Centre for Rural Social Research

Rapid Rural Appraisal: A description of the methodology and its application in teaching and research at Charles Sturt University

Tony Dunn

Charles Sturt University

This article was first published in Rural Society 4(3/4) December 1994. Rural Society is published by the Centre for Rural Social Research Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, Australia.

This article is © copyright, the author and the Centre for Rural Social Research. This text may be downloaded for personal use, or stored electronically, as long as no charge is made for access. The text may not be altered in any way and all hard copy or electronic versions MUST carry this header.

This introduction1 to Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) is mainly concerned with its methodological process. As a methodology RRA lies conceptually between method (or technique) and loose statements of philosophy or thinking. RRA is one of many methodologies that can be used for learning and thinking about agriculture in a common sense sort of way, free of the more rigid structures of science and technology, in particular the rigours of experimentation and quantification. RRA does have rigour derived from the social sciences, especially those based on qualitative and inductive techniques. It is constantly evolving, being fine-tuned and adapted to new situations.

RRA has been particularly useful in the approach to complex problems, especially those in which 'people factors' are prominent. This is not to say that science and technology do not have a place in investigating complex problems of the land, rather that as a generators of knowledge and strategies they are not the only source.

In a real sense RRA must be experienced to be understood. In the School of Agriculture at Charles Sturt University (CSU) we have been doing and thinking about RRA since 1991. For staff and students it has been a stimulating experience: we have learnt much, but have often been fearful of not knowing enough, of not preparing enough and of not finding support to do the research.

This paper will attempt to:

explain where RRA came from, why it become popular and discuss whether it has a place in the Australian situation
describe the features and methods used by RRA practitioners
describe the disciplines and research or extension methodologies underpinning RRA
explain the contribution of RRA and similar methodologies to extension teaching and research.
outline some RRA projects and their outcomes

What is RRA?

RRA can be defined as 'a qualitative survey methodology using a multi-discipline team to formulate problems for agricultural research and development'. This definition has been adapted from Ison and Ampt (1992) and Conway (1987). Some of the terms used are expanded upon below:

Qualitative refers to the descriptive type of data collected and is concerned with the quality of an observation or idea. Such data may involve an assembly of insights rather than numbers. This is a challenge to the conventional scientific view that everything can be measured and an assertion that human consciousness is valid knowledge.

Survey is used loosely in the sense that data is gathered from people in the field and filtered through the perceptions of the research team. The concept of a sample is also loosely applied, in that data is gathered until patterns and understanding begins to emerge. Sampling of a range of experiences and people takes place, but not necessarily in a statistical or representative sense. The term 'purposeful' is often used to show that data is sought in a deliberate way to provide rich detail and insight.

Methodology means that a rigorous process of research has been adhered to. RRA is not a recipe where each step has to be precisely followed, but provides a refined set of principles which requires knowledge and skill to apply. It also invites researchers to modify and adapt the 'rules' to fit the research situation.

A multi-disciplinary team of up to ten people from diverse disciplines and or backgrounds should be recruited to provide a range of perspectives and perceptions through which data can be analysed and interpreted. Researchers are encouraged to keep an open mind about potential research questions and where the solutions could lie.

To formulate means to define or describe problems from a range of perspectives, including recognition of the importance of local knowledge.

Local people have a claim on the information collected and should be involved in determining any action which emerges.

Research and development aims to improve conditions for the people and the land.

On a philosophical level RRA opens up many questions about who has relevant knowledge and how it can be acquired and used. It also has the potential to involve all interested people in the research and development process and in this way it challenges traditional institutional structures and methods.

RRA embraces an holistic approach to the processes of defining a research context and selecting a team. Commonly RRA teams are multi-disciplinary, gender balanced and try to explore problems within their context. RRA is more 'naturalistic' in its scientific approach. It does not attempt to control the research setting and is therefore not experimental or reductionist.

The phenomenological philosophy sits more comfortably with RRA than a positivist stance. The former places more emphasis on the mental processes of the observer (experiencing and reasoning) while the latter emphasises experimental evidence (detachment of the observer from the data) as the main way of accumulating knowledge.

The need for RRA

RRA emerged in the late 1970s, partly from the Farming Systems Research (see below) movement in developing countries. Agricultural developers had become disillusioned with their efforts and were looking for ways to interact more effectively with local rural people. There was dissatisfaction with the way experts got an overview of the research context. A typical research process would have involved the following:

villages and special farms with experiments (near main cities) were visited
poor villages and the people in them were avoided: diplomacy was maintained by not asking to see poor conditions or meet poor people
visits occurred only in the dry season
a form of 'development tourism' was practised: brief rural visits by urban professionals and experts.

There was disillusionment with structured questionnaires and surveys. These were often time consuming, complicated, difficult to do and a nightmare to process, analyse and report upon. Often data was misleading, difficult to use, ignored or never written-up.

There was also a lack of recognition of local knowledge, especially where problems touched the locals' lives. The concept of 'indigenous technical knowledge' was adopted from anthropology (Farrington & Martin, 1988). Its value was soon recognised in the way it could uncover the richness and value of rural knowledge and culture within which development was taking place.

By the late 1970s professionals had developed a range of quick, cost-effective surveys which embraced such concerns, but were reluctant to write about them as they were seen to lack disciplinary respectability and rigour. Peer pressure constrained professional researchers to be conservative in their methods and to produce 'valid numbers' and careful statements.

RRA filled the need for a multi-disciplinary approach to research that could seek out and assimilate information about rural life and conditions in a time-efficient but rigorous manner. In the 1980s RRA investigations flourished. Early accounts listed RRAs in 12 African countries, 8 in South East Asia, 3 in Latin America, 3 in Australasia and the Pacific and 1 in Europe. In 1985 the Khon Kaen University in Thailand sponsored a conference on RRA and published 2 definitive volumes of papers and case studies (Khon Kaen University, 1985).

Intellectual origins of RRA

A number of sources and parallel methodologies stand out as constituting the intellectual and conceptaul origins of the RRA methodology (Chambers, 1992):

Activist participatory research

This approach is based on the work of Paulo Freire whose activities in South America are recognised in extension literature; the work of the late Dr Fred Hollows seems comparable. In this tradition the poor and exploited are urged and empowered to take control of their own destiny. There has been a wide range of political and ideological positions amongst workers from those committed to action and social change at almost any cost to those who pursue 'softer' action. In all cases three imperatives stand out (Chambers, 1992):

poor people are creative and capable enough to manage their own change
the outsiders role is a facilitator
the poor and exploited should be empowered.

Agroecosystem analysis

Gordon Conway, working in Thailand, drew on thinking from ecology and systems disciplines to analyse units of agriculture and ecosystems in terms of properties which 'measured' performance and trends using the fconcepts of productivity, stability, sustainability and equitability. The resulting system was called 'agroecosystem analysis'. It made use of RRA as a data collection methodology and utilised analytical techniques such as pattern analysis, maps, time sequences calendars, flow diagrams and decision trees. Over time agroecosystem analysis and RRA became closely entwined and complementary methodologies (Conway, 1986).

Farming systems research (FSR)

Chambers calls this process 'field research on farming systems' but in the literature it is more commonly known as 'farming systems research' or FSR (Simmonds, 1985). FSR includes attempts by multi- disciplinary teams or separate individuals to appreciate the complexity, diversity and rationality of much apparently untidy and unsystematic farm practice. Scientists who recognised the importance of what farmers did and tried to understand 'the system' began the FSR process. The interaction between researchers (who left their research stations) and local rural people pre-empted the careless introduction of technology and began to inform the research process.

There are numerous models of FSR but the main features which mesh with RRA and PRA2 are those that incorporate the following features (Spedding, 1988; Chambers, 1992):

farmer experience is the best way to inform research that aims to produce practical outcomes.
farmers can usefully contribute to research done in their farm environment.
researchers begin to appreciate the diversity, complexity and risk-prone nature of many farming systems.
researchers begin to recognise the knowledge and rationality of small and poor farmers.
farmers can conduct their own analysis of research in which they participate.

Applied anthropology

This discipline is concerned with understanding culture and place. It began to contribute to 'development agriculture' when anthropologists were included in research teams alongside agriculturalists, biologists and economists. Instead of taking years to 'get their data' anthropologists' skills were used in a multi- disciplinary team in structured and relatively rapid surveys of local cultures, land resources and practices. A team of scientists could thus share their perceptions of local conditions, collect data, and construct 'patterns' of how a local system worked before an aid or technology was introduced. This avoided the problems of how to use the vast reports of economic surveys and anthropology studies which often came too late to be useful. The contributions of anthropologists in an interdisciplinary team is well documented in work done in a potato research project (Rhoades & Booth, 1982) at the International Potato Centre (CIP) Lima, Peru.

The development of RRA and PRA methodologies draw on particular principles of social anthropology such as:

field learning and residence
participant observation
appropriate attitudes, behaviour and rapport
value and validity of indigenous technical knowledge

Key features and advantages of RRA

It is difficult to establish a strict set of procedures for conducting an RRA because every field situation has a different context. Those which we have found useful at CSU are listed below:

Key features

RRA begins with the assembly and building of a team which agrees on some common objectives that will enable individuals to work together.
Team training is a crucial step to achieve a consistent set of approaches to data collection. It may include training in techniques such as semi-structured interviewing, active listening and the formulation of objectives and protocols.
A project protocol provides a blueprint for all team members to follow. This document should provide a way of introducing members to the public, stating the purpose of the RRA, how it will be conducted and what the outcomes will be.
The methodology must be adapted to particular resources and field situations.
Local 'key informants' should be used to establish the context of each study.
Qualitative data techniques must be learnt.
Data is fed back to the community rather than 'extracted' for researchers' benefit only.
Particular variation is sought not averages. This means that 'sampling' is dependent on the data not the interviewees. The number of people interviewed is often determined by the amount of team learning and time available.
Accepting the notion of 'appropriate imprecision' ensures that resources are not wasted on 'accuracy' when its not clear what the problem is.
The idea of 'optimal ignorance' reminds the research team of the importance of 'knowing what's not worth knowing'.
Triangulation refers to the process of cross-checking data by collecting it from more than one source.
RRA is exploratory and iterative. Hypotheses and research questions can be rapidly changed as learning occurs.

Advantages

The context of the data is as important as the data itself. Key variables and questions of interest exist in an environment which is itself important to observe.
Learning takes place in the field - as you go and it comes as much from what local people know and do as from physical and biological phenomena. It also happens when the research team expresses what they have observed and compare it with other peoples' perceptions.
RRA avoids the problems of 'development tourism' and 'windscreen surveys' - superficial surveys and forays into the field.
RRA provides a rural 'briefing' for the increasingly urban non-farm background agricultural scientists - a cultural orientation and reminder that agricultural knowledge also resides in the local people, their history and methods.
RRA generates qualitative data which requires special techniques for collection, analysis and interpretation. Such data should not be underrated in comparison with quantitative data - development of insights not numbers is the aim of the game.
Learning from and with the community is stressed; listening skills are stressed over telling skills.
Complex problems involving people and the land are not ignored or 'controlled out' by experimental and problem solving investigations.

It is also important to recognise that RRA has some drawbacks, not the least of which is that teams can be difficult to organise. Most people who are drawn to the idea 'donate' their time and often their car. Team training is an essential feature in which each member must refrain from their usual role and take on the role of a team member which has its own goals and interview protocol. This all requires time and expertise. Finally the analysis of qualitative data is often new and difficult to most agriculturally trained people who have come from natural science traditions.

What RRA can and cannot do

RRA can

work with people in the problem or study context
define problems when there is uncertainty or debate about issues
seek out local knowledge or 'indigenous technical knowledge'
stimulate new thinking about agriculture, the environment, their interactions and conflicting goals
provide ideas and pointers for the application of 'hard science' approaches to agricultural and environmental problems
enable the assembly and operation of multi-disciplinary teams for research and extension
involves people and gives them a sense of direction: a form of 'action research' in which the research team interact with local people in a co-researching relationship

RRA can not

replace the 'normal' processes of hard science like those used in physical, biological and agricultural research
solve problems but it is a problem definer

RRA, action research and agricultural extension

Potentially every intervention (such as a survey) has an 'extension effect'. Professionals have realised this but underestimated its significance. While the knowledge incorporated in survey 'results' or 'findings' is seen to be paramount in bringing about change, the effect of the survey process itself may be greater.

It is thus important to address the interactive effect of the research process particularly where people are embraced in the research. Checkland (1992) notes a big difference between research in the social and the physical sciences: in the former, the research process itself always has an effect on the data. While Copernicus and Ptolemy had different theories about the solar system, it did not alter the reality of what was being studied. But Marx's theory of history was so powerful in its predictions of revolution that it changed the course of history itself.

Based on this distinction, Checkland (1992) recommends a process of 'action research' that is people and action focused. The researcher does not remain an outside observer but becomes a participant in the relevant human group. The researcher becomes a participant in the action and the process of change itself becomes the subject of research.

The evolution of RRA in developing agriculture and its import into a developed agriculture context opens the way for extension and research workers to improve the way they interact with farmers and local communities. The following points illustrate some potential advantages of the application of RRA methodologies.

Why extension might need RRA

Top down extension is no longer sufficient for the type of extension problems being faced in Australian agriculture. Farmers and rural communities face complex problems like land and resource degradation, disease and pest control, conservation farming techniques and farmer driven marketing activity. The traditional extension approach of 'diffusion of innovations' may not apply to many of these complex long term problems.
Farmers often find it difficult to understand research recommendations because they cannot see the relevance in the context of their own farms.
It is increasingly important for researchers and extension workers to understand why ways in which farmers perceive problems. The ways to do this collaboratively are slow to develop and require skills and determination.
Farmers often adapt and improve research findings to suit their particular conditions, but often researchers are not aware of, and so do not benefit from, such feedback.
While most farmers face a problem of too much information, the widening gap between research results and adoption must be addressed. Research and development (R& D) funds are scarce and the R& D corporations wish their findings to be more effectively communicated.

RRA in the Australian context

One of the first documented examples of RRA in Australia is the work of Ison and Ampt (1992) in the Forbes area of NSW. They endeavoured to discover and include local farmers' concerns in the activities of a new research station to be established in the area by the University of Sydney. The RRA uncovered a whole array of agronomic problems and issues that farmers were concerned about which although unexpected, provided an important context for the original objective. A key outcome of Ison and Ampt's work was the pooling of local knowledge to solve/improve farm pasture problems. For instance a local branch of the Grassland Society was formed in the Forbes area.

This experience is similar to that described by Robert Chambers, a keen proponent of RRA in developing countries. In his experience specialist extension and research people were constantly surprised by what they learnt about the diversity, complexity and rationality of farming people and agricultural practice (Chambers 1992).

At the CSU School of Agriculture a similar outcome has been experienced as a result of an RRA conducted in the small township of The Rock. We were invited to work for the local Landcare group who were concerned about a 'water run-off problem' in the town. Our approach was to cast a broad net to identify the many perceptions and interests in and around the perceived problem. The object was to then share these ideas among all the people and interest groups in the hope that local efforts could be harnessed to work cooperatively on the problem (Dunn et al, 1992).

RRA studies at CSU

Seven RRAs have been conducted from Charles Sturt University since 1991 by research teams made up of undergraduate students and research and extension staff. Five RRAs have investigated Landcare activities. Study documents have reported the aims, team selection and training and outcomes (Dunn, 1993a). Most studies also provide a report for those interviewed and some also run a public meeting where the wider community can participate and take action from the research (PRA Team, 1991). In this way some of the RRAs are verging on Participatory Rural Appraisals (PRAs). Another type of RRA takes a topical approach to answer the specific needs of a sponsoring organisation (Dunn, 1993b).

The RRA experience often has a far reaching effect on individual team members who learn from one another and from the local people. For the professional, learning from local experience can initially be difficult but something which is achieved by a carefully planned training session. To reflect on a variety of listening and observing experiences is both powerful and cathartic. By comparison with the data collected and the actions which the study may stimulate, the change and learning by individual team members is often overlooked, however, this is now being documented in separate reports (Dunn, forthcoming).

Conclusion

There is a need to study and research the 'culture' in agriculture; to recognise the importance of people in the system because as sure as they are part of the problems that must be addressed, they must also be part of the improvements that are needed.

Rapid Rural Appraisal is a relatively new methodology which recognises the central role of people in rural localities and agricultural pursuits. Its chief claim is to train and skill a team of like-minded researchers to interact with one another in a rural context to learn from the experience, to use the qualitative data collected and help all interest groups to plan and act for the future.

RRAs need to be carefully planned, trained for and logistically controlled. There are important principles to be understood and sponsors or clients must be aware and accepting partners. The participating community are also key stakeholders in the process whose claim on the outcomes are as legitimate as any of the initiators. The responsibility for action should be jointly shared with the majority role resting in the community.

The potential for learning by team members is immense but at the same time it can be elusive and apparently trite. It is important not to be deceived by descriptive and richly detailed data nor is it to be confused with informal observations which usually lack the rigour of an RRA.

While insights cannot be generalised from a particular study they can inform future action both of a community and a research type. This has been the case at Charles Sturt University over the last 3 years and the informal learning and confidence gained by individual team members is an added benefit.

Notes

I would like to thank Professor Geoff Lawrence for his helpful comments on this paper and for his encouragement to publish it.
The Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methodology is a development of RRA which gives local people more of an involvement with the research process and also expects more action from them. While 'exploratory' RRAs aim to elicit local people's definitions of their problems, there is a temptation for a research team to 'extract' the data from the community, analyse it and write it up for their peer group. For the community, the data and the experience has been lost and so too has the opportunity to take action or make changes. To avoid this preoccupation with the data Chambers and others now use the term 'Participatory Rural Appraisal' to stress the process of continued community involvement and ownership of the data and the process. In these cases the data and feedback process are an integral part of the research and change (local action) occurs and is promoted by the research team. The rest of the article uses the terms RRA and PRA interchangeably.

References

Chambers, R. (1992) Rural: Rapid, relaxed and participatory Discussion paper 331. Brighton: University of Sussex, Institute of Development Studies

Checkland, P. (1992) From framework through experience to learning: the essential nature of action research. In H. Nissen, H. Klein, & R. Hirschheim (eds) Information systems research: contemporary and emergent traditions Amsterdam: Elsevier

Conway, G. (1986) Agroecosystem analysis for research and development Bangkok: Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development

Dunn, T. (forthcoming) Team learning from a Rapid Rural Appraisal

Dunn, T (1993a) Learning to use RRA and PRA to improve the activities of two Landcare groups in Australia RRA Notes 18

Dunn, T (1993b) Farmer participation in extension. In The future of irrigation in the Murray-Darling Basin Symposium, CSIRO Griffith

Dunn, T., J. Lane, S. Lockie & D. Powell (1991) Runoff and other issues of concern affecting people in The Rock: A study for the Flowerpot Hill Landcare group. Wagga Wagga: Charles Sturt University

Farrington, J & A. Martin (1988) Farmer participatory research: A review of concepts and recent fieldwork Agricultual Administration and Extension 29

Ison, R. & P. Ampt (1992) Rapid Rural Appraisal: a participatory problem formulation method relevant to Australian agriculture Agricultural Systems 38

Khon Kaen University (1985) Rapid Rural Appraisal, proceedings of the 1985 international conference, Rural systems research and farming systems research projects, Khon Kaen University, Thailand.

PRA Team (1991) The Kyeamba Valley: The issues of concern to land holders and their families, identified in a Participatory Rural Appraisal by members of the Kyeamba Valley community, September 1991, compiled by a PRA Team with the following connections: Landcare; NSW Department of Conservation and Land Management; NSW Agriculture; School of Agriculture, Charles Sturt University; Centre for Conservation Farming, Charles Sturt University; School of Crop Sciences, The University of Sydney; Wagga Wagga City Council.

Rhoades, R & R. Booth (1982) Farmer-back-to-farmer: A model for generating acceptable agricultural technology Agricultural Administration 11

Simmonds, N. (1985) Farming Systems Research: a review. World Bank Technical Paper 43. Washington: The World Bank

Spedding, C. (1988) An introduction to agricultural systems London: Elsevier

^ Top | < Back