The material that follows has been provided by Overseas Development Institute
Alistair Sutherland, Adrienne Martin & Jon Salmon
Participatory technology development (PTD) has recently been widely advocated and supported by donors. However much of the discussion of PTD has been at the level of rhetoric, at times venturing into academic debate. Three dimensions of participation explored here are: farmer participation, participation by other stakeholders, and participation within a multidisciplinary team. Strategies and practical tips for improved project design and implementation are suggested, and future challenges identified.
Policy
conclusions
|
From the late 1980s into the 1990s the UK Department for International
Development (DFID) funded a significant number of PTD-type projects in Africa.
PTD is used here as an umbrella term to describe an approach or activity which
combines technology development with participatory methods. It does not imply
any new or distinctive type of approach to conducting agricultural research. The
DFID-funded PTD projects were implemented both through National Agricultural
Research and Extension Organisations (NAR\EOs) and non-governmental
organisations (NGOs). Interaction among these projects was limited. A review
process was therefore started, aiming to add practical tips on project design
and implementation to existing manuals and reference materials and to separate
rhetoric from the reality of participatory agricultural research (Okali et al
1994).
The review took place from October 1996 to April 1997, aiming at candid discussion of experiences, including disappointments and failures. Practitioners were asked to write a case study detailing experiences of participation which should not only present their own perspective, but include comments from other team members. Project representatives and resource persons then met at a forum to present their case studies, share experiences and further discuss ideas for improving project design and practice. The diverse backgrounds of the practitioners meant that much time during the forum was spent debating fundamental issues and terminology. Details of the nine projects reveiwed are given in Table 1. The review was structured around three thematic areas of participation considered crucial to effective PTD:
| Table 1. Details of projects reviewed | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Participation by Farmers
General issues
Sequence and structure or general principles? At the
start of this section there was considerable debate between participants
regarding the format of the writing and discussion guidelines provided. One
academically inclined group felt comfortable with the “use your own best
judgement at all times” approach. Others (mainly practitioners) required more
specific suggestions and ideas, but not a rule book, on how to approach a
particular activity or problem. This tension was not completely resolved during
the forum.
Product-based or knowledge-based approaches? If PTD
projects present themselves to farmers as the providers of new and superior
products and provide free inputs, farmers will see agricultural research from
this perspective, making it difficult to dialogue and conduct research with them
on “knowledge-based intervention”, such as IPM.
Best entry point
options: Some projects (CARE in Zambia, LGB in Ghana), which focus on a
specific problem, quickly enter dialogue and test technology without a long
prior process of describing and understanding the farming systems. One drawback
of this approach is that it requires some prior understanding of the problem and
its setting if problems which are a priority for farmers are to be identified.
Another is that it is difficult to link this specific spproach with longer-term,
more holistic research addressing livelihood generation.
Problem with
inflexible RRA/PRA: In the Zanzibar project opportunities of working through
market traders were missed since the PRAs centred mainly on agricultural
production activities. This illustrates the limitations introduced by using
these tools mechanistically.
Cost-effectiveness of farmer
participation: Some participants argued that farmer participation in needs
assess-ment and in working out solutions from first principles was not always
necessary. Where a problem is new, it may be more cost-effective to bring in and
test solutions from outside.
Farmer participation and equity
Many saw difficulty in ensuring
that participating farmers were representative of a pre-agreed target group. It
was particularly difficult to identify representatives of the poorest farmers,
and working with the poorest was costly in terms of researcher time and the
amount of baseline data collection and monitoring required.
Targeting and zonation
All of the projects represented had some
experience with targeting such groups as the poorest households or households
with a specific problem such as a pest. Other targets were broadly homogenous
groups of farmers/farm households for whom the same research effort was likely
to be relevant. New biophysical and socio-economic information allows the target
groups to be redefined and their farming systems re-characterised as new
information comes to light.
However, two questions remain: whether categories such as “the poorest” can realistically be targeted, given their difficulty in participating regularly; also whether targeting can cope with the dynamism and variability of farming practices within a three-year project. If time pressures allow good dialogue with only a selection of interested farmers, this may be inadequate for dealing with issues relating to equity and the wider applicability of research results. However, a number of targeting strategies can be identified to minimise these problems (Box 1).
Box 1. Suggested targeting
strategies during project design and implementation
|
Farmer selection
While, in principle, a purposive approach to
selecting farmers goes against the ethos of participation and is, in the words
of one case study, “a contradiction in terms”, in reality all practitioners know
that putting selection solely in the hands of community representatives could be
disastrous. Local elites or interest groups may monopolise the process and
biases are likely to arise along with the exclusion of some - usually the weaker
members of the community.
Among the projects represented, the most common technique is to ask for volunteers. Other more purposive and research-directed strategies, such as random sampling are difficult and/or inappropriate. However, the project may suggest or even insist on the inclusion of some categories such as women, female-headed households, or households without oxen.
The forum concluded that there is no single way forward but there are useful strategies to guide targeting, monitor the representativeness of participants and reduce bias (Box 2).
Box 2. Recommended Targeting
and Selection Strategies
|
Research agenda setting
Discussion on agenda setting in the forum
emphasised general influences and principles, rather than specific methods.
Influences: The agendas which farmers bring forward are heavily
influenced by their previous experience and expectations. This causes them to
pressure for product-based interventions, a tendency often encouraged by
research projects aiming to deliver new products with a measurable and visible
impact. Overall, farmers may be more concerned with solving immediate problems
(the need for food and cash) rather than longer-term ones (deforestation and
soil erosion). Furthermore, certain types of knowledge, for example future
market prospects for a particular commodity, are often not accessible to farmers
and this may influence agendas. On the other hand, researchers are not always
effective in accessing farmers’ knowledge, and during encounters with outsiders
farmers may place a low value on their own knowledge relative to that of
outsiders. Additionally funders expect research results within the project
period and this may restrict the type of research which can be initiated.
Principles: For effective participation in agenda setting:
Experimentation
It was also noted in the forum that farmer-led
experimentation is not always appropriate, particularly where new problems
arise, about which farmers have limited experience. The way that researchers
experiment is conditioned by the reward system of formal research institutions
that value publishable scientific outputs higher than farmer-relevant outputs.
How to reconcile important differences between farmers’ and researchers’ goals,
to choose appropriate experimental methods and evaluation criteria and to
recognise, assess and build upon farmers’ own experimentation emerged as major
questions.
Strategies proposed to bring researchers and farmers closer together during experimental activities are given in Box 3.
| Box 3. Strategies for
Collaborative Experimentation Implement training to challenge entrenched attitudes and perspectives among farmers, researchers and front line field staff. Utilise farmers’ criteria and priorities to decide on research agenda, focus and methodology. Use matrix ranking methods to promote understanding of farmers’ criteria, knowledge and practice. Conduct joint evaluations of trials by researchers and farmers, and of on-station trials by different farmer groups. Create more opportunities for dialogue by organising farmer visits to experimenting farmers, stressing that researcher visits to farmers should not be brief, holding farmer open days and technology markets and forming farmer clusters, farmer research groups and farmer expert panels. Emphasise missed opportunities as a way of encouraging researchers to be more proactive in studying farming systems and sharing new knowledge with farmers. Build upon farmers’ own experimentation by canvassing for long-term support from donors to the developmeny of mechanisms for learning about and analysing farmers’ experimentation. |
Working with farmer groups is a widespread diagnostic and experimentation strategy, for which numerous tips were identified (Box 4).
| Box 4. Tips for Farmer
Research Groups (FRGs)
Starting groups Managing the working relationship |
Formulation and sharing of technical information
Four different
types of information were identified as:
Moving from formulating the information into sharing it should be a process of widening networks with a crossover of actors involved. To make new information easy to apply, it is important to understand local practices and knowledge, and convert quantities to local units of measurement.
Farmers can be involved in the generation and dissemination of information through farmer study tours, farmer extension groups, farmer research networking, use of traders and farmer-trader linkages and farmer to farmer extension.
Participation by other Stakeholders
Farmers are not the only important partners in PTD programmes. The case studies clearly showed that PTD teams do not operate effectively without good links with other stakeholders, such as NGOs, and government departments. These enable access to knowledge, ideas and new technologies and bring additional resources into the programme. They can also establish uptake pathways for technology developed and establish PTD activities, including farmer research groups, on a more sustainable basis. Stakeholder analysis can help a team to develop a strategy for linkages over time.Differing perspectives in three areas make NGO-GO linkages particularly difficult to manage: first, philosophy, geographical scale and procedures differ; second, effective mechanisms for monitoring linkages are generally lacking; third, competition (for resources and recognition), territoriality, inequalities and negative stereotyping are common obstacles.
Further hindrances to effective NGO-GO linkages include: restrictive information policies of NGOs and also some GOs, including fear of information piracy; low awareness of how best to allocate resources between a range of potential linkages; ineffective NGO coordination mechanisms; and differences in financial policies (e.g. allowances) which affect willingness to engage in joint activities.
Strategies for linkage
While the perspectives on linkages differed
somewhat between NGO- and GO-located projects, the strategies proposed for
improving linkages were broadly similar. Stakeholder analysis to develop a
linkage strategy for a particular PTD project and to define M & E
procedures, neutral facilitation at stakeholder meetings held on neutral grounds
(or rotating venues) and a stakeholder analysis covering issues of philosophy,
image, power and current linkage mechanisms are all helpful. Formalisation to
give linkage activities legitimacy was considered necessary, such as through a
memorandum of understanding. Regular task-based coordination meetings, joint
planning and budgeting and where possible joint implementation of activities
were suggested as ways of strengthening links.
Better linkages through improved project design
Implementation of the above linkage strategies implies better designed PTD projects. Project design needs to detail the “whys”, “whos” and “hows” for linkages or, as a minimum, address these questions through a stakeholder analysis in the inception phase. In addition, linkage issues should be addressed in project reviews.
Project staffing needs to be flexible, with recruitment/relocation of staff having a positive linkage record and the inclusion of linkage responsibilities in staff terms of reference. Budgets need to include provision for training (in PTD and linkages), linkage management and provision of other resources such as telecommunication facilities (radio, TV, email), meeting places, seminars and workshops. Specified linkages need to be monitored against clear indicators, and in long-term projects, objectives for linkages should be periodically reviewed.
Participation within a Team
Multi-disciplinary teams are usually written into PTD project documents. But little if any guidance is provided about how teams can best be formed and managed. The forum addressed this topic from two angles: management within the team and the management of process-type PTD projects.
Problems with the former included those of managing people who have different levels of experience and backgrounds; balancing recognition of personal effort with development of a team spirit; and increasing the commitment of team members. Team leaders may have no management training and experience difficulty delegating, resolving conflicts and encouraging inter-disciplinarity and are rarely given additional remuneration.
Training needs to be given to leaders in participatory planning, budgeting, conflict management and facilitation. Regular (weekly or fortnightly) team meetings are a must and the team should develop and share schedules and outputs. Priority setting should be done as a team activity. There should be regular resource allocation meetings and full transparency of financial expenditure. Incentives for team members are not all financial and should include working environment, career development, extra responsibilities and if possible training. Project design should allow for the sharing of responsibilities across the team.
Difficulties in process projects include the management of choices among activites and the means of implementing them. Relations are established at the community level which have to be managed as farmers’ expectations are raised and differences arise in the messages given by team members. At times activities are planned for which there is no specialist on the team, staff may have the wrong skills and be too pressured to do a good job. Effective management requires an adequate understanding of conceptual links between different issues, activities and the project objectives. Strategies for managing the process and ideas for implementation are presented in Box 5.
| Box 5. Strategies for
managing PTD process projects Programme Focus: Areas of focus, both topical and geographical should be agreed early but reviewed periodically. Teams should be wary of trying to do everything and avoid rushing into new activities. There should be scope for programme growth so that new partners, new staff and consultancy inputs can be added. Staffing and leadership: If the right staff are not available, it may be better to delay an activity but there needs to be an explicit process of training and integrating new team members. Training/capacity building: Training needs will change as the project progresses, so that ongoing provision has to be made. Planning, monitoring and review: Participatory annual planning exercises should be informed by stakeholder review processes. Developing a reflexive learning style should be aimed for with participatory fora and "double loop" learning. Reporting: An integrated information system needs to be designed from the start, catering for all stakeholders. Logframes: In the preparatory or inception phase a process type of logical framework is desirable to ensure output flexibility. Only goal and purpose would remain constant. Sustainability: A continuity strategy, with appropriate training, needs to be designed with partners well before the end of a project. |
Future Challenges for PTD
Forum participants noted the following challenges:
Cost-effective
scaling up: Most PTD projects have been resource intensive but limited in
geographical scope. How can successful approaches and activities be scaled up
with much less resource intensive inputs?
Institutionalising PTD: In
spite of some success, PTD often remains marginal in NAROs and IARCs. How can
PTD be further legitimised and institutional attitudes made more receptive?
Simplifying PTD: How can the prevailing PTD jargon and rhetoric be
demystified and the approach simplified?
Farmer empowerment: PTD is
generally orchestrated by professionals. How can low income farmers be empowered
to influence the formal research process?
Managing change: Farming
systems are in a constant state of change. How can PTD teams be best equipped to
identify and respond to emerging research opportunities which require new
technical expertise?
Training for PTD: Implementation of PTD requires
skills, perspectives and orientation often not included in the academic training
of agricultural research scientists, including communication, community
development, qualitative research, farming/livelihood systems analysis, gender
analysis, design and management of on-farm trials, and participatory monitoring
and evaluation. How can we equip mature research scientists with these skills so
that they can have confidence in them and begin to apply them in ways which are
not mechanistic?
Logframe design and cost-effectiveness: For PTD what
are the most appropriate indicators and how can costs and benefits be
calculated?
References
Okali, C. Sumberg, J. and Farrington, J. (1994) Farmer Participatory Research: Rhetoric and Reality, Intermediate Technology Press on behalf of the Overseas Development Institute, London
| Alistair Sutherland and Adrienne Martin work at the Natural
Resources Institute (NRI) of the University of Greenwich, Central
Avenue.Chatham Maritime, Kent ME4 4TB, UK. Alistair Sutherland, Tel: + 44 1634 880088 Fax: + 44 1634 880077 Email: alistair.sutherland@nri.org Adrienne Martin, Tel: + 44 1634 883055 Fax: + 44 1634 883706 Email: adrienne.martin@nri.org Jon Salmon is RNR Coordinator at the British High Commission, Hifadhi House, Samora Avenue, P.O. Box 9200, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Tel: + 255 51 117659/64 Fax: + 255 51 112951 Email: j-salmon@dfid.gtnet.gov.uk The meeting consensus synthesised here was funded by DFID's Africa Regional Programme. However, the opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors alone. |
| Natural Resource Perspectives
present accessible information on important development issues. Readers
are encouraged to quote from them for their own purposes or duplicate them
for colleagues but, as copyright holder, ODI requests due acknowledgement.
The Editor welcomes readers comments on this series. Design: Peter Gee |
ISSN: 1356-9228 ©Copyright:Overseas Development Institute 1998 Overseas Development Institute |
Overseas Development Institute Home Page