Pula: Botswana Journal of African Studies Vol. 15 No 2 (2001)
Demystifying HIV/AIDS research:
a call for more community-based research in Botswana
Gwen N. Lesetedi & Munyae M. Mulinge
University of Botswana, Sociology
  We critically examine current HIV/AIDS research practices to argue for a reorientation
  toward participatory action research (PAR) for a more effective prevention of the
  HIV/AIDS epidemic in Botswana. This position is based on the fact that, there being no
  known cure for AIDS, prevention remains the most viable approach to the disease. Unlike
  traditional (academic) research which mainly aims to generate knowledge, often for
  knowledge sake, PAR integrates policy formulation and change as part of its agenda.
  Also, through its ability to draw community members to the total research process, the
  approach is capable of creating a sense of ownership of and responsibility over research
  knowledge and programmes of action emanating from it on the part of community
  members. These, in our view, are essential for the successful prevention of HIV/AIDS
  through changes in attitudes toward and in the practice of sex.
Introduction
One of the major challenges Africa today is the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Of the 34.3 million
people estimated to be infected by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HI V) globally by
1999, about 24.5 million were found in sub-Saharan Africa (United Nations Programme on
HIV/AIDS, 2000). About 83 % of the World's AIDS deaths are also said to have occurred
in this region. Women are the most infected group. According to United Nations
Programme on HIV/AIDS and the World Health Organization four out of five HIV positive
women live in Sub-Saharan (UNAIDS & WHO, 1998). In some countries between 10-29
percent of pregnant women are HIV infected (Adepoju and Mbugua, 1997). In many
African countries the pandemic now threatens not only the gains made in areas such as life
expectancy, infant mortality and disease control but also compounds the challenges of
providing health care services to the people. Furthermore, the spread of the pandemic in these
countries has eroded the little that has been attained in terms of socio-economic development
since independence, aggravating the levels of impoverishment.
   The HIV/AIDS epidemic, however, is not evenly spread over the region. During the
 1980s, for example; countries in Eastern Africa were most affected. Today the epidemic is
most severe in Southern Africa. In Botswana, in particular, the first AIDS case was diagnosed
in 1985 and since then the spread of the disease has been dramatic starting in urban and peri-
urban areas and rapidly extending to rural localities. The 1995 Sentinel Survey estimated that
about 23% of the adult population aged 15-49 years was HIV positive. The survey indicated
that the number of people living with HIV had risen from 59,000 in 1992 to 180,000 by 1995
and was estimated to have reached 207,000 persons by 1997. This represented an increase
of about 148,000 infected persons between 1992 and 1997. During the year 2000, the
number of people with HIV was projected to be 332,000 (Botswana Government and
UNDP, 1998).
   The 1995 Sentinel Survey also indicated that the highest HIV infection rate was among
youths aged 15 to 29 years. They accounted for about 56% of the reported cases ofHIV related
symptoms during the first quarter of 1996 and for about 79% of HIV positive expectant
mothers (UNDP, 1998). However, females appeared to be more vulnerable than males and
                                                230


constituted about 68% of those infected youths. The problem of HIV has also been found to be
growing among children aged 0 to 4 years. Results from the latest Sentinel Surveillance
survey reveal that the infection rate remains very high (Ministry of Health, 1997). The
survey also revealed that the rural-urban differences in the rates of infection have almost
disappeared and the virus is almost evenly distributed across the country.
   Despite the threat posed by the HIV/AIDS pandemic to global populations, efforts to find a
cure or vaccine against it have not produced tangible results and preventive measures remain
the only viable approach to it. The effective prevention of the disease requires an all round
understanding of the disease by both the vulnerable individuals, groups and/or communities
and those crusading to stem down its spread. These parties must be knowledgeable about the
ways the disease is spread (or contracted); its symptoms; ways of avoiding infection and the
likelysocio-economic and health consequences for the patients, the communities in which they
reside and for the nation as a whole. In the developed world scientific research carried out in
the medical, biological and natural sciences remains the leading source of such knowledge. But
in the developing countries (such as Botswana) where medical, biological and natural scientific
research is rather underdeveloped and for the most part hampered by the lack of funds, social
scienceresearch remains the way forward. However, as will be demonstrated later, the current
manner in which (social scientific) research takes place constitutes a constraint to the
effective prevention ofHIV/AIDS.
   This study calls for a reorientation of HIV/AIDS research to make it more effective as a
tool for the prevention of the spread ofHIV. More specifically, it advocates for an approach
that demystifies research by making it not only more community based but also
participatory and action oriented and hence the term 'participatory action research' (PAR).
 The study underlines the importance and necessity of intensive community participation in
the total HIV/AIDS research process based on the fact that the disease can neither be
 treated nor prevented through biomedical means. The only effective way to deal with it is
 through community-based prevention in the form of changes in the social .li~es. of
 vulnerable individuals, groups and communities. As will be demonstrated shortly, mJect~g
 a participatory and action orientation to research would raise the levels of commumty
 involvement, awareness and understanding of the HIV/AlDS epidemic.
 What is participatory action research?                                                .
 The concept of participatory action research has two parts; participation and actIOn. The
 notion of "action research" can be traced back to Kurt Lewin's (1946) proposal that the best
 wa~ to study something was by trying to change it. Elden and Levin ~1991:127) de~e
 action research as a "strategy for using scientific methods to solve practIcal problems ~ a
 way that contribute(s) general social science theory and knowledge" and to make pr~ctI~e
 more effective. Action research, it is assumed, brings researchers closer to the chent s
 world while at the same time drawing the client closer to the research process (Kondr~t and
 Julia, 1997). It demands that social scientists and the community are equal partners m the
 pl~ing and implementation of a project, and that each brings valuabl~ resources to the
 prOJect. The fundamental aim of action research is to improve pr~ctlce ~~er than t.o
 produce knowledge. The production and utilisation of knowledge IS.condltI~nal to thIS
 fundamental aim. Action and research take place alternately in an ongomg leammg proc~ss
 for everyone involved. Because of this dynamic process between researc?er an~ communIty
 and between research and action, there is no general formula for conductmg actIon resear~h.
 Ideally the initiative for an action research project comes from members ?f. ~ c~mmumty
 wh fi d th                .'                       . h Ith      th rwise The mltIatlve should
     o m     emselves facmg senous problems be It ea or 0 e              ..
 not come from social researchers who believe (rightly or wrongly) that they know what IS
 best for a particular community.
                                               231


   The concept of 'participatory' introduces a new dimension to the concept of action
research. It represents the notion that the beneficiaries of social and economic development
should take part in identifying solutions to the problems that afflict them. That is, those to
be affected by proposed change should participate in defming needs and isolating
appropriate actions (Kondrat, 1994;UNDP, 1990;McTaggart, 1989). According to McTaggart
(1989:3), participation "means sharing in the way research is conceptualised, practiced, and
brought to bear in the life-world. It means ownership-responsible agency in the production
of knowledge and the improvement of practice." Participation is a pointer that the
researcher respects "the needs, intelligence and dignity of the people" (Park, 1992:32)
whom he/she is supposed to benefit. In the words of Hall (1992:15), it places "the less
powerful at the center of the knowledge creation process" and limits the authority of those
in power to speak for the wants of others. Like action research, participatory action research
is committed to improving social conditions and emphasises the utility of knowledge
(Kondrat & Julia, 1997). It aims to emancipate by transforming social structures and
challenging unjust social practices. As a technique for collection and dissemination of data
participatory research "first came into international recognition with Freire's philosophy of
conscientisation, epitomising a strategy for the liberation of the oppressed people"
(Braimor, 1995:117). The approach has for sometime now been popularised in the field of
social and economic development (see e.g., David, 1991; Durst, 1992; Rahman, 1993; Haq,
1995; Kondrat, 1994).
   Based on the specifications of the participatory and action components of PAR provided
above, it can be concluded that participatory action research is a process of building
knowledge socially with change oriented strategies. It incorporates grass root initiatives in
the accumulation of knowledge by allowing for social groups to collectively analyse their
social, economic and political experiences for the purpose of their own advancement
(Kondrat and Julia, 1997). PAR is a process that commences with a general recognition of
the need for some improvement or change. This could be done by the community members
themselves or with the help of an outsider as a catalyst. Next, members of the group--at
least some (Whyte, 1991)-participate in the identification of the problem and the ways in
which it affects them. Thereafter, the people together decide what additional information is
required. Here outside expertise may be useful in designing methodologies for information
gathering. The data collection process pays very close attention to "popular wisdom,
experiential knowledge, and cultural know-how (Kondrat & Julia, 1997: 42). The focus of
the data always remains the clarification of social conditions and informing appropriate
action.
Characteristics of existing HIV/AIDS research
HIV/AIDS research can be classified under the domain of health research. This type of
research as a whole mainl¥ falls into three categories: research commissioned by health
authorities, research undertaken by health workers, and research initiated and conducted by
outsiders who are either non-health researchers or first researchers. A broad examination of
the existing mv/AIDS research reveals several aspects of the same that undermine its
capacity to effectively further the prevention of the pandemic. First, more often than not
 HIV/AIDS has been viewed solely as a health problem (Jackson, 1996) and research on the
 subject is primarily based within health institutions. This has prevailed despite the fact that
 HIV/AIDS is more than a health problem. It is also a behavioural problem whose solution is
 not only a .matter for the scientists but also for the whole community. As a result, research
 has exceSSivelyfocused on the health and demographic characteristics (such as age and sex)
 of those infected with the disease at the expense of other features (such as the
                                               232


socioeconomic status of the infected and societal barriers to prevention) that are central to
bringing about the behavioural change necessary to arrest its spread.
    .Research is c~rr.ied out for two purposes; to increase knowledge and for its applied utility.
Virtually all eXlstmg HIY/AIDS research appears to have been driven by the former than
the latter purpose. That is, it has been academic rather than action oriented. Since the
driving force behind most academic research is the generation of theoretical rather than
applied knowledge, the action part of most HIY/AIDS research has either been relegated to
a subsidiary level or totally ignored in the past. The dissemination of (academic) research
findings is usually through the write up of papers in (academic) journals which service
providers and community groups may never gain access to. What the research may choose
to emphasise in hislher report may be determined by the focus of the target journal rather
than by the burning issues affecting the community studied. In addition, the language and
 styles of presentation utilised in constructing research fmdings may be beyond the reach of
the community members who should be the primary beneficiaries of the same. Academics
 and other intellectuals are also driven by personal motivations and ambitions (Henshel,
 1990) that may stand opposed to the needs of the people. In sum, what should be available
 to all ends up becoming the monopoly of a small privileged social group. Yet as Kondrat
 and Julia (1997: 35) state, "knowledge about people's real life experiences and social and
 political realities under which they live belongs to the people who actually live those
 realities. Ifnot to them, then to whom?"
     The tendency to treat HIY /AIDS mainly as a health problem coupled with the adoption of
 an academic approach to research on the subject has also resulted in a clear cut division
 between researchers (both medical and academic) and the users who include communities,
 community organizations and NGOs. This makes it practically difficult to bring the two
 together. In addition, individual success is measured by academic prominence over others
 rather though demonstrable gains in the community resulting from research. This breeds the
 type of competitiveness among researchers themselves that makes it difficult for
  researchers from various research areas to work across disciplines.
      The approach that has been used to carry out HIY/AIDS research in the past has been
  disempowering to the communities or groups that are studied in terms of its design and
  application. Those who advocate for participatory action research generally concur that
  "one of the characteristics of traditional research is the remarkably skewed power
  distribution between the researcher and the so-called subjects" (Fernandes & Tandon,
  !  981 :4). Even where application has been a major objective, more ofte~ than not, those
  mvolved in making the decisions guided by the research fmdings are qUite.removed from
  the communities/groups that were researched. The traditional method of domg.HIY/AIDS
  research has also been alienating, marginalising and exploitative (Kondrat & JulIa, 1997) to
  those who should be the primary beneficiaries of research knowledge generated from the
  research process. It reduces them to mere "objects" of study (Kondrat, 1994). The
                                                                                                  e
  development of the research agenda has been the pre-occupation of the researchers ~ho ar.
  not directly linked to the community. These tend to utilise a top-down ~pproach m th~rr
  research that does not take into consideration the expertise of the communl~ m~m~ersWith
   respect to the total research process. PAR would reduce the margmalisatlOn and
   exploitation of vulnerable groups ....
      Another characteristic of HIY/AIDS research that may undermine its utilIty m the
   prevention of the disease is that more often than not, the agenda for research may .be
   dictated by the political economy' since the research is usually funded by external a~encles
   rather than by the researchers themselves. It is not uncharacteristic for those. fundmg. the
   research to dictate its direction. HIY/AIDS (medical) research, for example, IS e~sentlally
   an industry dominated by pharmaceutical corporations (Altman, 1995) With frrms
                                                  233


concentrated in countries like the United States of America, Japan and a few European
countries. These firms are mainly interested in the development of a bio-medical cure for
AIDS. As such, they rarely, if ever at all, incorporate behavioural change in their research
agenda.
   In Botswana the situation has not been that much different. Here, like elsewhere, judged
by the continued high rates of HIV infection, social science research appears not to be
serving its preventive function effectively. Although the scarcity of resources prevented the
commencement of intensive HIV/AIDS research in Botswana until 1992, considerable research
has been undertaken since then and the stock of available information has increased
tremendously. However, a closer look at the existing research reveals that it suffers from most
of the shortcomings listed earlier. Most of the research has been spear headed by the National
AIDS Control Programme in the Ministry of Health. The programme conducts annual HIV
Sentinel Surveillance surveys amongst pregnant women who attend ante-natal clinic with a
view to providing information about the levels and trends in the AIDS epidemic; that is, the
number of people who are infected and the rate of infection. Recently, the Sentinel
Surveillance studies have been extended to include men presenting symptoms of a sexually
transmitted disease (STD) at selected health facilities. The problem with Sentinel
Surveillance Surveys is that they provide information about the spread of the virus (or the
rate of infection and the age and sex of those infected with the virus) without presenting an
in-depth understanding of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Such an understanding would, for
instance, offer reasons behind the spread of the disease, allowing for an insight into the
behaviour of the respondents or documenting their socioeconomic status. This shortcoming
has acted to limit the practical effectiveness of the research since it is those factors that are
overlooked that are important in bringing about the behavioural change that would prevent
the spread of the disease.
   There exist other studies that have been conducted by academics (e.g., Macdonald, 1996;
Ubomba-Jaswa, 1992; Ingstad, 1990) and various NGOs. While these studies can be ruled
to be community based, virtually all of them have been neither participatory nor action
oriented in the manner spelled out earlier. They have been initiated by experts from outside
the communities studied rather than by the community members themselves. These tend to
dominate the research process and community members only serve the role of informants
(or study objects). Although studies conducted by NGOs are usually change driven, these
have been oriented toward the broader policy framework of the Ministry of Health rather
than toward changing the life situation of the affected groups or communities. Studies
conducted by academics, on the other hand, suffer from the same shortcomings that were
identified earlier with regard to academic oriented research. Such studies, nevertheless,
could constitute an important take off point for PAR.
Utility of PAR in the context ofHIV/AIDS
Participatory action research has an effective role to play in the fight against HIV/AIDS.
The approach has certain qualities that make it particularly suitable for the generation of
knowledge that would inform the prevention of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. First,
participatory action research is collaborative research between the researcher (social
scientist) and (some of) the community members (Kondrat & Julia, 1997; Whyte, 1991). It
elimina~es the clear dist~ctions between the researcher and the objects of research (Kondrat
 and Julia, 1997) by makmg the researcher who is the outsider to become a co-learner and
 co-investigator (Maguire, 1987). To underline its emphasis on the generation of knowledge
 from th~ perspective. of both the researchers and the researched, the technique draws
 communIty m~m~~ mto the analysis of their own reality. It builds respect in professional
 groups for theIr mSIghts and knowledge about the problems people are faced with while at
                                               234


the same time listening to local people so as to avoid mistakes and to develop programme
that take into account the specific situation and conditions which will influence the outcome
of programmes. Ideally each party does what he/she does best and this maximises their
respective strengths (Kortein cited in Monu, 1995). PAR acknowledges the expertise of the
people by treating them as the experts on their own life situation and thus involving them,
either individually or collectively, in the formulation of research design, the collection of
data and the analysis of fmdings for their implications for social change. However, for the
approach to work it requires social scientists to remove their ideological and disciplinary
blinders, become familiar with the operations of the community and to continuously learn
how they could become relevant to the needs of the group. They must also demystify social
science to make it every person's tool. This way they are able to turn both agency personnel
and in some instances the villagers themselves into more effective action researches
(Kortein cited in Monu, 1995).
   By intensifying community participation, PAR draws community members closer to the
total research process. By working alongside researchers, the people come to understand
better what they already know and experience and on the basis of this understanding they
are able to take informed action to alter their lives and circumstances (Freire, 1990). In
other words, PAR allows the people to take ownership of issues and "restores the place of
ordinary people as the creator of knowledge" (Park, 1992:32). It democratises knowledge
and allows community members access to the arenas where decisions are made.
   Participatory action research is change-oriented research. Unlike in orthodox research
where in most cases you merely make up explicit intention of collectively investigating
reality in order to transform it, it uses a three-part process of social investigation, education
 and action. The approach demands that researchers give as much, if not more, weight to the
 usefulness of knowledge for social action as to the advancement of a formal (theoretical)
 body of knowledge generated through the research (Kondrat & Julia, 1997). According to
 Kondrat & Julia (1997:43), knowledge should be "generated in use, and the boundary
 between knowledge and action" should become very fluid. The research should aim to
 develop critical consciousness, to improve the lives of those involved in the re.search
 process and to transform fundamental societal structures and relationships. It should mform
 some kind of action, which the research-action partners can undertake together. Thereafter
 the results of the action are to be assessed and, depending upon the results of the assessment
 research, it may be necessary to develop or completely redesign the ~riginal act!on
 undertaken. In this way action and research continue as alternate processes m the solu~lOn
 of the community's problems. Because in PAR the community members are the prune
 movers of the change it strives to bring about, the research is desi~ed so as .to be relevant
 ~othe community and the fmdings are used immediately to develop mterventl?ns. It sho~ld
 I~entify local needs and priorities, place issues in the context of people's bves and gIve
 dIrection to programme development and service provision ..
   The qualities of PAR discussed above make it particularly suited for ~e ~ener~tlOn.of
 knowledge to inform the prevention of HIV/AIDS. For instance, communIty IdentificatIon
 with the total research process (research problem, methodologies, results and gene~al
 knowledge generated), creates a sense of ownership of the research process and Its
 outcomes and circumvents the possibilities of community alienation from the same..Where
 t~e community members are alienated from the research and its fmdings, they are I~ely to
 dIsregard them and this undermines the policy component of research: That IS,. the
 Community members' failure to identify with the research outcomes w~ll affect ~. a
 negative way their commitment to the implementation of any change onented pobc~es
 emanating from the research results. In addition, by improving the level of communIty
 Participation in the total research process, PAR raises the level of awareness about a
                                                235


problematic condition such as HIV/AIDS. A heightened level of awareness is a necessary
ingredient in the effective prevention of HIV/AIDS. It allows vulnerable groups to come to
terms with the reality and paves the way for the quest of solutions to their affliction.
   Given that PAR is driven more by the desire to use research in social action than with
publishing knowledge generated through the research, a shift to this approach would
enhance the prevention ofHIV/AIDS in Botswana. Although Kondrat and Julia (1997: 45)
see "no inherent conflict between an emphasis on social action, on the one hand, and
published documentation and dissemination of process and outcomes, on the other," past
trends in HIV/AIDS research point to an emphasis on the latter at the expense of the
former. A participatory action research approach would reverse this situation and create
conditions that favour greater integration of community members in both the generation of
knowledge about HIV/AIDS and the utilisation of that knowledge for the prevention of the
spread of the disease itself.
   PAR provides a people-oriented approach to the study of HIV/AIDS. Being people
centred, the approach would minimise the mystery that has surrounded HIV/AIDS research
(thereby undermining its practical utility) and reduce the stigma still associated with the
disease. The approach encourages self-reliance in the generation of knowledge and
collective action to alter an undesirable condition (Kondrat & Julia, 1997), in this case
HIV/AIDS. It develops critical consciousness and capacity building among community
members thus encouraging community members to become the prime movers of change.
Adopting a participatory approach to HIV/AIDS control, therefore, is tantamount to
incorporating vulnerable groups in the total process from the beginning to the end. This
would intensify their involvement in both the research process and in the action to bring
about change. Rather than just serve as mere objects of research, as has been the case in the
past where community members have mainly participated as informants, participatory
action research would guarantee community members participation in a variety of areas that
would span the identification of problem of interest, the management of the research
process, processing and dissemination of the research information, and the actual
consumption of the knowledge generated. A PAR approach would facilitate dialogue,
discussion and bonding between researchers and community members; create considerable
trust among researchers and community members; enable the community members to be
aware of the nature of their problem and needs and to identify with the condition (problem)
being researched; and circumvent the hesitant response from community members that arises
from misconceptualisations caused by their alienation from the processes through which
knowledge is developed and from the subsequent policies fashioned from that knowledge. In
sum, PAR would give HIV/AIDS research a more humane face. It would empower
c0n.un~nities to take charge of their destinies by creatin~ a sense of ownership of (and
obligatIOn toward) the research activity, the information generated by it, and in the change
agenda evolving from it. This would, in turn, boost the adoption rate of knowledge
generated through research.
   Finally, the utility of PAR has been demonstrated and the approach has been found to
work wit~~ different cultural contexts. In the developing countries, it has been advocated
by practitIOners and researchers in diverse fields such as economics, sociology,
anthropology, education, agriculture and public health (Finn, 1994). Past experience
indicates that participatory action research readily precipitates questioning and taking
charge on the part of community members. Indeed, there are researches that have enlisted
community participation in different ways. In Nigeria, Brazil and South Africa, for
~xample, rese~cher~ involved ~embers of the community in designing the data collection
mstruments, dlscussmg the fmdmgs and plarming interventions (Weiss & Gupta, 1993).
                                             236


   In Botswana a shift toward more participatory and action-oriented HIV/AIDS research
would not be extremely challenging to attain given the already existent community based
structures for health care provision. Although there exists no trace of truly participatory
action oriented research, elements of community participation are evident in the field of
health care delivery. Community participation is one of the pillars of the Primary Health
Care (PHC) strategy that was adopted by the government in its efforts to attain the goal of
"Health for All" (Maganu, 1994, 1997; Ministry of Health, 1984). Through a decentralised
system for the delivery PHC, the government has been able to cultivate the involvement of
the communities and local authorities in policy determination, planning, implementation
and evaluation of health care. This has occurred through the establishment of Village
Development Committees, Village Extension Teams and Village Health Committees, to
name a few. Through these structures seminars, in which ideas flow from the bottom up and
vice versa, are organized for the community leaders, youths and teachers, among others.
The health workers introduce a topic and the consequences of the problems and then allow
the participants to assess whether it constitutes one of the problems facing the community
and to come up with suggestions as to how to deal with the problem. This is not very
different from what PAR entails.
   Community structures created by NGOs such as the Botswana Red Cross and the Young
Women's Christian Association (YWCA) may also serve a similar purpose. These,
however, remain comparatively weak (UNICEF, 1990) compared to their equivalents in
other developing countries. Not to forget the traditional kgotla approach in solving
problems that is well rooted in Tswana society. The kgotla is a local public consultative
assembly (Molutsi, 1998; Somolekae & Lekorwe, 1998) comprising the chief, tribal
councilors, village development committee members, headmen and community members. It
deliberates over matters affecting the community and makes important decisions. Being a
community based democratic system, it would provide a bedrock on which PAR for the
prevention ofHIV/AIDS can thrive.
Conclusion
The major thesis of this paper is that the notion of participatory action res~arch sho~ld be
 extended to HIV/AIDS research in Botswana and elsewhere in the developmg countries. It
 challenges the manner in which HIV /AIDS research has been carried out in the past ~~ two
 grounds. That is, most of the knowledge generated through research grounde~ on tra~ltlOnal
 methods has been academic rather than action-oriented and, in termS of Its deSign and
 application, the research has been both disempowering, alienating (or m.arginalising)and
 exploitative to the communities it is supposed to benefit. As such, it has failed to further the
 goal of curtailing the spread of HlV /AIDS. Based on these facts, it is argued that the
 prevention of the spread of the HIV virus could benefit immensely from. both a
 participatory and action oriented approach to research. The approach would give such
 research a new orientation that would recognise that the community members wh? are to be
 affected by the programmes and policies based on research fmdings do genumely have
 significant contributions to make to the entire (research) process. It wou~d eng~g~ the~
 constructively in both the research project and in the formulation and executIOnpol.I~lesand
 programmes emanating from within the community and based on l~~al realities an
 experience. This in turn would empower individuals and their commumtles and pefrsluadel
 th                "                                   . b 'ld'          the strengths 0 oca
    em to take responsibility for their own wellbemg UI mg on
 knowledge. and va 1ues ..                                              HIV/AIDS research is
    The . Importance of a participatory action onented approach to ccine tior the d'Isease
 underlmed by the fact that, in the absence of a known cure or ~a ...                If a roces~
 prevention still remains the dominant mode of intervention. Prevention ISm Itse          p
                                              237


of bringing about change in the society at large and in communities and vulnerable groups.
In Botswana, after well over a decade of government mounted HIV/AIDS campaigns
utilising messages fashioned from knowledge about the pandemic by both local and
international intellectuals and experts applying traditional methods of research, the rate of
infection has not slowed down. Today the country is rated among the countries with the
highest infection rates in the world. This suggests that vulnerable individuals, groups and
communities have not embraced the change (review of attitudes toward and practice of sex)
advocated by preventive messages. Because of its very nature, participatory action research
would enhance this goal tremendously. It would integrate groups and communities into the
planning, execution and management             of that change. This would create a sense of
ownership of, responsibility over, and commitment to the whole process.
To conclude, an emphasis on participatory action research as a better approach to the
prevention of HIV /AIDS neither suggests that the approach is perfect nor that it is
appropriate for all kinds of problematic            conditions.  The approach does have some
disadvantages that may undermine its utility. For instance, the close relationship between
researcher and subjects makes it quite difficult for the researcher to be objective and the
research is, therefore, vulnerable to all kinds of experimenter and subject effects (Bailey,
 1994). Also, the narrow focus of research (to a particular community with a particular
difficulty) prevents the social scientist from generalising           research [mdings to other
communities.       Yet, it is often the case that different communities/groups               can be
experiencing similar problematic conditions. The focus condition of this paper--HIV/AIDS
--is a good case in point.
                                                   Note
Address: Gwen N. Lesetedi & Munyae M. Mulinge, Department of Sociology, University of
Botswana, Private Bag 0022, Gaborone, Botswana. E-mail: <lesetedi@mopipLub.bw>                      &
<mulingem@mopipi.ub.bw>
                                              References
Adepoju, A. & Mbugua, W. 1997. The African family: An overview of changing forms. In: A.
   Adepoju (ed.), Family. Population and Development in Africa, Zed Books, London. pp. 41-59.
Altman, D. 1995. Overview of community responses. Development Journal of the Society for
   International Development 2: 8-15.
Bailey, K. D. 1994. Methods of social research (4th. ed). New York: The Free Press.
Braimoh, D. 1995. Integrating women into rural development in Africa by participatory research.
   Development Southern Africa 12 (I) 127-133.
Central Statistics Office. 1995. 1981 Population and Housing Census Dissemination Seminar, May 1-
   4, 1995 Government Printers, Gaborone.
   Central Statistics Office. 1997. 1991 Population and Housing Census: Population Projections
    1991- 2021. Government Printers, Gaborone.
David, G. 1991. Participation in social development for the for the 1990s: Yes, but how? Social
   Development Issues 13 (3) 14-27.
D~rst,. D. 1992. The road to poverty is paved with good intentions: Social interventions and
    mdlgenous peoples. International Social Work 32 25-38.
de Koring, K. & Martin, M. 1996: Participatory research is health: Issues and experiences. London:
    Zed Books Ltd.
 Elden, M. & Levin, M. 1991. Cogenerative learning: Bringing participation into action research. In
    W. F. Whyte (ed.), Participatory action research (pp. 127-142). Newbury Park, CA: Praeger.
 Fernades, W. & Tandon, R. 1981. Social research for social action. In W. Fernades and R. Tandon
    (eds.), Participatory research and evaluation: Experiments in research as a process of liberation
    (pp. I-II) New Delhi: Indian Social Institute.
                                                   238


 Finn, J. 1994. The promise of participatory research. Journal of Progressive Human Services 5 (2) 25-
     42.
 Freire, P. 1990. A critical understanding of social work (M. Moch, Trans.). Journal of Progressive
     Human Services 1 (1) 3-9.
 Gupta, G. R. & Weiss, E. 1993. Women and AIDS: developing a new health strategy. Washington:
     Intentional Centre for Research on Women Policy Series. No. I.
 Hall, B. 1992. From margins to center? The development and purpose of participatory research. The
    American Sociologist. 23 (4) 15-28.
 Hart, E & Bond, M. 1995: Action research for health and social care: a guide to practice. London:
     Open University Press.
 Haq, U. M. 1995. Reflections on human development. New York: Oxford University Press.
 Henshel, R. L.1990. Thinking about social problems. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
    Publishers.
 Ingstad, B. 1990. The cultural construction of AIDS and its consequences for Prevention in Botswana.
    Medical Anthropology Quarterly 4 (I) 28-40
 Jackson, H. 1996. Some HlV/AIDS research dilemmas. SAFAIDS News 4 (3) 14-15.
 Jaime, S., Havey, F. and Mann, J. 1992. AIDS: prevention through education: a world view. New
    York: Oxford University Press.
Kondrat, M. E. 1994. Culture and power in technology transfer: Perspectives from a critical sociology
    of knowledge. Social Development Issues 16 (3) 45-67
Kondrat, M. E. and Julia, M. 1997. Participatory action research: self-reliant research strategies for
    human social development. Social Development Issues 19 (I) 32-49.
Lewin, K. 1946. Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues 2 (4) 34-46.
Macdonald, D. S. 1996. Notes on the socioeconomic and cultural factors influencing the transmission
    of HIV in Botswana. Social Science and Medicine, 42 (9) 1325-1333.
Maganu, E. T. 1994. Health prospects for Botswana into the next century: Interaction of health status
    and socioeconomic conditions. In the Botswana Society, Botswana in the 21st Century, Proceedings
    ofa Symposium, October 18 - 21, 1993, Gaborone.
Maganu, E. T. 1997. Access to health facilities in Botswana and its impact on quality of life. In
    Botswana Society, Poverty and plenty: The Botswana experience, Proceedings of a Symposium,
    October 15-18, 1996, Gaborone.
Maguire, P. 1987. Doing participatory research: A feminist approach. Amherst, MA: Center for
    International Education.
McTaggart, R. 1989. Principles of participatory action research. Paper Presented at the World
   E~counter on Participatory Research, Manuagua, Nicaragua, September 3-9.
MInIstry of Finance and Development Planning. 1993. Planning of people: a strategyfor accelerated
   ~uman development in Botswana. Gaborone: Sigma Publishing Ltd..
MInistry of Health. 1997. 1997 draft on the 6th HIV sentinel surveillance survey In Botswana.
   Gaborone: Government Printers ..
Ministry of Health. 1984. Structure and Operation of Health Services in Botswana. Gaborone.
   Gov~mment Printers ...                                                                 e and M. H.
MolutSl, P. P. 1998. Elections and electoral experIence III Botswana. In W. A Edg               S h 'k
   Lekorwe (eds.), Botswana: politics and society. (pp. 363 - 377). Pretoria: J.L. van c al
   PUblishers
  onu, . D. 1994. NGOs as agents of socioeconomic. deve Iopment.. th e need for a social laboratory
ME'
   approach. SAMS Working Paper Series No. 94001. Gaborone: University ofBots.wana.              I d
P~ k' P. 1992. The discovery of participatory research as a new sClentl
                                                                      "fi
                                                                            ICparadlgm'. Persona an
   Intellectual accounts The American Sociologist, 23 (4) 29-42..                                   h
Rah'                                                           .           1" . atory actIOn researc .
     man, M. A. 1993. People's self-development: PerspectIves on parzclp
   London: Zed Books ...                                                           '       wan 1966-
Somolekae, G. M. & Lekorwe, M. H. 1998. The chieftaincy syste~ .and pohtlc~ III B(ots 186a,_198).
   1995. In W. A Edge and M. H. Lekorwe (eds.), Botswana: pO/ztICSand sOCIety. pp.
  Pretoria: J.L. van Schaik Publishers.
                                                 239


Ubomba-Jaswa, P. 1992. Mass media and AIDS in Botswana: What the newspapers say and their
  implications. Working Paper No. 63. Gaborone: National Institute for Development Research and
  Documentation, University of Botswana.
UNICEF. 1993.Situation analysis of children and women in Botswana. Gaborone: Maendeleo.
Botswana Government and United Nations Development Programme. 1998. Botswana human
  development report, 1997: challenges for sustainable human development. Gaborone: TA
  Publications (Botswana) Pty Ltd.
United Nations Development Programme. 1997. Human Development Report 1997. New York:
  Oxford University Press.
UNAIDS & WHO. 1998. Report on the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic. UNAIDS and WHO, Geneva.
United Nations Development Programme. 1990. Human Development Report 1990. New York:
  Oxford University Press.
United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. 2000. Report on the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic.
  UNAIDS: Geneva, Switzerland.
Whyte, W. F. (ed.). 1991. Participatory action research. New York: Sage
                                                240