social justice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Pimbert, M. P., Taghi Farvar, M., Kothari, A., & Renard, Y. (in press). Sharing power. Learning by doing in co-management of natural resources throughout the world. London: IIED and IUCN .
2.
Brown, P. (1993). When the public knows better: Popular epidemiology challenges the system . Environment, 35(8), 16–41 .
3.
Chambers, R. (1993). Challenging the professions. Frontiers in rural development. London: Intermediate Technology Publications .
4.
DFID (2000). Making globalisation work for the world’s poor. (UK government white paper on international development.) London: DFID .
5.
DFID (2001). Andhra Pradesh: State strategy paper. (Department for international development.) New Delhi: DFID India .
6.
Dunkerley, D., & Glasner, P. (1998). Empowering the public? Citizens juries and the new genetic technologies . Critical Public Health, 8(4), 181–192 .
7.
Fricke, W. (2003). Thirty years of work life programmes in Germany . Concepts and Transformation, 8(1), 43–68 .
8.
Funtowicz, S. (2002, March). Peer review and quality control. Paper presented at ISSC Workshop, BBAW, Berlin. Retrieved 4 September 2003 from www.spsg.org/paris-issc/BerlinFuntowicz.html
9.
Gaventa, J. (2003). Comment on Prajateerpu and participatory processes for policy change . PLA Notes, 46, 15–16 .
10.
Greenwood, D. J. (2002). Action research: Unfulfilled promises and unmet challenges . Concepts and Transformation, 7(2), 117–139 .
11.
Gustavsen, B., Hofmaier, B., Philips, E., Anders, M., & Anders, W. (1996). Concept driven development and the organisation of the process of change: An evaluation of the Swedish working life fund. Amsterdam: John Benjamins .
12.
IIED (2003). Participatory processes for policy change. PLA Notes, 46, 1–88. Retrieved 1 October 2003 from www.iied.org/sarl/e_forum
13.
Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London: Routledge .
14.
Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (Eds.). (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
15.
Kamminga, H. (1995). Interpreting the world, changing the world, and living in the world: Is a ‘science for the people’ possible? In T. Wakeford & M. Walters (Eds.), Science for the earth: Can science make the world a better place? (pp. 321–348). Chichester: Wiley .
16.
Kloppenburg, J. R. (1991). Social theory and the de/reconstruction of agricultural science: Local knowledge for an alternative agriculture . Rural Sociology, 56(4), 519–548 .
17.
Lempert, R. (1993). Civil juries and complex cases: Taking stock after 12 years. In R. Litan (Ed.), Verdict: Assessing the Civil Jury System (pp. 235–256). Washington DC: Brookings Institution .
18.
Long, N. (2001). Development sociology: Actor perspectives. London: Routledge .
19.
PEALS (2003). The people’s report on GM, policy ethics and life sciences research institute. Newcastle: PEALS. Retrieved 1 October 2003 from www.gmjury.org
20.
Pimbert, M. P. (1991). Participatory research with women farmers. (30 minute video.) Hyderabad and London: International Crops Research for the Semi Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) and the Television Trust for the Environment (TVE) .
21.
Pimbert, M. P. (1994). The need for another research paradigm . Seedling, July, 11(2), 20–25 .
22.
Pimbert, M. P., & Wakeford, T. (2002a). Prajateerpu. A citizens jury/scenario workshop on food and farming futures for Andhra Pradesh, India. London: IIED. Retrieved 1 October 2003 from www.iied.org/pdf/Prajateerpu.pdf
23.
Pimbert, M. P., & Wakeford, T. (2002b). Prajateerpu: Food and farming futures for Andhra Pradesh . Economic and Political Weekly, 37, 2778–2788 .
24.
Pimbert, M. P., & Wakeford, T. (2003). Prajateerpu, power and knowledge: The politics of participatory action research in development. Part I: Context, process and safeguards . Action Research, 1(2), 184–207 .
25.
Pimbert, M. P., Bainbridge, V., Foerster, S., Pasteur, K., Pratt, G., & Yaschine Arroyo, I. (2000). Transforming bureaucracies: Institutionalising participatory approaches and processes for natural resource management. An annotated bibliography. London: IIED and IDS .
26.
Pimbert, M. P, Wakeford, T., & Satheesh, P.V. (2001). Citizens juries on GMOs and farming futures in India . LEISA, 17(4), 27–30 .
27.
PLA Notes, 46 (2003). Special issue: Participatory processes for policy change. London: IIED .
28.
Prakash, G. (1999). Another reason: Science and the imagination of modern India. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press .
29.
Rahman, M. A. (1991). The theoretical standpoint of PAR. In O. Fals-Borda & M. Rahman (Eds.), Action and knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with participatory action research (pp. 14–15). New York: The Apex Press .
30.
Richards, P. (1985). Indigenous agricultural revolution: Ecology and food production in West Africa. London: Hutchinson .
31.
Reason, P. (2003). Pragmatist philosophy and action research: Readings and conversation with Richard Rorty . Action Research, 1(1), 103–123 .
