Reality Counts Research Articles

A Critical Review of the Literature on Low-Fee Private Schools: Whose Reality Counts?

A Critical Review of the Literature on Low-Fee Private Schools: Whose Reality Counts?

Whose Reality Counts?

The low caste, Dalit and Tribal social movements in India have reconfigured the fabric of Indian society in significant ways over the past decade. Likewise, the movement of these same groups into anthropology, a discipline previously dominated in India by uppercaste intellectuals, has created a dynamic force for change in the academy. At a time when India is vying with the global economic powers for supremacy, the people severely affected are low caste, Dalits and Tribal peoples, who see their lands being lost and their lifestyles in rapid transformation. Some from these same groups are also witnessing some of their daughters and sons pursuing higher studies and entering into the social sciences. The entry of these young scholars not only challenges the caste-based status quo in the academy, but it also forces these scholars to question their own position in relation to these social movements and in relation to Indian society more broadly.

Whose Reality Counts? Critical Junctures in Livelihood Trajectories Under Deforestation

AbstractLivelihoods approaches focus on the poor and their knowledge and agency, but risk underplaying broader contextual forces which constrain and shape that agency. Livelihood trajectories approaches attend more fully to these structural, contextual dynamics. A three‐year study using quantitative and qualitative methods investigated livelihood trajectories over two decades in a village affected by deforestation in Northeast Cambodia, and sought to identify critical junctures structuring those trajectories. A timber rush, a land rush, a turn to agriculture and ongoing competition to shape post‐forest reterritorialisation were identified as the critical junctures. These transformed the physical environment, and initiated waves of migration which in turn transformed the social and economic structure and everyday life of the village. This valuably disrupts narrative simplifications associated with community forestry. The junctures furthermore suggest an analytical framework for understanding deforestation‐livelihoods dynamics in other contexts, thus demonstrating how livelihood trajectories research might contribute to middle‐level theory building.

Paedophiles and politeness in email communications: Community of practice needs that define face-threat

This paper offers an investigation into the general message structure and politeness strategies used in email communications between (now convicted) paedophiles in discussions of highly illegal practices and intent. In these emails, the interactants reveal telling characteristics of their ‘community of practice’. Consistent with the view from cognitive anthropology (Wenger, Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity, Cambridge University Press, 1998, IVEY Business Journal, 2004) and sociolinguistic research (Eckert, Linguistic variation as social practice, Blackwell, 2000; Newell-Jones, Whose reality counts? Interprofessional learning through the eyes of Participatory Rural Appraisal, Academy of Higher Education, LTSN. Academy of Higher Education, Health Sciences and Practice, 2005), the members of this speech community signal their ‘in group’ membership and values through a number of linguistic strategies, such as lexical and topic choices. Through these choices, members can not only quickly detect non-members, but can focus on those factors that are central to their community (in this case, avoiding features of talk, such as banter, sarcasm or humour, that are risky in new, internet relationships but would mark more solid relationships). The body of email data used for this research is a corpus taken from a recent paedophile case in the UK. Despite the relatively small dataset, many emails are captured in discourse ‘strings’ (i. e., multiple messages between users, embedded within single emails) and thus capture the consecutive to-and-fro of discourse between these discussants. As such we have clear evidence of the progress between contributions and it is clear how quickly members of this speech community discuss sensitive information, and how quickly they seek to ‘meet up’, despite knowing very little about each other. These data are also packed with descriptive information about the wants, deeds and desires of the email senders, making this a particularly rich corpus. We argue that facework and politeness ought to be considered in the light of the overall target social objectives, rather than how we, or members of other social groups, might perceive such discourse contributions.

Teaching and Learning Guide for: Participatory Development: From Epistemological Reversals to Active Citizenship

Many people across the world are frustrated with the ways in which policy is formed and implemented. They feel shut-out of the process, even in nominally democratic societies, and so are seeking to increase participation in the development process. Participatory development is a term to describe approaches to policy and action that place the marginalised at the centre of decision-making. Participation has become a feature of approaches in both the global South and global North, and is one of the few occasions where learning appears to have travelled from the South to the North. Its universalisation over the past two to three decades reflects a frustration with the ways in which approaches that target the marginalised through ‘formal’ political channels and ‘top down’ policy processes have in fact ignored their views and needs. Through a range of techniques for engaging with marginalised communities, participatory development promises a more engaged form of social transformation. But like many radical approaches that potentially upset established power relations, participatory development has been co-opted and tamed by some organisations so that ‘participation’ is relatively thin and meaningless. The article explores the rise of participatory development and sets out what is meant by participation. It raises some criticisms of ‘mainstream’ participatory development and then sets out a suggested means by which participation could be more meaningful. This centres on accountability and citizenship, although these concepts are not unproblematic either.

Whose reality counts? Factors affecting the perception of volcanic risk

Understanding how people perceive risk has become increasingly important for improving risk communication and reducing risk associated conflicts. This paper builds upon findings, methodologies and lessons learned from other fields to help understand differences between scientists, authorities and the public. Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to analyse underlying attitudes and judgements during an ongoing volcanic crisis on the Caribbean Island of Montserrat. Specific differences between the public, authorities and scientists were found to have been responsible for misunderstandings and misinterpretations of information and roles, resulting in differing perceptions of acceptable risk. Difficulties in the articulation and understanding of uncertainties pertaining to the volcanic risk led to a situation in which the roles of hazard monitoring, risk communication and public protection became confused. In addition, social, economic and political forces were found to have distorted risk messages, leading to a public reliance upon informal information networks. The implications of these findings for volcanic risk management and communication are discussed.

How is climate change perceived in relation to other socioeconomic and environmental threats in Nairobi, Kenya?

This article examines the perception of climate change, in relation to 21 other socioeconomic and environmental problems, on the part of 132 respondents to a survey conducted in the city of Nairobi, Kenya. Factor analysis, used to condense these interrelated problems into a few dimensions, identified two overriding threats: the first being to socioeconomic security, and the second to the physical environment. Threats to socioeconomic security explained 76.6% of the variance in the rating of environmental and socioeconomic problems facing Nairobi, with very high factor loadings from corruption, unemployment, crime, street children, garbage, transport, poverty, pollution of Nairobi River, HIV/AIDS and immorality/promiscuity. Threats to the physical and living environment explained 22.2% of the variance in the rating of environmental and socioeconomic problems facing Nairobi. We were led to conclude that the respondents did not perceive climate change as being a significant problem in Nairobi. The global concern about climate change appeared like a mere drop in the oceanic context pervaded by problems of poverty, unemployment, crime and corruption, etc. which Nairobi faces, as does Kenya as a whole. Our conclusion is partially reflected in the priorities of the Kenyan government, which focus on poverty alleviation, the fight against crime and graft, improved access to education, and on addressing health problems; it also poses a challenge to the climate change community to find ways to making interventions relevant to local socioeconomic reality facing a developing country city like Nairobi. There may be a need to reconsider ‘whose reality counts’ (borrowing from Robert Chambers, Whose reality counts? Putting the first last, Intermediate Technology Publications, London, p 122, 1997) in addressing climate change: should protracted Kyoto protocol negotiations be given priority or should a long lasting solution be sought to socioeconomic problems facing developing world cities such as Nairobi? We recommend that the ongoing efforts at integrating climate risk management, as components of climate-sensitive sustainable development, be studied in many settings, with a focus on the developing world which is the most vulnerable, in order to inform decision-making and development of intervention measures.

Whose reality counts? Local educators as researchers on the quality of primary education

This article describes a methodology that local educators can use to conduct structured analytic research on the quality of primary education. The methodology has been developed by four twenty-person teams of local educators who carried out studies in rural regions of Madagascar, Mozambique, Tanzania and Uganda. In addition to describing the methodology, the article presents short summaries of the researchers’ conclusions and recommendations. However, its main purpose is to share the methodology that has evolved. The methodology is qualitative, but a simple quantitative measure of relationship between binary variables (Yule’s Q) was used to test the researchers’ qualitative findings. It is this tool that provoked the most significant reflection among the researchers in each group. In general, the results of the four studies corroborate other research on the factors that influence student outcomes in primary schools in Sub-Saharan Africa. More importantly, the studies’ results demonstrate that the methodology offers practicing educators a tool that helps them define, collect, and rigorously analyse empirical information to reach shared insights about their schools and then to formulate practical recommendations about what to do to improve student learning.

Whose (Transformative) Reality Counts? A Reply to Aoo et al.

IDS BulletinVolume 38, Issue 3 p. 32-33 Whose (Transformative) Reality Counts? A Reply to Aoo et al. Stephen Devereux, Stephen DevereuxSearch for more papers by this authorRachel Sabates-Wheeler, Rachel Sabates-WheelerSearch for more papers by this author Stephen Devereux, Stephen DevereuxSearch for more papers by this authorRachel Sabates-Wheeler, Rachel Sabates-WheelerSearch for more papers by this author First published: 02 February 2009 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2007.tb00370.xCitations: 1AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume38, Issue3May 2007Pages 32-33 RelatedInformation

Whose (Transformative) Reality Counts? A Critical Review of the Transformative Social Protection Framework

Whose (Transformative) Reality Counts? A Critical Review of the Transformative Social Protection Framework

Robert Chambers. Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. London: Intermediate Technology Publications, 1997. Pp. xix+297. $9.95 (paper).

Previous articleNext article No AccessReviewsRobert Chambers. Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. London: Intermediate Technology Publications, 1997. Pp. xix+297. $9.95 (paper).Norman UphoffNorman UphoffCornell University Search for more articles by this author Cornell UniversityPDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Economic Development and Cultural Change Volume 50, Number 3April 2002 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/344931 Views: 269Total views on this site Citations: 5Citations are reported from Crossref Permission to reprint a book review printed in this section may be obtained only from the University of Chicago Press, Permissions Department, 1427 East 60th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637‐2954.PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Ricardo Eaton-González, Jorge Andrade-Sánchez, Tatiana Montaño-Soto, Paola Andrade-Tafoya, Diana Brito-Jaime, Krystal González-Estupiñán, Andrea Guía-Ramírez, Jesús Rodríguez-Canseco, Argelia Teon-Vega, Silvia Balderas-López Participatory Mapping as a Didactic and Auxiliary Tool for Learning Community Integration, Technology Transference, and Natural Resource Management, ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 10, no.44 (Apr 2021): 206.https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10040206Jorge Andrade-Sánchez, Ricardo Eaton-Gonzalez, Claudia Leyva-Aguilera, Michael Wilken-Robertson Indigenous Mapping for Integrating Traditional Knowledge to Enhance Community-Based Vegetation Management and Conservation: The Kumeyaay Basket Weavers of San José de la Zorra, México, ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 10, no.33 (Mar 2021): 124.https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10030124Richard K. Ghere Thin vs. Thick Morality Ethics and Gender in International Development Programs, Public Integrity 17, no.22 (Mar 2015): 99–115.https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2015.1000101Ahonaa Roy ‘ Those Voices Unheard’ : Re-negotiating Gender, Masculinity and Participation, Journal of Asian and African Studies 49, no.66 (Aug 2014): 746–756.https://doi.org/10.1177/0021909614543221Ahonaa Roy, Abhijit Das Are Masculinities Changing? Ethnographic Exploration of a Gender Intervention with Men in Rural Maharashtra, India, IDS Bulletin 45, no.11 (Jan 2014): 29–38.https://doi.org/10.1111/1759-5436.12065

The Uncertain Promise of Southern Africa

Part 1 Introduction: the uncertain promise of southern Africa, York Bradshaw, Stephen N. Ndegwa balance of power in southern Africa, Colin Legum. Part 2 Countries: South Africa - transition to majority rule, transformation to stable democracy, Kenneth W. Grundy Zimbabwe - the erosion of authoritarianism and prospects for democracy, Masipula Sithole democracy and development in post-independence Namibia, Joshua Bernard Forrest democratising the administrative state in Botswana, John D. Holm, Staffan Darnoff militarism, warfare and the search for peace in Angola, Horace G. Campbell celebration and confrontation, resolution and restructuring - Mozambique from independence to the Millennium, M. Anne Pitcher. Part 3 Themes: popular culture in southern Africa, David B. Coplan gendered terrains - negotiating land and development, whose reality counts? Jean Davidson law and gender in southern Africa, Chuma Himonga education in southern Africa - the paradox of progress, Bruce Fuller, Allen Caldwell health and society in southern Africa in times of economic turbulence, Ezekiel Kalipeni business in southern Africa, Tony Dyer, Sue Kell compendium of data for the quantitative analysis of southern Africa, Leizell Bradshaw.

The personal as primary focus

Ellis, Carolyn and Arthur P. Bochner, eds. Composing Ethnography: Alternative Forms of Qualitative Writing. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, 1996. 400 pp. including indices. $44.00 cloth, $21.95 paper. Chambers, Robert. Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. London: Intermediate Technology Publications, 1997. xx + 297 pp. including notes, references, and index. $6.50 paper.

Book Reviews

Books reviewed:Robert Chambers, Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First LastGeoffrey D. Wood and Iffath A. Sharif (eds), Who Needs Credit? Poverty and Finance in BangladeshTony Killick with R. Gunatilaka and A. Marr, Aid and the Political Economy of Policy ChangeAlex de Waal, Famine Crimes: Politics and the Disaster Relief Industry in AfricaDavid Turton (ed.), War and Ethnicity: Global Connections and Local ViolenceKrishna Kumar (ed.), Rebuilding Societies After Civil War. Critical Roles for International AssistanceOliver Mendelsohn and Marika Vicziany (eds), The Untouchables: Subordination, Poverty and the State in Modern IndiaHoma Hoodfar, Between Marriage and the Market. Intimate Politics and Survival in CairoAdri van den Berg, Land Right, Marriage Left. Women's Management of Insecurity in North CameroonHaleh Afshar (ed.), Women and Empowerment: Illustrations from the Third WorldGeertje Lycklama à Nijeholt, Virginia Vargas and Saskia Wieringa (eds), Women's Movements and Public Policy in Europe, Latin America, and the CaribbeanEdith Sizoo (ed.), Women's Lifeworlds: Women's Narratives on Shaping their RealitiesLawrence Haddad, John Hoddinott and Harold Alderman (eds), Intrahousehold Resource Allocation in Developing Countries. Models, Methods and PolicyJoseph Blasi, Maya Kroumova and Douglas Kruse, Kremlin Capitalism: Privatising the Russian EconomyKees van der Pijl, Transnational Classes and International RelationsMelissa Leach and Robin Mearns (eds), The Lie of the Land: Challenging Received Wisdom on the African EnvironmentRamachandra Guha and J. Martinez‐Alier, Varieties of Environmentalism: Essays North and SouthLawrence S. Grossman, The Political Ecology of Bananas: Contract Farming, Peasants and Agrarian Change in the Eastern CaribbeanYiping Huang, Agricultural Reform in China: Getting Institutions RightHolger Bernt Hansen and Michael Twaddle (eds), Developing Uganda

Beyond “Whose reality counts?” New methods we now need?1

Activities called PRA, and its equivalents in other languages, have evolved from a confluence, sharing and adaptation of methodologies,2 methods and participatory traditions. Synergies have generated new things to do and new ways to do them, including visual forms of analysis. A conjunction of conditions has produced an explosion of activities and applications, and spread to many countries and organisations - NGOs, Government departments, and even universities, and raised questions of ethics and of sharing methodologies. Coming from our different traditions, should we seek places of convergence and spring-boards for action? If so, could the concept of responsible wellbeing, and the question “Whose reality counts?” provide us with common ground? They fit with eclectic pluralism, a celebration of diversity, and democratic reversals of dominance. They raise shared issues of how we teach, learn, and construct realities, of dominant institutions and their cultures, and of personal power. They point towards responsible wellbeing for “uppers” being sought in empowering and privileging the realities of “lowers”. Do we now have a phenomenal opportunity? We have participatory methodologies which are powerful, popular and self-spreading. We have new space opened up by government and donor agency policies for participation and poverty reduction. Rapid spread has brought much bad practice. At the same time, PRA and other participatory methodologies have also shown a potential to contribute to changes at levels which are policy-related, institutional and personal. To make the most of these opportunities invites sharing methods and experience between different traditions, and inventing new methods. Five methodological challenges now (May 1997) stand out as points of leverage. These are how better to: 1. enable the realities and priorities of poor and marginalised people to be expressed and communicated to policy-makers 2. enable trainers to facilitate attitude and behaviour change 3. make normal bureaucracies more participatory 4. build self-improvement into the spread of participatory methodologies 5. enable people with power to find fulfilment in disempowering themselves Could it be that effective repertoires for these could lead to much good change? Could convergences and sharings of experiences and approaches among us contribute to such repertoires? Could we between us seize these opportunities in the new spaces which are opening up?

Reality Counts

Reality Counts

Book Reviews

Nabeel Hamdi (ed.), Educating for Real: The Training of Professionals For Development PracticeOlav Slaymaker (ed.), Geomorphic HazardsGérard Prunier, The Rwanda Crisis: History of a GenicideRobert Chambers, Whose Reality Counts Putting the First Last

Feminise our forests: Consultation on the World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development

Chambers, R. (1994) 'The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal', World Development 22:7. Chambers, R. (1997) Whose Reality Counts: Putting the First Last, London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Commission of the European Communities (1993) 'Project Cycle Management: Integrated Approach and Logical Framework', Methods and Instruments for Project Cycle Management No. 1, Brussels: Evaluation Unit, CEC. European Commission (1997) Green Paper on relations between the European Union and the ACP countries on the eve of the 21st century: challenges and options for a new partnership, Brussels: European Commission. European Union (1995) 'Evaluation Report Lay-out', mimeo, Brussels: European Union. IDS and IDR (1996) An Evaluation of Development Cooperation between the European Union and Ethiopia, 1976-1994: Main Report, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK, and Institute of Development Research, University of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Maxwell, S. (1996) 'Does European Aid Work? An Ethiopian Case Study', Working Paper No. 46, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex. Maxwell, S., and C. Bart (1995) 'Beyond Ranking: Exploring Relative Preferences in P/RRA', PLA Notes No. 22. Norway (1993) Evaluation of Development Assistance: Handbookfor Evaluators and Managers, Oslo: Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs. OECD (1992) DAC Principlesfor Effective Aid, Paris: OECD. Stewart, S., et al. (1995) 'Participatory Rural Appraisal: Abstracts of Sources', Development Bibliography No 11, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.

Poverty and livelihoods: whose reality counts?

This paper explores how professionals’ universal, reductionist and standardized views of poverty differ from those of the poor themselves. Poverty line thinking concerned with income-poverty and employment thinking concerned with jobs, project Northern concerns on the South, where the realities of the poor are local, diverse, often complex and dynamic. Examples illustrate how poor people’s criteria differ from those assumed for them by professionals. The paper also discusses neglected dimensions of deprivation including vulnerability, seasonality, powerlessness and humiliation. In the new understandings of poverty, wealth as an objective is replaced by wellbeing and “employment” in jobs by livelihood. The final sections argue for altruism and reversals to enable poor people to analyze and articulate their own needs, and they conclude with the implications for policy and practice of putting first the priorities of the poor.

Poverty and livelihoods: whose reality counts?

This paper explores how professionals’ universal, reductionist and standardized views of poverty differ from those of the poor themselves. Poverty line thinking concerned with income-poverty and employment thinking concerned with jobs, project Northern concerns on the South, where the realities of the poor are local, diverse, often complex and dynamic. Examples illustrate how poor people’s criteria differ from those assumed for them by professionals. The paper also discusses neglected dimensions of deprivation including vulnerability, seasonality, powerlessness and humiliation. In the new understandings of poverty, wealth as an objective is replaced by wellbeing and “employment” in jobs by livelihood. The final sections argue for altruism and reversals to enable poor people to analyze and articulate their own needs, and they conclude with the implications for policy and practice of putting first the priorities of the poor.