Last Update:  March 14, 2005 

 

Issue Papers

Participatory Research Involving People as Principle Actors - Issue Papers

Participatory Research  Involving People as Principle Actors Topic: 12.     Concept paper for Workshop (WS) moderation during PHA 2000,  Savar, Dhaka, December 4-8, 2000.

 

1. Moderator: (To be nominated by Nepal’s Preparatory Committee later. I suggest that Ms. Ganga Kasaju of Alliance for Human Rights and Social Justice, and Coordinator of Palpa ENHRN Network be selected for the purpose. Professor Mathura P. Shrestha will be second Moderator. The proposal is accepted by NPC for PHA 2000).
   
   [This Concept paper is prepared by Dr. Indira Shrestha, Senior Consultant Pediatrician and Honorary Member Secretary/Executive Director, ENHR Nepal].
    

2. Overview
   Historically, people have almost always played prime role in most of the major scientific inventions, discoveries and research in all the countries of the world. Research is a natural behavior of all persons. An infant explores, interacts, experiments, learns and adapts or makes changes in one’s biophysical and psychosocial domains along with others and environment. This way, the people survive, grow, develop and make innovations and changes throughout their life individually as well as collectively. Even a non-human living creature has research instinct and behavior. Research is thus a common medium of perception and development in establishing dynamic relations in and around the total niche of people and environment. Historically too, throughout the period of human development some tried to put research in straight-jackets in order to monopolize research and research technology to harvest benefits and exploit others and nature. We, the so-called scientists, experts, intellectuals and professionals, have made research complicated, expensive and too techno-centric. Research now has become a good that is out of reach for many. This way, we inadvertently served the interests of dominant class and business houses who tend to imprison even knowledge, science, technology and research by turning them into industry. Intellectual property rights (IPR) and so-called product- and process- patenting grew out of this motive.
    
   Research is, and should always be, integral part of any service or development program related to people, their life and environment. However, research has been a mere tool to validate preordained theories or prescriptive options, programs or services within provider’s perspectives and targeted to the people as beneficiaries, clients or consumers. Cost-effectiveness and profit motive became the key concerns in shaping R & D to satisfy policy makers and management. The purpose of research to critique, inquire or investigate the total domain of human life and living including biophysical and psychosocial environment of the people or target groups remained masked or neglected. Fragmented and techno-centric scenario produced by traditional research became irrelevant or mismatch soon after they were completed.
    
   As scientists and socially responsible person, we need to demystify present paradigm of research and put it to natural perspective. Research and development should enhance people’s autonomy and freedom of choices in dignity and self-reliant manner. R & D should give them confidence and trust in their potentialities rather than serve to ‘adapt, integrate, tame and dominate’ people (Illich I, Verne E, 1976). Transparency and accountability should be key words in R & D. Research and development should be liberated from secrecy (except personal confidentiality), hidden agenda and motives to accentuate violence of all shorts including wars, torture, hate and exploitation of humans and nature.
    
   For this we need to develop research culture with which everybody’s right to participate in research affecting one’s life and environment is ascertained. Participatory research involving all key actors or concerned - politicians, policy and decision makers, academicians, professionals and social activists - should also include people as principle actors. Even as participating subjects in social, anthropological and health research the people provide key inputs without which there could be no life in research. More than the subjects, the people are the principle policy and decision-makers as the sovereignty lies in people. The real role of universities, research institutes, research councils and experts should be to make research transparent, easily accessible, productive in human terms for common human goods. They are mere custodians of knowledge created by and with the people and therefore are not to serve as agent or lackeys of exploiters and dominant class or try to restrict research opportunities. They also have responsibility to advocate the illegitimacy of research intended to develop armaments that kill people, torture techniques, hate cultures and methods to enslave or exploit people and environment.
    
   The testimony in the appendix provides the research competency even of an illiterate woman who was socially deprived.
    

3. Objectives

   1. To make research participatory involving all concerned persons especially the people based civil societies and activists, and the people as prime movers.

   2. To explore the system and mechanism to ascertain and propagate people’s potentiality in research and development.

   3. To advocate the culture of informed decision among the people, to assert their health and development rights including right to participate in research, and to make the service institutions, corporate sectors or business houses, systems or government accountable to the people and environment in the name of research.

   4. To make research essential and integral part of all development programs and human services.

   5. To demystify research and development in order to render these for common human good and humane development.

   6. To banish secret, unethical and commercialized or profit-intensive R & D programs.
       

4. Process and procedures:

   1. The moderator will deliberate, for 10 minutes, the objectives and procedures of the WS

   2. Election of one or two rapporteur(s) from among the participants.

   3. Presentation of testimonies - one from Nepal or South Asia and the second from other Regions (10 minutes each). Nepal’s testimony is included as an appendix. This is however subjected to acceptance by PHA Secretariat. The other testimony is to be generated by communicating through email and Internet.

   4. Generation of main/critical issues related to the topic from among the participants - 15 minutes.

   5. Interaction - Comments, sharing, reflections, questions and answers, and deliberations - 30 minutes.

   6. Short documentation or visual presentation (If any) - 10 minutes.

   7. Generation of a list of recommendations and conclusion - 10 Minutes.

   8. Key strategic actions for implementation of recommendations and follow-ups.
       

Summary Proceeding:

Preparation of one-page summary proceedings which will be submitted to the Coordinator of the PHA Secretariat on the same evening.
 

 

 

Appendix 1

TESTIMONY - 1 ( From Nepal)

Even an illiterate person can have scientific perception and interpretation. In Kota village in the bank of Kali Gandaki river in Tahanu district of Nepal Professor Mathura P. Shrestha of Tribhuvan University, Nepal and Professor Carl E. Taylor of Johns Hopkins University, US jointly led a joint research expedition of Nepalese and US medical students in early eighties. One surprising finding was that scabies was found to be very common (more than 90%) among the rich and affluent children in the schools in a village of rich Bhramin and Chhetri upper cast people across the river (about one and half Km. Uphill, after crossing a forest area in the slope) compared to poor students (less than 5%) in a school of villages inhabited by low cast and poor Magars, Majhis and others. The latter was situated over the dry plain (Tar) in the opposite bank of the river. The two professors themselves cross-checked the findings. The professors and students tried hard to find the cause or determinants. They could not. Latter, after the community-based research of the student was over, the findings were presented to the community, about 60 in numbers. Among other findings the scabies prevalence among the school children in two areas was also presented with the explanation that they are unable to explain why of the unexpected finding about scabies. They believed that scabies was the disease of poverty and poor sanitation.
 
A middle aged Majhi woman (about 40 years), very poor, deprived and totally ‘illiterate’, (and still worse she was a bit drunk), volunteered to provide the answer. Most of the people jeered her. But she was given chance to speak at the insistence of Professor Mathura. She provided a scientific explanation to that. The students and professors learned for the first time, seriously, about Eco-health from an illiterate. Her deliberation matched the followings:
 
‘The upper casts uphill take bath daily but only as a ritual like “crow takes bath”. They have water scarcity. (There were only 4 dug-wells in the village). Most of the good land here and in Nawalpur on the other side of the mountain belong to them. They are rich but they have no time to care their children of their houses. We also live in water scarce and dry area. We are poor. Most of us are the exploited tenants of the landlords living up in the mountain. But we are intimately associated with the river to maintain our livelihood. Our children are poor and therefore have to tend the family cattle. As this side of river is dry with no forest or grassland our children are forced to take the cattle to the forest across the river. Till a few days ago no cattle were allowed through the bridge. The children had to swim the big Kali Gandaki River along with the animals and again had to come back swimming prior to attending schools. After the evening they had to bring back the cattle home the same way. This makes our children and adults cleaner. Now, tell me why you should expect that scabies should be common among us or our children just because we are poor?’
 
The students and two professors expressed their gratitude to her for teaching them with scientific evidence based lesson.
 
 
[This concept paper is open for comments, criticism and suggestions from any persons or quarters nationally and internationally. The paper is already put for international discussion in email networks nationally and internationally. Pls send your comments to Mathura Shresta at enhrn@mos.com.np]
 
Updated: October 7, 2000

Quick Feedback: Has this information been useful?