To explore the various elements and factors that shape and influence people's participation in community development and hence in projects' interventions requires a selection of appropriate methods, dependent on the subject of the study, the context of the research and the kind of information being explored. Based on this view, the qualitative methods have been considered as the main approach. Although the study is of a highly qualitative nature, a great deal of statistica l data was gathered from the documentary sources and through other field methods, such as wellbeing ranking a nd historical profiles.
The data was collected from different sources, both secondary and primary, a nd by using various methods. By reviewing the literature I tried to establish what was a lready known about the topic, what was missing and, what was required to obtain new facts or evidence (Gillha m, 2000). Before traveling to Sudan I reviewed a number of relevant electronic publications, which provided useful information about development issues in Sudan. The documentary sources offered a great dea l of information, some of which was required to answer the research questions, such as the extent of participation and the projects' participatory methods, inputs, and achievements. Detailed records of activities and participa nts were provided by IFAD-CCU and the NKRDP monitoring system. These secondary sources also offered some guidance on which further questions could be ra ised (May, 1 997). Data such a s participation in credit and literacy progra mmes was found to be useful in investigating the impact of such interventions and perceptions of development participants a nd non-participants. The data also helped in conducting in-depth investigations and establishing explanations and interpretations.
Development projects usually provide substantia l documentation on their design, activities, sites and stakeholders, in the form of periodic, progress and evaluation reports, studies, surveys, work plans and consultancies. IFAD and other related institutions such as MAAI
made availa ble all the periodic and evaluation reports, documents a nd consulta ncies of the NKRDP and the WNASP to be examined and used for the purpose of this research . These documents were written for different purposes and to dismiss any reporting bia s the documents were carefully examined and compared with data from other sources (Schofield,
1 969; Yin, 2003:8 1 ). Primary D ata
Design of a data collection protocol was guided by research questions and a litera ture review. Since participation is a multi-dimensional concept different techniques were implemented to offer a space for participants to address the issues raised in various ways. The research methods were focused on obtaining first-ha nd knowledge of a phenomenon under study by combining interviews, participant observation and Participatory Rural Appra isa l methods.
Interviews yielded rich insight into people's experiences, opinions, a spirations, a ttitudes a nd feelings (May, 1 997: 1 09). The interview approach was useful when there was a need for general descriptive information (ODA, 1 995). Participants' statements regarding events were carefully assessed to check whether they were a reasonably accurate record or not (Whyte, 1 984). The projects' stakeholders and others who were influenced or affected by development interventions were identified. All the research participants were contacted and participated in face-to-face conversation and discussion. The research topic was discussed in depth, guided by focu s group discussions and semi-structured interviews which accompanied the PRAs sessions, particularly in rural areas. This was augmented by the structured and unstructured interviews. The structured interviews were conducted with the NKRDP staff, while unstructured interviews were employed with the development academics, planners and NGOs activists. I spent time getting to know the pa rticipants and ensuring they understood the questions. Face-to-face interviewing enhanced my investigation in an attempt to gather accurate information (Schofield, 1 969). Interview with each participant lasted for a n average of one hour.
Questionnaires were relied on structured interviews to collect data and each participa nt answered the sa me questions (May, 1 997 : 1 1 0). This method a llowed for comparability between participants' responses. Apparently, structured interviews are not suited for
communities where illiteracy is dominant and cannot rea listica lly reflect people's personal perceptions and views. Therefore this method was only used to a very limited extent, mainly to collect data from the NKRDP technical a nd field staff and explore their perceptions. When utilised in this situation the structured i nterviews were combined with semi structured interviews and focus group discussions. Twenty NKRDP staff participated in this interview, which focused on issues that related both directly a nd indirectly to them within the participatory processes. It provided information about their qualifications, experiences a nd personal perceptions on particular issues such a s participation, plans to involve people in projects' activities, factors that influenced the participatory processes and the sustainability of implemented activities. Appendix 4.2 lists the structured interview questions.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted a mong a wide range of people. Allowing the participants to answer the questions on their own terms, but I always a sked them to be concise and clarify their answers when required. This technique was used to interview fifty nine participants, including project ma nagers, staff and agencies' representatives, who were queried development agencies policies and projects strategies, perspectives, objectives and plans. The sa me technique was used to interview the members of community organisations and some special community members such as the elders (both men and women). The semi
structured interviews were also conducted with loca ls whether they participated in the projects or not. The in-depth interview assisted in clarifying and va lidating the observations. Some of those locals were observed in action or when participating in the NKRDP' s meetings. If it appeared that some people had additiona l thoughts to share they were invited to a semi-structured interview. These interviews were conducted in a natural and relaxed situation. For project staff this was always in the office or guest houses, while rural communities had no preferred venue, simply where they were available either in schools, farms, houses, public places such as community centers (Dar) or even under a tree.
The unstructured interviews were conducted to enable the participants to answer questions a nd talk about the subject in detail within their own personal context (May, 1 997 : 1 1 2). Through unstructured interviews the potential participa nts' (planners, decision ma kers, theorists and local figures) concepts and concerns about participatory development were explored. This group of research participants had their own perspectives on participation a nd
development interventions. Although the participants were free to talk about the topic I focused on keeping the conversation away from evaluative topics and tried to encourage the participants to give descriptive statements and explana tions focused on the themes of the topic.
I found the focus group discussions one of the most valuable tools of research investigation. According to Ka ssam ( 1 997) they a im to gain a deeper understa nding of the dyna mics of the participants' values, perceptions and perspectives. It enriches the quantified data obta ined through structured and semi-structured interviews and file review. The focus group promotes a comfortable atmosphere for the disclosure of people' s idea s, experiences, and a ttitudes about a topic (Krueger and Casey, 2000). I used the term 'focus group discussion' instead of 'focus group interview' , because it is more acceptable and common, when tra nslated into Arabic (Magmuat Negash). Chambers ( 1 983) suggests developing various approaches, especially if it requires listening to people. Focus group discussions were found to be useful in obtaining background information about the topic, stimulating new idea s a nd concepts, generating impressions of programmes, activities and organisations, facilitating the interpretation of previously collected data and identifying problems and constraints within the new programme (Stewart a nd Shamdasani, 1 990: 1 2). The participa nts of development processes were considered as central subjects and actors of that processes; therefore they were given the opportunity to use their own words and their own style of expression to present their views.
In order to create an environment in which participants felt comfortable to enrich outcomes many focus group discussions were organised from a variety of existing groups, such a s project technical units staff, field staff, members of Village Development Orga nisations (VDOs), GROs, members of women's coffee groups, members of Sanduq a nd both project participants and non participants. In the villages of NKRDP, V DOs have a list of households who are project's participants and those who are not. From this list a selection of participants were chosen and meetings were held in the school or the community development center. After introducing the topic, the participants were invited to discuss the issues related to the research topic using their own terms, and to express themselves as freely as they could.
At national level a series of focus group discussions were conducted and participants from different cultural backgrounds, professionals and academics (White and Pettit, 2004) were invited a nd encouraged to talk openly about participatory development and other relevant issues. The selected topics were introduced and covered in a systematic way a nd questions were designed and directed in an unbiased fashion (Overton and van Diermen, 2003). After introducing the topics I ensured that the discussion stayed focused on the identified issues. Thirty-three focus group discussions were conducted, each group involving eight to twelve individuals with duration of approximately two hours (Stewart and Shamdasani, 1 990: 1 0). In both the unstructured interviews and focus group discussions, the 'reflecting back method' was used a llowing the participants to return to previous points a nd elaborate upon them and correct or modify their statements, a lso allowing me to clarify my interpretation (May, 1 997). As the interview questions were open-ended, a probe technique was used in order to encourage the participants to clarify or a mplify their answers (Whyte, 1 984).
The focus group discussions were usually followed by refreshments, which were shared by all. During this time I used my notes to make a quick summary of the discussion and compared them with the research a ssistant' s notes before checking their accuracy by reading them back to the members of focus group. Further comments or modifications were invited before final discussion notes were agreed upon.
Field expenence showed that combining semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with PRA methods were very useful in the rural settings. The following section draws on PRA sessions and illustrates how they linked to other methods, particularly in the rural settings.
Interest in participatory methods resulted in the increa se of popularity of Participatory Rural Appra isa l methods (PRAs) a s a planning and research method. PRAs were developed to overcome difficulties experienced with conventional data collection methods (Mosse, 1 998). According to Evans (2003 : 1 ) the question here is not only 'what kind of methods we use' but also 'what are the purposes and va lues they promote?' The ethical values of this study are guided by the philosophy of participation. Therefore participatory methods, especially PRA techniques and focu s group discussions, were employed intensively for data collection. PRA methods help to develop a good rapport with the community and 'triangulation' was the key to its success (John et aI., 1 992:98).
PRA consists of a set of techniques, which are used to serve different purposes (Dhamotharan, 1 998:7). For the purpose of this research some of the PRA techniques were used to collect the required data a s well a s involving the respondents a s active participants in this research. Through these techniques loca l people created diagra ms and maps by using symbols, which helped them to explain and modify their data . PRA methods generated data and also enabled loca l communities to analyse their own environment, whether it was ecological or socio-economic (John et a I ., 1 992). Local communities in North Kordofan State, especially Bara and Um-Ruwaba have a vast knowledge of Participatory Rural Appraisa l methods (PRAs) as the NKRDP ha s used them in its baseline surveys before implementing any activities. I was interested in using wealth-ranking techniques, a s in most development projects improving the living conditions; livelihoods or well being of the poor was a main 'objective' . The immediate objectives of the projects under study were to improve the living conditions of targeted communities. I decided to use this technique to examine the projects' contribution in achieving improvements. When we discussed wealth and wellbeing in one of the focus group discussions in Bara 1, one of the group members suggested ' let us select three people who can sit here, and identify the families according to their wealth' . I suggested comparing the wea lth ranking for the community prior to the commencement of the NKRDP with the present-day rankings to observe any changes and to see if some households had moved from one category to another a s a result of their participation. It was observed that the participants were much organised, listened carefully and gave the task much consideration. They placed the households' na mes on cards and sorted them into different categories according to their living conditions. After identifying all the households according to their wealth they presented their criteria for making this classification. The rema inder of the members listened carefully a nd made suggestions or corrections before unanimous agreement on the final ra nkings. In order to avoid any distortion during the process, a s pointed out by Cha mbers ( 1 997: 1 43) some participants may be reluctant or unreliable in ranking themselves, relatives or friends, two separate groups (men, women or mixed) conducted the task.
The Decision Tree is another PRA technique, which is used to illustrate the issue of susta inability of the different project activities as perceived by its participants (John et aI., 1 992). Through this method the participants identified which activities would probably be susta ined after the project' s assistance stopped and explained their reasons and justifications.
Venn diagramming was also used to indicate the relationship between the village or village groups and different institutions. This method uses circles to represent groups and institutions and lines to represent links between them (John et aI., 1 992). This technique was chosen to explore and identify the relationships between community organisations and the project, locality and state institutions and other private, regional and national organisations including those who were expected to be partners in the future.
Historical profiles were also used which benefited from the input of elders among the community groups. Using historical profiles contributed to identifying all the historical events that required communities' collective actions and responses. The participants were able to identify events since the year 1 906, during which the famous Sudanese famine occurred. They always recalled this by saying, 'let us start from the 1 906 famine' . People memorised the history of their villages. The sharing of poems, stories and proverbs assisted in preserving these histories, which are very useful in a culture of verbal tradition, where people can memorise the dates, actions, circumstances and outcomes that accompanied such events. Sometimes people remembered events by associating them with other prominent ones, such as the changing of a political regime or a famous famine like that occurring in the region during 1 984. Local language always reveals a great deal about history and values. During semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions the participants presented and explained the local communities' folk culture, songs, poetry and proverbs that represented and reflected people' s values and beliefs around participation. Through the history profile technique the participants narrated their communities' experiences and actions at times of difficulties, hardships and joys.
The PRA results were analysed through open discussion. During the discussion the participants made comments, added information, analysed and corrected each other. They made interpretations of their criteria and choices. This helped to generate new insights and open a channel for thinking empathically and collectively about the reasons for the community problems, or the unexpected outcomes of such interventions and the best possible adjustments and solutions. During mixed PRA sessions and focus group discussions in the NKRDP men and women usually sat in two separate groups, either facing each other in the case of an open discussion or facing the speaker during a presentation or meeting. Men and women were not equally engaged in discussions, young women rarely contributed if men were present. In contrast old women in general displayed more confidence in speaking up
and contradicting issues in public, interrupting the discussion to oppose or change ideas. The situation was different in the WNASP, as women did not take part in public meetings. In general in both projects, the communities were not intimidated by government officials, powerful people or project staff.
Observation as a part of a multi-method approach i s at the heart of the case study method offering both qualitative and quantitative data (Gill ham, 2000:49). Participant observation refers to a method of data collection in which the researcher is not merely a passive observer and may participate in different events within the case studies (Yin, 2003:93-94). Observing the NKRDP staff and community interaction and the role of leadership, power relations and representation within the community was found to be of great value. Interaction and participation in decision-making, proposing and raising ideas, taking action, and leading, supporting or opposing ideas, all assisted in the interpretation and establishment of links to project documents, policies, social organisations structures and gender differences. Many semi-structured interviews were guided by the actions of participants whom I had observed in the NKRDP and in community affairs. During interviews those participants were asked to explain their actions and perceptions. Many notes on interesting observations and particular events in both projects were taken and revised to consider if further interviewing and reading were required. I kept research diaries to record observation and make notes. The following
section explains how the collected data was recorded and validated.