History, cculture aand cconservation

“Prajateerpu, ppower aand kknowledge: tthe ppolitics oof

participatory aaction rresearch iin ddevelopment.

Part II: CContext, pprocess aand ssafeguards”

by MMichel PPimbert aand TTom WWakeford,

Action RResearch, 11 ( 2 ): 184 -2 207 , 22003.

“Prajateerpu, ppower aand kknowledge: tthe ppolitics oof

participatory aaction rresearch iin ddevelopment.

Part 22 : AAnalysis, rreflections aand iimplications”

by TTom WWakeford aand MMichel PPimbert,

Action RResearch, 22 ( 1 ): 225 -4 46 , 22004.

PPrajateerpu(which literally means “peo-

ple’s verdict”) has been devised as a exer-

cise to allow the people who were going

to be the most affected by the “Vision

2020” initiatives for food and farming in

Andhra Pradesh (AP, India) to shape a

vision of their own. This paper explores

the Prajateerpuexercise as a case study

in participatory action research that took

place against a background of social,

political and scientific controversy in which

the authors were active participants.

Having examined the different methods

involved in the Prajateerpuprocess—

including the citizens jury, scenario work-

shop and public hearings—the authors

assess the safeguards that were put in

place to ensure a balanced and credible

deliberative process. They suggest that

the exchanges between the five organisa-

tions that formed the core team, the facili-

tators, oversight panel, witnesses and

jurors in Prajateerpu, along with the use a

set of carefully designed safeguards, con-

tain valuable lessons for those who wish

to engage in collaborative inquiries dealing

with high political stakes.

TThe authors examine here the roles of

the diverse co-inquirers involved in the

power-equalising action research project

known as Prajateerpu. While privileging

neither official expertise nor experiential

knowledge, they point out the need to

redress the power imbalance that exists

between poor and elite social groups by