Get reliable rangeland science

As US researchers we are steeped in traditions of observational or experimental science. Such approaches, however, can be woefully inadequate for diagnosing and solving real-world problems. This is especially true when the researchers and members of a target population of project beneficiaries are from different cultures. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and Participatory Action Research (PAR) are approaches that have existed for over 20 years. PRA was developed to assist foreign change-agents in developing countries where extension capacity was nil. The PAR approach, in contrast, was incubated in the US to address inefficiencies in business or educational environments. Both approaches have evolved over time and some terminology has changed, but the core principles remain the same. Both are dedicated to putting the project beneficiaries on center stage and the researchers or change agents in support roles. And while both embrace a series of steps, neither is a cookbook—users are free to adapt the process to each situation. My colleagues and I have combined PRA and PAR in Ethiopia and Nepal where the target populations are poor, disempowered, and disillusioned. The topics have included poverty mitigation, rangeland management, and climate-change adaptation. PRA is initially used to obtain a rank-ordering of solvable problems, while PAR is employed as an iterative tool to refine solution-oriented pathways. Success is easier to achieve when development of human or social capital becomes the goal; success can be more elusive for topics such as natural-resource management because high costs or local politics can constrain the solution set. Both PRA and PAR are invigorating to use, especially when positive outcomes are observed. My colleagues and I would find it hard to return to conventional research. The downside, however, is that PRA and PAR involve stakeholders and high transaction costs; this can be troublesome for researchers needing quick publications.