Methodology:
Development and implementation of the outcome monitoring
Use of outcome monitoring
focusing on participatory research processes
The African
Highlands Initiative (AHI) is an ecoregional programme that focuses on natural resource
management (NRM) research in the densely populated highlands of Eastern Africa.
Since its inception, AHI has made substantial efforts in promoting integrated
participatory research as a more effective approach to the development and
dissemination of NRM technologies by 1) integrating solutions to NRM issues by
adopting participatory and systems approaches; 2) strengthening partnerships
enhancing collaboration and building capacity of a wide range of institutions;
3) improving research through integration of biophysical and social sciences
research; and 4) linking local policy formulation and technology development.
Sustainable use
and management of NRM is essentially about people relating to each other and
their environment in a positive way. Therefore, outcome monitoring can be used
to characterise and assess in detail changes in behaviour of researchers and
farmers as they engage in community-based participatory research activities. At
the inception of the programme in 1995, a framework for performance monitoring
and evaluation was lacking, but it was later introduced in 1999. The innovation
in outcome monitoring is that it makes a shift from assessing only the
technical outputs of research programmes towards focusing on the changes in the
behaviour, relationships and actions of the people and organisations noting
“how” these came about (or not). These contribute and lead to desirable
outcomes.
The methodology
used in the research reported here followed a “participatory learning action
research” approach and involved teams of scientists in National Agricultural
Research Institutes (NARIs) working at eight benchmark sites in five countries
of Eastern Africa. They systematically monitored the outcomes of participatory
research, and its challenges, their experiences, lessons and behavioural
changes that have taken place as they try to apply participatory research
approaches. The outcome-monitoring methodology is used as a means to bring
about the desired changes and is part of the continuous research activities.
Preliminary
results show that the desired changes in the approaches used by research teams
to cope with NRM technology development have been realised in part. Researchers
are focusing on documentation of adoption trends and economic profitability of
technologies but are less engaged in documentation of the participatory
research process, changes in behaviour, and interactions that result
from using the process. Strongly rooted commodity approaches to research and
technology development and dissemination, and scepticism about participatory
research, remain some of the challenges; if not among the researchers
themselves, then in the institutional culture in which they are based.
Additionally, skills and competencies in conducting participatory research and
monitoring of the outcomes are new and developing. Increasingly, partnerships
and other institutional working arrangements among collaborating research and
development (R&D) organisations are influencing the research teams who are
starting to modify their approaches to include community-based research.
Rationale
for outcome monitoring
Analytical
framework of outcome monitoring
The highlands
of Eastern Africa are characterised by medium to high agricultural potential
(producing about 50% of staple foods), but diminishing resource bases. They
constitute about 23% of the total landmass in the region, yet house over 50% of
the population given their suitability to human habitation. Population
densities are already relatively very high (100–200 people per km2),
have risen over the last fifty years within this ecoregion, resulting to
critically small, often fragmented farms reaching 0.25 to 1.0 ha for an average
family of six (AHI 1998). There is a diminishing natural research base due to
declining ability to: maintain and improve soil fertility and erosion control;
intensify livestock feed and nutrient management systems; decrease in social
cohesion and positive arrangements to manage due to policies and increased
competition for scarce resources, distance from markets, lack of inputs and
credit, continued low local wage rates, and land inheritance practices.
Indicators of decline are: lower yields, more pests and diseases of poor
intensification, lowering income, fewer options for diversification, and
lowering general ability to cope (AHI 2001).
Concerns that
technologies emanating from agricultural research in the highland areas had not
yielded results commensurate with investments to improve and sustain
productivity and natural resource base led to the formation of AHI in 1995.
Studies had shown that limited adoption and impact was due to 5 major factors:
To address the
above problems African Highlands Initiative (AHI) was established as an
ecoregional programme focusing on the issues of natural resource management
(NRM) in the highlands of East and Central Africa. AHI operates in eight
selected benchmark sites in five counties (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Ethiopia
and Madagascar). The programme is under the umbrella of the Association for
Strengthening Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa (ASARECA) and is
convened by the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF). It
also forms the East African component of the Global Mountain Programme (GMP), a
global CGIAR programme uniting mountain research. AHI’s guiding philosophy is a
client-driven approach using participatory methods and an effective research
development continuum where research partners, using collaborative, synergic
partnership can bring together diverse contributions to foster farmers’
innovations and collective action for design and dissemination of appropriate,
integrated technologies and methods for improving NRM in the diverse and complex
situation (AHI 1999). AHI’s philosophy and strategy have evolved rapidly
reflecting the dynamic and rapidly changing field of NRM. The current
programme’s outputs are shown in Box 1.
|
Box 1:
AHI’s purpose and five core outputs |
|
Purpose: Small-scale farmers and R&D
agencies have increased capacity to develop, adapt and use innovative
approaches to develop and disseminate technical, social, economic and policy
solutions to sustain and improve agricultural production. |
|
Output 1: Approaches, methodologies and
integrated technologies for participatory NRM research and development
increase the resource users’ capacity to innovate and manage their resources
and agricultural productivity issues in a sustainable way. |
|
Output 2: Selected cross-site research
conducted and syntheses are produced that improve decision making and
priority setting for diverse stakeholders. |
|
Output 3: Strategies for dissemination and
scaling up of NRM technologies and approaches are developed and tested. |
|
Output 4: Selected NARIs, IARCs and other key
partners’ capacity to carry out integrated, participatory NRM research and
development is enhanced across the ecoregion |
|
Output 5: Coordination, management and
synergies are strengthened through strategic partnerships building upon the
collaborative advantages |
Increasingly,
the field of NRM is giving considerable attention not only to the technology
developed but also and more importantly to the process of developing and
disseminating technologies. Consequently, the new focus requires that research
partners not only look at the technologies being delivered as an end in
themselves (THE WHAT), but also seek to understand the processes, strategies
and the means of developing and delivering the technologies (THE HOW) and the
outcomes and impacts of both technologies and approaches (FOR WHOM). In
recognition of these changing paradigms, AHI initiated a monitoring and
evaluation (M&E) system focusing on tracking and documenting processes and
outcomes of participatory research in NRM. The shifting paradigms in M&E
are cognisant of the fact that participatory research and development processes
have to be documented through intensive community-based research, periodic
reviews and reflection and open ended analysis of the research context (Mosse
et al 1998). Understanding the means through which research outcomes are
achieved calls for description and documentation of action and events arising
from planned activities. Looking at the desired outcomes implies that the
stakeholders’ attention goes beyond just monitoring the availability of input
and outputs created as though they are linear in relation, but includes the
process of tracking projects beyond the outputs generated per se.
The need for an
M&E system was brought to the forefront as a result of an internal
evaluation and regional workshop at the end of phase I of AHI. The lack of a
process to monitor and assess progress, changes and outcomes was one of the
weaknesses identified. This meant that research teams were not systematically
collecting and analysing information that provided feedback as to whether or
not they were achieving what they set out to do. Researchers tended to collect
typical technology performance information with less engagement in
documentation of the processes used.
Concerns with
outcome monitoring arose from a number of pragmatic and strategic reasons.
Recent shifts in AHI strategy have given more emphasis to processes and
methodologies development rather than the conventional focus on technology
generation, going back to the major deficits identified in research processes –
leading to poor adoption. Increasingly, participatory research is less and less
concerned about generating deliverable technologies (high-yielding varieties,
soil fertility recommendations, integrated pest management options) but is
becoming more concerned with behavioural and institutional changes necessary
for self-application and/or adaptation of information, materials, etc. to
improve their system which needs to be sustained over time. The focus on
outcome monitoring is justified by the fact that participatory research is
essentially a learning process. Outcome monitoring is therefore an alternative
M&E process that provides stakeholders with timely information about their
progress and achievements for systematic and collective learning, reflection
and corrective action. AHI then specifically sought and received financial
support (in 1998) from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) to
use participatory research to develop a framework, processes and methods to
enhance M&E of research outcomes in NRM activities.
This paper
analyses and shares some of the preliminary experiences learned for programme
improvement. Resource persons from the International Center for Tropical
Agriculture (CIAT), ICRAF, IDRC Nairobi and researchers from the NARIs at the
eight benchmark sites are facilitating the implementation of the ongoing
M&E work in many ways. These range from literature search, awareness
raising at the various levels of the programme, tools development for initial
testing and further refinement, critical assessment of focus and content of the
M&E aspects, training and facilitation in workshops, and editing of site
reports and workshop proceedings.
Kibel (1999) defines
outcomes as changes in behaviour and interactions of those being affected by
development projects or programmes. Thus, for effectiveness, R&D programmes
must go further than information and technology creation and dissemination
(Kibel 1999, IDRC 1997, Earl et al 1999). Monitoring means systematic
collection, synthesis, storage and use of information about progress and
performance. Therefore, outcome monitoring is a continuous activity that
entails regular gathering and analysis of information. In the process of
collecting and documenting information, outcome monitoring helps researchers in
checking whether inputs, activities and outputs are proceeding according to
plan so that intended outcomes are realised. Therefore, the focus for AHI is on
the behaviours, relationships and actions of the people and organisations with
whom AHI is working with over the last five years.
Research
outcomes are monitored and evaluated in order to assess the extent to which
development actors in projects or programmes have contributed to transforming
and influencing desired changes in behaviour, knowledge, beliefs and relations
among the targeted communities. For example, human behaviour is important in
determining whether newly introduced interventions are being adopted, adapted
and modified to improve livelihoods when undertaking participatory research
activities. Information generated from outcome monitoring enables R&D
actors to make informed decisions and choices for strategic investment and
commitment of resources.
Broadly
speaking, outcome dimensions in development work introduce M&E
considerations to unite intervention processes and desired state. More
specifically, the outcome-monitoring methodology is useful at the planning
stage of research process so that projects set their overall intentions,
strategies and mechanisms for monitoring their contribution to achieving
outcomes and priority changes. By so doing, the stakeholders involved in
development work systematically think about how they intend to achieve results.
Hellawell (1991) describes monitoring as a process of providing information not
results and is a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Thus AHI is
investing in process-oriented research to enable attainment of the regional
purpose. Additionally, monitoring is periodic rather than one-off reassessment
of indicators that are chosen to determine effects of certain interventions, or
policies or changes in general (Abbot & Guijt 1998).
The
implementers of AHI (1999) recommended the introduction of outcome monitoring
as way to track progress. Three strategies were identified as key towards
achieving the desired outcomes (AHI’s purpose) and that were departures for
most researchers and their organisations: interdisciplinary research
(integrated team work), use of a participatory research approach, and stronger
linkages and partnerships with development and policy actors. These are
referred to as the “learning areas” because the programme and the researchers
are interested in assessing experiences in application. Researchers, like most
farmers (Richards 1989, Holland & Silva 2000), do not deliberately
systematise what they learn from the “process experiments”, but if this is
done, will adapt their performance in the light of the results. Hagmann (1999)
indicates that experiential learning is critical among the stakeholders
involved in development interventions so that they adjust their strategies and
context of operation.
Information
needed to monitor achievements in the direction of the desired outcomes was
identified and called “progress markers” also referred to as performance
indicators, which are similar to milestones and enable the users of the
methodology to track progress being made in the integration of the “new”
working strategies in the short, medium and long term. The progress markers are
statements that focus on describing how the behaviour, relationships,
activities and or actions of an individual, group or institution will change
over time in the process of using the new strategies to conduct research.
A key question
is: How will the behaviour, relationships, activities and or actions of
researchers be changed by their interaction and use of “new” AHI strategies?
The progress
markers describe what one would expect to see the stakeholders doing if
they paid attention to the AHI strategies, to what it would like to see
them actually doing, to what it would love to see them doing, thus
describes a pattern of behavioural changes taking place over time to reach the
desired state. Earl et al (1999) states that, “expect to see” progress markers
indicate passive learning by the stakeholders and are easy to achieve. The
progress markers that indicate more active learning or engagement are listed
under “like to see” category, while those markers that are transformative and
more difficult to achieve are listed under “love to see” (Appendix 1).
Over the last
three years, AHI has made substantial effort to build researchers’ capacities
in the use of participatory research approaches, in multidisciplinary teamwork
and in managing multi-institutional linkages, so that researchers can improve
the ways they interact amongst themselves, with farmers and other development
partners for the betterment of the farmers. The hypothesis being that
ultimately, there will be better adoption, feedback to research and better
returns to investment for solving agricultural productivity and NRM problems.
Therefore, tracking the progress made in these areas – in particular, how they
contribute to better implementation of participatory research process – has
been a critical component of the regional programme. Participatory research
processes entail the involvement of the relevant stakeholders in all the stages
of research. Ashby et al (1989) explain that participatory research is a
process “in which the farmer acts as a subject which investigates, measures and
studies in collaboration with researchers.” For the researchers to allow space
for the farmers to become involved in the research process, it means that
researchers have to change from the conventional ways of conducting research
where they consider themselves as “experts” to one where farmer innovations and
knowledge is valued and their involvement takes priority. This echoes peoples’
involvement in development process as being important so that they transform
their lives for their own benefit.
Regional
synthesis and scaling up
AHI uses
benchmark sites that were selected geographical areas for integrated,
participatory research concentration in the respective countries. Research
activities are undertaken with teams of national scientists in collaboration
with government line ministries, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with
some input from International Agricultural Research Centres (IARCs) and
university scientists.
The development
and implementation of outcome monitoring followed a number of iterative steps.
First a regional workshop was organised with many of the implementing
stakeholders in AHI to develop a common understanding and definition of
mission, focus and purpose of AHI from the point of view of different
stakeholder. The core outputs of AHI as well as crucial questions for the
performance evaluation were developed and agreed upon by all the relevant stakeholders
Using the
regional workshop output, a small group of resource persons (from ICRAF, IDRC,
CIAT and AHI) was formed and consulted with NARI stakeholders to select the key
strategies or “learning areas” and to develop tools for monitoring these priority
learning areas: interdisciplinary teams, participatory research and
multi-institutional linkages. (Although distinctly handled, the three areas are
interrelated.) It was decided to be selective in the areas to monitor and to
start with one stakeholder group (researchers) to do the monitoring, given the
newness of the outcome-monitoring process and the recognised need to develop
and test methods first. It should be noted that the implementers (researchers)
had been exposed to these areas through training courses or workshops, and that
these were deemed key to AHI’s success. All these areas have stakeholder and
gender analysis embedded in them. An action plan was then developed and
reviewed by an AHI M&E working group (ICRAF, ILRI, CIP, IDRC, KARI) and by
AHI’s regional Technical Support Group (all site coordinators and some
representatives of the various AHI working groups).
Subsequently,
in-country and site workshops were organised where possible in conjunction with
annual planning to familiarise the site teams with the newly developed AHI
framework, to start to build a conceptual base for understanding M&E in a
new context, and to further develop strategies and steps for testing, adjusting
and institutionalising the M&E framework. All in all there were eight
workshops with 112 total attendees over a period of 18 months to date.
A first
workshop was held during the Kabale site team’s annual planning in 1999, where
monitoring participatory research comprised three impact areas: technology
outputs, participatory research process and outcomes in terms of behavioural
change (see Table
2). Based on their specific research protocols and activities, the
site teams defined their performance questions and identified performance indicators.
The framework also specified the types of data or information needed, who is
responsible and timeframes.
Then, it was
decided that the three strategies should become focal points (as means to the
end) rather than technology generation and dissemination itself. New tools were
designed to focus more on tracking desired changes in the three learning areas.
These were tested in the two test sites (Kakamega and Lushoto) and then
incorporated into site workshops held in other countries.
Thus, to start
off the monitoring process, each of the three learning areas (strategies) were
analysed by the researchers looking at the changes in the following: (i)
current status and experiences; (ii) their perception of the benefits and
shortcomings; (iii) practical examples of the effects of using the approach
(strategy) on their behaviour, interactions and research; (iv) suggestions on
how they, as research teams, can be assisted to improve on the learning areas
(approaches); and (v) future plans for using the approach (see Table 1).
Table 1: An example of the outcome-monitoring
tool
|
Learning area |
Status review |
Benefits |
Shortcomings |
Changes in behaviour |
Improvements needed |
Lessons |
|
Interdisciplinary
research |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Participatory
research |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Multi-institutional
linkages |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 2: An example of an M&E framework for
participatory research evaluation of climbing bean varieties disseminated in Kabale
(Southwestern Uganda) by December 2000
Impact categories
|
Indicators |
Information needs |
By whom |
Technical
At least 3
varieties being produced in farmers’ fields Increase
in yield per unit area Multipurpose
trees planted Recommended
practices adopted |
At
least 60%of target farmers grow one improved variety Target
farmers increase yield by 1500 kg/ha At
least 40% of target farmers grow multipurpose trees |
Seasonal
reports File
sampling and discussions |
Principal investigator Farmers NGOs in Kabale |
Process
Seed
multiplication Farmer
selection Farmer
training Tree
nursery establishment Follow-up
visits |
4 well-established seed multipliers Volunteers identified Curriculum developed 4 well-established nurseries Visits organised |
Farm
records Farmer
registry Training
booklets Field
reports, visitors book |
Researchers,
farmers Researchers,
extension, farmers Researchers Researchers Researchers,
extension |
|
Outcomes (behavioural changes) Farmers positive
on growing climbing beans Farmers
willing to pay for climbing beans Farmers
plant beans in fertile portions of their land Farmers
re-use and buy stakes for the beans Researchers
hold joint consultative meetings Researchers
and other stakeholders organise joint monitoring visits to farms Farmers
conduct experiments on own Farmers
adapt technologies proposed by scientists Increased
autonomy to engage in research options |
Enhanced
knowledge and positive attitude to growing climbing beans Rapport
among stakeholders |
KAP
(knowledge, attitude + practice) survey PRA Observation Quality
of reports Case
study |
Principal
investigator, farmers, extension Site
coordinator, researchers Researchers,
farmers, extension |
NB: The researchers in the site planning meeting developed this
framework. The above example represents one of the activities that the
researchers were conducting in the Uganda site of Kabale.
Although using
this tool was the main component of the first meetings, other sites requested
for more time to be spent on improving their understanding of participatory
monitoring and evaluation and the underlying concepts. This was built into
these workshops along with using this tool. In many of these sessions participants
share information and experiences about participatory research. Facilitators
have been used to help build conceptual understanding and arrive at more common
understanding of the concepts and to ensure a “harvesting” of ideas and inputs.
Occasionally, a knowledge assessment form has been used to assess the knowledge
levels of the participants in participatory research and outcome monitoring.
The participants are then taken through a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, Threats) session to gauge their experience and to draw lessons
for decision-making by the programme on the areas for improvement and
modifications.
The workshops
and meeting process have diverse methods employed: plenary discussions, groups
work with specific tasks, two-person buzz groups to define concepts, feedback
sessions in plenary, process group session that look at what went well, what
did not go well and suggestions for improvement in future. The workshops end by
the participants developing an action plan for follow-up and meta-evaluation of
the workshop process and content.
Examples of the
M&E tools and formats developed during the learning workshops as listed
below.
The information
gleaned from the workshops has been compiled and discussed with researchers in
order to design the next set of tools. In the second workshop in Western Kenya,
the resource people shared the output from the initial workshop and developed a
monitoring plan to follow up on the integrated multi-disciplinary teamwork
aspect to start with (see Table 3). Researchers were encouraged to try
new ideas and modify the tools to suit their information needs.
Table 3: Participants’ Action Plan from an
M&E
Name of the site ______________________________
The ultimate objective of the workshop is the
application of tools, concepts, lessons learned during the workshop period in
research activities and future plans. The action plan is a tool that that helps
the researcher consider specific applications of the tools learned in the
ongoing research activities.
1. What aspects of the workshop do you realistically
think are possible to integrate in your research activities and future plans?
|
Activities
(Indicate O if ongoing or N if new) |
What tools,
concepts & lessons learned are you going to apply? |
Reasons |
What new
information do you expect? |
How do you
intend to use the new information? |
Timeframe
(indicate when you plan to use it) |
Responsible
and collaborator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. What are the
steps needed to execute your action plans?
3. What are the potential constraints you are likely
to encounter in the implementation of your action plan?
4. What are the technical aspects of the workshop
requiring strengthening or new areas for future learning?
|
Areas
requiring strengthening |
New
learning areas |
|
1. |
|
|
2. |
|
|
3. |
|
After the first
round of capacity building meetings, follow-up sessions were organised to
assess the progress research teams were making in the implementation of the
workshop action plans. The meetings were held at the sites and also at the
regional level with a small resource team. These meetings assisted the
programme and the site team in understanding the challenges being faced, the
assistance needed and the progress that the teams were making in using the
outcome-monitoring framework.
The initial
format (Table 2) was used
again after a year’s time to assist researchers in visualising progress (or
not) actually made and served to focus analysis, reflection and action. For
example, the researchers used the information collected to identify beneficial
components of the strategies, as well as aspects that need strengthening or
adjustment so as to optimise on the benefits. Once enough experience is gained
in monitoring these areas (strategies), researchers will assess how these
approaches have affected farmers and other stakeholders working in the
benchmark locations. (This is now starting to take place in some benchmark
sites.) To better link the information from monitoring the strategic areas to
progress on the ground, the next stage is for researchers to collect
information related to farmer feedback, farmer innovations and adoption. The
toolkit includes mechanisms for processing this information as well as
describing the processes used to implement the strategic areas in more detail.
This is work in progress.
Methodology: Development and implementation of the outcome
monitoring
AHI, as a
regional programme, seeks to use the benchmark-site activities, experiences and
outcomes as learning experiences. From a regional perspective, the sites are
considered as “case studies”, and the information generated is to be synthesised
and shared across sites and with others, by means of regional fora and the work
of the regional research fellows. The synthesis stage of the outcome monitoring
has not yet been reached, given the need for some lead-time to gain experience
and allow for development.
Generally,
AHI’s scaling-up strategy is to expand the use of methods and approaches,
including the outcome-monitoring tools, through the institutions that are
direct collaborators (currently around 16), through many local organisations,
and to more distant practitioners. In addition, AHI hopes to move from the
three strategic areas and the one stakeholder group (now, researchers) started
in a pilot mode, and to expand to other areas and groups. Systematic
documentation, analysis, synthesis and sharing of methods, approaches and
processes will be key outputs of Phase 3 of AHI starting in 2002. Thus, the
preliminary experiences on outcome monitoring presented here will be expanded
upon in future.
In addition to cross-site
analysis and sharing, a practical guide is being developed and will be piloted
by selected sites in 2001 so that its usefulness and modifications will be
suggested in the regional synthesis forum planned for 2002. In terms of
regional scaling up, it is hoped that participating partners can spread the use
of this sort of monitoring tool as well as other approaches to other projects,
partners and areas; ASARECA’s 19 regional commodity networks1 and IARCs working in the ecoregion can
disseminate outcome-monitoring methods as a means to promote the three
strategic areas to other countries where AHI does not operate, but who have
expressed an interest.
To ensure
continuity and accountability in implementing the outcome monitoring, the site
teams each have “champions” or focal persons, usually the team’s economist in
charge of impact assessment, who ensure follow-up. The teams also allocate time
in the quarterly meetings to discuss the progress of integrating monitoring and
evaluation and participatory research approaches. Reporting formats have been
modified so that the site coordinators report on the three areas of learning in
addition to their other issues. These mechanisms are meant to assist the teams
in self-evaluation and installation of a “learning” culture. The site progress
reports are collated at the regional level and form basis for discussion at the
Regional Steering Committee and Technical Support Group meetings.2
Once
researchers are confident in using the outcome monitoring and conducting
self-assessment sessions, the next step would be to facilitate self-assessment
sessions with farmers, NGOs and community-based organisations (CBOs). This will
help the team gather information about how the different stakeholders are
reacting to the on-going research activities and will provide information to
farmers and groups on how they are progressing. The information collected
assists in making decisions on the directions and areas that need future work
and capacity building.
Methodology:
Development and implementation of the outcome monitoring
Current status and experiences
in participatory research
Strengths
of participatory research
Challenges
of participatory research
General
lessons learned in the application of outcome monitoring
This section
presents preliminary results of the use of outcome monitoring focusing on
participatory research processes and related outcomes. This case examines the
current status and researchers’ experiences dealing the changes that have
occurred in the behaviour of researchers and research teams at the sites. It
discusses the key lessons that were learned in assessing the outcomes from
participatory research processes in Western Kenya and Lushoto, Tanzania.
In terms of
general application of participatory research, both teams initially assessed
that they had made significant progress in incorporating all the three areas of
learning into their research approach though to different degrees. For example,
researchers were particularly strong in conducting interdisciplinary research
and were able to give many examples of how interdisciplinary research had
improved the team’s effectiveness in solving farmers’ problems. However, even
though there was not a common understanding of participatory research
approaches,
The summary of
results shows significant differences between the site teams’ perceptions in
their needs and knowledge in participatory research (Table 4).
Table 4: Comparison of researchers’ rating of
status of participatory research in selected sites
|
Researchers’
rating of status of participatory research |
Western
Kenya |
Lushoto
(Tanzania) |
Ethiopia |
|
Alright as
is |
5 |
4 |
0 |
|
Needs more |
2 |
8 |
6 |
|
Needs less |
1 |
1 |
0 |
While the site team
in Western Kenya seemed to be more confident in participatory research, site
teams in Ethiopia and Tanzania feel they need more exposure to participatory
research methods. These differences may reflect differences in adaptation of
participatory research in NARIs in the region with the system in Kenya perhaps
more exposed more to participatory research and farming systems projects.
In an attempt
to review the current status of participatory research process, researchers
used the tool developed to characterise trials into four types (contractual,
consultative, collaborative and collegial trials) referring to the degree of
farmer participation (Biggs 1989). Difficulties were noted in trying to draw
distinct lines between the types identified because researchers’ levels of
understanding of what the research types meant differed greatly. Researchers
noted that a single trial could include aspects of the four research types
thereby making it difficult to categorise the ongoing activities. Nonetheless,
collaborative trials were identified as the dominant type because researchers
indicated that they go through a series of discussions and negotiations with
farmers and fellow researchers in all the stages of research. This was a change
from predominately contractual approach in which the design of research
activities took place at the research stations with minimal consultations among
researchers themselves and farmers.3
An analysis of
the types of participatory research in AHI-Kabale revealed that typically, farmer
participation occurred in the stage of technology evaluation and dissemination.
Eight different stages were distinguished within AHI's participatory
agroecosystem management (PAM) approach: diagnostic, solutions identification,
trial planning, trial implementation, trial management, monitoring (data
collection), data analysis (evaluation) and dissemination. In general, PRA
exercises provided starting points to identify problems by developing problem
trees with farmers, which were then used as a basis for identifying and
selecting solutions and best-bet technologies that were the most likely entry
points. Once the entry-points were established, PAM planning workshops were
organised to develop participatory research action plans. Then scientists
designed adaptive research experiments, which were established on farmers'
fields, managed by farmers and evaluated to select and adapt best-bet options
to disseminate to farmers. The major thrust of AHI is to promote greater
participation of farmers in all the research process, moving from the
consultative to more collegial type of participation. However, after three
years, there are few “official” examples of farmer-led experimentation
reflected in actual practice. Researchers still lack confidence and ability as
well as institutional backup to change roles.
An example of
how the mode of research changed over time is that on improving potato
production in Kabale, Uganda. In 1995, farmers identified a disease problem in
their potatoes (later identified by researchers as bacterial wilt) as a primary
constraint to increased production of potatoes. As a result, the farmers and
markets in the neighbouring urban centre did not have clean potato seed for
planting; furthermore, the disease was spreading via infected seed (mode not
known at the time) and threatened the area’s production of this important food
and cash crop. Strategic research started (supported by CIP under AHI) to
identify the pathogen and to work out integrated cultural and varietal methods
exacerbating its spread and related to control. After three years of research,
some involving farmers, the researcher embarked on using a farmer research
group approach – to test and work with perceptions, practices and to obtain
feedback from farmers. He used the link between the farmers and the local
extension to contact villages and self-organised farmer groups. Researchers
from the national agriculture institution were brought in to jointly develop an
adaptive research programme with the farmers, which included clean seed
production. Eventually, various local organisations have taken up the
technology and currently farmers are identifying their fields where they
multiply seed. The harvest is shared among the members of the group or sold to
non-group members. Members of the farmer group perform all the operations of
the seed production activities. They only seek assistance from researchers when
they need information about markets, pest and agronomic practices or when
seeking new foundation seed. The involvement of farmers has been variable,
depending upon the stage and need for farmer involvement. Thus, the mode of
research went from consultative, to collaborative to being fully managed by
farmers.
Researchers
went on to evaluate the details of trial implementation and felt that they were
strong in some areas such as participatory trial implementation and providing
technological options for farmers to choose from (Table 5). Some researchers
felt they were strong in participatory trial implementation because they
involved the target communities in designing the research protocols. Secondly,
farmers responded by providing land and labour for conducting experiments and,
at the implementation stage, farmers played a critical role of managing the
experiments (planting, weeding, harvesting, monitoring and recording progress).
The researchers felt that these outcomes benefited both the farmers and
researchers.
Nevertheless, they
decided that, generally, research activities needed strengthening in areas such
as designing and farmer evaluation of trials, adaptation of participatory
research tools in general, and in the analysis of the outcomes beyond
technological adoption and economic profitability. Referring to Table 5,
the zeros against the components that researchers “never used” also present
other possible areas that require capacity building in participatory research
activities.
During the plenary
sessions that reflected on Table 5, much learning took place. One
researcher defined and elaborated experiences on the differences between
community resource-flow mapping and nutrient flows. A consensus was reached
that, community resource flow mapping meant the assessment of resources that
move in and out of the defined community boundary, while, nutrient flows
referred to the movement of nutrient in and out of a household, farm or plot.
The researcher whose disciplinary background was in livestock production was
resourceful in explaining what participatory mapping and analysis tools were to
the rest of the group. This was contrary to the notion that this knowledge was
a reserve for sociologists alone. The foregoing example showed to the
participants a case of a livestock scientist learning from social sciences,
having gained skills through interactions.
Table
5: Components of participatory research
and their use by researchers in Lushoto, Tanzania
|
Component |
A lot |
Sometimes |
On a few occasions |
Never |
|
Work with
farmer groups |
11 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
|
Work with
communities |
1 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
|
Involve
farmers in design of trial |
1 |
7 |
2 |
3 |
|
Involve
farmers in implementation of trials |
10 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
|
Involve farmers
in evaluation of trials |
8 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
|
Provide
options for farmers to test |
9 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
|
Promote
joint learning |
7 |
4 |
3 |
0 |
|
Participatory
tools (e.g. matrix ranking, wealth ranking) for diagnosis |
4 |
6 |
1 |
2 |
|
Community resource-flow
mapping |
3 |
2 |
5 |
2 |
Note: The responses in the boxes above indicate the number of the
researchers that answered the questions. Although a total of 16 researchers
attended this workshop, not all of them provided responses.
Researchers
would like to learn more about the following aspects of participatory research:
Use of outcome monitoring focusing on participatory research
processes
Researchers
involved in the outcome monitoring have pointed out several key lessons and
benefits of participatory research when doing their analyses. On the positive
side, participatory research:
Use of outcome monitoring focusing on participatory research
processes
The facilitator
led the researchers in discussing some of the challenges in trying to implement
participatory research posed under the current research operating system. One
of the difficulties is potential disruption in trial implementation if there is
untimely
release of funds or if researchers become engaged in other research
activities and meetings. There were several cases in point. Currently,
the participatory research process still relies heavily on researchers;
however, if farmers were more self-reliant, this “dependency” and the negative
results would not occur. Delays in funds can also damage the farmers’ confidence
in researchers.
Dealing with farmers’
expectations and dependencies created by past organisations or policies4 is a big challenge. Although
researchers explain to farmer research groups that the support they are getting
from the research institutions is neither elastic nor long-lived, many farmers
often expect larger amounts of free handouts as the relationship unfolds.
Researchers must constantly push for self-sufficiency to avoid dependency.
The team noted
that nearly all of their trials were conducted in a collaborative mode, and
that they needed to learn more about how to manage other modes, such as
collegial trials, and include them in their research programme. The regional
and site coordinators of AHI have noted that developing new roles and skills requires
more than a one-off training, but a consistent mentoring. It also requires
stronger institutional support so that farmer-led research is accepted in the
NARI research protocol reviews.
Participatory
research requires researchers to accommodate different types of participants,
including researchers from different disciplines, who may have different ideas,
methods and professional biases. For example, the biophysical scientists must
and are learning to accommodate the views of agricultural economists; likewise,
the agricultural economists are learning about other aspects (e.g. agronomy,
pest and disease management) from the biological scientists. It took time to
learn to work in a team mode, which requires more open sharing of information
and methods – previously, never shared. It was humbling to the researchers
because they receive more input and personal critique from colleagues. Trust
had to be built over time.
Participatory
research requires good communication skills and time allocated to interact with
farmers. Researchers had to become more sensitive and eliminate jargon. Since
farmers often tend to give only positive opinions of technologies being tested,
researchers must learn to probe to find out how the farmers really feel.
Communication skills are acquired over time, and some scientists never feel
comfortable in this mode.
Time and
resource management become more important when coordinating teamwork to conduct
participatory research. Many researchers found logistics the biggest
challenge, given busy schedules and felt that participatory research is
expensive, especially in time and transportation, although the exact costing
was not calculated. Perhaps, once trust and understanding is established
between researchers and farmers, farmer-led experimentation could be used more
frequently along with village-based facilitators, then activities would be less
dependent on visits from researchers.
Although
researchers know in theory that there are different target groups of farmers
(by gender, wealth etc) the participatory research approach has brought them in
actual contact with farmers having different resources, preferences and
circumstances. This has posed a challenge to them and is resulting in changed
R&D agendas. For example, Ethiopian scientists are working on soil
fertility practices for livestock and non-livestock owners.
Use of outcome monitoring focusing on participatory research
processes
The major
outcomes expected from using participatory research are related to behavioural
change, resulting benefits and finally impact. The outcome-monitoring process
has been used to assist researchers in action learning in the three strategic
areas.
Some of the
behavioural changes we are seeing as a result of using participatory research
methods, the benefits being to make research more responsive to farmers’ needs
and adjustment of the research agenda to become more relevant:
Four out of 12 researchers in Western
Kenya said they had greater appreciation of farmers’ problems and, as a result,
adjusted their research programmes to be more relevant and responsive to the
farmers’ needs, abilities and resource endowments. For example, the researchers
initially provided farmers with striga-resistant sorghum varieties, but farmers
had strong preference for varieties that ratooned as a labour-saving strategy,
particularly in female-headed or HIV-affected households. Breeders’ selection
criteria have been adjusted for this client group.
An experiment on grain legumes provided
farmers with three bean varieties resistant to bean root rot, in order to
compare these with local varieties. The researcher leading the experiment
realised while attending farmer group meetings that farmers judged bean
varieties using a number of weighted criteria in addition to resistance, such
as early maturity, seed colour, size and taste. End-of-season meetings that
involve more than the trial farmers are now used routinely to give feedback to
researchers.
In an experiment that was promoting
high-yielding bean varieties, researchers included data collection on the
effect on household labour sharing, post-harvest processing, utilisation and
marketing in addition to measuring the usual yield variable. The biophysical
scientists, who had gained appreciation by working with an economist, added
these variables.
An experiment on farmyard manure (FYM)
combined with Minjingu Phosphate Rock (MPR) changed significantly from the
original researcher-derived trial plan because farmers in Lushoto did not have
enough FYM. Through discussion with farmers, the trial was modified to use tughutu (a local shrub that farmers
have been using to enhance their soil fertility) instead of FYM. Subsequently,
researchers and farmers tested a wider range of uses of tughutu in mulching, compost making etc.
In Areka, farmers have been provided
with several soil-improving legumes and have learned about nutrient cycling
through their interaction with researchers. Farmers became aware of higher
levels of nutrient concentration on their enset fields (an indigenous food-security crop) with depleted
levels in outfields. As a result, farmers have started to move some of the enset to their outfields (a new
practice) combined with the soil-improving legumes as a strategy to enhance
fertility and improve nutrient cycling. They hope to reduce the levels of
inorganic fertiliser used and thus save money. This innovation came about
through farmers’ own initiative (Amede et al 2001).
In Areka, sweet potato – a major food
source planted year-round as a sole crop or intercropped under maize – is
damaged by sweet-potato butterfly. Controlling the pest is one strategy for
increasing household food security. By planting sticky vines of desmodium
around sweet potato fields, farmers managed to reduce pest incidence. They have
also used desmodium as a protein source for dairy cows (together with carbohydrate-rich
elephant grass) and improved soil fertility, as it is a nitrogen-fixing legume.
This technology has become very popular among the communities (Amede et al
2001).
CBOs and farmer organisations
collaborating as partners provide structures that facilitate smooth entry into
the community and spreading of the ideas and technologies being developed. For
example, activities in Madagascar were linked to local organisations focused on
improving water management. AHI supported the construction of microdams5
which, in turn, increased interest in working with researchers on technologies to
improve soil fertility after the farmers were able to see the benefits of
harvesting water in their rice fields.
In summary,
researchers have analysed the effects of participatory research on themselves,
on their research programmes and on farmers, highlighting the impact of the
increased interactions with their colleagues and farmers. They all indicated
that they had improved their skills in managing the interactions in the various
stages of research (diagnosis, planning, M&E, end evaluation). In addition,
researchers were enlightened about each other’s disciplines, which was
reflected in the design of the activities they were involved in and felt that
“teamwork”, although initially difficult, was paying off. Some examples from
the two sites in Ethiopia are shown in Table 6.
Another
outcome, from the perspective of the farmers and their involvement in the
research process, is considerable evolution of the process that increases their
involvement in the research, including the evolution of farmer group structures
that potentially increase their visibility in making demands upon researchers.
Some farmer groups have chosen or sought volunteers from the community that
experiment on a new idea from which the others can benefit. The group structure
provides a forum for discussion and accountability of the experimenting farmer
to the others. Although farmers have typically been involved in planning in all
AHI sites, the process has evolved from a consultative one to where the generation
of research protocol starts with community diagnosis meeting or an end of
season evaluation where the experiences and lessons learned are amalgamated,
discussed and are used as a basis for planning activities for the next season.
Now in some sites such as Antsirabe, Madagascar, farmer group representatives
present their needs at the site-committee level (which involves the NGO,
research, extension and farmer representatives). A joint implementation plan is
developed at the end of the site committee meeting and forwarded to the site
coordinator.
Table 6: Comparative assessment of
interdisciplinarity when conducting participatory research in Areka and Ginchi,
Ethiopia
|
Site |
Effects on scientists |
Effects on research programme |
Interactions with colleagues |
Interactions with farmers |
|
AREKA |
Enhanced
problem-solving capacity at farm level |
Embraced
interdisciplinary and commodity research |
Increased
interactions |
Understanding
farmers’ problems and opportunities |
|
Learning
from other disciplines |
Complementarity
of disciplines |
Increased
communication |
Learning
about farmers’ ITK |
|
|
More
workload |
Research
work more open to comments |
- |
- |
|
|
GINCHI |
Researchers
appreciate contributions of others |
Improved
quality (content and methods) of research |
Better
understanding & communication |
Understanding
farmers’ problems |
|
Researchers
develop better skills of teamwork |
Improved
acceptance of results |
Flexibility |
Knowing
more about ITK |
|
|
Time
constraints |
Improved
communication |
Understanding
of production constraints |
Learning
from one another |
|
|
Helping
avoid disciplinary bias |
- |
- |
- |
Researchers’ and
farmers’ roles in the research process as well as institutional relationships,
in terms of who contributes or specialises in what, is under dynamic change in
the East and Central African region.5
During a number of AHI site and regional workshops, members discussed
allocation of specific roles of IARCs, regional and national scientists. In
addition, there is ongoing debate as to what roles farmers and researchers have
to play in what types of research and what the “intellectual” division of
labour actually is between scientists and farmers.
Use of outcome monitoring focusing on participatory research
processes
Use of outcome monitoring
focusing on participatory research processes
Application
of outcome monitoring
Research teams
recognised the benefits, problems and challenges of outcome monitoring of the
strategic areas, including the participatory research approach. There were
large differences in understanding of key concepts and components of
participatory research; therefore, team members needed to learn more about them
and gain experience in application, and it was necessary to clarify the new
concepts iteratively. The workshops and interactions with the site scientists,
particularly at the two initial test sites, were useful to develop and adjust
practical tools for monitoring the progress made in the priority areas by the
researchers according to site information needs. For example, workshop
facilitators initially wanted to focus the site workshops only on outcome
monitoring, but it became apparent that a conceptual framework for M&E of
the participatory research process was needed because of the site teams’
limited capacity to evaluate the process of participatory research. Furthermore, researchers initially
found it difficult to assess the effects of participatory research on
themselves, their research programmes and their interactions with colleagues
and farmers. Initially it had not occurred to them that self-reflection and
assessment of progress could assist them in moving forward in developing and
applying the new approaches. In addition, the potential benefits and challenges
of participatory research are important to monitor so as to draw lessons on
performance and guide application. Tracking the progress is also important for
understanding changes in researchers’ behaviour, relationships, activities and
actions, but requires timely and adequate facilitation.
As mentioned,
collection of feedback on the usefulness of the tools and framework in order to
make subsequent modifications was extremely useful. In addition, by involving a
small resource group at regional level, the site feedback could be analysed and
used to further refine the tools, etc, ensuring that they were linked to the
regional framework developed in 1999. The workshops provided space for
collectively assessing status of the learning areas with practical examples as
well as individual assessment and documentation of experiences.
Generally,
scientists have tended to work within their commodity programme having minimal
interactions with researchers from other disciplines. Researchers also tend to
specialise in their own scientific fields, tend to limit consultation with
colleagues and tend to work with a few farmers. Teamwork and increase in
multi-institutional contacts has started to increase consultation. However, the
fact that the research team members went to the field together did not
necessarily result in interdisciplinarity. Teams are being encouraged to more
deeply engage in interdisciplinary research by focusing on exchange and
learning from each other when they come together for a specific task, such as
field days or a joint field visits. The interrelated nature of problems in NRM
calls for integration of efforts and is helping to bring people together.
Researchers said that as a next step to encourage improvement is that teamwork
needs to be supported by their research organisations.
Over time the
interaction between farmers and researchers has definitely improved and both
sides are learning from each other, with many concrete examples. Farmers and
researchers feel that they are both gaining from the interactions, and they
will continue working together because the benefits are noticeable. They are
also promoting the ideas within their own networks.
Ultimately, it
is the intention that the use of participatory research methods currently
implemented by individual researchers in a pilot mode should be incorporated
and supported more broadly by their institutions. Outcome monitoring,
concentrating on the changes of behaviour leading to beneficial change and
impact, has contributed towards instituting a “learning and change” culture
among the research teams involved in the pilot study. This methodology, along
with participatory research in general, has not been widely used by AHI’s
research organisations in the past. However, M&E for the purpose of
monitoring whether an activity was completed or not, and the use of log-frames
which provide logical relationships between goals, purpose and outputs are not
new to these organisations. Nevertheless, there is a upsurge in thinking that
researchers and their organisations must take a longer view geared to
increasing impact and in so doing, take stock of the approaches they are using.
Ashley and Hussein (2000) contend that to improve impact of development and
poverty reduction projects, assessments must take a longer-term view looking at
both intended and unintended consequences of the activities across a variety of
livelihood concerns. Institutionalisation cannot be separated from issues of
organisational change. Many of the research organisations are currently bogged
down with various challenges, notably:
In addition,
the outcome-monitoring framework used deviated from the conventional log-frame
format that most researchers were using to formulate their research plans and
activities, in that the conventional log-frame does not capture process and
behavioural changes, nor does it easily cross-link activities or have the
flexibility for adjustment. The outcome-monitoring framework has the advantage
of being more process-oriented, participatory and is used as a tool for
critical analysis, learning and self-reflection.
As AHI has been
operating for a relatively short time, the process of monitoring research
outcomes and conducting participatory research still has a ways to go; for
example, there is still relatively little farmer-led experimentation. During
the last 2–3 years, AHI has been emphasising capacity building and gaining
practical experience as a first step. The following list provides some examples
of what has been taking place:
This has been
done using a mixture of:
As mentioned,
various strategies are either in place, being improved or will be developed to
enhance and understand institutionalisation7
of participatory research methods. Multiple tactics are required and some of
these include: developing and implementing a capacity building strategy for
researchers, managers and farmer organisations; improved design and
installation of a monitoring, documentation and reflection system (building the
elements of a learning culture); improving links and involvement of a wide
range of stakeholders in planning, implementing and evaluating research, as
well as in budgeting for research. This approach has been used in South America
(especially in Ecuador) when participatory research was being institutionalised
through inclusion of relevant stakeholders in the budget setting discussions,
planning meetings and creation of research-extension liaison units as nodes for
training and coordination (Ashby et al 1989). Peer pressure and increased visibility by working in teams
(research) and groups (farmers) has been instrumental (both among farmers and
researchers) in encouraging sceptics to try and join in the change process. The
regional nature of AHI provides unique opportunities to share experiences, to
synthesise lessons for wider application and to promote learning across
countries. Although iteration and time to evolve is required, conceptual growth
combined with iterative practice and trial and error has proved to be important
in the change process.
The need for a paradigm
shift has been recognised by a number of AHI partners. The further development
of methods to influence and build institutional learning cultures, both with
farmers and with research organisations, will become a new focal point of
future AHI work.
Appendix 1: An example of a researcher’s outcome
journal developed in Western Kenya:
|
Outcome Challenge: The programme intends to see farmers and farmer committees Which are fully engaged in the research process. They
are participating in the design, management and monitoring of field trials;
they regularly give researchers full and frank feedback on the technologies
being tested, and they share their learning and experiences with extension
agents and other farmers. |
|
Expect to see FARMERS AND FARMER COMMITTEES |
|
|
L M H (Percentage of farmers: Low = 0-40%, Medium =
41-80%, High = 81-100%) |
|
|
OOO |
1. Participating in the research in accordance with
researchers’ guidance |
|
OOO |
2. Initiating contact with researchers |
|
OOO |
3. Continuously monitoring and reporting on their
field trials |
|
Like to see FARMERS AND FARMER COMMITTEES: |
|
|
OOO |
4. Frequently raising problems and questions with
researchers |
|
OOO |
5. Keeping complete records on trials |
|
OOO |
6. Negotiating trial design and management with
researchers |
|
Love to see FARMERS AND FARMER COMMITTEES: |
|
|
OOO |
7. Promoting the feedback process among other
farmers |
|
OOO |
8. Carrying
out jointly planned trials and constantly feeding back assessments of the
results to the researchers and to extension agents |
|
Description of Change : Four of the eleven farms visited showed up-to-date records
of crop growth and applications of water and fertilisers. |
|
|
Contributing Factors & Actors: Records were kept using record sheets provided
during farmer training workshops in this area, and agronomic and
fertilisation practices were consistent with the field trials planned jointly
with farmers in this area. |
|
|
Source of Evidence: Monitoring visit to field sites near Kakamega on 23
& 24 January 2001. See trip report dated 31 January 2001. |
|
|
PLANNED
USE OF / RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE MONITORING INFORMATION: Will invite one of the record-keeping farmers to
attend and participate in next farmer training workshop in neighbouring
village. |
|
Note: When reporting on the monitoring data collected in this journal, it
will also be necessary to refer back to the desired behaviours identified for
researchers to reflect on which actions or strategies or actions appear to be
associated with the behaviour changes observed.
Use of outcome monitoring
focusing on participatory research processes
Has the
continued systematic use of outcome monitoring now resulted in increased
attention to monitoring of research processes and changes of behavior next to
documentation of adoption trends and economic profitability? Is outcome
monitoring itself powerful enough to reach those changes or does it need to be
linked with skills and competence development? How could the two be integrated
best? Can and has outcome monitoring itself become part and parcel of the
mechanisms of the participating NARS?
Abbot J & Guijt
I. 1998. Changing views on change: participatory approaches to monitoring the
environment. SARL Discussion Paper 2. London: IIED.
AHI. 1998. African Highlands Initiative: an Ecoregional
Program in Eastern Africa. Proposal January 1998 to December 2003.
AHI. 1999.
Documentation of the African Highlands Monitoring and Evaluation workshop held
at ICRAF in Nairobi, Kenya.
AHI. 2001.
Proposal for Phase 3 of AHI (draft), July 2001(unpublished).
Amede Tilahun,
Dea Birhane, Belay Gebremedhin, Mergia Abera, Kirkby R & Stroud A. 2001.
From farmer strategies to sustainable rural livelihoods: experiences from the
African Highlands Eco-regional Programme (AHI). Paper presented to the AFSRE
Conference, Nairobi, Kenya, August 2001.
Ashby JA,
Quiros CA & Rivers YM. 1989. Farmer participation in technology
development: work with crop varieties. In: Chambers R, Pacey A & Thrupp LA
(eds), Farmer first: farmer innovation and agricultural research (London:
Intermediate Technology Publications), pp 115–122.
Ashby J & Sperling
L. 1994. Institutionalizing participatory research, client-driven research and
technology development in agriculture. AgREN Paper 49. London: ODI.
Ashley C &
Hussein K. 2000. Developing methodologies for livelihood impact assessment:
experiences of the African Wildlife Foundation in East Africa. Working Paper
129. London: ODI.
Biggs S. 1989.
Resource-poor farmer participation in research: a synthesis of experiences from
nine national agricultural research systems. OFCOR Comparative Study Paper 3.
The Hague: ISNAR.
Carney D. 1996.
Scaling up participatory research. In: New frontiers in participatory research
and gender analysis for technology development: proceedings (Cali: CIAT), pp
113–121.
Earl S, Carden
F, Smutylo T & Sander C. 1999. Outcome mapping: planning, monitoring and
evaluating development programs by focusing on changes in partners – a
facilitation manual. n.p.
Hagmann J.
1999. Learning together for change: facilitating innovation in natural resource
management through learning process approaches in rural livelihoods in
Zimbabwe. Weikersheim: Margraf Verlag.
Hellawell JM.
1991. Development of a rational for monitoring. In: Goldsmith FB (ed.),
Monitoring for conservation and ecology (London: Chapman & Hall).
Holland D &
Silva C. 2000. Learn to participate: agricultural research communities and
farming communities face the same challenges. Unpublished discussion paper,
CIAT seminar, Cali, Colombia.
IDRC. 1997. Planning, monitoring and evaluation of program
performance: a resource book: Ottawa: IDRC.
Kibel BM. 1999.
What is “results mapping tool box”? New York: Pacific Institute for Research
and Evaluation.
Mosse D,
Farrington J & Rew A. 1998. Development as a process: concepts and methods
for working with complexity. London & New York: Routledge / ODI.
Richards P.
1989. Agriculture as a performance. In: Chambers R, Pacey A & Thrupp LA
(eds), Farmer first: farmer innovation and agricultural research (London:
Intermediate Technology Publications), pp 39–43.
Sperling L
& Ashby J. 1996. Methodological challenges for institutionalizing
participatory research and development. In: New frontiers in participatory
research and gender analysis for technology development: proceedings (Cali:
CIAT), pp 101–108.
Stroud A. 2000.
A summary of annual progress reports 1999/2000 presented at ASARECA CD Meeting,
November 2000, Nairobi, Kenya.
Wang’ati F
& Kebarra K. 1993. Integrated natural resource management research for the
highlands of east and central Africa: report on the consultative workshop held
on 6–8 January 1993, Entebbe, Uganda. Nairobi: ICRAF.
Wang’ati F.
1994. The African Highlands Initiative: a conceptual framework. Nairobi: ICRAF.
[1] Chris Opondo, Monitoring & Evaluation, Regional Research Fellow, AHI, Box 6247, Kampala, Uganda, Tel +256-41-566432/204, Fax +256-41-567635 (chriso@infocom.co.ug).
[2] Dr Pascal Sanginga, Rural Sociologist, International Center for Tropical Agriculture, CIAT/AHI, Box 239, Kabale, Uganda (P.Sanginga@cgiar.org).
[3] Dr Ann Stroud, AHI Regional Coordinator, Box 6247, Kampala, Uganda, Tel: 256-41-566722 (a.stroud@cgiar.org)
1 Currently the ASARECA regional networks cover various cereals, various legumes, various roots and tubers, livestock, policy, information links, soil and water, trees, genetic resources, post harvest .
2 These two committees at the high level look at the overall focus and technical direction of AHI. They draw members from the NARS and IARCs and are therefore useful fora for information sharing and consolidation of feedback.
3 The planning process for research activities being funded by AHI includes: constraints are prioritised by the communities in the pilot sites; researchers design research protocols to address the constraints in consultation with farmers for their ideas and suggestions; the protocols are peer reviewed by local researchers in the national research system and by regional AHI office and experts and are adjusted for final approval. A protocol-writing checklist has been designed to help achieve a sound design with scientific merit, and guides researchers in taking account of farmer differences, systems context and ensuring farmer involvement as far as needed to address the research questions.
4 There are some government organisations and NGOs that provide inputs to the farmers free of charge over long time periods. This creates high expectations and dependency of farmers.
5 Support provided cost-sharing, design advice and facilitation of local organisation.
5 The contributions of research and extension organisations, division of labour between NARIs and IARCs and between IARCs, and relationships to farmers, the private and NGOs have undergone recent scrutiny in numerous strategic planning workshops held by the CGIAR, SPAAR, among others.
6 These have included such courses as: participatory techniques in diagnosis and characterisation; enhancing farmer experimentation; planning, monitoring and evaluation; social analysis skills including aspects of gender and the poor; and PAM workshops.
7 Ashby and Sperling (1994) define institutionalisation as the process of mainstreaming a phenomenon within a specific context. Furthermore, Sperling and Ashby (1996) state that institutionalisation means that the process or an aspect being introduced will have to be scaled up.