Participatory Action Research in Natural Resource Management: A Critique of the Method based on Five Years' Experience in the Transamazonica Region of Brazil.

Christian Castellanet and Carl F. Jordon. 2002. Taylor and Francis, New York. 250 pp. ISBN: 1-56032-979-3. US$50.00

Participatory action research (PAR) seeks to fully incorporate the "objects" of social science research in the problem identification, definition, data collection, analysis and dissemination process. PAR is very much a reaction, therefore, to the recognized limits of experts and the privileging of formal science (see Ravetz, 1999; Allen et al., 2001). However, PAR raises a number of conceptual and practical challenges: the approach is time and resource intensive, research problems defined by citizens may not coincide with the interests of researchers, the outputs may not result in publishable analysis, and the approach may be considered unscientific. Castellanet and Jordon, based on their extensive experience with a European Community-supported five-year agriculture and natural resource management project (Programa Agro-Ecologico da Transamazonica or PAET) in the Transamazonica region of Brazil, endeavour to determine if participatory action research is an appropriate alternative to traditional natural resour ce management approaches. The book is organized into three sections and 10 chapters, much of it providing philosophical, conceptual and program-related background. It is not until Chapter eight that the lessons of experience with PAR are formally introduced, and subsequently addressed in more detail in the following chapter. The final chapter concludes with an evaluation of the PAR approach using a set of six parameters: (1) diagnosis; (2) methods of intervention; (3) process analysis; (4) links between action research and conventional research; (5) farm-level results and natural resource management; and (6) scaling up to the national level.

The set-up for their analysis is useful, if not comprehensive. In their definition of conventional or traditional resource management, Castellanet and Jordon outline two approaches: the authoritarian approach arid the moralist I education approach. In doing so, however, they create a fairly rigid picture of conventional resource management, providing an easy target for use in subsequent analytical chapters. This polemical analysis is somewhat problematic as it does not necessarily correspond to the many natural resource management or integrated conservation and development programs that do not utilize PAR, but still seek in varying degrees to provide mechanisms for collaboration. There are a few additional conceptual issues encountered in the book that would also benefit from greater explanation. For example, while the focus is participatory action research, it is worth noting that indigenous groups appeared to be involved in a limited manner, although their connection to forest resources in the Transamazoni ca region is central to sustainable natural resource management. As well, the insights on farmer priorities highlighted in Chapter Five do not necessarily correspond with the priorities used by PAR researchers and the political representatives of the farmers organization to frame the research agenda. As indicated by the authors, the farmers' group (Movimento Pela Sobrevivencia da Transamazonica or MPST) used by the project to link researchers and farmers seems at times far removed from the people it is intended to represent. Despite these issues, the descriptive and analytical chapters are rich in detail and insight--this is both a strength and a weakness as at times the description and analysis gravitate beyond the scope suggested by the title of the book. In some respects, therefore, the book reads much like an end-of-project summary that provides an impressive overview of significant research and analysis that those interested in Brazilian environment, agriculture and rural development issues should not ig nore.

Castellanet and Jordon provide a candid account of PAR in practice. For example, they illustrate that the philosophical ideal upon which PAR is premised can be a mirage-the ability of the different interests in Transamazonica to mold a common strategy proved elusive. As the authors outline, even the formal PAR research team could not remain united on the overall strategy, let alone encompass the visions and agendas of the farmers group (MPST) and those it purported to represent. With characteristic honesty, the authors point out that assumptions of commitment, openness and forthrightness about goals and agendas among partner groups are at times misplaced. Their experience illustrates that individuals typically retain and/or manipulate information and agendas to protect their interests. Cognitive constructivism, a conceptual foundation of PAR and the term utilized by Castellanet and Jordon to describe a model of human interaction based on forthright communication, clearly has limits--a point that could be bet ter emphasized.

Where the book disappoints is in revealing how exactly the PAR approach utilized by PAET led to qualitatively or quantitatively different perspectives, insights or outcomes in the Transamazonica region. Interventions and innovations cited as successes cannot be traced back to the PAR approach. The analysis in Chapter Nine does not indicate that the outcome of PAR activities were a result of anything but an analytical approach that emphasized political ecological and political economic perspectives. What is not at issue is the methodological approach described by Castellanet and Jordon, therefore, but the commitment of the various actors involved in the PAET program to effect positive change. While PAR can improve the prospects for effective intervention in natural resource management, it by no means holds a monopoly in this regard. That PAR is a process and not an ideology is a point left unstated by the authors.

The depth of analysis and degree of detail provided in both the descriptive and analytical chapters of this text are commendable and can offer a useful resource for rural development and natural resource practitioners and researchers. For those looking for a pithy critique of PAR, however, this text may not offer the most appropriate resource. While the detailed project analysis will be of value to some, the critique of PAR in the Transamazonica region could have been summarized in one or two concise articles. Moreover, the conclusions offered about PAR in natural resource management, while well-organized and practical, are also familiar and well-documented.

References

Allen, T.F.H., Tainter, J.A., Pires, J.C., and T.W. Hoekstra. 2001. Dragnet Ecology--"Just the Facts, Ma'am": The Privilege of Science in a Postmodern World. BioScience. 51(6): 475-485.

Ravetz, J.R. 1999. What is Post-Normal Science? Futures. 31: 647-653.