|
|
|
This CD contains resources from a training
workshop called “Improving Adoption of Agricultural Technologies – How
Participatory Research Can Complement Conventional Research Approaches.” The workshop took place from 4-8 March,
2002 in Tsukuba, Japan as a joint
venture of the International
Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), the Japanese International Research
Center for Agricultural Science (JIRCAS), and the CGIAR Systemwide Program
on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (PRGA). |
|
|
|
For best results enter full screen mode by
clicking on the view menu in your browser. |
|
|
|
ISBN 0-473-08578-X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The documents compiled here are are offered
as Microsoft Word, Powerpoint or PDF files. Word, Powerpoint and Acrobat Reader must be installed on your
computer in order to read and print these files. Acrobat Reader will enable you to open the PDF files. To
install Acrobat Reader click on the icon below and run the installation
program from its current location. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Improving Adoption
of Agricultural Technologies:
How
Participatory Research Can Complement Conventional Research Approaches |
|
|
|
Peter Horne, Ann Braun,
John Caldwell and Osamu Ito |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome address |
|
Participant list (English) |
|
Participant List (Japanese) |
|
Exercise: Introductions |
|
|
|
|
|
Participants wrote their expectations on cards;
these were placed on a whiteboard and grouped |
|
Expectations fell into 6 categories: |
|
Participatory methods |
|
Concepts |
|
Management issues (e.g. teamwork) |
|
Communication |
|
Self-evaluation |
|
Fun |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each participant used a ranking slip like the
one below to indicate the relative importance of each area of expectation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Highest expectation: Learning about Participatory Methods |
|
Communication skills and management issues (such
as teamwork) somewhat more important to members of the Rainfed Project |
|
Concepts more important to members of other
projects |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Presentation: main themes of the Rainfed Project
in Thailand |
|
Click on the hyperlink to view the presentation
or click HERE
for an outline of the project structure |
|
Exercise: |
|
Each of 3 groups brainstormed one question: |
|
What are the overall goals of the project? |
|
What are we trying to change with our research? |
|
Who should benefit from this research and how
are they going to benefit? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increased
farm income |
|
Scaling-up methodology
(technical
modeling) |
|
|
|
|
The ways
people think and work |
|
Methods |
|
The
farming system,
technology, water
management |
|
Farmers’
management
of risk |
|
|
|
|
|
Who? |
|
Farmers |
|
How? |
|
Better income |
|
More stable rice production |
|
New knowledge |
|
New crops and technologies |
|
Greater diversification and less risk |
|
|
|
|
|
Who? |
|
Researchers |
|
How? |
|
Proud of doing research that benefits farmers |
|
Understanding farmers thinking can help our
research direction |
|
Thai and Japanese scientists can work
togethether |
|
More papers |
|
|
|
|
|
Who? |
|
Administrators |
|
How? |
|
Better information for planning |
|
Ideas for expanding to other areas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise: |
|
Each researcher brainstormed the following
question: |
|
What are your specific goals as an individual
researcher working in this project? |
|
Responses were written on cards and grouped |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conclusions |
|
It could be difficult to achieve overall project
goals based on our individual researcher goals |
|
Difficulties include: |
|
Complex farmer communities |
|
Integration is challenging |
|
Individual goals are mostly technical; the
project goals are broader |
|
Risk management is an issue for the project |
|
Is there a solution?….. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matching technologies with needs! |
|
|
|
……………Click
HERE for an example |
|
|
|
|
Presentation:
Evaluation of the First Phase of the Rainfed Project |
|
Click on the hyperlink to view the presentation |
|
Conclusion:
Research for the sake of research and researchers is not
enough. In the first phase the main
end user was the researcher, but farmers should benefit from our research
too. The question is how to do
this? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the next exercise, we will introduce the
concepts of weighting and ranking.
Imagine 5 options for lunch; which do you prefer? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighting Exercise: |
|
Work in
two groups |
|
Use 20
counters per group |
|
Group 1:
Who should make most of the
decisions related to each major theme in the rainfed project? |
|
Click HERE for results |
|
Group 2:
Who should do most of the
work? |
|
Click HERE for results |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Day 1, we talked about |
|
reducing
climatic risk through improved water management |
|
stabilizing rice production |
|
diversification as a way to reduce risk |
|
What about the risks that farmers face when they
try new technologies? |
|
Click HERE for a presentation about risk |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Today we will read and analyse several of
case studies that introduce participatory research approaches |
|
|
|
Our first case study is from Claveria, the
Philippines |
|
Click HERE to read the Claveria case
study |
|
|
|
Be prepared to discuss your responses to the
study questions at the end of the case |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Farmers |
|
Identified erosion as the problem |
|
Identified technologies |
|
Chose options to test |
|
Evaluated options |
|
Researchers |
|
Offered technical options |
|
Helped farmers to see the “big picture” of
erosion as a “village” problem |
|
|
|
|
|
Farmers |
|
Benefits from solving the erosion problem |
|
Knowledge of hedgerows and other options |
|
|
|
Researchers |
|
Learned about types of technologies farmers need |
|
Learned from technologies rejected by farmers |
|
Gained a new research direction |
|
Helped farmers to see new options |
|
|
|
|
|
Comments & Insights |
|
Why couldn’t researchers see labor constraints
beforehand? |
|
Researchers should pay closer attention to
labour constraints and other farmer criteria |
|
The Claveria example is similar to the Rainfed
Project |
|
Technologies can’t be “photocopied” from one
place to another |
|
Scaling-up means understanding where conditions
are favorable |
|
|
|
|
Our second case study is from Santo Niño, the
Philippines |
|
|
|
Click HERE to read the Santo Niño case study |
|
|
|
Be prepared to discuss your responses to the
study questions |
|
|
|
|
|
Low yield was the central problem |
|
But “low yield”
is too general |
|
Farmers and researchers realised they could work
on the problem of yield by working together on the Cogon infestation
problem, which is one of the causes of low yield |
|
|
|
|
In Santo Niño the participation of farmers (and
researchers) was like “a car with
two drivers” |
|
|
|
|
Researchers contributed the idea of testing
herbicides |
|
Farmers suggested changing the method of plowing
or planting cassava or sugarcane |
|
Farmers contributed their observation that cogon
grew poorly when shaded |
|
TOGETHER, the farmers and researchers came up
with the idea of controlling cogon by planting forage trees or climbing
legumes to provide shade |
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise: |
|
Based on analysis of the case studies and of
your overall project goals and individual goals as researchers what
challenges do you see to working in the field with farmers? |
|
Three different projects (Rainfed-Thailand; Mali
and China) are represented at the workshop. Responses from each of these projects were grouped on cards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One source of complexity arises from differences
in opinions and perceptions |
|
Examples of different perceptions: |
|
How farmers and researchers think information
should be shared |
|
Click HERE for an example
from the FLSP project |
|
How farmers and research organizations perceive
priorities |
|
Click HERE for an example
from a CGIAR center |
|
|
|
|
Another source of complexity is human and biophysical
variability |
|
|
|
Click HERE for a presentation showing the
biophysical variability in Khon Kaen, Thailand, a principal site of the
Rainfed Project |
|
|
|
|
|
To cope with complexity we need |
|
A process for working with farmers |
|
Tools that allow us to work with the large human
and biophysical variability and diversity |
|
Tools that help us capture farmer’s experience
and opinions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The next case study is about a process for
participatory research from Latin America, called the CIAL, or farmer
research committee |
|
Click HERE to read a case study about CIALs |
|
Be prepared to discuss your responses to the
study questions |
|
|
|
|
Click HERE for the analysis of the CIAL process |
|
|
|
|
The Forages and Livestock Systems Project (FLSP)
is another example of a process for participatory research |
|
|
|
The FLSP is an example from Asia |
|
|
|
Click HERE to read a case study of the FLSP
process |
|
|
|
|
Click HERE for the analysis of the FLSP process |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Click HERE for an analysis of the strengths and
weaknesses of participatory research |
|
|
|
Click HERE for a comparison of participatory and
traditional research |
|
|
|
|
|
FLSP and CIALS are two of a diversity of
participatory research processes. |
|
They are different in detail, however…. |
|
They have common principles and |
|
Each is appropriate for the conditions under which it was developed |
|
Click HERE
for a comparison of FLSP and CIALs |
|
Click HERE
for a presentation on common principles of good practice in participatory
research |
|
|
|
|
Click HERE for a detailed presentation including
examples of tools and methods used at each step of a participatory research
process, taking the FLSP as an example |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Click HERE for an introduction to Preference
Analysis |
|
Click HERE for a presentation about ranking,
scoring and weighting |
|
Click HERE for a summary of the differences
between different methods |
|
Click HERE to learn about the Income-Livelihood
Matrix |
|
Click HERE for an example of logistic analysis
of preference data |
|
|
|
|
To gain an understanding of the importance of
matching options to preferences, we will do a preference analysis exercise
using ranking and weighting |
|
Divide into two groups; one group will be
tourists; the other group will be a holiday tour operator company |
|
The tour operators will select 5 holiday
destinations in Japan to offer to the tourists. The tour operators should predict how popular these
destinations will be by ranking them from 1 to 5 |
|
The tourists will define 5 criteria for choosing
a holiday destination |
|
Once the tour operators are ready with their
destinations and the tourists with their criteria, please return to the main workshop room |
|
|
|
|
|
Destinations |
|
Hokkaido |
|
Kyoto |
|
Okinawa |
|
Mt. Fuji |
|
Izu |
|
|
|
Criteria |
|
Cost |
|
Food |
|
Natural Beauty |
|
Facilities |
|
Security |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conclusions |
|
The company was surprised by the security
criterion, but in practice the destinations differed little in security, so
the criterion proved to be of little discriminatory value |
|
The company realised the importance of gaining a
clearer understanding of tourists’
criteria. For example, the company
had planned to put little effort into developing the Kyoto tour, yet the tourists ranked it second |
|
The company recognised the need to develop
different tours for different tourist types. Mt. Fuji could be
appropriate for backpackers, while , Okinawa would only be attractive to
higher-income travelers |
|
|
|
|
|
Conclusions |
|
The participants pointed out that criteria used
for selecting one destination over another are not equally important. They
suggested that analysis of the information should include weighting of
criteria according to their importance. |
|
|
|
|
|
What are we aiming for in participatory
research? |
|
Precision? |
|
Accuracy?
Click
HERE for a presentation about this issue |
|
|
|
|
|
|
As scientists we want rigorous, repeatable
results, but we also want farmers opinions and feedback and information
about impact in a highly variable human and biophysical environment. Obtaining biophysical data from farmer’s
trials is full of problems, but so is getting farmers’ feedback from
researcher-managed trials. How can
we overcome these problems? |
|
Click HERE for a presentation on
experimental designs for participatory research |
|
|
|
|
Information is an important element in risk
management. As scientists we have
valuable information, but some of it is highly technical. Is it possible to share highly technical
information with farmers? |
|
|
|
Click HERE
for a presentation on how some researchers have shared simulation models
with farmers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise:
Work in 2 groups on the following: |
|
How can participatory research processes be
incorporated into the existing structure of the Rainfed project? |
|
Make a plan for 2002 |
|
What kind of experiments would you propose for: |
|
Erosion management (Group 1) |
|
Water management (Group 2) |
|
Indicate: |
|
The themes (farmer problem) that the experiments
would address |
|
The experimental designs |
|
Methods of analysis and evaluation to be used by
farmers and researchers |
|
|
|
|
|
What skills will you need to do good
participatory research? |
|
Click HERE
for an introduction to these skills |
|
Exercises for building communication skills |
|
The importance of neutrality |
|
How to ask questions |
|
|
|
|
|
On Day 1 participants wrote their expectations
on cards; Expectations fell into 6 categories: |
|
Participatory methods |
|
Concepts |
|
Management issues (eg. teamwork) |
|
Communication |
|
Self-evaluation |
|
Fun |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please use scoring slips to indicate your degree
of satisfaction for each of the 6 areas of expectation. |
|
5 = expectations fully met |
|
1 = expectation not met |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After the tourist exercise workshop participants
pointed out that the criteria farmers use for comparing technologies are
not usually of equal importance. We
used the workshop evaluation data to demonstrate how preference data can be
weighted for analysis. We defined
an index of satisfaction called the Dynamic Interactive JIRCAS Approval Index
(DIJAI) defined as follows: |
|
DIJAI = å ([RSi] · [SSi]) |
|
|
|
Where i = an expectation |
|
RSi = Ranking Score for expectation i |
|
SSi = Satisfaction Score for
expectation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DIJAI also means “happy” in Isaan, the local
language in Khon Kaen, a main site of the Rainfed Project |
|
The DIJAI indicates how well the course met
participant’s needs by weighting their satisfaction for each expectation by
its relative importance. The same
approach can be used with farmers! |
|
|
|
|
|
Daily workshop summaries |
|
Day 1 |
|
Day 2 |
|
Day 3 |
|
Day 4 |
|
Day 5 |
|
Presentations |
|
The evolution of participatory approaches |
|
Monitoring & Evaluation |
|
Additional case studies |
|
Diagnosis, Investigation and Participation (DIP) |
|
Zig-Zag |
|
Pakim |
|
Energisers |
|
Collection 1 |
|
Collection 2 |
|
Collection 3 |
|
Forms |
|
Ranking slips |
|
Scoring slips |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Publications are presented as PDF files: |
|
Horne, P and W Stür. (DRAFT) Developing Agricultural Solutions with Smallholder
Farmers – Participatory approaches for getting it right the first time.
Please do not cite this document |
|
Braun, AR and H Hocdé. 2000. Farmer
Participatory Research in Latin America: Four Cases. pp. 32-53
IN: W.W.Stur, P.M. Horne, J.B.Hacker and P.C. Kerridge (Eds.) Working
with Farmers: The Key to Adoption of Forage Technologies. ACIAR Publicaton
PR095. 325 pp. You must be
connected to the internet to access this file |
|
Guijt, I.,J.A. Berdegué and M. Loevinsohn, F.
Hall (Eds.)
F. Hall. 2001. Deepening the Basis of Rural Resource
Management. Proceedings. A collaboration of ISNAR, RIMISP, IIED,
ISG, CIRAD-TERA, INTA, ECOFORÇA with the aid of grants from the European
Commission. You must be connected to the internet to access these files |
|
Photo gallery Photos from farmer-scientist
meetings in Khon Kaen, Thailand. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Powerpoint presentations, Word and PDF
document files on this CD may be accessed directly from the presentations
and documents folders respectively. You may open the files that you wish to
access directly from any of these applications, or via My Computer or
Windows Explorer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The learning materials for this training
workshop were drawn from many sources. We would particularly like to
acknowledge the following colleagues and organisations: |
|
|
|
Ronnie Vernooy · Werner Stür · Sieglinde Snapp Tim Purcell · Cynthia McDougall
Elske van de Fliert · Sam Fujisaka
Peter Kerridge · Rob Cramb · Simon Cook
Peter Carberrry · Jacqui Ashby
CIAT-FSP/FLSP · CIAT-IPRA · CIP-ESEAP |
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Horne |
|
CIAT Livestock and Forage Agronomist
and Leader of the FLSP Project in Laos |
|
|
|
|
|
John S. Caldwell |
|
JIRCAS Farming Systems Specialist, Rainfed
Agriculture team member, and West Africa Climate Risk Reduction team leader |
|
|
|
|
The International Center for Tropical
Agriculture (CIAT) is a not-for-profit organisation that conducts socially
and environmentally progressive research aimed at reducing hunger and
poverty and preserving natural resources in developing countries. |
|
|
|
|
The Japan International Research Center for
Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS) promotes research aimed at achieving a
stable global food supply and ensuring sustainable agriculture, forestry
and fisheries in harmony with the environment. It carries out
interdisciplinary research on biological and social aspects of agriculture,
forestry and fisheries, and undertakes collaborative projects with
institutions of developing countries as well as international
organisations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CD Design |
|
Ann Braun |
|
Paideia Resources |
|
P.O. Box 462, Nelson, New Zealand |
|
email: a.braun@tasman.net |
|
tel:
+64-3-5442597 |
|
Fax: +64-3-5442503 |
|
Notes