A
learning-process approach in extension delivery
The
challenge: developing the capabilities needed to facilitate PEA processes
Experiences,
outcomes and lessons learnt
This paper analyses practical experiences in developing
competencies to facilitate processes of participatory community development and
extension within government extension services in Zimbabwe. It describes the
demanding profile of extension agents who engage in process facilitation, which
is a radical move away from technically based extension towards broader
development of rural communities’ capacities to solve problems and to innovate.
Learning at cognitive, behavioural, attitudinal and emotional levels was
enhanced to facilitate this change in individual competency. At the same time,
capabilities at different levels in the extension services were strengthened
through organisational development processes. The lessons learnt can be applied
to many situations beyond the case of Zimbabwe.
Public agricultural extension organisations in many
countries realised the need for participatory approaches to service delivery
after their potentials had been demonstrated by non-governmental organisations
(NGOs). Acceptance and promotion of these approaches and processes in
hierarchical government bureaucracies and their operationalisation through
often low-paid and low-qualified extension agents have proven to be rather
difficult. They require a transformation of these organisations from top-down
teaching and a narrow production orientation to people-centred and
learning-oriented extension approaches (Thompson 1995). Such a shift in the way
of operating requires, in turn, substantial changes in the culture and
structure of the service organisations. At all levels, and especially at field
level, there is a need for a deliberate change in attitudes and behaviour of
extension agents and a growth in capabilities to facilitate social processes.
Such a re-orientation and transformation of technically oriented extension
agents necessitates a broader framework of human resources development
involving training in participatory processes.
This paper describes learning experiences in developing
competencies in participatory extension within the Zimbabwean Department of
Agricultural, Technical and Extension Services (AGRITEX) in the Ministry of
Lands and Agriculture. With support from GTZ (German Agency for Technical
Cooperation), AGRITEX has piloted and experimented with developing the
competencies of field-level extension agents in participatory extension
approaches (PEA) since 1995 in Masvingo Province. This was an integral part of
wider change management through an organisational development (OD) programme
geared towards improving performance in service delivery. The paper focuses on
an action-learning experience in developing a learning programme, its
large-scale implementation and the lessons learnt.
Role of extension
agents: process facilitators
Based on pilot activities in research and extension by
different actors between 1990 and 1995, a participatory extension approach was
developed iteratively together with farmers, researchers and extension agents
in Masvingo Province. In 1995–96, with the growing interest to integrate
alternative approaches to service delivery into the government extension
system, these experiences were synthesised into a common framework, named
“participatory extension approaches” (PEA)[2]
(see Fig. 1), which was increasingly accepted by the
organisation as a mainstream approach to extension.
PEA, as developed and understood in Zimbabwe, is an
extension approach that involves a transformation in the way extension agents
interact with farmers. Community-based extension, full community ownership of
the process and joint learning are central to PEA. Some key characteristics of
PEA are:
·
focus on
strengthening rural people‘s problem-solving, planning and individual as well
as collective management abilities; this involves development of local
organisational capacities and leadership
·
integration
of social mobilisation of communities for planning and action with rural
development, agricultural extension and research, with innovation being
regarded as a social process
·
equal partnership
between farmers, researchers and extension agents, who can all learn from each
other and contribute their knowledge and skills
·
promotion
of farmers’ capacity to adapt and develop appropriate technologies /
innovations by encouraging them to learn through experimentation, building on
their own knowledge and practices and blending these with new ideas in an
action-learning mode (usually these are agricultural technologies and
practices, but they can also be innovations in social organisation, health,
water and sanitation, and other rural development domains)
·
recognition
that communities are not homogenous but consist of various social groups with
conflicts and differences in interests, power and capabilities. The goal is to
achieve equitable and sustainable development through the negotiation of
interests among these groups and by providing space for the poor and
marginalised in collective decision-making.
PEA integrates elements of Participatory Technology
Development (PTD), social development approaches, experiential learning (Kolb
1984) and Training for Transformation (Hope & Timmel 1984). The PEA
learning cycle and operational framework suggest a holistic and flexible
strategy with process steps, into each of which a variety of extension methodologies
and tools (including PRA tools) are integrated flexibly. For example,
farmer-to-farmer extension or Farmer Field Schools can be part of the PEA
framework. In isolation, these methodologies might address only a few farmers
and even be used in a top-down manner. Within the community-based PEA
framework, however, these methodologies can be more inclusive and effective
because whole social entities are addressed.
PEA is far more than a participatory methodology and
distinctly different from PRA, which is essentially a toolbox. PEA is a
comprehensive, iterative learning-process approach to rural innovation and
problem-solving that enhances governance and civil society in rural areas in
which both farmers and extension agents accumulate knowledge and skills.
Inclusiveness and community ownership of the development process are core
values of PEA.
The role of the extension agent is to facilitate this
process geared towards human development at local level. This involves the
facilitation of:
Ø
a process of community development and
innovation:
Ø
social
mobilisation and local organisational development to enhance community
management capacities and their articulation of demand for services
Ø
community
needs identification and action planning processes
Ø
a process
of community self-evaluation to review critically the successes and failures so
that learning can become effective
Ø
a process of collective and individual
farmer learning about innovation (technical and social) to enhance the
community’s capacity to innovate
Ø
engaging
the different actors in learning and experimenting together in order to improve
their understanding and management capacities
Ø
developing
appropriate technologies and enhancing the farmer-to-farmer spread of solutions
to farmers’ problems
Ø
strengthening
capacities of negotiation on land use and by-laws for natural resource
management. This involves social innovations that need to be negotiated often in
conflict situations
Ø
rural knowledge management:
Ø
identifying
knowledge about given technologies as sources of innovation
Ø
linking
various actors who have and seek knowledge to bring together their knowledge
and experience
Ø
documenting
the knowledge to record learning and make it available for a wider audience
Ø
preparing
materials to disseminate knowledge effectively (based on the generation of
knowledge).
The new role of managing and facilitating learning
processes implies special skills and competencies that are far from the present
technical focus of extension agents and thus need to be developed.
How to get there? The foundation of PEA
capability development
Curriculum development through action
research with a pilot group
Going to scale: training of all staff in
PEA
Practical experiences during implementation of
participatory processes in pilot activities from 1991 to 1995 provided deep
insight into the critical capabilities that extension agents require to
facilitate such complex and dynamic learning processes in communities. In many
instances, participatory approaches are largely associated with PRA tools and
components that are included in conventional projects through tools training.
This reductionist approach to training leads to mechanical application of tools
without grasping the whole dimension of paradigmatic change towards learning at
all levels (Röling & de Jong 1998). Failure is thus pre-programmed, as this
approach is in no way sufficient to manage and facilitate action-learning
processes owned by communities. Experience with PEA went beyond that stage, and
we came to identify the core capabilities needed by extension agents (see Box
1).
|
Box 1: Core capabilities
needed by extension agents for PEA
|
The challenge:
developing the capabilities needed to facilitate PEA processes
It is obvious that these capabilities are highly demanding
and require a cadre of field agents who are professional and well experienced.
They need to be able to manage dynamic complexity, which is almost the opposite
of the linear, mechanistic and rigid teaching schedule of the old type of
extension agent. Therefore, competence development needs to stimulate and
enhance the cognitive, behavioural/attitudinal and emotional levels
simultaneously in order to build the capacity of individual personalities to
act in a different way:
Ø
At cognitive level, the major thrust is to open up from
rigid and structural thinking to lateral thinking in terms of processes and
systems perspectives. This shift can be facilitated by critical self-analysis
and challenging of own mind-sets and mental frames, and by exposure to various
divergent alternative concepts and paradigms. Creativity and mental flexibility
need to be enhanced through experimentation with new ideas and action learning
in social interaction. Without a focus on creativity, people fall back into
their old patterns of problem-solving, thereby creating the typical “more of
the same” situation, although the problems have new dimensions. The development
of and the orientation towards a vision, development of guiding principles for
interventions, conceptual and operational frameworks (e.g. matrix consisting
of: process steps, objectives of these steps, key issues to deal with, possible
methodologies and potential partners) can inspire and help people overcome
their initial “fear of the unknown” by providing the cognitive understanding,
security and confidence to engage in new ways of working.
Ø
At behavioural / attitudinal level, prevailing values and social norms and
expected behaviour need to be critically reviewed. For example, formal
education is often valued much more than experiential, non-formal knowledge.
This places farmers with their local knowledge and also the extension agents’
“common sense” in a diminutive position. Overvaluing the external exotic inputs
over the local intrinsic knowledge of communities often undermines the esteem
and confidence that drives development. This denial of one’s own roots and
knowledge creates enormous insecurity and inhibits an open dialogue. To
facilitate change, the social norms, values, attitudes and behaviour need to be
made visible to the extension agents so that they can discover them in their self-analysis.
In this analysis, people need to be confronted with the consequences of the status
quo so that alternatives can be taken into consideration and decided upon.
Ø
At emotional level, confidence, self-esteem, “groundedness”
and cultural identity are factors which are needed when managing complex social
processes in communities, which by their fluid nature entail continuous
uncertainty about what to do next. A sound degree of common sense, empathy,
self-awareness and self-regulation, in other words, “emotional intelligence”
(Goleman 1998) and personality, helps to “read the process” and thus to reduce
the uncertainty and to create a reference base for decision-making by the
facilitator. Enhancing emotional intelligence and intrinsic motivation is
probably the most difficult aspect of developing competencies in process
facilitation, as only gradual engagement in a process and experiments with it
can achieve this. While phases of insecurity are a necessity to break old
patterns in any change process, it is important to start a learning situation
with small steps in which success is likely. This procedure allows confidence
levels to increase relatively quickly and the other factors can develop
gradually at the same time – with all the ups and downs typical of processes in
which an emotional involvement and often a motivational drive are inherent.
The three levels are integrally linked and strongly
influence each other in the transformation process. So, it is not a matter of
addressing them separately, but of being aware of when and how to deal with
different aspects in an iterative approach. One-off events can trigger some
awareness, but rarely lead to action and sustainable change. Experiential
learning through iterative action and self-reflection based on practice in the
field as well as theory has high probability of leading towards ownership and
internalisation of learning focused on personal / attitudinal development. Our
experience has shown that this approach of learning by doing through intervals
of training and practice periods, backed by peer-learning groups and coaching
support, has great potential to develop these skills gradually.
Conducive organisational
climate: Development of capabilities
within individuals went along within the wider context of
institutional/organisational development. This is probably one of the unique
features of PEA in Masvingo in contrast to many other experiences with
participatory approaches. Often, these were developed and implemented without
being aware of the need to adapt certain variables within the organisation,
e.g. management styles, incentives, procedures, clarifying individual roles.
Details of this process are partly described by Hagmann et al (1998). Without
such processes of organisational change, PEA could risk being a once-off
ephemeral project experience.
The challenge: developing the
capabilities needed to facilitate PEA processes
The principles
and conditions discussed above were put into practice in a pilot training /
learning programme over about 18 months to develop an experience-based strategy
and learning curriculum for PEA capability development with a group of 23 field
extension agents (see Box 2). Based on these insights, a set of materials was
developed and published to support the large-scale training process. It
consists of a guide booklet to the PEA approach, a trainer’s guide and a video
(see references).
|
Box
2: An iterative learning programme in PEA
Phase 1 constitutes
the initial training in PEA over a period of two weeks. It is based in the training
centre and exposes the trainees to the guiding principles, core concepts and
methods of PEA. Facilitators use the PEA video and written material as well
as interactive small-group exercises, role plays and case studies to expose
the trainees to different aspects of the approach. Sharing of practical
experiences of the trainees as well as allocation of time for fieldwork to
practise selected participatory methodologies and tools are integral
components of the course. At the end of Phase 1, trainees develop action
plans which they will try to implement with communities / groups in their
working environment. Phase 2 is
a six-month period during which the trainees try out several tools and
techniques of PEA in the field, based on their action plans. The extension
agents are encouraged to collaborate with one another in the field. This has
proved helpful in enhancing individual confidence. Coaching by trainers is
available. Phase 3 is
a one-week feedback workshop, during which trainees reflect on their individual
and collective experiences, highlight the actual problems they faced, e.g. in
handling intra-group conflicts, in applying specific methods and tools.
Trainees collectively seek ways of overcoming such problems, and their
capabilities are enhanced through training in other tools. Facilitators do
not just impart purely technical skills; they continuously monitor and
analyse trainees’ attitudes, behaviour and perceptions towards local people.
Phase 3 recaps conceptual issues, the principles of transformation as well as
aspects of farmer experimentation and innovation development. It is not as
highly structured as the initial training in Phase 1, as it responds to the
trainees’ further training needs. In order to provide orientation and further
exposure, a field trip is made during the workshop to an area where PEA has
been implemented successfully. At the end of this workshop, trainees develop
a second action plan for implementation in their working environment. Phase 4 is
another six-month period of field implementation of the second set of action
plans, in the same mode as in Phase 2. Phase 5 is similar to Phase 3,
whereby trainees again share their field experiences and are trained further
in PEA concepts and tools. While this phase constitutes the final formal PEA
training workshop, learning is a continuous process. |
The fact that we started with training of field-level
staff before higher-level staff created an interesting dynamic, as this meant
that the field staff knew more about PEA implementation than did their
superiors. In general, the effect of this “discomfort model” of training was
positive: many superiors were very keen to be trained themselves, as soon as
they realised that they knew less than their subordinates. The usual hierarchy
of training in cascades, with all its limitations, was interrupted and probably
would never have been effective for such a demanding transformation of field
agents. In some cases, however, we waited too long and the distance grew too
big, resulting in resistance of the superiors because they felt threatened of
losing face.
It must be noted here that PEA training is very demanding,
especially in the early stages when trainer competencies, organisational skills
and adequate resource allocation are crucial.
The challenge:
developing the capabilities needed to facilitate PEA processes
With a staff complement of about 300 field extension
agents, it became obvious that, relying on one or two external facilitators, it
would take a very long time to train all staff in PEA. Training of trainers
within AGRITEX–Masvingo was therefore chosen as a strategy to achieve fast and
wide coverage. A total of 20 trainers were trained, and each of the seven
districts of Masvingo Province now has a team of “in-house” PEA trainers. Most
were recruited from the pilot group of 23 field extension agents, and their
training skills were further developed through training and coaching by
external facilitators/specialists. This strategy put the practitioners in the
forefront of training, with the training specialist having a coordinating role
rather than that of “expert”, according to the learning programme mentioned
above.[3]
This large-scale programme of developing competencies in
PEA has been a substantial investment in terms of resources and time. All
AGRITEX staff in Masvingo had gone through the five major phases of learning by
the end of 2000. The other provinces in Zimbabwe have started on the programme.
The challenge: developing the capabilities
needed to facilitate PEA processes
Outcome of PEA capability development at farmer level
Outcome in terms of transformation and capability
development
Lessons in terms of design and management of the learning
process
Lessons in terms of organisational capabilities for service
delivery
The outcomes of the pilot group and large-scale programme in developing
competencies in PEA in Masvingo was analysed at farmer and field-agent levels
to derive lessons with regard to learning and to organisational capabilities in
general.
Farmers’ response to implementation of PEA by the
extension agents during their learning process was encouraging. Farmers have
taken on ownership and responsibility and, in some cases, even paid the
expenses for their own exposure trips and field days. This indicates that the
process of self-organisation and development of a demand-oriented extension is
well underway. In a self-evaluation, extension agents in the pilot group set
themselves performance criteria that showed their high degree of competence in
PEA. In the practical interaction with farmers at the beginning of PEA
facilitation, the extension agents faced severe challenges in the areas of
leadership, cooperation and power relations in communities, as well as in the
shallow and skewed results from initial identification and analysis of local
problems and needs of different groups in the communities. The “problems and
needs” turned out to be symptoms and were strategically positioned towards
potential donor contributions. Certain groups tried to influence the needs
analysis in their favour. These difficulties relate to the core of PEA aims and
have always existed but were not dealt with. Now, they were recognised as
stumbling blocks and actively addressed.
Experiences, outcomes and lessons learnt
With respect to the impact on the extension agents’
capabilities to implement PEA, the results of the transformation process were
highly dependent on personality and were not uniform across staff. Some
capabilities (e.g. facilitation of local organisational development, conflict
resolution) proved to be rather difficult to master. The analytical skills, the
critical self-analysis, and the culture of inquiry and questioning needed for
facilitation of PEA have proven to be key, but have developed slowly and not
homogenously. Over time, this became stronger, but a shift from a
non-questioning hierarchical culture to a liberal, self-responsible culture
probably takes more than 18 months in many cases. The same applies to lateral
thinking and flexibility. However, it was encouraging to see the wealth of
ideas created among the trainees to solve the major problems. The attitudes of
waiting to be told what to do or of not being able to solve the problems
themselves have changed into a pro-active development of solutions and mutual
help to overcome the problems. This indicates that the self-responsibility and
problem-solving capacity of the extension agents was strengthened during the
competence development process.
Key issues emerged with regard to the incentives for
change, as there are no formal incentives for good PEA practitioners (e.g.
better remuneration, promotion) within the extension organisation.
Nevertheless, there is great enthusiasm and commitment. In an evaluation, the
pilot group defined the motivating factors to practise PEA as being centred on
value-based and emotional issues rather than material incentives (see Box 3).
|
Box 3: Becoming active members of
farmer-development teams
|
The second major motivating factor was linked to an
increased recognition of the extension agents’ work because their work output
had increased. They emphasised that, until recently, hardly anybody cared about
their work, neither the “recipients” nor the superiors. Now that there are
visible things happening, everybody becomes interested and suddenly their work
is being recognised. This revealed that their work ethic is higher than
anticipated (“we all want to do a good
job”). However, they need to have opportunities to show that they are able
to perform and they need recognition from inside and outside the organisation.
This is an incentive which does not cost anything, but which requires changes
in the attitudes and the culture of the whole extension organisation.
Experiences, outcomes and lessons learnt
The major success factor in capability development was the
iterative nature of the learning and coaching process over 18 months, which
made it possible to work within the reality and problems faced by the extension
agents. The systematic follow-through of the sequence showed a shift in the
problems of extension agents with their increasing engagement in the process
over time. While the five phases in capability development end after 18 months,
it appears crucial to maintain back-up mechanisms for continuous, long-term
learning to improve service provision (e.g. peer-learning groups at District
level).
The importance of actively linking theory and practice to
build the capability of flexible process facilitation and management was
confirmed. However, not everyone is a conceptual thinker, or a flexible process
manager. The appropriate mixture of structure and process in training /
learning is one of the biggest challenges for the trainers. Provision of
structural elements (e.g. stepwise procedures, tools) helps to create pathways
for action but, at the same time, these structures should not become
blueprints. Therefore, the mixture needs to be carefully monitored and flexibly
alternated in the process. The piloting of capability development as a
“learning laboratory” for testing, modifying and refining PEA through trial and
error was crucial in the development of a high-quality learning programme.
Experiences, outcomes and lessons learnt
PEA competence development was positioned within the
framework of improving extension service delivery as a whole. The experience
gained has also implications for the whole organisation:
·
The
experiences from piloting PEA through extension staff convinced higher levels
in the organisation of the need to scale up. The acceptance of the approach was
particularly strong because it was “grounded” in concrete field experience of
their own staff and the know-how was within the organisation. Therefore,
scaling-up became demand-driven, as the organisation acknowledged the
appropriateness of PEA and the need for all staff to share the same philosophy.
·
Training
of trainers as in-house facilitators has been important in terms of know-how
management and internalisation within the organisation. It also positively
affected the organisational learning in the sense that competent practitioners
became trainers, instead of academics.
·
The
comprehensive inclusive approach and competence development made PEA attractive
outside of the organisation. Increasingly, other line ministries, NGOs and
consulting firms are interested to be trained and to adopt this approach. This
offers a good chance to coordinate and harmonise service provision in the rural
areas and thus to eliminate the often contradictory approaches (e.g. with
regard to self-reliance and free handouts). This is an unintended but important
impact.
·
Flexible
development of an approach, as demonstrated in this case, needs flexible
funding arrangements that allow time for experimentation and innovation before
expecting any tangible results.
·
PEA
competence development could be successful only because the organisational
factors were dealt with through the OD programme. If problems with hierarchical
organisational culture, bureaucratic procedures and management styles would not
be dealt with, any field-level motivation would be reduced in the long run.
Therefore, the whole change process, involving OD and PEA as “delivery
software”, are integrally needed to improve service delivery by this
public-service organisation.
Experiences, outcomes and lessons learnt
The major
challenge in the future is to institutionalise a continuous process of learning
and optimising service-delivery approaches in the whole extension organisation
and particularly in the Districts. This will be difficult if the managers in
the organisation do not share the vision of participatory and open management
styles and philosophy. Continuity is often another problem: when managers are
re-deployed, new managers who are not familiar with the process are not able to
support it; PEA trainers are now attractive on the free market and gain better-paid
jobs outside government organisations.
The next major
leap will be scaling up to other provinces in Zimbabwe. This will be a massive
venture as, in total, there are more than 2000 field extension agents to be
engaged in PEA competence development.
After all staff
has been trained in PEA, there is a need to re-focus the technical content of
extension. New areas such as marketing and processing, in which extension has
not had much stake thus far, need to be developed as technical thrusts for
better service delivery. Besides technical thrusts, other issues such as
farmer-paid services and pluralism in service provision need to be taken
strongly into account for further development of service delivery.
The key issue
to make service provision responsive to clients in a sustainable way is the
development of appropriate mechanisms for quality control and impact assessment
by the clients. Such mechanisms have to be progressively developed by all
interested groups.
PEA competence
development was so far carried out as a fundamental re-orientation of existing
extension agents. In future, one needs to look much more to the training
institutions where new personnel are educated. The curricula of agricultural
colleges in Zimbabwe are still reductionist and disciplinary, based on
traditional syllabi focused on production and commodities. The primacy of
extension needs to be re-established in such centres of learning – otherwise,
we may live for too long with obsolete paradigms that do not include critical
contemporary learning.
We would like to thank Mr Mike Connolly for his
constructive comments and editing of this paper. The comments on the manuscript
of Mr Kudzi Marovanidze are greatly acknowledged.
Effective competence development of extension staff
towards PTD is shown to be possible through a longer term process of training
and learning and subsequent adaptation/optimization of extension approaches.
Has this process been insitutionalised throughout the extension service so that
it continues even if supportive managers are replaced and key trainers leave
the organisation? What are experiences elsewhere to achieve this?
Goleman D. 1998. What makes a good leader? Harvard
Business Review, Nov/Dec 1998, pp. 92–105
Hagmann J, Chuma E, Connolly M & Murwira K. 1998. Client-driven
change and institutional reform in agricultural extension: an action learning
experience from Zimbabwe. AgREN Paper 78. London: ODI.
Hagmann J, Chuma E & Murwira K. 1997. Kuturaya:
participatory research, innovation and extension. In: van Veldhuizen L, Waters-Bayer
A, Ramirez R, Johnson D & Thompson J (eds), Farmers' research in
practice: lessons from the field (London: Intermediate Technology
Publications), pp 153–173.
Hagmann J, Chuma E, Murwira K & Connolly M. 1999. Putting
process into practice: operationalising participatory extension. AgREN
Paper 94. London: ODI.
Hagmann J, Murwira K & Chuma E. 1996. Learning
together: development and extension of soil & water conservation in
Zimbabwe. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 35 (2):
142–162.
Hope S & Timmel A. 1984. Training for
transformation: a handbook for community workers. Gweru: Mambo Press.
Kolb DA. 1984. Experiential learning: experience as the
source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Moyo ES. 1996. Re-thinking community-level planning and development (CLP&D): conceptual considerations for the future. Discussion paper, IRDEP, Masvingo, Zimbabwe.