• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Bulletin
  • Privacy policy

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Social protection
    • Poverty & wellbeing
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • Indicators
    • Learning
    • M&E approaches
Home»GSDRC Publications»Tools for participatory analysis of poverty, social exclusion and vulnerability

Tools for participatory analysis of poverty, social exclusion and vulnerability

Helpdesk Report
  • Róisín Hinds
June 2013

Question

Review a selection of quantitative and qualitative tools and methods used by development agencies to undertake micro-level participatory analysis on poverty, social exclusion, or vulnerability. Identify the scope and intended application of these tools, the skills required to use them, and any lessons learned.

Summary

Among the tools reviewed are:

  • Ranking: Commonly divided into three approaches: problem ranking, preference ranking, and wealth ranking, which enable practitioners to gain an understanding of local perceptions and preferences on a range of issues, including poverty.
  • Seasonal Calendars: Visual tools which can be useful for identifying periods of stress and vulnerability (United Nations 2006, p. 119).
  • Storytelling methodologies: Recommended in complex social situations and involving participants verbally exploring issues they face in their lives.
  • Participatory theatre: Recommended in difficult environments and when dealing with sensitive topics. This approach involves actors interacting with the public on a social problem, for example HIV/AIDS education or human rights issues (SFCG 2009).

Who uses the tools is as important as the tools themselves. Qualities and skills recommended for practitioners include the following: cultural sensitivity and awareness; previous experience (or adequate training) in using the tool; respect, humility and patience; training in recording, reporting, synthesis, and analysis; facilitation and communication skills; and skills in advocacy and project cycle management.

Best practices and lessons learned include:

  • Being aware of ethical issues: It is important to carefully manage local expectations and ensure that communities are not disadvantaged by the process.
  • Visual sharing: Visual techniques, such as models or diagrams, can stimulate conversation, encourage the inclusion of marginalised community members (especially those with low literacy levels), and are often easier to triangulate than other approaches.
  • Accessibility: The language used during the participatory process should be accessible to the widest possible range of participants. Attention should be given to gender sensitivities and steps taken to include women.
file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • DFID

Related Content

Decentralisation of budgeting process
Literature Review
2017
Legislative oversight in public financial management
Literature Review
2016
Participatory methods for community consultation
Helpdesk Report
2013
Measuring results
Topic Guide
2012
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2023; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2023; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2023
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2023; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2023; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2023