Participatory Research Participatory Research

on the Tohono O’odham Nationon the Tohono O’odham Nation

Researchers, managers and local people

building capacity for

sustainable resource managementsustainable resource management

Jennifer S. Arnold & Douglas P. Saunders

with thanks to Maria Fernandez-Gimenez, John Hays Jr.,

the Sif Oidak Livestock Association &

the Tohono O’odham Curriculum Advisory Committee

Presentation Outline

I. What is participatory research?

II. Intro to Tohono O’odham rangelands

III. Participatory research projects on TON

IV. DiscussionIV. Discussion

- Core themes of participatory research

- Benefits and Challenges

V. Conclusion—Is this a new role for researchers?

• Aims to build the capacity

of participants

• Participants help define

• Aims to increase quality

and validity of research

• Researcher defines goals

Functional Participation Empowering Participation

Continuum

Theory of Participatory ResearchTheory of Participatory Research

• Participants help define

research goals & methods

• Researcher facilitates

exchange of knowledge

• Researcher defines goals

and methods

• Participants assist in data

collection and/or

interpretation

Johnson et al. 2001

Knowledge SystemsKnowledge Systems

• Knowledge includes technical know-how, beliefs,

values, perceptions, behaviors, and social norms (Berkes

1999)

• Indigenous vs. scientific knowledge (Agrawal 1995)

• Knowledge is dynamic & influenced by different ways

of knowing (Nakata 2002)

• Exchange of knowledge is a power-sharing process

Strategies to include local knowledge Strategies to include local knowledge

in the research processin the research process

• Documenting and recording local knowledge

– Interviews, mapping, participant observation, etc.

• Eliciting local knowledge through participation• Eliciting local knowledge through participation

– Partnering with co-researchers

�Individuals contribute not just scientific or

local knowledge, but a combination based on

life history, experiences and culture

Theory of Participatory ResearchTheory of Participatory ResearchEmpowering Participation Model

• Action & research goals are paired to address locally

relevant issues (Hall 2001)

• Methods flexible to include many perspectives,

evolve through participation (Lincoln 1995)evolve through participation (Lincoln 1995)

• Validity strongly dependent on diversity & quality of

participation (Reason & Bradbury 2001)

• Catalytic validity related to local application of

research & enduring effects (Lather 1986)

TohonoTohono O’odham NationO’odham Nation

Santa Rosa Mountain courtesy of John Hays Jr.

Tohono O’Odham

Nation

11 tribal districts

and 60+ villages

2.8 million acres

(1.12 million ha) of (1.12 million ha) of

the Sonoran Desert

rangelands

History of Livestock on the Tohono History of Livestock on the Tohono

O’Odham NationO’Odham NationInfluences

• Jesuit Missionaries 1697, Introduced cattle and horses.

• 1822 to 1850 Apache wars began, missionaries

abandoned area. Cattle ran wild.abandoned area. Cattle ran wild.

• 1860’s Apache wars ended, cattle again became

important. Anglo and Mexican ranchers ran cattle on

traditional O’Odham lands. O’Odham vaqueros worked

on ranches

Influences Continued

• 1911 Tohono O’Odham (Papago) Reservation

established. 2,855,874 acres set aside for O’Odham use.

• 1920 Bureau of Indian Affairs’ guidelines limited 100

head of cattle to families. O’Odhams resisted.

• 1934 Establishment of Indian Organization Act. Tribal • 1934 Establishment of Indian Organization Act. Tribal

Government was formed.

• 1937 Tribal Government established 11 Grazing

districts, all communally based.

• 1937 to Present mistrust of outside entities when ideas

of Range Management are presented.

KohatkTat Momoli

Vaiva Vo

ChuichuHome ranges and invisible boundaries

KohatkTat Momoli

Vaiva Vo

Chuichu

Anegam

Chuppo

North

Komelik

Anegam

Chuppo

North

Komelik

Winter vs. Summer RainfallWinter vs. Summer RainfallSnow on desert courtesy of John Hays Jr.

Mean annual precipitation for cool and warm seasons, Casa Grande, AZ

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

400.0

450.0

1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1985 1987 1989

Years (1948-1989)

Pre

cip

ita

tio

n (

mm

)

Warm season

Cool season

Winter vs. Summer RainfallWinter vs. Summer Rainfall

J. Hays Jr.

Rainfall unpredictable, sporadic

perennial grass/loamy bottom Lost grassland /Sandy Loam Upland

Shrubland/Saline Bottom Mixed vegetation/Upland site

Participatory Research on the TON

Tribal Herd Round-Up courtesy of Amos Stevens

planning meetings

Sif Oidak Participatory Planning Project

field trips

“My goal is to cover 2.8

million acres with grass and

we’re gonna get there.”

- Head of Natural Resources

Department, Bureau of Indian

Affairs. 1992

Grazing Ecology Study

• Compared grass density at different distances from water (belt transects)

• Findings:

– 70% perennial grasses found in drainages

– Grass density dependent more on climate than – Grass density dependent more on climate than grazing pressure

• Unrealistic to manage for perennial grasses

• Management should focus on palatable shrubs

• Information used in the Sif Oidak Plan

Education

• Workshops &

capacity building

• Formal degree

program at TO program at TO

community

college

� Funding for a participatory rangeland curriculum

tailored to incorporate local ecology and local knowledge

Curriculum Advisory Committee

To plan, implement &

evaluate curriculum as a

series of 8 one-day

workshops

Rangeland curriculum projectRangeland curriculum project

Curriculum Advisory Committee

To guide research design

& participate in data

collection and

interpretation

Integrated social research

Branding in Fresnal Canyon courtesy of Amos Stevens

We questioned the superiority of scientific management

strategies over O’odham himdag which emphasizes

cooperation

Qualitative Methods� Recorded and analyzed

discussions in meetings &

workshops

� Collected comments from

public presentations

� Used a grounded theory

approach (Charmaz 2000)

to understand

- Knowledge exchange

- Impact of participation on

social capital

Knowledge exchange

We traced the contributions of O’odham and scientific

knowledge in the curriculum to understand the

connection of both to locally sustainable management

Social Capital Analysis� Social capital framework (Woolcock 1998)

Autonomy Embeddedness

Individual

level

Linkage Integration

Organization

level

Organizational

Integrity

Synergy

HIGHESTDIRECTLY

INFLUENCED

- Current levels associated with rangeland

management

- Changes due to participatory project

� Findings pointed to the value of the participatory

process as critical to sustainable management

Discussion:

Core Themes of Participatory Research

Building relationships

Building trust & developing joint goalsBuilding trust & developing joint goals

“I’ve never heard about this research before, and I don’t agree

with it…. The curriculum part is fine, but you can’t use with it…. The curriculum part is fine, but you can’t use

mirga:n [white American] theories to explain O’odham ways.”

--O’odham rancher

Creating a culture of openness

and critical reflection

Some Advisory Committee goals:

•“To reach the community level, local leaders, and

those who can influence change”

• “To examine long-held attitudes and assumptions • “To examine long-held attitudes and assumptions

about management”

• “To incorporate values of cooperation and

community, especially as it is important for effective

management”

Expanding the boundaries of participation

“Some of the older books [from] the [anthropologists] that

came out here [were based on] one man’s interpretation of

what this one individual said to him. A lot of it was good, but

at the same time, a lot of it didn’t sound right. But with this

project here, you’ve got all these groups of people that

actually worked together on this thing, so it’s not just one actually worked together on this thing, so it’s not just one

individual interpretation.”

--O’odham rancher

Sharing and building knowledge

throughout a project

Benefits & Challenges of Participatory Research

Benefits:

• Provides in-depth

understanding

• Recognizes different

knowledge systems

Challenges:

• High costs in time and

energy

• Process sensitive to local

politics

• Empowers participants in

research & action goals

• May be necessary due to

sovereignty issues

• Need local leadership &

shared goals

• Not always appropriate

depending on research goals

Benefits & Challenges of Participatory Research

from a community perspective

Benefits:

• Participants may learn ideas

from neighbors

• Sensitive issues are discussed

Challenges:

• Sensitive discussions do not

reach researchers

• Educated participants will • Sensitive issues are discussed

in native language

• Tribal leadership will be

informed through participants

• Participants can claim

ownership of outcomes

• Educated participants will

respects senior decisions

• Tribal government will not

follow through with

participants wishes

• Who will take the lead?

DiscussionDiscussion

Why don’t we see more PR in the literature?

• Grey area between participatory projects and

participatory research

• Many researchers use “participatory methods,” but

do not include in publicationsdo not include in publications

• Scientists underestimate the potential of local

people and their knowledge

• Need a paradigm shift from “objective” researcher

to research-facilitator

DiscussionDiscussion

“How do you control for bias in your study?”

• Educate the community about science & the

research process

• Different approach for natural science vs.

qualitative social sciencequalitative social science

• Natural Science:

-Work with communities to understand statistical

research design

-Develop protocols that address community-

driven research questions & invite interpretation

DiscussionDiscussion

“How do you control for bias in your study?”

• Qualitative Social Science:

-“Bias” as “Positionality” which is the unique

personal and intellectual contributions of every

participant, challenged alongside data participant, challenged alongside data

interpretations

- Validity of findings directly tied to who

participates and how

- Catalytic validity demonstrates knowledge tested

in real world situations

Catalytic Validity Enduring Effects Beyond the Research Project

� Increased range management planning

�Tohono O’odham Community College’s

Agriculture & Natural Resources Program

� Livestock Owners’ Summits � Livestock Owners’ Summits

� Continued collaboration with University of Arizona

A New Role for Researchers?

Partnering with local people can expand the bounds

of research and increase local relevancy to affect

policy and practice

N

50 mi.

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsRegis & Darlene Andrew

Herman Antone Sr.

Andy Antone, Sr.

Pete Blaine

Paul Buseck

Julie Casteneda

Frances Conde

Jesus de la Garza

Priscilla & Harry Domingo

Kristen Egen

Nick Francisco

Art Garcia

Della & Mervin Garcia

Larry Garcia

Ramona Garcia

Manuel Havier

John Hays, Jr.

Silas Hendricks

Joe Hiller

Robinson Honani

Ivan C. Jose

Laurence Jose

Marjorie Juan

Phyllis Juan

Bob Kattnig

Enos Listo

Tsianina Lomawaima

Grace Manuel

Homer Marks, Sr.

Robert Martin

Chairwoman Vivian Juan-

Saunders

Andy Seiger

Bernard & Regina

Siquieros

Oliver Smith

Arnold E. Smith, Sr.

Amos & Maxine Stevens

Fred Stevens

Louis Stevens

Allen Throssell

Funded by USDA Funded by USDA

Western Sustainable Agriculture Research & EducationWestern Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education

Eugene Enis, Sr.

Jose Enriquez

Joseph M.Enriquez

Kathy Espuma-Arvicio

Maria Fernandez-Gimenez

Gerold Flick

Delbert Francisco

Jefford Francisco

Madeline Francisco

Robinson Honani

Benson Honyumptewa

Larry Howery

Jerome Joaquin

Joe Joaquin

Louis Johnson

Silas Johnson

Jeremy Jones

Francisco S. Jose

Robert Martin

Margaret Mattias

Walt Meyer

Pauline Nasewytewa

Clementia Ramon

Peter Ruiz

Eliane Rubenstein-Avila

George Ruyle

Allen Throssell

Art Torrance

Gilbert Two Two

Selso Villegas

Noreen Williams

Karen Wyndham

ReferencesAgrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and Change, 26, 413-

439.

Agrawal, A. (1995). Indigenous and scientific knowledge: Some critical comments. Indigenous Knowledge and Development

Monitor, 3(3), 3-6.

Berkes, F. (1999). Sacred ecology: Traditional knowledge and natural resource management. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor &

Francis.

Charmaz, K. (2008). Constructionism and the grounded theory method. In J. F. Gubrium, & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of

constructionist research (pp. 397-412). New York: Guilford Press.

Hall, B. L. (2001). I wish this were a poem of practices of participatory research. In P. Reason, & H. Bradbury (Eds.),

Handbook of action research: Participatory inquiry and practice (pp. 171-178). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Handbook of action research: Participatory inquiry and practice (pp. 171-178). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Johnson, N., Ravnborg, H. M., Westermann, O., & Probst, K. (2001). User participation in watershed management and

research. Water Policy, 3, 507-520.

Lather, P. (1986). Issues of validity in openly ideological research: Between a rock and a hard place. Interchange, 17, 63-84.

Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 275.

Nakata, M. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and the cultural interface: Underlying issues at the intersection of knowledge and

information systems. IFLA Journal, 28, 281-291.

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In P. Reason, &

H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participatory inquiry and practice (pp. 1-14). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.