Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
S.Rengasamy
Faculty Member
Madurai Institute of Social Sciences
As a college lecturer, I had sufficient exposure (?) in the conventional research methodology. I
brought up in an academic environment which was not that much sensitive either to research
ethics or its perfection, so I used to feel that the methods that we employed instead of taking us
nearer to the truth …it alienated us from the truth …it never helped us to understand the “soul”
of the phenomena in question. When my students were mischievous with research methodology
(especially with data collection), I was able to understand them because I too was like them
during my student days. Not as a teacher but as a meditator, I realized that the reason for this
sorry state of was that for any purposeful involvement either the doer must be in a happy mood
or the process of doing should generate happiness? If this is not happening then the result,
especially in the research, will be a “Learned Mischief”. To avoid this, we have to keep the
researcher in a happy mood or to employ a process which will automatically generate happiness.
As a teacher of transcendental meditation, I thought that this was possible through the practice of
meditation. I have not advocated this to any one for the fear of ridicule.
When I attended the PRA training with this mental framework, I was able to understand how the
PRA process has been simplified and how objective and subjective methods of gaining
knowledge are rightly integrated not only for the better understanding of the phenomena under
observation but also for the personal enrichment of the researcher. It is my humble opinion that if
research methodologies failed to take care of the researcher’s ‘self”, then it will be too
mechanical and will not be soul satisfying.
The PRA process has taken care of both the knower (researcher) and the process of knowing
(researching). The special emphasis given to certain concepts like “unlearning”, “witnessing”
“handing over the stick” and “learning together” made me to recollect the great wisdom
contained in Yoga and Zen Buddhist tradition … an acknowledged way to put the knower in the
path of enlightenment.
I realized in the first PRA training itself that the advocates and proponents of PRA made
attempts to provide a natural and effortless procedure of gaining knowledge (techniques of PRA)
which simultaneously includes the procedure for the development of the researcher (attitudinal
requirement)
I feel that PRA seems to be the need of our time. . It is an outcome of the efforts of people who
were seeking new methodologies to take care of both the knower (researcher) and the process of
gaining knowledge simultaneously. The incorporation of certain concepts (e.g. unlearning)
which are subjective in nature, the purpose of which, I feel, is to purify the researchers’
consciousness.
The term unlearning is frequently used in Yoga literature to get rid of the psychological
memories (not factual memories) to get perceptual clarity and an open mind. So, also the term
witnessing is frequently used by eastern mystics to se the things as they are without seers’
interruption. Handing over the stick demands tremendous psychological mobility from the
position of an instructor to a learner … which demands the dissolution of the ego of the person
(knower) involved in the process. There is a logical sequence in the terminology used in the PRA
training. Unlearning leads to smooth handing over the stick which will result in genuine way of
learning together, which is psychologically rewarding, non alienative, integrative and take us
nearer to truth.
What I have learned from my PRA training, that PRA has incorporated both subjective as well as
objective methods to gain knowledge. Subjective methods to purify / develop the researcher..to
expand his consciousness so that his perception may be unbiased … gives the ability to perceive
things from different angles …or the ability to see both sides of the coin simultaneously. And
objective methods (e.g. social mapping) to gain knowledge. When the objective and subjective
methods are rightly combined, the ordinary observation of the researcher will become visionary..
Which is extra rational (not irrational), holistic and intuitive…one will get insights i.e. more than
the findings one get from the research.
There is a danger of interpreting the same empirical evidence indifferent ways, because the level
of expertise and experience (level of consciousness) differ from researcher to researcher. But in
PRA, right understanding result not only from empirical evidence, but also from the researchers
level of consciousness, which is the home of all knowledge, which any field worker/ researcher
can gain it through unlearning, witnessing and handing over the stick for which academic
qualification is not a pre requisite.
With this understanding, I made an attempt to identify the differences between conventional
research and PRA
By pointing out the differences, neither I am intending to claim superior status for PRA nor to
declare that PRA will replace conventional research in the time to come. I feel that PRA will add
beauty, meaning and enrich the research process.
Not only the subjective concepts emphasized in PRA, but also the objective methods used in
PRA have its own impact on researcher’s psyche. I have noticed such an impact from social
mapping exercise. Social map, once drawn, will remove the cognitive gap related to a place and
its people and it kindles the imagination and planning, positive qualities a researcher has to
acquire