Cited by 492Participatory Visual Research MethodsCommunity and Sustainable DevelopmentCross-Cultural and Social Analysis

Authority, Gender and Knowledge: Theoretical Reflections on the Practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal

Open access
Mosse, David·1994·Development and Change

Abstract

Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) methods are increasingly taken up by public sector organizations as well as NGOs among whom they have been pioneered. While PRA methods are successfully employed in a variety of project planning situations, and with increasing sophistication, in some contexts the practice of PRA faces constraints. This article examines the constraints as experienced in the early stages of one project, and suggests some more general issues to which these point. In particular, it is suggested that, as participatory exercises, PRAs involve ‘public’ social events which construct ‘local knowledge’ in ways that are strongly influenced by existing social relationships. It suggests that information for planning is shaped by relations of power and gender, and by the investigators themselves; and that certain kinds of knowledge are often excluded. Finally, the paper suggests that as a method for articulating existing local knowledge, PRA needs to be complemented by other methods of ‘participation’ which generate the changed awareness and new ways of knowing, which are necessary to locally‐controlled innovation and change.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-7660.1994.tb00524.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Others have argued that group-based participatory methods can result in exclusions and biases.

    “Others have argued that group-based participatory methods can result in exclusions and biases (Mosse, 1994).”

    From Livelihood Change in Rural Zimbabwe over 20 Years (2012) · cites this paper as Mosse, 1994

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mosse, D.
Affiliations
Swansea University (GB)
Corresponding author
Mosse, David
Venue
Development and Change
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1994-07
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
497-526
ISSN
  • 0012-155X (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-7660
OpenAlex
W2234320864
Cited by
492
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 14
FWCI
70.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Development and Change (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • AgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • OpenGrey (Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique) (submittedVersion)
  • AgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Participatory Visual Research Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Community and Sustainable Development
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Cross-Cultural and Social Analysis
Keywords
participatory rural appraisal, local knowledge, gender, power relations, authority, interpersonal relationships, project planning, participatory development, local innovation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review