We, - Lib. //L/569
Participatory Research
Readings and Resources for Community-Based Natural Resource Management Researchers
Volume 3
Compiled by Sam Landon and Steve Langill
for the Community-Based Natural Resource Management Program Initiative, IDRC
December, 1998
For further information about this document, please contact IDRC at the following address:
Claire Thompson, Programs Branch, IDRC, P.O. Box 8500, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1 G 3H9
ARCtIV CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book
Table of Contents
A. The Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) Social Science Resource Kit
B. Readings on Participatory Research and CBNRM
C. Participatory Research Training Manuals
D. Bibliography
E. Obtaining Documents Listed in the Bibliographies
F. Websites and Electronic Information CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book A. The CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit
What is the CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit? This kit is a reference tool to assist researchers funded through IDRC's Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) program in Asia to apply concepts, analytical approaches and research methods from the social sciences in their research.
What is the Format of the Kit? The kit is being delivered as a set of resource books, each dealing with a different key issue area related to CBNRM research. The topics/issue areas covered include: Gender; Community-Based Natural Resource Management; Participatory Research; Indigenous Knowledge; Institutional Analysis; Conflict Management and Multi-Stakeholder Analysis; and Common Property Resources, Tenure and Property Rights. Depending on feedback received from these materials, other topics or issues may be considered for coverage in future. In addition to the resource books, limited funds are being providing for IDRC project researchers to purchase books from an assembled list covering the above CBNRM-related topics. Further information on this is being sent separately to each project.
What is in the Resource Books? The resource books contain photocopies of selected readings excerpted from books, academic journals, field reports and training manuals. Depending on the subject, the readings include conceptual and methodological issues, research tools, and illustrative case studies. Each source book also includes an annotated bibliography, a list of references, and information on electronic (internet) resources. Instructions on how to use the Centre's literature search and document delivery services (free to IDRC-funded institutions) are also provided.
Readers will find that some of the material in each resource book is contradictory. The intent of the Kit is to expose researchers to a range of academic perspectives, rather than to choose only one view. This means that readers of this material will have to think about the different arguments presented and choose for themselves an interpretation of these concepts and methods which is sensible for their own research project. Readers should also note that the views expressed in the readings are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of IDRC.
Why Has the Resource Kit Been Prepared? The impetus for developing the kit stems from specific requests from IDRC research recipients for tools and resources to assist them in doing research for community-based natural resource management. For many of these researchers CBNRM is a new concept requiring analytical tools and research methods that are quite different to those they had received through formal or
A-1 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book
other training. Researchers wanting to learn these new concepts and methods have been constrained by a lack of access to well-stocked libraries, relevant databases and internet sites.
The kit is also part of an effort by the CBNRM Program at IDRC to promote approaches to research that are participatory, action-oriented, multidisciplinary and grounded in local experience and local knowledge.
Who Should Use the Kit? If your research deals with Community-Based Natural Resource Management and is sponsored by IDRC, you should refer to the information in each volume to help you to undertake your research. IDRC-supported researchers will find that the concepts, tools and methods covered in these reference books will be used repeatedly in research reports, workshops, meetings, correspondence, and in evaluation of your work. You will also find it helpful to understand and apply these concepts if you submit future research proposals. The Kit will also be of wider interest and we hope that it can serve as a useful reference collection for researchers who otherwise would have difficulty getting access to this material.
How Were Readings Selected for the Resource Kit? The reading were selected from existing publications based on literature searches and consultations with academics and practitioners in the respective fields. From these sources the materials have been further selected for:
readability/clarity of the writing suitability for an audience with limited English language skills suitability to the CBNRM project contexts emphasis on definition of terms and detailed explanation of concepts
IDRC-supported CBNRM researchers are working in over 11 countries in Asia representing a wide range of cultural and educational backgrounds. Many researchers do not read English as a first language and a majority have not had formal training in the Social Sciences. For these reasons an effort has been made to include materials that will be instructive and accessible both for newcomers to the topic and for those with a background in the subject area.
How Might the Resource Kit be Used? These resource books are only a starting point for researchers looking for information on a specific topic. The readings are meant to stimulate research questions and further inquiry. The research tools provided are intended as catalysts for adaptation and innovation of new site-specific tools, methods and analytical frameworks. The bibliographies will assist each project and researcher to pursue more targeted information beyond what is provided here.
A-2 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book
Some specific actions you might take within your research team and/or institution to make more effective use of this material:
identify specific topics which are most relevant to your research and assign responsibility to specific members of the team to review these materials. Take turns briefing other team members on what you have learned from each Kit volume.
questions? Ask external project advisors or IDRC program staff if you have questions arising from your review of this material.
organize training sessions using these reference materials together with local resource persons, designated team members, or other experts.
translate the best articles for broader circulation.
request reference materials or literature searches from the IDRC library.
read some of the books in the bibliography to deepen your knowledge and learn other cases and examples. Books and articles which you have read and which are relevant to your own research can be cited, if appropriate, in your research proposals or reports.
order books selected from the list (provided separately).
inform IDRC of any changes to your projects that have come about as a result of this material.
discuss the contents of the readings within your research team and identify what adaptions you could make for the conditions of your project.
CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book
B. Readings On Participatory Research
This section includes photocopies of selected readings on the subject of participatory research for community-based natural resource management. A brief introduction and overview of the readings is provided below followed by the reference information for each selection. The readings themselves are numbered and marked with corresponding tabs for convenience.
1. Introduction
Participatory research (PR) represents a family of methodological approaches increasingly accepted and utilized in the field of CBNRM to involve local people in research projects taking place in their own communities. Participatory research is characterized by a cyclical, ongoing process of research, reflection and action which seeks to include local people in designing the research, gathering the information, analysing data and taking action. A key objective of PR which makes it of particular relevance to the CBNRM Program Initiative at IDRC is to empower community members by utilizing local knowledge and practices and by giving local people the opportunity to share in the research process. It is also intended to contribute directly to positive change in the specific circumstances of the participants.
PR is often contrasted with conventional approaches to research which, in the past, have been characterized by control by outside scientists and development specialists who have set project agendas and carried out research without any input from local community members (Chambers, 1994). Not only have local people not played a part in the planning or implementation of such projects, but their knowledge of local ecology and the structure of their social, economic and political systems has been ignored as well. Consequently, many projects have failed, due to inappropriate project goals, community apathy and a lack of understanding of local social and ecological systems.
There are thus two basic reasons for CBNRM researchers to encourage community participation in projects:
project success: local involvement increases the chances that the project will succeed, because involvement increases community motivation and commitment, objectives will better reflect community needs and goals, and interventions can be appropriately assigned based on local knowledge of culture and ecology.
empowerment: participation leads to capacity-building where indigenous people learn to carry out their own research projects and solve local problems with their own ingenuity and resources.
B-1 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book
Because CBNRM emphasizes an orientation towards community control over and responsibility for resource management, engaging members of the community to participate in the research process is vital. Note that there are a variety of ways in which local people can "participate" in projects, depending on the particular context of the research and the capacities of those involved. Participation can range from mere consultation or information sharing-where local people are kept informed of research activities but do not influence the research process, to self mobilization-where the researcher acts only in a guidance capacity and local people take the initiative in project design and implementation.
Within the family of approaches which constitute PR are several which are relevant in the context of CBNRM. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) represents a body of qualitative methods which emphasize the use of local knowledge and which can be adapted to virtually any research situation. PRA is carried out by a multidisciplinary "team" consisting of a leader and a few core members, who act as "facilitators" to assist local people to elicit and record their own knowledge using techniques which involve a minimum of outsider interference or involvement. Farmer Participatory Research (FPR) and Participatory Technology Development (PTD) are similar approaches which have evolved from farming systems research and agroecosystem analysis (among other sources) and represent an alternative to the traditional "transfer of technology" or "top-down" approach to agricultural research and extension. The emphasis is on the participation of farmers in technology generation, testing, and evaluation to increase or promote sustainable agricultural production and natural resource management.
There is, of course, no right or wrong form of participatory research. The purpose of the readings which follow is to expose researchers to some of the different participatory research approaches and methods in order to stimulate adaptation and innovation within the context of her/his own research program.
II. An Overview of the Readings
The photocopied readings that appear here have been chosen because they provide a good, general overview of the subject of participatory research as it relates to CBNRM. The readings have been classified under four sub-headings for the purpose of clarity.
IDRC researchers should also refer to the three volume publication Participatory Methods in Community-Based Coastal Resource Management put out by the International Institute for Rural Reconstruction (IIRR), which is being distributed along with this manual (to funding recipients only). These sourcebooks document the various participatory tools and methods developed specifically for coastal resource management issues and concerns (see reference in section C of this manual for bibliographical information and abstract).
B-2 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book
1. Introduction To Participatory Research
The first three readings are meant to provide an introduction to the topic of PR, defining key concepts and outlining the major issues involved in utilizing a participatory approach in local communities.
In the first article, "Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Analysis of Experience", Chambers presents a good introduction to the subject, examining the main principles upon which the approach is based, the key discoveries its practitioners have made with respect to the capacities of local people and methodology, the issues of validity and reliability of data collected using PRA methods, and the ways in which PRA practitioners differ from conventional researchers.
The second article, entitled "What is Participatory Research ?" by Deepa Narayan, gives a brief introduction to PRA, identifying key characteristics, advantages and disadvantages as compared with conventional research and roles of the researcher. It is a useful introduction for those who are new to the concept of participatory research.
The third reading entitled "Farmer Participatory Research" is excerpted from Daniel Selener's book, Participatory Research and Social Change. In this piece Selener provides a detailed overview of the origins of Farmer Participatory Research (FPR), its main components and characteristics, key types of FPR, methodological guidelines and a case study.
2. Critical Assessments of Participatory Research
The next two readings present some critical comments regarding the use of participatory research in sustainable development.
The reading by Diane Rocheleau provides an introduction and critique of superficial approaches to participatory development, outlines a framework for who participates on what terms, and reviews a number of methods that she feels address the complex realities of rural livelihoods.
In the following reading, entitled "Extending the Horizons of Agricultural Research and Extension: Methodological Challenges", co-authors Cornwall, Guijt and Welbourn offer a critique of conventional PRA methodology and make some recommendations on what needs to be improved. They argue that PRA continues to neglect wider social processes related to the personal, political and experiential aspects of research. CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book
3. Methods and Techniques of Participatory Research
The next two readings provide an introduction to some of the methods and techniques for doing participatory research.
The sixth reading, excerpted from A Manual for Socio-Economic and Gender Analysis: Responding to the Development Challenge co-authored by Thomas-Slayter, Polestico, and Esser, presents a general description of some of the "classic" PRA tools, including short examples from the field to illustrate each.
The next reading presents a more focused description of participatory tools from A Handbook for Rapid Appraisal of Fisheries Management Systems co-authored by Pido, Pomeroy, Carlos and Garces. The manual describes an approach called the Rapid Appraisal of Fisheries Management Systems (RAFMS), a semi-structured research tool designed to quickly document and evaluate the existing local-level fisheries management systems in a given fishing community. Included here are specific techniques for collecting data from the third section of the manual, Procedures and Methodologies.
4. Case-Studies
The final set of readings provide the reader with short case-studies dealing with participatory research.
In the reading "The Use of Complementary Methods to Understand the Dimensions of Soil Fertility in the Hills of Nepal", Turton et al describe how a variety of research methods were used to explore the complex issue of soil fertility in 13 villages in Nepal. They also use the case study to illustrate some of the problems faced in applying PRA by government institutions with mandates covering large areas.
The next case-study, "Customary Marine Tenure in the South Pacific: the Uses and Challenges of Mapping", Townsley, Anderson and Mees present a short case-study in which PRA techniques were used to map marine tenure areas of a local fishing community on Uliveo Island in Vanuatu. They describe some of their findings along with the limitations of using PRA in this context.
In the final case-study, "Getting Fisherfolk Off the Hook: an Exploratory PRA in Southern India" by Ramesh, Narayanasamy and Boraian, describes the outcome of a PRA workshop to study the fishing livelihoods of local people in Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu, India. The authors present a description of the PRA exercises used during the workshop, and some of their findings. CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book References
A copy of the full-text of each of the following articles is included in this document. To find a reading, flip to the corresponding tab number. These materials have been reproduced with permission from the publishers.
Introduction to PR
1. Chambers, R. 1994. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Analysis of Experience. World Development 22(9):1253-1268. Reprinted with permission from Elsevier Science.
2. Narayan, D. 1996. What is Participatory Research? In Toward Participatory Research. Washington, D.C. World Bank. p. 17-30. Reprinted with permission from the World Bank.
3. Selener, D. 1997. Farmer Participatory Research. In Participatory Action Research and Social Change. Ithaca, New York: The Cornell Participatory Action Research Network, Cornell University. p. 149-195. Reprinted with permission from the author.
Critical Assessments of PR
4. Rocheleau, D.E. 1994. Participatory Research and the Race to Save the Planet: Questions, Critique and Lessons from the Field. Agriculture and Human Values 11(2 and 3): 4-25. Reprinted with permission from Kluwer Academic Publishers.
5. Cornwall, A., Guijt, I., Welbourn, A. 1994. Extending the Horizons of Agricultural Research and Extension: Methodological Challenges. Agriculture and Human Values 11(2 and 3): 38-57. Reprinted with permission from Kluwer Academic Publishers. CBNRMSocial Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book
Methods and Techniques of PR
6. Thomas-Slayter, B., Polestico, R., Esser, A.L., et al. 1995. A Manual for Socio-Economic and Gender Analysis: Responding to the Development Challenge. Pp. 77-113. Worcester, MA: ECOGEN - Clark University. Reprinted with permission from the International Development Program, Clark University.
7. Pido, M., Pomeroy, R., Carlos, M., Garces, L. 1996. A Handbook for Rapid Appraisal of Fisheries Management Systems. Pp. 21-59. ICLARM, Manila, Philippines. Reprinted with permission from ICLARM. ICLARM is supportive of IDRC's aim of building research capacity in developing country institutions.
Case-Studies
8. Turton, C., Vaidya, A., Tuladhar, J., Joshi, K. 1997. The Use of Complementary Methods to Understand the Dimensions of Soil Fertility in the Hills of Nepal. PLA Notes vol. 28 (February). Pp. 37-41. Reprinted with permission from the International Institute for Environment and Development (TIED), the Sustainable Agriculture Programme, +44171 388 2826, e-mail: [email protected]
9. Townsley, A., Anderson, P., Mees, C. 1997.Customary Marine Tenure in the South Pacific: the Uses and Challenges of Mapping. PLA Notes vol. 30 (October). Pp. 36-39. Reprinted with permission from the International Institute for Environment and Development (TIED), the Sustainable Agriculture Programme, +44171 388 2826, e-mail: [email protected]
10. Ramesh, R., Narayanasamy, N., Boraian, M.P. 1997. Getting Fisherfolk Off the Hook: an Exploratory PRA in Southern India. PLA Notes vol. 30 (October). Pp. 54-58. Reprinted with permission from the International Institute for Environment and Development (TIED), the Sustainable Agriculture Programme, +44171 388 2826, e-mail: [email protected] World Development, Vol. 22, No. 9, pp. 1253-1268, 1994 Pergamon Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain 0305-750X/94 $7.00 + 0.00 0305-750X(94)00050-6 Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Analysis of Experiences
ROBERT CHAMBERSt Institute of Development Studies, Brighton
Summary. - The more significant principles of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) concern the behavior and attitudes of outsider facilitators, including not rushing, "handing over the stick," and being self-critically aware. The power and popularity of PRA are partly explained by the unexpected analyti- cal abilities of local people when catalyzed by relaxed rapport, and expressed through sequences of par- ticipatory and especially visual methods. Evidence to date shows high validity and reliability of infor- mation shared by local people through PRA compared with data from more traditional methods. Explanations include reversals and shifts of emphasis: from etic to emic, closed to open, individual to group, verbal to visual, and measuring to comparing; and from extracting information to empowering local analysts.
1. INTRODUCTION many forms of diagramming, derived from agro- ecosystem analysis (Gypmantasiri et al., 1980; Participation is now widely advocated and docu- Conway, 1985, 1986, 1987); the importance of rap- mented as philosophy and mode in development (e.g., port and of the emic-etic distinction, from applied Cernea, 1985), but the gap remains wide between social anthropology; and an understanding of the com- fashionable rhetoric and field reality. One practical set plexity, diversity and riskiness of farming systems and of approaches which has coalesced, evolved and poor people's livelihoods, from farming systems spread in the early 1990s bears the label Participatory research (e.g., Gilbert, Norman and Winch, 1980; Rural Appraisal (PRA). This has been described as a Shaner, Philipp and Schmehl, 1982). PRA draws on growing family of approaches and methods to enable these traditions and shares much with them. local (rural or urban) people to express, enhance, share The more developed and tested methods of PRA and analyze their knowledge of life and conditions, to include participatory mapping and modeling, transect plan and to act. walks, matrix scoring, well-being grouping and rank- PRA has many sources. The most direct is rapid ing, seasonal calendars, institutional diagramming, rural appraisal (RRA) from which it has evolved. trend and change analysis, and analytical diagram- RRA itself began as a response in the late 1970s and ming, all undertaken by local people. Among many early 1980s to the biased perceptions derived from applications, PRA has been used in natural resources rural development tourism (the brief rural visit by the management (soil and water conservation, forestry, urban-based professional) and the many defects and fisheries, wildlife, village planning, etc.), agriculture, high costs of large-scale questionnaire surveys health, nutrition, food security and programs for the (Chambers, 1980; Carruthers and Chambers, 1981; poor (RRA Notes, 1988-; IDS, 1993). Longhurst, 1981). PRA has much in common with By early 1994 activities labeled as PRA have, in RRA but differs basically in the ownership of infor- various forms, evolved in or spread to at least 40 coun- mation, and the nature of the process: in RRA infor- tries in the South, including Bangladesh, Bolivia, mation is more elicited and extracted by outsiders as Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, part of a process of data gathering; in PRA it is more Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, generated, analyzed, owned and shared by local Egypt, Ethiopia, the Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, people as part of a process of their empowerment. Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kenya, Mali, PRA also flows from and shares much with other approaches and traditions. These commonalities and *This paper is the second in a three-part series examining debts include the idea that local people can and should participatory rural appraisal. The first paper appeared in the conduct their own appraisal and analysis, found in July 1994 issue of World Development (Vol. 22, No. 7). activist participatory research (e.g., Freire, 1968); tFinal revision accepted: February 23, 1994.
1253 1254 WORLD DEVELOPMENT
Mauritania, Mexico, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, - Optimising tradeoffs, relating the costs of learn- Pakistan, the Philippines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, ing to the usefulness of information, with tradeoffs South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, between quantity, relevance, accuracy and timeli- Vietnam, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. PRA has also been ness. This includes the principles of optimal igno- spreading from the South to Australia, Canada, rance - knowing what it is not worth knowing, and Germany, Norway, Switzerland and the United then not trying to find it out, and of appropriate Kingdom. Much of the innovation has been in the non- imprecision - not measuring what need not be government organization (NGO) sector, especially in measured, or more accurately than needed, follow- India and Kenya, but increasingly government agen- ing the dictum attributed to Keynes that it is better cies have been adopting and adapting PRA to be approximately right than precisely wrong. approaches and methods. Increasingly, too, graduate - Triangulating (Grandstaff, Grandstaff and students are conducting their research in a PRA mode, Lovelace, 1987, pp. 9-10; Gueye and and university faculty have shown interest in over 20 Freudenberger, 1991, pp. 14-16) meaning cross- countries. checking and progressive learning and approxima- Empirically, much PRA has proved powerful and tion through plural investigation. This variously popular. This article sets out to present and analyze the involves assessing and comparing findings from principles, insights, validity, reliability, and modes of several, often three: PRA, and to understand the nature of its power and - methods popularity.2 - types of item or sets of conditions - points in a range or distribution - individuals or groups of analysts 2. THE PRINCIPLES OF PRA - places - times Effective RRA and PRA have been found to - disciplines require practitioners and facilitators to follow basic - investigators or inquirers principles. Some are shared by RRA and PRA, and and combinations of these. some have been additionally evolved and emphasized - Seeking diversity, meaning looking for and in PRA. learning from exceptions, oddities, dissenters, and The principles of RRA and PRA have been outliers in any distribution. This has been expressed induced rather than deduced: they have been elicited in terms of seeking variability rather than averages by trying out practices, finding what works and what (Beebe, 1987, pp. 53-54), and has been described does not, and then asking why. Although different in Australia as the principle of maximum diversity, practitioners would list different principles underlying or "maximising the diversity and richness of infor- RRA and PRA (see e.g., Grandstaff, Grandstaff and mation" (Dunn and McMillan, 1991, pp. 5, 8). This Lovelace, 1987, pp. 9-13; Grandstaff and Grandstaff, can involve purposive sampling in a nonstatistical 1987a; McCracken, Pretty and Conway, 1988, pp. sense. It goes beyond triangulation; for it deliber- 12-13; Gueye and Freudenberger, 1990, pp. 10-19) ately looks for, notices and investigates contradic- and these have been evolving over time, most might tions, anomalies, and differences, and includes neg- include and accept the following: ative case analysis.
(a) Principles shared by RRA and PRA (b) Principles additionally stressed in PRA
- A reversal of learning, to learn from local peo- Of these shared principles, PRA puts special stress ple, directly, on the site, and face-to-face, gaining on offsetting biases, and the associated changes in out- insight from their local physical, technical and siders' behavior. In addition, PRA in practice mani- social knowledge. fests four further principles: - Learning rapidly and progressively, with con- - They do it: facilitating investigation, analysis, scious exploration, flexible use of methods, oppor- presentation and learning by local people them- tunism, improvisation, iteration and crosschecking, selves, so that they generate and own the outcomes, not following a blueprint program but being adapt- and also learn. This has been expressed as "handing able in a learning process. over the stick" (or pen or chalk). It requires confi- - Offsetting biases, especially those of rural devel- dence that "they can do it." Often the facilitator ini- opment tourism, by being relaxed and not rushing, tiates a process of participatory analysis and then listening not lecturing, probing instead of passing sits back or walks away, taking care not to interview on to the next topic, being unimposing instead of or interrupt. important, and seeking out the poorer people and - Self-critical awareness: meaning that facilitators women, and learning their concerns and priorities. continuously and critically examine their own PARTICIPATORY RURAL APPRAISAL 1255
behavior. This includes embracing error - wel- and learn. Metaphorically, and sometimes actually, coming error as an opportunity to learn; facing they "hand over the stick" of authority. failure positively - "failing forwards"; and cor- Local people then do many of the things outsiders recting dominant behavior. formerly did '(and believed, often enough, that only - Personal responsibility: PRA practitioners tend they could do). Local people make maps and models; to take personal responsibility for what is done they walk transects and observe; they investigate and rather than relying on the authority of manuals or of interview; they diagram and analyze; they present a rigid set of rules. This is in the spirit of the words information; they plan. In consequence, they are more of the one-sentence manual (Peters, 1989, p. 378; in command of the investigation, they own and retain KGVK, 1991) "Use your own best judgement at all more of the information, and they are strongly placed times". to identify their priorities for action, and then to deter- - Sharing: of information and ideas between local mine and control that action. people, between them and outsider facilitators, and The participatory orientation of PRA has given between different practitioners (encouraging photo- new impetus to the development of methods. Some of copying and non-attribution), and sharing field the more gifted facilitators of PRA have delighted in camps, training and experiences between different the lack of blueprint. Participation then generates organizations, regions and countries. diversity; local people play a part in interpreting, Interestingly, the principles shared by RRA and applying, and sometimes inventing methods them- PRA are mainly epistemological, to do with obtaining selves. Local people and outsiders alike are encour- information and gaining knowledge, while those spe- aged to improvise in a spirit of play. What is done is cial to PRA are mainly personal, to do with outsiders' different each time, the outcome of a creative interac- behavior and attitudes. This contrast indicates the tion. In consequence, the four years 1990-1993 have emphasis in PRA on how outsiders interact with local witnessed inventions and generated insights, at first people. especially in India. Reviewing the participatory inno- vation of these years, four salient findings stand out which explain some of what appears different and new 3. "DISCOVERIES" OF PRA about PRA; local people's capabilities; the value of relaxed rapport; diagramming and visual sharing; and Practitioners of PRA have a sense that they have the power of sequences of methods. broken new ground. But every historian knows that little is new under the sun, and what appear to be methodological "discoveries" are often only rediscov- (a) Local people's capabilities eries (as pointed out in Rhoades, 1992). What is not disputed, however, is that PRA practitioners are often The first discovery has been that villagers have a surprised at first by what happens, and experience a greater capacity to map, model, observe, quantify, sense of personal discovery of the unexpected. To estimate, compare, rank, score and diagram than out- understand this requires a closer look at the contrast siders have generally supposed them capable of. between traditional research and RRA on the one Participatory mapping and modeling (Mascarenhas hand, and PRA on the other. and Kumar, 1991) has been a striking finding. An ear- Major differences between the more extractive lier work on mental maps (Gould and White, 1974) data gathering of traditional research and RRA and the did not fully reveal the richness of detail and discrim- more participatory data sharing, presentation and ination expressed recently by villagers in India and analysis of PRA, are found in behavior, attitudes and elsewhere through participatory mapping, and which roles. In data gathering the outsiders dominate. They has been known at least since the early 1980s determine the agenda, obtain and take possession of (Kenyon, 1983). A working hypothesis is that in gen- information, remove it, organize and analyze it, and eral rural people in the South have more extensive and plan and write papers and reports. Outsiders appropri- detailed mental maps than the urban people in the ate and come to own the information. They hunt, North who earlier were the main source of insight; and gather, amass, compile, and process, and produce out- that given the right conditions and materials, they can puts. In PRA, in contrast, these are largely reversed. express this visibly on the ground or on paper, either Outsiders encourage and allow local people to domi- as maps or as three-dimensional models (for example, nate, to determine much of the agenda, to gather, of watersheds). These have shown the huts, houses express and analyze information, and to plan. and people in a village (social, census and health Outsiders are facilitators, learners and consultants. maps), the surrounding village area (resource maps Their activities are to establish rapport, to convene and models), or specialized information (theme or and catalyze, to enquire, to help in the use of methods, topic maps). By early 1994, thousands of such maps and to encourage local people to choose and impro- and models had been created in over 30 countries. vise methods for themselves. Outsiders watch, listen As with mapping, so with quantification, estimat- 1256 WORLD DEVELOPMENT ing, comparing, ranking, scoring and diagramming, ticipant-observer - have concealed the potential for local people have shown themselves capable of gener- gaining rapport early and well, and early enough and ating and analyzing information far beyond normal well enough for the honest and accurate sharing of professional expectations. For example, when facilita- detailed knowledge and values. To a hardened "old tors have provided local people with the occasion and hand" at rural development tourism (the senior offi- methods to reflect on and rank problems and opportu- cial: "I was born and brought up in a village," "I am a nities as they perceive them, they have analyzed and farmer myself," "You can't pull the wool over my presented their preferences - for improving their eyes") this might seem unnecessary: he (most are farming systems, for managing and using common men) or she knows it all and assumes he has an auto- property resources, for better livelihoods, for health matic good rapport with all rural people. To a sea- interventions, for species mixes in tree nurseries, for soned social anthropologist (the university professor: the qualities of new varieties of crop, for amenities "It took a year before they would tell me that. . .") this and their location, for development actions in their might seem an affront: it would be unfair if others in a communities, and so on. To enable these capabilities short time could achieve what had taken her (rela- to be expressed, the practical principle has been to tively more are women) or him so long. For anyone assume that people can do something until proved who has endured and struggled through months of res- otherwise. Participatory mapping and modeling, Venn idence and part icipant-observation to achieve rapport diagramming, matrix ranking and scoring, and other and insight, learning a new language and living a new methods have then turned out to be not one-off excep- life, it could seem unlikely and even unwelcome, that tions but near-universals and largely independent of other outsiders should find ways to establish rapport culture or literacy. and gain good insights more quickly and with plea- A further discovery has been that local people who sure, participation and fun. are already familiar with a PRA approach and meth- Empirically, though, the finding again and again ods are themselves good facilitators (Shah, Bharadwaj with PRA has been that if the initial behavior and atti- and Ambastha, 1991), and often better than outsiders. tudes of outsiders are relaxed and right, and if the The Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (AKRSP) process can start, the methods of PRA themselves fos- (India) has found its trained village volunteers being ter further rapport. Early actions by outsiders can invited by other villages to come as facilitator/consul- include transparent honesty about who they are and tants to help them (personal communication, Parmesh what they are doing; and participation in local activi- Shah). It has even been known for a village volunteer ties, especially being taught and performing local to write to AKRSP staff and state that they are going to tasks. Personal demeanor counts, showing humility, carry out a PRA but that "you do not need to come" respect, patience, and interest in what people have to (personal communication, Apoorva Oza). say and show; wandering around and not rushing; and In all this, both the participatory methods and paying attention, listening, watching and not inter- familiar local materials have helped in enabling local rupting. Then local people quickly lose themselves in people to express and analyze their knowledge and activities such as participatory mapping and modeling preferences. and matrix scoring. In contrast with questionnaires, they are not simply providing information to be handed over and taken away. The information is (b) l3ehariorancl rapport theirs. They own it, but share it. They often enjoy the creativity of what they are doing, and what they them- The second discovery is the importance of out- selves see and learn through their presentation and siders' behavior and establishing relaxed rapport early analysis. The pleasure, fun and utility of what they in the process. have been helped to start doing express themselves in Rapport is a key to facilitating participation. rapport. By reinforcing rapport, PRA methods thus Relaxed rapport between outsider and villager, and sustain and strengthen the participatory process of some measure of trust, are minimum predisposing which they are a part. conditions for PRA. In the past, two extreme types of interaction between outsiders and rural people have missed major opportunities: the rushed and unself- (c) Diagramming and visual sharing critical rural development tourist has had neither the time and nor the sensitivity to get far beyond formal The third discovery is the popularity and power of mutual misunderstanding; and some fastidious social participatory diagramming and visual sharing. anthropologists have allowed so much time and Diagramming and visual sharing are common ele- shown such sensitivity that they have come to believe ments in much PRA. With a questionnaire survey, that only through prolonged residence can good information is appropriated by the outsider. It is trans- rapport and good insights be gained. The two contrast- ferred from the words of the person interviewed to the ing "cultures" - of rushed visitor, and of resident par- paper of the questionnaire schedule. The learning is PARTICIPATORY RURAL APPRAISAL 1257 one-off. The information becomes personal and pri- debate and analysis lead to people's decisions about vate, unverified, and owned by the interviewer. In the proportions of different species to be planted, contrast, with visual sharing of a map, model, dia- and the numbers of each required in tree nurseries gram, or units (stones, seeds, small fruits, etc.) used (Meera Shah, personal communication); for ranking, scoring, counting or quantification, all - a village social map provides an up-to-date who are present can see, point to, discuss, manipulate household listing which is then used for well-being and alter physical objects or representations. or wealth ranking of households which leads in turn Triangulation takes place with people crosschecking to focus groups with different categories of people and correcting each other. The learning is progressive. who then express their different preferences, leading The information is visible, semi-permanent, and pub- to discussion, negotiation and reconciliation of prior- lic, and is checked, verified, amended, added to, and ities (Swift and Umar, 1991; Mukherjee, 1992); owned, by the participants. - matrix scoring or ranking elicits villagers' crite- For example, in participatory mapping and model- ria of value of a class of items (trees, vegetables, ing, villagers draw and model their villages and fodder grasses, varieties of a crop or animal, resources, deciding what to include, and debating, sources of credit, market outlets, fuel types . . . ) adding and modifying detail. Everyone can see what is which leads into discussion of preferences and being "said" because it is being "shown." In shared actions. diagramming, information is diagrammed to repre- Longer sequences have been devised and used in sent, for example, seasonal changes in dimensions full PRAs. In Kenya these have been part of a stepwise such as rainfall, agricultural labor, income, indebted- sequence (PID and NES, 1989). In India, for example ness, food supply and migration. Paper can be used for with the AKRSP, the sequences have been less codi- diagrams, but the ground and other local materials fied and more in a style of systematic improvisation, have the advantage of being "theirs," media which vil- though with specialized sequences, for example for lagers, whether literate or nonliterate, can command appraisal, planning and action with degraded forests, and alter with confidence. The diagram also presents a or with identifying and working with the poorest. visible checklist or agenda which is theirs. The power of such sequences is fourfold. First, the commitment of participants increases, making further action more likely, more spontaneous, and more sus- (d) Sequences tainable. Second, sequences triangulate, and reveal errors or omissions in earlier presentations (see e.g., The fourth discovery is the power and popularity Pretty et al., 1992). Third, the different activities inter- of sequences of participatory methods. act cumulatively, each activity adding a dimension Some of the participatory methods have been and details which qualify and enrich others, so that known and used in the past (Rhoades, 1992). There taken together the whole becomes more than the sum are now some new ones, but perhaps more striking is of the parts. Fourth, all concerned learn through the the power which has been revealed of combinations process, through local people sharing what they know, and sequences (Shah, 1991). To take some examples: through observation and through analysis. In such - with participatory mapping, villagers draw not ways as these, participatory methods fit well with a one, but several maps, which become successively flexible learning process approach which is even more more detailed and useful, or which present new and open-ended and adaptable than much of the earlier complementary information. The map is then used RRA; and they have the advantage that they usually as a reference for other planning, and is retained by enable local people to use their own categories and villagers for their own monitoring and evaluation; criteria, to generate their own agenda, and to assess - social mapping provides a basis for household and indicate their own priorities. listings, and for indicating population, social group, health and other household characteristics. This can lead to identification of key informants, and then to 4. VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY discussions with them; - a participatory resource map leads to planning Some facilitators of PRA have been exhilarated by transect walks in which villagers who made the a sense of liberation and discovery. The presentation map act as guides for outsiders. The transects in and analysis of detailed knowledge in maps, models, turn lead to the identification and discussion of matrices, diagrams and the like by local people has problems and opportunities, which then lead to list- impressed them deeply in a personal way which has ing and ranking options or "best bets"; challenged preconceptions, and affected beliefs and a participatory - resource map of an area of behavior. See Table 1 for remarks of NGO staff. degraded forest, and a rootstock census of quadrats The experience behind these and similar state- in the forest carried out by villagers, leads to a cal- ments is a fact. For those who make them, the evi- culation of numbers of trees to be planted; and dence of personal experience convinces. 1258 WORLD DEVELOPMENT
Table 1. NGO staff remarks subsequent longer, drawn out and more expensive Verification Survey which represented the major After participatory "I have been working for eight years commitment of professional time and funds. social mapping in this village, but I never saw it Franzel and Crawford (1987) systematically com- like this before" pared a quick and light survey with a longer and After PRA "I shall never go back to heavier conventional survey in Kenya and found no experience questionnaires" significant differences attributable to the methods. After PRA training "I have been trying to get this information in this village for six Rocheleau and her team (Rocheleau et al., 1989) months, and now we have it in two working on agroforestry in Kenya used a chain of afternoons" informal in-depth interviews, and group interviews, and compared the results with a survey of a formal randomized sample of 63 households. They found that Validity and reliability can also be assessed in "the formal survey took three times as long and repro- more conventional ways. Validity here refers to the duced the same main results as the group interviews closeness of a finding to the reality, and reliability and chain of interviews, with less detail and coher- refers to the constancy of findings. Highly valid find- ence" (Rocheleau et al., 1989, p. 21). ings are also highly reliable, but where there is a sys- Inglis (1990, 1991) led a team which used a reper- tematic bias, reliability can be high but validity low. toire of RRA techniques to gather local forestry Validity and reliability are not absolute values. There knowledge in Sierra Leone in an area where a lengthy can be tradeoffs, through optimal ignorance and appro- questionnaire with 278 questions had already been priate imprecision, where lower validity and reliability applied. The RRA results were presented four days can be more cost-effective, and can enhance utility after the last location was surveyed, but the question- through less cost or greater relevance or timeliness. naire report was still not available six months after the Most large questionnaire surveys present any completion of fieldwork. Comparisons of the ques- assessment of RRA and PRA with low standards of tionnaire survey and RRA data showed sharp discrep- comparison. (Certain routinized and repeated surveys ancies in two localities where the questionnaire sur- like the National Sample Survey in India, and some vey's findings were implausible and its validity national census surveys, may be at least partial excep- suspect. As Inglis points out: tions.) Critiques of rural questionnaire surveys have found them often badly designed, badly implemented, ... if information is wrong to begin with, no amount of and badly analyzed (see, e.g., Moris, 1970; Campbell, statistical manipulation will enable it to help the project Shrestha and Stone, 1979; Daane, 1987; Gill, 1993). staff make good decisions ... In contrast, the RRA sur- vey was completed in a much shorter time, the results Even so, it is rare for a survey to be subjected to full have been produced in specific locational reports that can critical scrutiny, for results to be tested for investiga- be individually used as discussion papers in the field in treating the as an tor or enumerator bias, questioner follow up surveys. As research biases, mistakes and independent variable, or for methodological problems omissions are admitted and not lost in a mass of ques- to be discussed in reports of survey findings. tionnaire codes, the decision maker can see how the This is, however, no reason for anything less than information was generated, how important factors were critical rigor in assessing the validity and reliability of revealed, and how the best bets were arrived at (Inglis, RRA and PRA approaches and methods. The conven- 1990, p. 107). tional tests most readily applied concern measure- ments and numbers. Let us therefore examine the four Bernadas (1991) reports that in Eastern Visayas in the main areas where RRA and PRA have generated Philippines, highly structured questionnaire inter- numerical data or insights which can be compared views identified declining soil fertility as the most with those from questionnaire surveys or other stan- pressing problem of farmers. Bernadas explains that dard sources. These are farm and household surveys; "The staff themselves had formulated the questions on wealth and well-being ranking; village censuses; and the basis of what they felt to be priorities. The problem rainfall data. areas considered were predetermined based on the outsiders' point of view." Two years of research based on the questionnaire survey findings did not match (a) Farm and household surveys farmers needs and circumstances, and the developed technologies were not adopted by them. An RRA In five cases comparisons have been made approach was then used, with informal discussions between the findings of an RRA approach and a con- and dialogues and open-ended interviews with guide ventional questionnaire survey. topics. This led to the discovery that the most pressing Collinson's (1981) Exploratory Survey of a farm- problem facing farmers was the long fallow due to the ing system, involving some 20 professional person- growth of a weed cogon (Imperata cylindrica). days, was never contradicted in any major way by the Relevant research could then begin. PARTICIPATORY RURAL APPRAISAL 1259
In these five cases, then, the outcomes of the RRA good rapport before the exercise. The test is whether approach, compared with the more formal question- without a social anthropological training and relation- naire, were variously more valid, less costly, more ship, the method can also be reliable and valid. Those timely, and more useful. who have facilitated such ranking exercises have usu- A cautionary counterexample is a case of the worst ally found them easier than expected (see RRA Notes, of both worlds. Pottier (1992) has analyzed a one- No. 15) and usually report high correlations between week survey through interviews of 30 farmers con- the rankings given by different informants or groups. ducted by a researcher in Northern Zambia, and Some triangulate rankings through discussion. described as an RRA. Pottier argues that in such hur- Hill's three informants in Nigeria thrashed out dis- ried interviews an insensitivity to the context, to who crepancies between themselves (Hill, 1972, p. 59). In is being met, to what is being said, and why, can lead a PRA mode, on similar lines, MYRADA in South to misleading conclusions, in this case that food secu- India has evolved a method of successive approxima- rity had been enhanced by growing maize. The inves- tion in which separate groups rank households, and tigation was, it seems, rushed and wrong. The lessons then meet to reconcile differences (personal commu- are many; and include that hurried one-off individual nication, Vidya Ramachandran), a procedure which is interviews are liable to mislead whatever the label used in selecting households for anti-poverty pro- attached to them, and that respondents can react by grams. giving responses which, for reasons such as prudence, A comparison of a formal survey with wealth rank- politeness and favorable presentation of the self, are ing for identifying the rural poor was conducted in reliable but invalid, and thereby convincingly gener- 1992 by the RUHSA Department of the Christian ate and sustain erroneous myths. Medical College, Vellore, South India. A survey with a pretested structured schedule was administered to 412 households by five very experienced investiga- (b) Ranking tors, collecting data on type of house, caste, education, occupation, ownership of assets, number of dresses Ranking and scoring have long been part of the per person, and yearly income. A "professionals' clas- repertoire of social anthropologists. People in com- sification" was then compiled, based on a composite munities rank other individuals or households for index calculated for each household. A separate com- characteristics as varied as aggressiveness, drunken- munity classification through wealth ranking was ness, industriousness, or more commonly some con- facilitated, and conducted by groups of knowledge- cept of respect, honor, wealth or well-being (Pelto and able local women and men. In making their classifica- Pelto, 1978, pp. 82-87; RRA Notes, No. 15, 1992). tions, those local analysts took into account a wider The most common method is sorting cards into and more nuanced range of considerations, such as piles, carried out either by local individuals in private, types of ownership of land and of livestock, types and or by groups. Different informants often use different amounts of debt and repaying capacity, types of job, numbers of piles for the same community, but evi- whether permanent or temporary, bad habits, and dence is consistent in finding close correlations in capacity to give children education. The two classifi- rank orders between different informants. Silverman cations coincided for 62% of households. About half 1966, p. 905) found that "there was high agreement in of the 38% which were discrepancies were investi- the relative rank of most persons" when three infor- gated by senior researchers in careful detail, including mants in an Italian community card-sorted households home visits. They found the community classification according to their criterion of rispetto (approximately correct in 92% of the discrepancies they examined. prestige). Hill (1986, pp. 41, 75) suggests that to vil- This confirms that community classification by lagers, relative household living standards can be a wealth ranking is accurate. Also it highlights the limi- matter of passionate concern. On the basis of field- tation of the professional classification specially when work in West Africa and India, she concluded that it deals with economic level (RUHSA, 1993, p. 20, rural people (unless themselves too poor and disabled) and personal communication Rajaratnam Abel). are able to assess the relative wealth or well-being of Health and physical condition are a complicating members of their community far more accurately than factor. Again and again, analysts who rank for some are townspeople. This has been borne out by much concept of well-being include health as well as eco- subsequent wealth or well-being ranking. Grandin nomic condition. A study in Bangladesh which sought (1988) found that correlations (Speannan's Rho) to separate wealth and health into two exercises, found across informants in 12 instances of wealth ranking a remarkable degree of consistency between male and (using a total of 41 informants) averaged 0.77 (range female groups' rankings for wealth but classifications 0.59-0.96). The correlations of each informant with for health which were similar in only about 40% of the final score averaged 0.91 (range 0.84-0.98). cases (Adams, Roy and Mahbub, 1993), a discrepancy Silverman, Hill and Grandin are all social anthro- important to investigate. pologists and so might be expected to have developed Another example is the ranking of the value of 30 1260 WORLD DEVELOPMENT browse plants as feed to their cattle by pastoralists in - In February 1992, in Kabripathar village, Nigeria (Bayer, 1987, 1988). Rankings for the most Bharuch District, Gujarat, Raiben, a woman from a important plants were found to correspond closely neighboring village, and who was not literate, between different groups of pastoralists. facilitated census mapping by women onto cards, Ranking exercises have limitations. In a group, one leading to a full village census of 87 families, giv- person may dominate and overrule others. With well- ing numbers of women, men, girls, boys, bullocks, being ranking some analysts have been reluctant or cows, buffaloes, goats, donkeys and other infor- unreliable in ranking themselves, their near relatives mation, completed and checked in about four or their close friends. Shared concepts are needed for hours. consistent rankings. In general though, as the exam- - Also in 1992, the National Council for Applied ples cited suggest, there tend to be close correlations Economic Research undertook research to com- between the rankings given by different local analysts. pare the costs, accuracy and reliability of a sample This appears to be where four conditions obtain: survey using questionnaires and RRA/PRA meth- where information is common knowledge; where cri- ods. In an evaluation of the national improved teria are commonly held and well understood; where chulah (stove) program in Maharashtra State, an what is ranked is a matter of intense interest; and NCAER team compared results from a sample sur- where analysts do not perceive advantages in giving vey covering 120 villages in 15 districts, with false or misleading judgements. These conditions RRA/PRA methods in 10 villages in five districts, have, to date, quite commonly prevailed. carefully chosen after stratifying the state in homo- geneous regions. In these 10 villages participatory mapping and other methods were used. The demo- (c) Participatory village censuses graphic data derived from the participatory map- ping were much closer to the recent 1991 census In participatory social mapping, villagers show the than that derived from the normal survey methods. location of households. In India in 1991 this was The study (NCAER, 1993, p. 91) reported: "The extended by Sheelu Francis and others into participa- overall conclusion . . . supports the claim of tory censuses. Census maps have shown social details, RRA/PRA adherents that it provides a highly reli- representing people and household characteristics able village level data base on quantitative as well with local materials such as different seeds, stones and as qualitative variables." vegetables, or markers such as bindis (the small spots - In August 1993, in the village of San Mauricio, Indian women place on their foreheads). A practice Samar Island, the Philippines, about 20 villagers developed by Anusuda and Perumal Naicker of took part in census mapping (including informa- Kethanayakanpatty village near Madurai in Tamil tion on education, land size and tenurial status of Nadu, is to have a card for each household and mark land as well as people) for their village of over 60 details with symbols on the card. These have been households. The Barangay Captain and Secretary placed on cards or on the ground on the maps or mod- said this was unnecessary as they had data on num- els to indicate for each household the numbers of men, bers of males and females and their ages from their women, and children, assets owned, wealth/poverty, own 1992 census and partially completed 1993 the handicapped, immunisation status, education, and census. But as the participatory mapping pro- other information. With an informed group or person, ceeded, they noticed discrepancies and corrected a participatory census of a small village has been con- what they found to be errors in their own data, ducted in less than an hour, and then other information in the end taking all their census data from the par- added by "interviewing the map." ticipatory process (personal communication, Four examples can illustrate: Ditdit Pelegrina, 1993). - In May 1991, in Ramasamypatti village, near Tiruchuli, in Tamil Nadu, a triangulation of cen- suses took place. In a PRA training organized by (d) Rainfall data SPEECH, an NGO, four groups of between approximately five and 15 villagers used different It has been found that farmers will often readily methods of analysis and presentation: two did estimate days and amount of rainfall by month. In social mapping direct onto paper; one made a 1988 two farmers in Wollo in Ethiopia estimated ground model of the village with a card for each numbers of days of rainfall by month for the previous household; and one did a seed census onto a map five years, and also indicated the pattern they remem- drawn on a floor. Each group independently gener- bered from their childhood (Conway, 1988; ERCS, ated a figure for the total population of the village. 1988, pp. 50-52). A common method now is for local All four processes generated the same figure - analysts to arrange a line of 12 stones for the months 355. The few discrepancies concerning occupa- of the local calendar and then estimate rainfall using tions were quickly resolved in a village meeting. either seeds for numbers of days of rain by month or PARTICIPATORY RURAL APPRAISAL 1261 broken sticks for relative volume, or both. Some This may be because rigor always requires some reduc- farmers in India have preferred to indicate depth of tionism, since certain aspects of phenomena are neces- soil moisture by month as being more relevant for sarily excluded by any classification and measurement. agricultural purposes (personal communication, J. Moreover, their changing nature tends to be ignored because taking this into account greatly complicates Mascarenhas for Karnataka and Sam Joseph for analysis (Uphoff, 1992, p. 295). Rajasthan). A refinement, invented by women in Galkada village, Badulla District, Sri Lanka in The purpose of rigor is trustworthiness (Pretty, 1993). is January 1992, to space the seeds to indicate the dis- Reductionist rigor is an attempt to minimize the ele- tribution of days of rain within each month. ment of personal judgement in establishing trustwor- The question is how valid such data are. Farmers' thiness. That it does not work well in the social sci- data on rainfall have several times been found to differ ences is only too evident from the widespread mistrust from those of nearby rainfall stations. At Nugu Dam in of the findings of questionnaire surveys. If such forms H. D. Kote, Karnataka, in August 1990, a discrepancy of reductionist rigor do not carry conviction, the chal- was found but not further analyzed. In rapid catch- lenge is to find ways of enhancing both relevance and ment in analysis Kenya (Pretty, 1990) when farmers' trustworthiness at the same time. patterns of rainfall differed in six different catchments The experience with RRA and PRA contributes and also differed from the "real" data from a nearby here. Relevance is enhanced through local specificity: rainfall station, this was judged to reflect spatial het- local people define relevance and present, analyze and erogeneity, without ruling out the possibility that the enhance their local knowledge. Trustworthiness is farmers were wrong (personal communication, J. sought through the principles which have been Pretty). The only detailed analysis of comparisons to induced from effective practice (see section 2 above). date comes from Nepal. It was there in May 1990 near In pursuit of a rigor of trustworthiness, these can be Lumle that farmers for the first time volume indicated applied by outsiders in a combination of three ways: and numbers of days of rainfall per month using seeds through active intervention; through management and for days and sticks volume. for In 45 minutes, they observation of process; and through the exercise of presented first a normal year and then a pattern which critical judgement. they said occurred one year in five. Gill's (1991) The active intervention of outsiders can be illus- painstaking analysis of their perceptions compared trated from Nepal. Two groups of outsiders found dis- with 20 years of daily rainfall data at the nearby rain- crepancies in the information on seasonality and fall station shows that what initially appeared as dis- trends in agriculture which villagers had shared with crepancies where the farmers were "wrong" turned them: out on closer examination to show respects in which the farmers' judgements were superior to the averaged The response was for both groups to back to their village met station data. Gill's title "But how does it compare the next day and reconcile the information, with their with the real data?" captures the irony of the assump- respective groups of informants forming one combined tion that scientifically measured data are necessarily group, and with the statement "We got the information superior. More balanced conclusions are that there are from you yesterday and there seems to be some differ- different realities, that farmers' realities are likely to ence. Can you help us?" And of course they did. be linked to agricultural utility and weighted by recent Information flowed, arguments and discussions took place among the villagers, among the outsiders and experience, and that the issue is whose reality counts, between both villagers and outsiders.... Explanations in what contexts, and for what purposes. were given, corrections made, and it was a much more satisfied group of researchers that returned to the base camp that night (personal communication, James (e) A rigor of trustworthiness Mascarenhas).
Much rigor in the social and natural sciences is Discrepancies were thus recognized by the outsiders linked with measurements, statistical tests, and replic- and taken as opportunities to get closer to a consensus ability. These are reductionist, since most realities, reality. other than discrete units (such as people) which can be Second, there is the rigor of observed process. counted, have to be separated into or examined as Outsiders initiate, facilitate and then critically observe parts if they are to be measured. The simplifications the process of analysis, especially with visual (map- which result, even if the measurements are accurate, ping, diagramming, etc.) analysis by groups. In con- miss or misrepresent much of the complexity and trast with most questionnaire surveys, this group- diversity of system interrelationships. This leads to a visual analysis gives the observer time and freedom to condition in which: watch interactions, to see how much crosschecking and correction take place, to assess the commitment of Unfortunately, there appears to bean inverse relationship analysts, and to judge whether information is being between rigor and relevance in most social science work. distorted or withheld. A group-visual synergy often 1262 WORLD DEVELOPMENT develops (Figure 1) with cumulative group enthusi- PRA, and can be expected to have applications for asm, adding and amending detail in order to create a much other inquiry and research. complete and accurate picture. Third, there is the rigor of personal and peer judge- 5. REVERSALS AND ment informed by self-critical scepticism and aware- REALITY ness applied throughout. Two of the cases described Most of those who have innovated in developing above provide a salutary caveat. When the four groups PRA have been practitioners, concerned with what at Ramasamypatti all came up with 355 as the popula- works, and what will work better, not academic theo- tion of the village, I was excited. I collected the report- rists concerned with why it works. They have been ing maps and diagrams, and labeled, arranged and searching not for new theories or principles but for photographed them. This positive evidence has since new and better ways of learning and doing. For them, been disseminated through copies of the slides. Only the power and utility of RRA and PRA, undertaken later did I think to ask whether there had been any with rapport and self-critical rigor, are empirical facts exchanges of information or of figures between the of common experience: they know that they work, and groups. In fact I believe there was none. But had the that done well they can lead to better local develop- groups come up with figures which differed, the ques- ment. But the why? Questions remain, leaving further tion is whether my reaction too would have differed, issues of explanation. There is now enough experi- whether I would have collected and photographed the ence to suggest some answers. maps and diagrams. The danger is selective recording Elaborating and crosscutting some of the princi- and dissemination of the positive. Similarly with rain- ples of RRA and PRA (see section 2 above), further fall, the Nepal case has been meticulously analyzed by explanations can be posited under the rubric of "rever- Gill and published. But this was not done in the Kenya sals," meaning directions away from normal profes- and Karnataka cases. Had those discrepancies been sional practices and toward their opposites. Four clus- investigated further, they might, as in the Nepal case, ters of reversal intertwine, and are mutually have revealed a validity in the farmers' judgements; or reinforcing: reversals of frames; reversals of modes; they might not. We do not know. Rigor requires con- reversals of relations; and reversals of power. sistency in probing inquiry into the whole range of types of case. To ensure this, sharing with peers, and inviting critical review, is perhaps the strongest safe- (a) Reversals offrames: From etic to emic guard. These foundations of rigor merit further explo- An overarching reversal is from etic to ernic, from ration, analysis and application. Pretty (1993) has pro- the knowledge, categories and values of outsider pro- posed complementary foundations for analysis of fessionals to those of insider local people. trustworthiness which include prolonged and/or Conventional investigations are preset. Almost all intense engagement, persistent and parallel observa- questionnaire surveys are designed by outsiders with tion, triangulation of sources, methods and investiga- outsiders' concerns and categories. They seek to elicit tors, peer debriefing, negative case analysis, and responses to fill fixed boxes. Whatever the intentions checking by participants. Of these, checking and cor- that investigators shall probe under the category "other" recting by participants stands out as a strong test, in which lies at the end of the list of precoded responses on practice often carried out through presentations by the sheet, they rarely do; and where they do it presents local analysts to a larger local group. Rigor through problems later in coding and analysis. To be convenient, new tests of trustworthiness presents a frontier for reality is forced to fit the professionals' familiar frame. The frame of local people is, however, usually not knowable in advance. The reversal from etic to ernic has, then, to be from closed to open. In contrast with questionnaire interviews, semi-structured interviews (Grandstaff and Grandstaff, 1987b) are more open, conversations (Scrimshaw and Hurtado, 1987) more so, and PRA mapping and diagramming perhaps most of all. In a semi-structured interview there can be a checklist for reference, but not a preset sequence of questions; and a value can be set on probing, on pur- suing leads, on serendipity. In conversations, there
Keep quiet can be greater freedom and equality. In PRA methods Observe such as participatory mapping and modeling, matrix Assess ranking and scoring, Venn or chapati diagramming FACILITATORS and well-being ranking, insiders can be even more in Figure I. Group-visual synergy in PRA. charge of the agenda and detail, not only free to PARTICIPATORY RURAL APPRAISAL 1263 express their knowledge and values, but encouraged gories and details. The media and materials are often and enabled to do so. The shift is from preset and those of insiders - the ground, stones, sand, seeds as closed to participatory and open. counters, sticks as measures, and so on. Eye contact, and insider's awareness of the outsider, are low. Information is built up cumulatively, and crosscheck- (b) Reversals of modes ing is automatic. Often, several or many people are involved. Knowledge overlaps. If half a dozen women Modes of interaction and analysis are reversed diagram a census map of their village, showing women, from their normal directions in three ways: from indi- men, children, handicapped persons, and so on, not vidual to group; from verbal to visual; and from mea- everything may be known by each; but two or more suring to comparing. may know each item. Debate can be lively because everyone can see what is being said. It can then be the (i) From individual to group diagrams rather than the people who are interviewed. Normal investigations stress individual interviews. Visual methods can also empower the weak and dis- Professionals need numbers. Questionnaire surveys advantaged. Visual literacy (Bradley, 1992) is indepen- with individuals or households generate commensu- dent of alphabetical literacy, and appears to be near- rable numbers convenient for statistical analysis. In universal. Visual diagramming is thus an equalizer, RRA, semi-structured interviewing can be with an especially when it is done using the accessible and individual or group, but still with somewhat more familiar medium of the ground. On paper, too, the non- emphasis on the individual "interviewee" (see e.g., literate can diagram. In Kiteto District in Tanzania, in Grandstaff and Grandstaff, 1987b, pp. 135-137). In June 1992, a nonliterate Maasai young man, though PRA, discussions with individuals can and do take mocked as incapable by his literate colleagues, took a place, but there is more attention to groups and par- sheet of paper, and went off and quietly drew a detailed ticipatory analysis by groups. map of a large village area and its settlements. In Groups can have disadvantages, such as domi- Pakistan, in March 1992, several nonliterate women nance by one person or a vocal minority. But their drew complex systems diagrams of their farms and advantages have been undervalued. Typically, they households with internal and external flows and link- have an overlapping spread of knowledge which ages (personal communication, Jules Pretty). covers a wider field than that of any one member. Describing the experience of the Neighbourhood Paradoxically, and contrary to common belief, sensi- Initiatives Foundation (NIF) in the UK, Gibson (1991) tive subjects are sometimes more freely discussed in has pointed out that "the talkers nearly always win." groups, when individuals would not wish to discuss But with a physical model of their neighbourhood to them alone with a stranger. Groups can also generate play with, timid people can physically put down their numbers with observable mutual checking through ideas. Often "people who put down an idea wait for self-surveys, whether verbal or visual. With visual others to talk first about it, and then say themselves: `I modes, such as mapping and modeling, experience in agree with you... (Gibson, 1991). Similarly participa- PRA has been that groups often build up collective tory mapping and matrices can enable marginalized and creative enthusiasm, fill in gaps left by others, and women to express their preferences and priorities in a add, crosscheck and correct detail. Triangulation is physical form which does not entail personal confronta- then both instant and observable. tion with otherwise dominating men. Some contrasts between verbal and visual modes (ii) From verbal to visual are presented in Table 2. With traditional questionnaire surveys and semi- The shift from verbal to visual is one of emphasis structured interviewing, most of the transfer or in PRA. Diagrams are part of the repertoire. They can exchange of information is verbal. This contrasts with be facilitated on their own early in interactions. They the visual mode of participatory diagramming. This can also be part of semistructured interviews or con- includes social and census mapping, resource map- versations. Diagrams then present an agenda for dis- ping and modeling, seasonal analysis, Venn and chap- cussion. "Interviewing the map," "interviewing the ati diagramming, trend diagramming, matrix ranking matrix," and "interviewing the diagram" have proved and scoring, and time use analysis, and is often a often the most fruitful, but also the most neglected, group activity. stages of a discussion and diagramming process. With With visual analysis, relationships change. The the visual, "a whole new set of questions and discus- topic may be determined, or at least suggested, by the sion arises which does not in the verbal" (personal outsider, but the role is not to extract through ques- communication, James Mascarenhas). The verbal, as tions but to initiate a process of presentations and shown for example with oral histories (Slim and analysis. The outsiders are convenors and facilitators, Thompson, 1993), will always remain important. But the insiders actors and analysts. The outsiders hand combinations of visual and verbal are stronger than over control, and insiders determine the agenda, cate- either on its own. 1264 WORLD DEVELOPMENT
Table 2. Contrasts benveen visual and verbal nodes
Verbal (interview, Visual conversation) (diagram)
Outsider's roles Investigator Initiator and catalyst Outsider's mode Probing Facilitating Outsider's interventions Continuous and maintained Initial and then reduced Insider's roles Respondent Presenter and analyst Insider's mode Reactive Creative Insider's awareness of outsider High Low Eye contact High Low The medium and material are those of Outsider Insider The poorer, weaker, and women can be Marginalised Empowered Detail influenced by Etic categories Emic perceptions Information flow Sequential Cumulative Accessibility of information to others Low and transient High and semi-permanent Initiative for checking lies with Outsider Insider Utility for spatial, temporal and causal Low Higher analysis, planning and monitoring Ownership of information Appropriated by outsider Owned and shared by insider
(iii) From measuring to comparing With outsider-insider interactions, there is a scale Normal professional training is to make absolute of formality-informality, from the structured inter- measurements. So if trends or changes are to be iden- view with questionnaire, through the semi-structured tified, or conditions compared between households or interview with checklist of subtopics to the conversa- between places, this is through measurements made tion. With interviews, and sometimes also conversa- either at different times, or of different things, or in tions, outsiders ask questions and probe. The outsider different places. Our preoccupation with numbers usually maintains control and largely determines the drives us to ask "how much?" For sensitive subjects agenda and the categories. Eye contact is common. such as income, such questions can sow suspicion, The interviewee responds, conscious of an interaction wreck rapport, and generate misleading data. with a person who is seeking information. For practical purposes, comparisons without mea- An initial reserve of local people toward outsiders surements are often enough. They have advantages. is a commonplace. Their responses are often prudent Involving reflection and judgement, they are easier and to avoid loss and hopeful to gain benefits. RRA and quicker to express than measurements. They can be more so PRA stress the process of gaining rapport. elicited for trends and changes without formal baseline Some social anthropologists have expressed scepti- data. They are less sensitive, as has been shown by cism about the relative speed with which rapport can wealth and well-being ranking, and by seasonal analy- be established. For their deeper and more fully emic sis: asking how income compares between months is understanding, there is a case for more lengthy immer- easier to estimate and less threatening to reveal than are sion. But the experience with both RRA and PRA is absolute figures. In addition, comparisons, as with that when outsiders behave well and methods are par- matrix ranking and scoring, can in a short time elicit ticipatory, good rapport usually comes quickly. This is complex and detailed information and judgements of through outsiders being unhurried, showing respect, value inaccessible by other methods unless with great explaining who they are, answering questions, being labor. Moreover, trends, comparisons and weightings honest, and being interested; and asking to be taught, lend themselves to visual sharing, with all its potential being taught, and learning. gains in participation, triangulation, progressive approx- In the classical view, much good fieldwork is imation, and learning. Comparing can be quicker and painful. It entails long hours of collecting and check- cheaper, and often more credible, than measuring. ing data. Moser and Kalton (1971, p. 296) observe of questionnaire surveys "An interviewer's interest is bound to flag after a time ..." Pelto and Pelto (1978, (c) Reversals of relations: From reserve to rapport, pp. 194-195) cite the case of an anthropologist, front frustration to fun Kobben, who had to make "a great sacrifice of time, during a year of field work, to collect ... quantified These reversals of frame and mode follow from, data on a mere 176 persons" and even then he felt generate and reinforce a reversal of relations, from rather unsure of the validity of some of his data. The suspicion and reserve to confidence and rapport. same authors go on to consider how extensive survey PARTICIPATORY RURAL APPRAISAL 1265 data from questionnaires needs to be checked and all the participants expressed a strong desire to con- qualified by other methods, and conclude: tinue the work and to go into it more deeply (Hahn, 1991, p. 3). Quite often dissatisfied with their first Clearly, the quantified data of survey research or other attempt at a map, villagers scrub it out and start again standardized interviewing require close support from with concentrated enthusiasm. Again and again, vil- participant observation and general informal interview- lagers in India have lost themselves in mapping and ing. But the converse is equally true. The lesson in all modeling, and outsiders have had to learn not to inter- this, as Kobben made clear, is that field research entails a view, not to interrupt, not to disturb their creativity. great amount of tedious, time-consuming work - both qualitative and numerical (Pelto and Pelto, 1978, pp. There is pride in what has been made, and pleasure in 194-195). presenting it to others. In the words of a postcard from Pakistan, received as this is written "When PRA Some earlier participatory research also suffered works well it seems to be a good experience for every- from being long and drawn out. The pilot project in one" (personal communication, J. Pointing). The appropriate technology for grain storage in Bwakira experience of PRA is often fun. Chini village in Tanzania involved an outside team residing in the village for eight weeks. This was con- siderd a "short period of dialogue," but even so the (d) Reversals ofposter: From extracting to application of the dialogical methodology was "time empowering consuming and tiresome" (Mduma, 1982, pp. 203, 213). Reversals of frames, modes and relations con- This contrasts with RRA. Professional conversa- tribute to reversals of power. In the forms which have tions are mutually stimulating and interesting. Of spread, PRA has stressed abdication of power and cattlekeepers in Nigeria who ranked browse plants. passing much of the initiative and control to local peo- Bayer (1988, p. 8) wrote that "Pastoralists were very ple, using the metaphor (and sometimes reality) of willing to share their knowledge about browse plants "handing over the stick" (or chalk, or pen). From the with us and appeared to enjoy the interviews as much perspective of power, PRA contrasts with the more as we did." Reflecting on the comparison between it extractive data-collecting nature of traditional meth- topic RRA and a questionnaire survey on forestry and ods of inquiry. fuelwood in Sierra Leone, Inglis (1991, p. 40) wrote In questionnaire interviewing, power and initiative that the RRA approach enabled respondents "to enjoy lie with the interviewer. The questionnaire is "admin- a professional chat about their livelihood or kitchen istered to" the person interviewed. The interviewee is habits, instead of being subjected to an intrusive 278 a "respondent," a person who replies or reacts. The question questionnaire by bored enumerators." Latin respondere means to return like with like. The With PRA the contrast has usually been even questions and categories are those of the interviewer, stronger. Data are not collected by outsiders, but who also records the "response." The professional expressed and analyzed by insiders. A common expe- concern is less with people - the respondents, and rience is group-visual synergy as illustrated in Figure more with what they provide - the responses. In their 1. Outsiders convene, provide an occasion, and initi- textbook Survey Methods in Social Investigation ate. Local people as analysts become engaged in tan- (1971) Moser and Kalton have only two index entries gible, visual diagramming, a cumulative process of for "respondent," but 32 for "response." The presenting, sharing, adding and correcting informa- responses matter more, for they are the raw material to tion which generates interest and takes off with its be mined, packaged, transported and processed, the own momentum. The role of outsiders then is to keep commensurable output to be collected, categorized, quiet, observe, assess, and support, and often not to coded, counted and correlated. interrupt (see Figure 1). In classical social anthropological investigation, For outsiders, in Devavaram's words (RRA Notes, too, the ultimate aim has been to obtain data which are No. 13, p. 10), "One doesn't get bored repeating field then analyzed and written up away from the field. work. It is always interesting." What is shared is often Participant observation demands and creates sharply unexpected and at times fascinating. For insiders, the different relationships to questionnaire surveys but the creative act of presentation and analysis is usually a basic objective remains similar. Development anthro- pleasure, and also a process of thinking through, pologists aim to be useful through their work in it more learning and expressing what they know and want. In direct manner; and many anthropologists intervene in matrix scoring for trees or crop varieties, using the their field for ethical reasons. But the basic objective ground and seeds, it is a common experience for the often remains that of a researcher, leading to the outsider to become redundant as the process takes off, crowning consummation of data and insights as villagers debate and score on their own. After vil- processed into a Ph.D. thesis, articles or a book. lage participants had made and analyzed models In contrast, the thrust of PRA is to reverse domi- ("maqucttes") of their environment in Burkina Faso, nance, to empower more than extract. The objective 1266 WORLD DEVELOPMENT sought by many practitioners is less to gather data, and analysis and knowledge and leaves them owning it. more to start a process. Approaches and methods tend The actual and the ideal, here as elsewhere, will rarely to be what Scoones and Thompson (1993, p. 22) call correspond exactly. But an ideal sought by some PRA "performative" (as also with folk theater, stories, practitioners is a process in which people, and espe- proverbs, songs and the like) through visualizations cially the weaker and poorer, are enabled to collate, which break down the distinction between data and present and analyze information, making explicit and analysis. The initiative is passed to "them." The stick adding to what they already know. This happens, for is handed over. The prime actors are the people. The example, through participatory mapping of a water- outsider is less extractor, and more convenor, facilita- shed where the map is used by villagers to plot current tor and catalyst. Even so, two practical and ethical conditions and plan actions, and is retained by them issues stand out. for monitoring action taken and changes; or through The first issue is who is empowered. The easy, nor- mapping and surveying degraded forest, deciding how mal tendency is for those who participate and who are to protect it and what to plant, and then managing the empowered to be those who are already more power- resource; or through matrix scoring for varieties of a ful or less weak - the better-off, elites, officials, local crop which enables them to specify the characteristics leaders, men, adults and the healthy, rather than the of a "wish" variety they would like. The aim is to worse-off, the underclasses, the vulnerable, lay peo- enable people to present, share, analyze and augment ple, women, children and the sick. When this occurs, their knowledge as the start of a process. The ultimate the weak and poor may end up even worse off. With output is enhanced knowledge and competence, an women, the problem is compounded by their many ability to make demands, and to sustain action. Instead tasks which make it hard for them to find blocks of of imposing and extracting, PRA is then designed to undisturbed time enough for some of the participatory empower. modes of analysis. Deliberate steps have been repeat- The popularity and power of PRA are linked. PRA edly needed to offset such biases, identifying different is not always well done. But when it is well done, local groups in a community, and encouraging and enabling people, and especially the poorer, enjoy the creative women to conduct their own analysis and express learning that comes from presenting their knowledge their own priorities (Welbourn, 1991). and their reality. They say that they see things differ- The second practical and ethical issue is what the ently. It is not just that they share knowledge with out- shared information is used for. The unselfconscious siders. They themselves learn more of what they sharing of information by local people through partic- know, and together present and build up more than ipatory methods is open to abuse by outsiders. PRA any one knew alone. The process is then empowering, methods could be used as a trick to lure unsuspecting enabling them to analyze their world and can lead into people into parting with their knowledge. Examples their planning and action. It is not the reality of the are not yet known but can be expected. outsider which is transferred and imposed, but theirs A legitimate and sensitive PRA process can seek to which is expressed, shared, and strengthened. In this enable outsiders to learn, but through the sharing of final reversal, it is more the reality of local people than information in a manner which enhances people's that of outsider professionals that counts.
NOTES
Vietnam, Zambia and Zimbabwe. 1. An illustrative, but certainly incomplete listing is 2. This article is based on the work of many people, too Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, numerous to name, but I thank them all. For comments on ear- Eire, Germany, India, Kenya, Nepal, Nigeria, Norway, lier versions I am grateful to Tony Dunn, James Mascarenhas, Pakistan, the Philippines, South Africa, Sweden, Tanzania, Jules Pretty and two anonymous referees. Responsibility for Thailand, Uganda, the United Kingdom, the United States, errors, omissions and opinions is mine alone.
REFERENCES
Adams, Alayne, Rita Das Roy and Amina Mahbub, Area and a Grazing Reserve in the Nigerian Subhuntid "Participatory methods to assess change in health and Zone, Report to the ILCA Subhumid Zone Programme women's lives: An exploratory study for the BRAC- (Kaduna, Nigeria and Gottingen: May 1987). ICDDR, B joint project in Matlab" (Cambridge, MA: Beebe, J., "Rapid appraisal: The evolution of the concept and Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, the definition of issues," in KKU, Proceedings of the 1985 September 1993). international Conference on Rapid Rural Appraisal, Bayer, W., "Ranking of browse species by cattlekeepers in Systems Research and Farming Systems Research Nigeria," RRA Notes, No. 3 (December 1988), pp. 4-10. Projects (Khon Kaen, Thailand: University of Khon Kaen, Bayer, W., Browse Quality and Availability in a Farming 1987), pp. 47-68. PARTICIPATORY RURAL APPRAISAL 1267
Bernadas, C. N., Jr., "Lesson in upland farmer participation: Gibson, Tony, "Planning for real: The approach of the The case of enriched fallow technology in Jaro, Leyte, Neighbourhood Initiatives Foundation in the UK," RRA Philippines," Forests, Trees and People Newsletter, No. Notes, No. 11 (1991), pp. 29-30. 14 (October 1991), pp. 10-11. Gilbert, E. H., D. W. Norman and F. E. Winch, Farming Bradley, Sarah Murray, "Visual literacy: A review with an Systems Research: A Critical Appraisal, MSU Rural annotated bibliography," Mimeo (London: IIED, 1992). Development Paper No. 6 (East Lansing: Department of Campbell, G. J., R. Shrestha and L. Stone, The Use and Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, Misuse of Social Science Research in Nepal (Kirtipur, 1980). Kathmandu: Research Centre for Nepal and Asian Gill, Gerard J., OK, the Data's Lousy, But It's All We've Got Studies, Tribhuvan University, 1979). (Being a Critique of Conventional Methods), Gatekeeper Carruthers, Ian and Robert Chambers, "Rapid appraisal for Series No. 38 (London: IIED, 1993). rural development," Agricultural Administration, Vol. 8, Gill, Gerard, J., "But how does it compare with the real No. 6 (1981), pp. 407-422. data?," RRA Notes, No. 14 (1991), pp. 5-14. Cernea, Michael, (ed.) Putting People First: Sociological Gould, P., and R. White, Mental Maps (Harmondsworth, Variables in Rural Development, Second Edition, revised UK: Penguin Books, 1974). and expanded (New York: Oxford University Press for the Grandin, Barbara, Wealth Ranking in Sinallholder World Bank, 1991). Com uunities: A Field Manual (London: Intermediate Chambers, Robert, Challenging the Professions: Frontiers Technology Publications, 1988). for Rural Development (London: Intermediate Grandstaff, Terry B., and Somluckrat W. Grandstaff, "A Technology Publications, 1993). conceptual basis for methodological development in rapid Chambers, Robert, "Rapid rural appraisal: Rationale and rural appraisal," in KKU, Proceedings of the 1985 repertoire," IDS Discussion Paper, No. 155 Brighton: International Conference on Rapid Rural Appraisal, IDS, University of Sussex, September 1980). Systems Research and Farming Systems Research Chambers, Robert, Arnold Pacey and Lori Ann Thrupp Projects (Khon Kaen, Thailand: University of Khon Kaen, (Ed.), Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural 1987), pp. 69-88. Research (London: Intermediate Technology Grandstaff, Somluckrat W., and Terry B. Grandstaff, "Semi- Publications, 1989). structured interviewing by multidisciplinary teams in Collinson, M., "A low cost approach to understanding small RRA," in KKU, Proceedings of the 1985 International farmers," Agricultural Administration, Vol. 8, No. 6 Conference on Rapid Rural Appraisal, Systems Research (1981), pp. 433--450. and Farming Systems Research Projects (Khon Kaen, Conway, G., "Rainbow over Wollo," New Scientist (May 5, Thailand: University of Khon Kaen, 1987), pp. 69-88. 1988). Grandstaff, Somluckrat W., Terry B. Grandstaff and George Conway, G., "Rapid rural appraisal and agroecosystem W. Lovelace, "Summary report," in KKU, Proceedings of analysis: A case study from Northern Pakistan," in KKU, the /985 International Conference on Rapid Rural Proceedings of the 1985 International Conference on Appraisal, Systems Research and Farming Systems Rapid Rural Appraisal, Systems Research and Farming Research Projects (Khon Kaen, Thailand: University of Systems Research Projects (Khon Kaen, Thailand: Khon Kaen, 1987), pp. 3-30. University of Khon Kaen, 1987), pp. 228-254. Gueye, Bara, and Karen Schoonmaker Freudenberger, Conway, G., Agroecosystem Analysis for Research and Methode Acceleree de Recherche Participative (London: Development (India: Winrock International Institute for IIED, August 1991). Agricultural Development 1986). Gueye, Bara, and Karen Schoonmaker Freudenberger, Conway, G., "Agroecosystem analysis," Agricultural Introduction a la Methode Acceleree de Recherche Administration, Vol. 20 (1985), pp. 31-55. Participative (MARP) (Senegal, Dhaka: Centre de Daane, J. R. V., Quelle methode pour l'analyse de systemes de Recherches pour Ie Developpement International, production en zone rurale tropicale: Le dilemme entre October 1990). demarche quantitative peu liable et demarche qualitative Gypmantasiri et al., and Gordon Conway, An peu gdneralisable, contribution all 8eme Seminaire Interdisciplinary Perspective of Cropping Systems in the d'Economie Rurale (France: CIRAD, Montpellier, 1987). Chiang Mai Valley: Key Questions for Research Dunn, Tony, and Allan McMillan, "Action research: The (Thailand: Multiple-Cropping Project, Faculty of Agri- application of rapid rural appraisal to learn about issues of culture, University of Chiang Mai, June 1980). concern in landcare areas near Wagga Wagga," NSW, Hahn, H., Apprendre avec les yeux, s'exprinner avec les mains: Paper presented to a Conference on Agriculture, ties paysans se fornnent a la gestion du terroir (Switzerland: Education and Information Transfer, Murrumbigee AGRECOL, Oekozentrum, Langenbruck, 1991). College of Agriculture (New South Wales: September 30 Hill, Polly, Development Economics on Trial: The to October 2, 1991). Anthropological Case for a Prosecution (Cambridge: ERCS, Rapid Rural Appraisal: A Closer Look at Rural Life Cambridge University Press, 1986). in Wollo (Addis Ababa: Ethiopian Red Cross Society and Hill, Polly, Rural Hausa: A Village and a Setting London: IIED, 1988). (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972). Franzel, Steven, and Eric Crawford, "Comparing formal and IDS, "Some sources on participatory rural appraisal" informal survey techniques for farming systems research: (Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, University A case study from Kenya," Agricultural Administration, of Sussex, various issues). Vol. 27 (1987), pp. 13-33. Inglis, Andrew Stewart, "Harvesting local forestry knowl- Freire, Paulo, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York: The edge: A comparison of RRA and conventional surveys," Seabury Press, 1968). RRA Notes, No. 12 (1991), pp. 32-40. 1268 WORLD DEVELOPMENT
Inglis, Andrew Stewart, "Harvesting local forestry knowl- "Finding the poorest in a Tamil Nadu village: A sequence edge: A field test and evaluation of rapid rural appraisal of mapping and wealth ranking," RRA Notes, No. 15 techniques for social forestry project analysis," (1992), pp. 39-42. Dissertation presented for the degree of Master of Science Rajaratnam, Jolly, C. Gatnesan, Helen Thasian, Navamoni (Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, 1990). Babu and Abel Rajaratnam, Validating the Wealth Kenyon, John, "When a community describes itself," Ranking of PRA and Formal Survey in Identifying the Together (October-December 1983), pp. 21-26. Rural Poor (Tamil Nadu: RUHSA Department, Christian KGVK, Management Training Manual (Bihar, India: Krishi Medical College and Hospital, Vellore, 1993). Gram Vikas Kendra, Ranchi, Bihar, 1991). Rocheleau, Diane, Kamoji Wachira, Luis Malaret and KKU, Proceedings of the 1985 International Conference on Bernard Muchiri Wanjohi, "Local knowledge for agro- Rapid Rural Appraisal, Rural Systems Research and forestry and native plants," in Robert Chambers, Arnold Farming Systems Research Projects (Thailand: Pacey and Lori Ann Thrupp (Eds.), Farmer First: Farmer University of Khon Kaen, 1987). Innovation and Agricultural Research (London: Longhurst, R. (Ed.), Rapid Rural Appraisal, IDS Bulletin, Intermediate Technology Publications, 1989), pp. 14-24. Vol. 12, No. 4 (1981). Rhoades, Robert, "The coming revolution in methods for McCracken, J.A., Jules N. Pretty and Gordon R. Conway, An rural development research," in Nevin S. Scrimshaw and Introduction to Rapid Rural Appraisal for Agricultural Gary R. Gleason (Eds.), RAP Rapid Assessment Development (London: LIED, 1988). Procedures: Qualitative Methodologies for Planning and Mascarenhas, J., and P. D. Prem Kumar, "Participatory map- Evaluation of Health Related Programmes (Boston: ping and modelling: User's notes," RRA Notes, No. 12 International Nutrition Foundation for Developing (1991), pp. 9-20. Countries, 1992). Mduma, E. K., "Appropriate technology for grain storage in RRA Notes 1-18 and continuing, Sustainable Agriculture Bwakira Chini village," in Y. Kassam and K. Mustafa, Programme, International Institute for Environment and Participator-c Research (New Delhi: Society for Development, London. Participatory Research in Asia, 1982), pp. 198-213. Scrimshaw, Nevin S., and Gary R. Gleason (Ed.), RAP Rapid Moris, Jon R., "Multi-subject farm surveys reconsidered: Assessment Procedures: Qualitative Methodologies for Some methodological lessons," Paper for the East African Planning and Evaluation of Health Related Programmes Agricultural Economics Society Conference (Dar es (Boston MA: International Nutrition Foundation for Salaam: March 31 to April 4, 1970). Developing Countries, 1992). Moser, C. A., and G. Kalton, Survey Methods in Social Scrimshaw, S., and E. Hurtado, Rapid Assessment Investigation, Second Edition (London: Heinemann Procedures for Nutrition and Primary Health Care: Educational Books Ltd, 1971). Anthropological Approaches for Improving Programme Mukherjee, Neela, "Villagers' perceptions of rural poverty Effectiveness (Tokyo: United Nations University; Los through the mapping methods of PRA," RRA Notes, No. Angeles: UNICEF/UN Children's Fund and UCLA Latin 15 (1992), pp. 21-26. American Center, 1987). NCAER, Comparative Study of Sample Survey and Scoones, Ian, and John Thompson, "Challenging the Participatory Rural Appraisal Methodologies (New Populist Perspective: Rural People's Knowledge, Delhi: National Council for Applied Economic Research, Agricultural Research and Extension Practice, "
I I Indraprastha Estate, November 1993). Discussion Paper 332 (Brighton: IDS, University of Pelto, Pertti J., and Gretel H. Pelto, Anthropological Sussex, December 1993). Research: The Structure of Inquiry, Second Edition Shah, Parmesh, Girish Bharadwaj and Ranjit Ambastha, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978). "Farmers as analysts and facilitators in participatory rural Peters, Toni, Thriving on Chaos: Handbook for a appraisal and planning," RRA Notes, No. 13 (1991), pp. Management Revolution (London: Pan Books, 1989). 84-94. PID and NES, An Introduction to Participatory Rural Shaner, W. W., P. F. Philipp and W. R. Schmehl, Fanning Appraisal for Rural Resources Management, Program for Systems Research and Development: Guidelines for International Development, Clark University, Worcester, Developing Countries (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1982). Mass and National Environment Secretariat (Nairobi: Silverman, Sydel F., "An ethnographic approach to social Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, stratification: Prestige in a central Italian community," November 1989). American Anthropologist, Vol. 68, No. 4 (1966), pp. Pottier, Johan, "Agrarian change at the household level: A note 899-921 (cited in Pelto and Pelto, 1978, pp. 82-84). on investigative styles in research on Mambwe Agriculture Slim, Hugo, and Paul Thompson, Listening for a Change: (Northern Zambia)," in Preben Kaarsholm (Ed.), Oral Testimony and Development (London: Patios Institutions, Culture and Change at Local Community Level, Publications, 1993). International Development Studies Occasional Paper Swift, Jeremy, and Abdi Noor Umar, Participatory Pastoral (Roskilds, Denmark), No. 3, (1992), pp. 61-74. Development in Isiolo District: Socio-economic Research Pretty, Jules N., "Participatory inquiry and agricultural in the Isiolo Livestock Development Project (Isiolo, research" (London: LIED, 1993). Kenya: Isiolo Livestock Development Project, EMI Pretty, Jules N., Rapid Catclunent Analysis for Extension ASALProgramme, 1991). Agents: Notes on the 1990 Kericho Training Workshop for Uphoff, Norman, Learning from Gal OYa: Possibilities for the Ministry ofAgriculture. Kenya, Sustainable Agriculture Participatory Development and Post-Newtonian Social Programme (London, LIED, November 1990). Science (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992). Pretty, Jules, S. Subramanian, D. Ananthakrishnan, C. Welbourn, Alice, "RRA and the analysis of difference," RRA Jayanthi, S. Muralikrishnasamy and K. Renganayaki, Notes, No. 14 (December 1991), pp. 14-23. Conventional research is characteriled by "experts" - outsid those external to a situation --- who gather quantitative and qualita- tive information about people, a community, an agency or a situation without the research subjects being involved in the process. The approach could be described as a one-way flow of information from 'object to the researcher. The process is relatively stsatic, one in ation is gathered from a community or agency, and then processed and analyzed by experts for their (?se with little or no feedback to the community or agency.
In contrast, iInrir' rt «nrc It c>mbothes an approach to data collection that is twodirectional (both from the researcher t
)1ul .
The participatory approach identifies and involves al persons, agencies and orgaani/atioras with a substantial stake in an issue.'[ his includes women, rmen indings being put to use C_ ollabco atioit lpatory 1 ' to ra capacity by equipping them with new skill problems. This is achieved by involving people in the development * Credibility of every step of the research process, rather than by having them Trustworthiness follow predetermined research methods imposed from the outside, Relevance As a result, the distinction between the roles of the external research- * Feasibility r, Advantages anti disadvantap+c of ers .n'l tCi,. ", lii;ii,i i participatory research less pronounced External experts and professional interact with community members or a project agency primarily as facilitators 0 Creative technician aine would # Human iesearch instrument Tat ilitaioi 1 , approaches ^ 1 I ainci f enableI' 0 C ornrnunicator Depending on the number of the commit e Adt"ocati' of activist earcher might approach the inappii Satellite imagery; Aerial photography (relatively low-cost methods have been developed); Land surveys using professional cartographers; or, Mapmaking conducted by field workers who walk through a community and seek assistance from key local people. While each of these approaches will likely result in an accurate map of the area, n°e involves the community. As a result, local people are not en-t_, ed in learning further about their own commu- nity, nor do they the chance to contribute their own knowledge and experience tc study. By contrast, a participatory approach to mapping communities might utilize one of the following approaches: A mapping activity played with school children who are asked to begin by drawing their own home and those of their immediate neighbors; In working with communities, a facilitator could ask a group of men and women to use locally available materials - clay, grass, mud, stones and sticks - to make a model of their Conventional and Participatory ward or community and mark all water sources; Approaches to Data Collection ® During a group meeting, a facilitator might initiate discus- When to use the conventional approach sion and involve people in the process of developing a map of their community using paper or crayons; 1) When data needed are mostly quantita- tive. 2) When follow up action, in terms of Satellite maps can be taken to the community for interpreta- program and project training, is tion and used for planning multi-community activities such uncertain. as watershed management. 3) When issues addressed are not sensitive. 4) When the purpose of the study does These participatory approaches serve three different purposes: not include setting tl stage for staff or community in oh k a program. By being more involved in the process of mapping, people 5) When time an+- r 24 re not become more aware of their environment; serious constraint' Researchers learn about people's "cognitive maps" and what When to use the participatory approach features of the community are considered most important by the people who live there; and 1) To establish rapport and a commitment to use study results. Information is elicited that can be used for further planning 2) When staff or community interest and involvement is central to achieving both by the participants and the external facilitators. p o am goals. 3) t' f '-formation is complex or All research is concerned with the reliability ante vii`y of information. In conventional research, guidelines h 1u-ic devel- 4) Wh i n or issues are unknown or techn ; elt e. These r, latix,ly undefined. oped and documented for use with each specific 5) When -upporting local capacity is rules and guidelines are available on how to get reliable and valid I information through questionnaires, interviews, naturalistic observa- tion, focu,-1 + 1-;ervation, discussion gr through gou : nd simulations. By its very nature, participatory re-p c'< not operate by clear-cut rules handed down to data 4 of experts. Rather, guidelines for }iata collection are arrived at -Tith study participants through ctt,t, reflection, dialogue and experience. Validity of information iH pest established by involving users at all levels - n villagers to managers - in intexpreting the information. ClearlR th, cr(, is a fundamer' ' --nce' tion.jl approa< h f 'a collection and the participatory approach to E1u,^h. Which ,,p; Reach one uses depends on the purpose of the he can J R;, it. For example, participatory approaches at the core ,~ munity ; c 1 °,:yhe inappropriate for project identification studies. Ins , R.> the community in research at this early stage might raise e y hR R `iii (d assistance where none maybe forthcoming, at least for ve, -;. Similarly, a conventional approach might be inappn-opi LI!R= ;, 4.ci, in formation on sensitive issues is needed quickly, community 1- !i paf_:n is central to program viability, staff coope! - tion inessential, 0 1, "t ;7 issue ? pant to a particular cultural s1; :urn umclear. (11o; a sum-- s e c'iffer r. !` vc n d participatory 3C It ' R Field Insight: Developing Toilet Designs Through Models, the Maldives A research team including a ministry engineer and a health educator conducted an evaluation of the national public toilet program in the Maldives combined qualitative, quantitative and participatory techniques. Much information was collected through focus group discussions and site visits. In addition, a pre-determined interview format with open-ended questions was used to interview users and non-users about what they liked and disliked about using toilets. This information was subject to content analysis and quantified and tabulated. Two wooden models with movable parts were used with groups of men and women. One model represented the existing community latrine which consisted of a block of four latrines in a row. Four cubicles built a - 1d a shallow well was the second mot 1 People could move the model's doors, roof, and windows, add or subtract new features. D' n focused on design of the coi n . un 1 toilets. People expressed their preferences by playing with the wood models adding and s 'ng features, until they were 5 h : <.° Led. By the end of fifteen group discussions, clear patterns emerged for toilet design. These were :crporated into the new national pro; , r-:: rn for sanitation. Characteristics of participatory research Participatory research is a process of collaborative problem solving through the ge: ' it t and use of knowledge. It is a process that builds local capa,..st, !..y involving users in decisionmaking for follow-up actions. The end objective of participatory research is pragmatic: to solve problems. Hence its methods and techniques are not bound by the protocols and conventions of particular academic disciplines. - : s single most important criterion guiding the process is ensuring utili, ) .ion of the rese,,i cit. Vital methodological issues are centered on who controls research anal how utilization of its findings can be assured. Thi I is profound i r, r} i, ations for how research is conceptualized and how the research pro. rss - of data c o1 !,,c 1; crt, analysis, dissemination, and planning for follow-up action is conducted. The approach and methods of participatory research have evolved out of experiences in the field. They are a result of liberal born > wing from different disciplines, including psychology, anthro- noi.>. o. ociology, adult education, economics, statistics and philoso- phy c;t scence. Principles and techniques from these disciplines have been distilled, tested, and refined based on what has worked. Research in this praf-: tic contL :t is a cro Live rather than a mechanistic process '-' -'- ' :!ar . ,n.gnewt- t ,isc.s. The process is characterized by flexib l nhv ize , :, i p to Lion and inven- tiveness. While the meths lology of this apprc ;:ci} is not unique, what distinguishes it is the application of existing methods and the creation of new techniques in ways that encourage participation and involvement. It must be clearly recognized that participatory re C ; r ch is not a pure art form or an "all or none" phenomenon. A' i,r; i t`: ideal is shared decisionmaking, in reality this varies on a cort.::_.urrc from high to low levels of participation. Indeed, different d.a:f,rees of participation may be desirable in different politica contexts or at different stages in a program cycle Depending on the nature and timing of the study during the life cycle of a program, it may be possible to combine elements of a participatory approach with those of a traditional approach. What- ever degree of participation may be achieved in a particular context, participatory research has certain characteristics that distinguish it from other research These characteristics include a focus on: pro- }, collaboration, problem solving, and knowledge generation. rocess of undertaking participatory research is more important n the output per se or the methods used. This process is charac- ized by collaboration between different levels of users, partici- pants or interest groups, those participating in a program or those influenced by the decisions made in a program. It includes project "beneficiaries" as well as program and project staff and funders. Special efforts are made to ensure that those traditionally overlooked - women, children, the poor, and junior project personnel --- have opportunities to become centrally involved in the research process if they choose to do so. Because no one shot]':l to collaborate or participate, people are often self-selected or self-defined by continuing to choose to participate in the research decisionmaking process. However, this self selection is valid only if everyone has genuinely been encouraged through appropriate mechanisms in a supportive, non-threatening environment. For example, because the timing is inconvenient, village meetings held in the early morning rarely attract women. Similarly, in most contexts, extension workers will be unlikely to speak up in the first meeting with senior management staff or policyniakers. An research process has to make decisions d%.I.a collection methods. In the participatory research process, the key is how the decisions are made, rather than what decisions are made or what specific methods are used. No particular method is by definition excluded or considered better than others. The adequacy of a method depends on the context. However, there is usually a prefer- ence for short-cut methods to conventional approaches. Collaboration Participatory research involves shared decisionmaking, which also implies shared control and power among participants, clients and potential users. Without noticeable degrees of collaboration with users during the research phases, research cannot be considered participatory. Asking people to fill out questionnaires or to partici- pate in answering questions posed by an outside interviewer does not qualify as participatory research. Involvement of decisionmakers in the research process increases ownership of the results, their credibility, and the probability of their use. Without the collaboration of local people in communities, re- searchers have no access to indigenous knowledge, learning systems, or different perspec , c i the realities of community life. At the agency level, projLct nagers and staff become the substantive experts. More than the researcher, they know about the context within which the research will be undertaken and utilized. This includes the context of resources, institutions, administration, culture, and politics. Problem solving As noted above, the purpose of participatory research is to contribute toward understanding of a problem, thereby leading to action and problem resolution. Participatory research is not an end in itself but Field Insight: Participatory Research in Emergency Rehabilitation, Maharashtra, India The experience of the Government of Maharashtra with pport from the V onstrates the f participatory data collection and planning in housing and village con tru following devastation' ake. Ini designs for new villages were developed by urban architects and play c dre determined tot _ild v_ "b 2tter thai ". This involved r . e d layov r. A two-v ek planning w< kshop invalvi: architects, planners, admini,, t: ors and villa 1 rple, facilitated by an I par'icip,trai t' planning approach and village designs. The work included site visits and discussion a uth. i' ally wanted the grid design (which was the only s' I seen in the newly reb It i .on with the grid. Older people complained that a r w atlays disrupted the social s destroyed t 1 e privacy of the houses. In the ol( I ^'s , majority of the houses did no wl Leas in the new grid lay out t'. e) tn, ie to most houses opened directly on the streets. The village layouts were redesigned by tects and local people working t(,,.,, Source: Meera Shah, World Bank, 1994 P ra ht: Stakeholder yrtt, Planners, Engineers ,...ns Participatory research methods with their focus on the "expertise of the nonexpert" a 1 ) 'ation in data collection tools, are d by gu . i,r.anent agency plan- Sometimes, idliarity with and their poten- e:xposed to participa- n, the same planners, ngincers and .ass become powerful ies and p-_. on`: of the participatory research proct a national sanita- hen he ac- test par- e load ilized and computers. od monitoring a me,;13 to problem solving. This to - For example, instead of a socio- a survey, managerob- that r: c ,rch yields data that are rele household the s d, and th 1, game of "open-ended ht c ve a greater likelihood b o' snake,, and ladd istry of Planning and Centa 1 r :7, St:.- 5 When t mrm1r,rnity members and agc._~tcy `. re involved in the tistics not only piqued thci rrr hit se- research pact: - - from identifying the issues to be studied to sultcd in their joining tier , r , am in the field for different lengtt 'I'! zte ' i,bse interpreting 1;id disseminating results -- the process of engagement .. i.,, °,ome of t' p..t-tt;o , e so results in learning. This learning, in tur-, , lead to -' _q , tional people's "cognitive maps", and consequently to new a i t 'ider- tools. standing a situation and how to effectively act - c tpo i i The methodology of participator In Pakistan, the attendance of senior eng veers, together with social scienti :ts participatory training workchop.re' '`< All r' ,t ircl ,or- ran concerned with the vali -l°'y of their a changed orientation of several n,raI fi- da Ft ; researcher, are 'h-participatory wl programs. ecleci'c and ' l-,yinvolve creating or experimenting w< ,v tech- piques, methodological rigor has a new meaning. Reliability is achieved by using multiple methods and validity confirmed through consensus, discussion and dialogue. larlv at changing attituue ,+ui behavior The ticipatory research approach, there can k olute work includes trying out tools such as map- £ect" study or "best" methods, Rather, what the ping, transacts, and matrix ranking While IAS on is the issue of "appropriateness," identifying officers will probably never conduct such ac- c ,miate methodology for a specific situation and tivities themseh es in villages, the experience makes them proponents of planning with local participatory studies are those that are utilized I cnntinl in ddress the needs of th ar context arai ; seta rt liable and valid information. The most important criteria for designing a participatory study ark -acting the methods to be employed are credibility, trustwor- thn ; i 'evance and feasibility. Credibility Both the study design and the methods used must have credibility in Participatory Research the c-'. tis of stakeholders and decisionmakers; results which are not Emphasizes: belie allle will not be used. Decisionmakers are not all the same: some prefer in-depth,' :listic descriptions; some value a few telling Problem solving statistics; others like large numbers manipulated through ® Expertise of the nonexpert statistit_I i __' Jf computers. Credibility of design and Short cut methods is r:ablishc Validity confirmed by consensus methods I' y involving stakeholders at the outset in ® Reliability achieved by multiple deci f ns about which methods to use and by di :covering their methods ions of the worth of different method ; T'_ cry suggestion of Collaboration and shared nev, iriwination to be collected should be scratir!i red to determine decisionmaking how ii ie information is directly relevant to solvin6 the problem. Utilization of results Capacity building When users are themselves involved in data collection, information obviously has greater credibility than when it is collected by others. Trustwo The perceived cre dit? i , y of the research is intrinsically bound to the per( ,ved trustwc'tb 4 the researcher. If agency deci _ i -rtmakers, ntartd,i!rs or community people do not trust the rep t Lc' 4cr, they are unlikely to accept that person's judgement or technical competence Personal rapport, flexible attitude, open mind and tolerance for high levels of frustration (it often takes longer, for instance, to reach consensus) become important characteristics for researchers who seek to be considered trustworthy. Trustworthiness is increased when participatory researchers are honest about the limitatioii and reliability of their findings and establish two-way relationhli-s with managers. Relevance Within the time and resource constraints imposed on every study, the participatory researcher helps develop a consensus about the relevance of different types of information. The more users are involved in the research process, the more they understand it; as a result, they become interested, believe in their findings, and are likely to utilize them. ill Feasibility People have no problem in coming up with long lists of desirable <:,td "interesting" information. The decision on what information ould be gathered should be guided by relevance and priority of i s ; cri cation to the problem to be solved. Feasibility about the process should be viewed from multiple perspectives: social, cultural and technical feasibility given time and resource constraints. Advantages Field Insight: Ambivalence Participatory research has a number of important adv, aver About Participatory Approaches conventional social science research. Many e\perts, technical specialists, adminis- trators and social :.cientists initially may resist The emphasis on involving stakeho' ' k ^s the use of participatory techniques at the com- nurtures and builds commitment to the research process and munity level reasons for this include: its results. This increases the likelihood that the results will ® Th +PmqP1vP.q_m.ayhavebeen trained be utilized in a variety of ways at different' '11 have in a stri rc.i information-loaded, an impact and will bring about change. they feel uncom- fc t is flexible, un- When p of i °e involved in decisionmaking, -r ecome predictable and invol, !s people in the mak- emoti; r dl v engaged. This releases much creative energy ing of decisions which may be challenged by and supput is the research process in being lively and even peers; fun, This, In turn, reinforces involvement. T1 ! iay feel tr pr is ipatory pro- alid, e me ch time, and It results in capacity building, both within agencies and local that b and faster re: alts can be achieved communitie. It enable, participants to understand and b -)ple specific instructions or utilize the n, i-irch pr E to solve other problems in other contexts. Mhii.iger<, iA ai e better able to understand and . co ---'r 1 ''r' nity- interpret re;;;,arch rc- better users of research in other b I dthe programs. At the corr.mil ly level, people w'l ' , °I he c; a nany of w' m 'lave tools to generate knob l , in one context e ei sc evoling. T., I i and control to the power to organize and i :date change in a.t,; n level is therefore considered u r a ,d a waste of time; Participatory research results in learning, new knowledge and changes in people's "cognitive maps". m They feel participatory °21 " °1 (-, con- ommunities, who l -r, `; - t,' be ,,,! It gains strength from the pooling together of cli at todobytt d know, rathe perspectives, insights, knowledge and experti olving. problem holistically. Thesrand similar, arehkeh' t( , It en",,.res that research,"" people ark notexpi `toanexpnn,,, IV,), 5. ing node or train the tr;,,ls of their tradt, t. tl and cs. a polit c,--' realities of a : It is responsive to the ' of a situation ' :andate is to solve problems '-y i tg any appropriate methodology or Lyra S s;; 1992 technique. It can bore-- - techniques from various disci- vi_rs. A nun +;raph for plines, either quantitative or qualitative, When existing , fivepartz-il%r!orystrat- methods do not fit a particular situation, participatory re ,(e r"'hers create new techniques or adapt old ones. Participatory resear"h also has seve a "cookbook" r participatory research. of participatory research can be clarified and guidelines developed, but the success of the research depends on individual researchers and their ability to choose and adapt strategies and develop situation-specific methodologies. 2. Participatory research is initially more time-consuming when roles and expectations of different players are still being explored and defined. It can be emotionally draining. Participatory researchers have a facilitating role - to help participatory processes that release creativity and emotional energy and feed them into productive channels. This facilitative role is not only diffi- cult, but can be extremely tiring. 4. Conflicting data interests, value systems and data needs may be difficult to resolve to the satisfaction of all. 5. Participatory research places many demands on the re- searcher. Besides being a good technician, the researcher must have strong interpersonal communication skills and be adept in facilitation and negotiation. Field Insight: Establishing Trust Between Villagers and Officials, 6. Participatory research methods may not be understood by Rajasthan, India those not involved in the process and hence risk lacking in The Government of India and World Bank- credibility their eyes. financed watershed development projects in Rajasthan use participatory methods in the planning of micro-watershed develop- Roles and characteristics of a participatory researcher ment. Dramatic increases in the productiv- ity of land have been measured within two years of the program's initiation. There are many important differences between the role of a conven- tional social science researcher and a participatory researcher. At the outset of the program, villagers re- fused to meet with offich because of a Compared to engineers and technology specialists, social scientists history of mistrust. Of ` i; c_ ecided to a late the field sanitation. hold meetings in the ev ,; td show have made entry into of water supply and films. The first movies she were, incred- Only recently have they become involved in the front end of programs ibly, on wetland farming in Fiji - de 'c>i tre and projects on technical teams concerned with design, implementa- the fact that Rajasthan is an and ar"ci The tion, monitoring and evaluation of water and sanitation programs. program now has its own films and a stait of 2,000. Clear principles and phases of the a participatory process have evolved from a At basic level, social scientists (anthropologists, sociologists, trial and error process, although success in psychologists, community organizers, public hea'ith specialists) application is still mixed. Once some com- involved in pr9ject research are themselves rrrinva,,ily technicians. munity openness and trust is established, They formulate and complete the research and nt ke their findings government field maps are shown to vil- available to those interested; they ensure that tlt:. method ( 'lcgy is lages, problems and the potential of land data reliable and valid s[ icipatory researcher,, not only encourage the participation c others in the research decisionmaking process but also become nts themselves. For project staff, this may involve partici- pating in and monitoring staff management meetings, or participat- ing in a day of activities with an extension worker, a driller or a r village people, this may mean self monitoring of their daily activities or those of their neighbors. In each of these situations, the researcher is the instrument for conducting observa- tions, and for recording and interpreting data. The credibility of the results thus becomes intertwined with the credibility and trustwor- thiness of the researcher sigh degree of self-awareness, including awareness o motives and values, participatory researchers can misinterpret rations and quickly devolve into the role of manipulators rather n enablers. Facilitator ; Participatory researchers have the responsibility to f. c l i t ;;.te' he entire research process. Experience indicates that user involvement in decisionmaking o`1 n i,JI,es 1,1., e through the forum of small group meetings and ir, z_;?; Participatory researchers must be skilled, therefore, ;.; lit Participation not only releases creativity and learning, but also emotion, both positive and negative. This is especially likely in the early si, ; . rs well as in the later stages of data interpretation and action. Negative em " ions are more likely to surface if the group involves those who flv,ir interests being threntt-,_,:i by the research process quz, ; methods of inquiry, Euaa14 ,is or interpre- tation. This is morel r' >ly to happen in large programs where change can affect the importance, power and status of certain people. Trainerienabler = 1 ', The role of the i - ,-earcher as trainer or ,r i:: is crucial for capacity building !search as a series '" problems to be soh :-d, starting fry::.:ti;:u -ig the researc...ru,...:-'ins to alternative "_y s of disseminating information, the participatory researcher fulfills his/ " her role as trainer. In addition, researchers may - in to _` cal aspects of research as desired by users c tnts. Communicator The success of a participatory researcher sometimes depends more the ability to communicate the results of a study than on a sophis- - I finn in con ,-c,ntional research methodology. In fact, a review of aico progri, e,"aluations over a twenty-year period revealed that re methoJ i, ically rigorous and sophisticated the research, His likely it was to be used. For the participatory researcher, erefore, communication skills that lead to; T ' t are essential. Advocate or activist Depending on the context, participatory researchers pl°- 'ic°`ant roles in ensuring the utilization of results and increasing the prob- ability of follow-up action. This may be in the form of distilling results for diverse audiences, such as village people, extension workers, policy mak rs; holding discussion groups to review recom- mendations and imr'1 'tent chh~mn' e; `nco-'-r training materials project " or mor `cal activism. Each particip,1 f ,ry researcher has to discovt ' ; , ' mfort level for follow-up responsibility, and encourage the utilization of findings by dit-on ,!?n in various forms through appropriate media. The Making of a Successful Participator, Participatory researchers must have a high level of tolera a l lack of , 'tore. Authoritarian personalities do not make the best candidate for the participatory research approach. Since t tuations a. participatory researchers must be willing - take risks and venture into the unknown, '.chers who can embrace and put into practice the following are more likely to succeed as participatory reseal-chef .il ho cannot. Re arch is a learning process which must approached wi i :y and inventiveness. Hers do not know all, nor do th y know best. 1 ,.,,:A people and non-researchers are intell' eative and have important problem-solving abilities. vithin ag n in within a cultural context and not a cultural vacuum. not empty vessels, I t be ,dom of experts. lnd°.genousknowledge ;ystems are critical uccessful proiects. Conventioi- '. V _ °s is Participatory Kesearch Conventional Research Participatory Research 1. Purpose to collect information to empower local for diagnosis, women and men to planning and evaluation initiate action 2. Goals of research predetermined, highly evolving, in-flux specified 3. Approach objective, standardize, f1- -'bl diverse, local uniform approach, blue- ad t_ n, change print to test hypothesis, ei c waged, iterative, _, fir e holistic 4. Modes of operation e- -tive, distance from empower, participatory, SL ft cus on informa- focus on human growth thin eneration 5. Focus of decision external, centralized local people, with or making without facilitator 6. MethodsiTechniques highly str" red focus, open-ended, visual precision i Measurement; interactive, sorting, sco- statistical as `yses ring, ranking drawing of . 'searcher/ controller, manipulator, catalyst, facilitator, f i...Jor expert, dominant, objective visible initially, later invisible 8. Role of local people sample, targets, respondent generators of know- passive, reactive ledge, participants, active, creative 9. Ownership of results results owned and results owned by local controlled by out zi,s, people; new knowledge who may limit acc, by resides in people others 10. Output reports, publications, enhanced local action possible policy change and capacity; local learn- ing; cumr'z ' >n policy ch: r j J may not be re :o '.ed CHAPTER 5 FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH INTRODUCTION Farmers rightly sense that there is danger in the counsel of any man [woman] who does not himself have to live by the results. John Kenneth Galbraith The main obstacle in providing farmer participatory research is the research workers themselves, both social and biological sci- entists. It is my general experience that a vast majority of research workers prefer to do research about a problem rather than research to solve a problem. Thus biological scientists keep busy, and happy, breeding new varieties, developing disease con- trol systems, and new store designs... the socio-economists under- take their low-risk surveys and describe systems, but all leave the actual solving offarmers' problems to someone else and hence we hear of poor extension services and backward farmers. This, to my mind, is simply passing the buck and avoiding the reality that research results are rarely extendable in the state that research workers publish them. Solving problems is much more difficult than doing research about a problem so why get too close to this danger area by including farmers with real problems in your teams! I think those who have ventured into this high risk area have enjoyed the risks (and high payoffs, if successful!) and have seen that farmers are not only good research workers but excellent and efficient extension workers. (Robert Booth, quoted in Rhoades, 1987) 150 PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH AND SOCIAL CHANGE Traditional approaches to agricultural research, one aspect of agricultural and rural development initiatives in the less industrialized nations, fail to generate technologies that fulfill the production needs of small farmers. These approaches are based on the top-down model which continues to be preferred by international and national research centers for the generation and transfer of technology. The technologies developed in these centers generally benefit the larger, better endowed farmers, those with access to good land, credit, external inputs, irriga- tion, and so on. The small, resource-poor farmers are usually by- passed. Given that more than a billion people in the world are resource- poor farmers, the consequences of this policy are devastating (Kassorla, 1977; Chambers, Pacey, and Thrupp, 1989). When agricultural researchers using this top-down model do take into account the small, resource-poor farmer, they develop tech- nologies without the participation of farmers, and without an adequate understanding of their problems, resources, and practices. Research is conducted at stations where conditions do not reflect those under which farmers work. Thus, the technologies developed are usually unsuited to the problems of small producers who farm under very complex agricultural and environmental conditions in different politi- cal, economic, and social settings. This explains why these technologies are so seldom transferred successfully to farmers' fields (Chambers and Ghildyal, 1985). Increasing population growth, fluctuating markets, site specifici- ty, and decreasing soil fertility are among the problems requiring alter- native research methods to improve the efficiency and sustainability of farming systems used by small farmers. In order to surmount the limitation of traditional research phi- losophy and methodologies, new approaches evolved in the 1970s to better serve small farmers by taking into account their production and socio-economic conditions. The major objective of those working in this field was to develop more effective research approaches that would generate more appropriate technologies designed to solve the produc- tion problems of farmers. FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH 151 ORIGINS OF FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH Farmer participatory research emerged as a response to the ge- neration of inappropriate technology by scientists at research stations whose work was based on the transfer-of-technology model. Those working in this field began to develop a series of new research approaches that would result in technologies that would be beneficial to, and therefore adopted by small farmers. The transfer-of-technology model was predominant in the 1950s and 1960s. The fact that small farmers did not adopt the tech- nology packages developed at research stations led researchers to con- clude that they were backward or ignorant, and that the key to success lay in creating a better extension service. Thus, the Training and Visit System of agricultural extension was widely implemented. In the 1970s and early 1980s, non-adoption, still a problem, was attributed to con- straints occurring at the farm level. Farming Systems Research arose as a response, emphasizing research at the farm level to diminish con- straints to the adoption of new technologies. Finally, in the 1990s, some researchers came to believe that the problem was not the farmers, but the inappropriate technologies they were being encouraged to adopt. This marked the emergence and gradual evolution of farmer participa- tory research, an approach aimed at creating appropriate technology for small farmers (Chambers, Pacey, and Thrupp, 1989). Transfer-of-technology model In the transfer-of-technology model, still dominant in agricul- tural research circles, scientists based in research centers and experi- mental stations determine the agenda and develop the agricultural technology that is subsequently passed on to extension services for dis- semination among farmers. Those who embrace this model assume that there already exists sufficient appropriate scientific and technical agricultural knowledge to be transferred to and implemented by Third World farmers (Horton, 1984; Haverkort et al., 1988). However, this assumption has been proven wrong: small farmers do not adopt these technologies. The traditional approach facilitated, and continues to 152 PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH AND SOCIAL. CHANGE facilitate, increased productivity and profitability for resource-rich farmers whose large operations are generally commercially oriented, monocropped systems requiring large amounts of capital and external inputs (Chambers and Ghildyal, 1985). Though proponents of this model attribute non-adoption to the ignorance and traditional beliefs of small farmers, in fact, the techno- logy is simply not consistent with the physical, social, and economic conditions under which they work (Chambers and Ghildyal, 1985; Fernandez and Salvatierra, 1986). Conditions in research and experi- mental stations do not reflect those in the farmers' fields, nor do they take into account differences in resource availability and land, and access to capital, external inputs, labor, and markets (Chambers and Ghildyal, 1985). Modified transfer-of-technology model Due to inadequacies in the transfer-of-technology model, as regards small farmers, modifications were developed. These are best reflected in the Training and Visit System of Agricultural Extension (Benor, Harrison, Baxter, 1984) and Farming Systems Research (Shanner, Philipp, and Schmel, 1982). Those who designed the Training and Visit System (T&V) of agricultural extension assumed that the problem was due not to avai- lable technology but to deficiencies in existing extension services. The solution, therefore, was to create a better extension service where far- mers could get timely and appropriate information about agricultural technologies which they would then adopt without question. Those working with T&V also promoted feedback from farmers to research centers, and increased interaction between researchers, extension agents, and farmers. Though the level of farmer participation remained low, their opinions were at least heard to some extent. Theoretically, this helped researchers understand the farming systems of small far- mers as well as reasons why technologies did not work. However, after studying the T&V system in developing coun- tries, Selener (1989) concluded that it failed to serve the needs of small, resource-poor farmers for several reasons: 1) T&V was created to dis- FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH 153 seminate recommendations on agricultural technology only. Farmers, however, did not perceive their problems as due to a lack of technolo- gy. Agricultural technology is just one element that must be taken into account in developing solutions to the complex problems faced by small farmers. The T&V was not equipped to deal with the other aspects of the farmers' complex reality. 2) Extension recommendations often required external inputs; consequently, technologies were not adopted because small farmers' generally lack access to inputs and credit. 3) The systematic training of extension agents envisaged by T&V proponents did not materialize due to lack of material and human resources for training activities. 4) Farmers were not visited by extension agents on a -regular basis due to a lack of transportation and fuel and, as a result, they did not receive appropriate and timely infor- mation. 5) Extension agents demonstrated new technologies to a hand- ful of "contact farmers" who were then to disseminate the technology to other farmers. Because contact farmers tended to be those with large holdings who were not in contact with smaller farmers, information was not disseminated. 6) Technology disseminated served the needs of larger farmers rather than those of resource-poor farmers. 7) The suc- cess of the T&V system is predicated on continuous research findings; these were not forthcoming due to inadequate research capabilities. 8) The lack of effective linkages between research and extension because of poor performance by Subject Matter Specialists contributed to T&V's inefficiency. 9) Feedback from farmers to extension agents and then to researchers was inadequate due to the lack of effective channels of communication. 10) Although proponents of the T&V assumed that implementation of the model would boost the motivation and morale of extension agents, problems in this area were more often aggravated. As demonstrated by the issues listed, the T&V, an example of the modified transfer-of-technology model, did not solve the production problems of small farmers because the basic tenets of the model are inoperative. However, the T&V did, in theory, include farmer partici- pation, albeit in a limited fashion, and this subsequently became the basis of a movement among researchers to encourage this type of par- ticipation. Specifically, scientists began to promote regular meetings between farmers on the one hand, and researchers and extension agents 154 PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH AND SOCIAL CHANGE on the other, so that the latter might begin to understand the circum- stances in which the former work. A paradigm for agricultural research and development which emerged in the 1970s focused on the production problems. of small farmers. Proponents of this model stressed the need to: 1) recognize that the small farmers possess valuable knowledge that must be incor- porated into the research process; and 2) conduct holistic studies of indigenous production practices and interacting subsystems to be used in developing new technologies (Kassorla, 1977). Beginning in the late 1970s, the Farming Systems Research (FSR) approach was developed, once again intended to benefit the small farmer. The Technical Advisory Committee's Review Team (1978) defined FSR as research 1) focusing on the inter-dependencies and inter-relationships existing among the elements of farm systems, and between these and the farm environment; and 2) aimed at enhancing the efficacy of farming systems through agricultural research designed to facilitate the generation and testing of improved technology. Proponents of FSR recognize that, in order to help small farmers increase productivity and improve general welfare, researchers must have a firsthand understanding of their situation. They also maintain that scientists from different disciplines must work as a team to under- stand the farm as an integrated system rather than studying isolated components within that system. FSR researchers further advocate the participation of farmers in technology development so that the results will be consistent with the physical, biological, and socio-economic aspects of the farming system. FSR is a major departure from the traditional transfer-of-tech- nology model, but it has not achieved its stated objectives as a result of limitations related to implementation. First, while FSR researchers experiment with farmers in their fields, they often do so using tradi- tional research methodologies transferred from the experimental sta- tion. Consequently, the farmer does not become an active partner in the research process (Lightfoot, 1986). Transferring this on-station research methodology to farm- ers' fields has led to the exclusion of the farmers from the design process and reduced them to laborers (Baker, Knipscheer, and De Souza Neto, 1988:281). FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH 155 Other authors also criticize the approach on the basis of its fai- lure to incorporate farmer participation (Baker, 1991; Ashby, 1990; Barker and Lightfoot, 1986; Gladwin et al., 1984; Chambers and Jiggins, 1986; Tripp et al., n.d.). Second, scientists have had problems working in a collaborative fashion in multidisciplinary teams. Third, because practitioners intend to study the farm as a system, quantities of data have been gathered for later analysis and use, leaving researchers overwhelmed by the sheer mass of data collected. Fourth, most FSRIE projects do not focus specifically on helping small, resource-poor farmers. Fifth, scientists often lack skills for communicating with and learning from farmers. Sixth, when FSR researchers communicate problems to research sta- tions, staff there resist studying matters derived from the farm. The problems listed above have been detailed by Chambers and Jiggins (1986). Chambers and Jiggins (1986), Haverkort et al. (1988), and Lightfoot and Barker (1986) argue that although the approaches described above (T&V and FSR) were designed to surmount problems in conventional research and extension, these approaches continue to be top-down, transfer-of-technology models, with knowledge flowing from researcher to farmer: Information has been obtained from farmers by outsiders, and analyzed by them to decide what would be good for the farmers, leading to the design of experiments for testing and adaptation (Chambers, 1990:240). One basic problem is that researchers do not take the practical problems of farmers as the starting point for agricultural research activities (Biggs, 1980). Nevertheless, FSR practitioners have made substantial contribu- tions. The theory inherent in this approach includes important com- ponents and, in practice, many researchers have been persuaded, as a result of FSR efforts, of the need to work in collaboration with other researchers and farmers in looking at the farm as a system and in rec- ognizing farmers' knowledge and experience. FSR has also involved researchers in the implementation of on-farm trials. Kotschi (1989) 156 PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH AND SOCIAL CHANGE maintains that FSR was key to the emergence of farmer participatory research. Tripp (1989:3) comments that much of the writing on farmer [participatory research] points to a strengthening rather than a rejection of research methods associated with conventional FSR... [R]ather than constituting a new research approach, [proponents] tend to reinforce principles consistent with various types of adaptive research with a farming system [research] perspective. For technical, environmental, political, social, and economic rea- sons, the agricultural sciences have had little to offer small, resource- poor farmers. Farmer participatory research has emerged in response to this situation as a viable solution to the problem of developing appropriate technology. Farmer participatory researchers view the lack of interaction between researchers and farmers as one of the principal weaknesses in the methods described above. To correct this deficiency, proponents of this approach propose to work in collaboration with farmers to identi- fy their most urgent agricultural problems and to develop appropriate technologies at the farm level. As a result, researchers learn about an array of interrelated matters at the farm level that need to be consi- dered in the development or adaptation of technologies. This process involves tapping into the farmers' own agricultural knowledge. In the process, researchers come to appreciate and respect small farmers. The challenge for development workers, researchers, and farmers is to design and use research methodologies that ensure the development and adoption of improved agricultural technologies to create susta- inable agricultural production that will benefit the resource-poor farmer. FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH 157 DEFINITION AND MAIN FOCUS OF FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH What is farmer participatory research? The term "farmer participatory research" was coined by Farrington and Martin (1987), but the approach has also been called farmer-back-to-farmer research (Rhoades and Booth, 1982), farmer- first-and-last research (Chambers and Ghildyal, 1985), and participa- tory technology development (Tan, 1985; ILEIA, 1989). Harwood (1979:33) explains that farmer participatory research is a method in which "the major emphasis is on production research, planned and carried out by and with the farmers on their own fields." Tan (1985) states that this is "a systematic approach of evolving or adapting technology among the people of a community..." According to Ashby, Quiros, and Rivera (1987:2), farmer participatory research is a process "in which the farmer acts as a subject who investigates, mea- sures, and studies in collaboration with researchers." Haverkort et al. (1988:5), define participatory technology development as "the practical process for bringing together the knowledge and research capacities of the local farming communities with that of the commercial and scien- tific institutions in an interactive way." What is the main focus of farmer participatory research? The focus of farmer participatory research is the development of agricultural technology to increase productivity. Practitioners empha- size the participation of farmers in the process of technology genera- tion. They concentrate on the identification, development or adapta- tion, and use of technologies specifically tailored to meet the needs of small, resource-poor farmers. A basic tenet of this approach is that agricultural technology must emerge from the farmers' needs as they identify them. Farmers conduct experiments and evaluate the appropriateness of a technology on the basis of their own criteria. According to Rhoades and Booth (1982:132), 158 PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH AND SOCIAL CHANGE The basic philosophy upon which the model is based holds that successful agricultural research and development must begin and end with the farmer. Applied agricultural research cannot begin in isolation on an experimental station or with a planning committee out of touch with farm conditions. In practice, this means obtaining information about, and achieving an understanding of, the farmers' perception of the problem and finally accepting the farmers' evaluation of the solution. Researchers and farmers collaborate in the identification of the research agenda, thus assuring that studies will be relevant to the farm- ers' needs. Scientists learn from farmers and support their ideas and innovations. They also cooperate in the implementation and evalua- tion of agronomic experiments in the farmers' fields. Supporters of farmer participatory research maintain that tech- nologies intended to be used by small farmers must be developed and evaluated on site and with the farmers' active participation. On-farm experimentation and trials aid in determining the viability of tech- nologies according to the farmers' criteria. The indigenous technical knowledge of farmers and their capa- city for experimentation are key aspects of the process. Both the researcher's and the farmer's knowledge will be crucial for the genera- tion of technologies that fit the local environment and circumstances and are thus more likely to solve the farmer's agricultural problems. Proponents of farmer participatory research promote low cost technologies and a minimum of external inputs by using locally avai- lable resources and strengthening the farmer's experimental capacity. These features aim at sustainable and environmentally sound develop- ment. The ultimate goal of farmer participatory research is to increase productivity by generating technologies that will solve farmers' pro- duction problems. FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH 159 MAIN COMPONENTS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH Farmer participatory research falls into what Chambers and Ghildyal (1985) call the "farmer-first" paradigm. Chambers (1990:240) notes that the essence of this approach is a reversal of the transfer-of- technology paradigm in terms of explanation, learning, and location. A reversal of explanation looks for reasons why farmers do not adopt new technology not in the ignorance of the farmer but in the deficiencies in the technology and the process that generated it. A reversal of learning has researchers and extension workers learning from farmers. Location and roles are also reversed, with farms and farmers central instead of research stations, laboratories, and scientists. The characteristics of farmer participatory research are fully compatible with the "farmer-first" paradigm. Chambers (1989:182) succinctly summarizes these as follows: With farmer first, the main objective is not to transfer known technology, but to empower farmers to learn, adapt, and do better; analysis is not by outsiders-scientists, exten- sionists, or NGO workers-on their own but by farmers and by farmers assisted by outsiders; the primary location for research and development is not the experimental station, laboratory, or greenhouse, necessary though they are for some purposes, but farmers' fields and conditions; what is transferred by outsiders to farmers is not precepts but prin- ciples, not messages but methods, not a package of practices to be adopted but a basket of choices from which to select. The menu, in short, is not fixed or table d'hote, but a la carte and the menu itself is a response to farmers' needs articulat- ed by them. 160 PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH AND SOCIAL CHANGE The following set of components and characteristics is based on an integration of elements taken from works by Ashby, 1990; Chambers, 1990; van der Kamp and Schuthof, 1989; Kotschi, 1989; Chambers, Pacey, and Thrupp, 1988; Haverkort et al., 1988; Gubbels, 1988; Farrington, 1988; Farrington and Martin, 1988; Gibbon, 1986; Chambers and Ghildyal, 1985; and Tourte, 1984. 1. The main goal of farmer participatory research is to develop appropriate agricultural technology to meet the production needs of the small, resource-poor farmers The main objective of farmer participatory research is not to transfer technology, but to work with small, resource-poor farmers to generate or adapt appropriate technology on-farm. The criterion of excellence is not the rigor of an on-station or in-laboratory research, or yields in research station or resource-rich farmer conditions, but the more rigorous test of whether new practices spread among the resource-poor (Chambers and Ghildyal, 1985:11). In addition to developing appropriate technology, the goal of farmer participatory research is to include farmers in decision-making regarding the generation of agricultural technologies. In other words, another objective is to find out which aspects of an agricultural prac- tice or technology the farmer would like to work to improve (Ashby, 1990; Maurya, Bottrall, and Farrington, 1988; Gladwin, 1980). 2. Farmers participate actively in the entire farmer participatory research process Farmer participation in research is a key aspect of this approach. Research starts with the knowledge, problems, analysis, and priorities of farmers. Their participation ensures that research will focus on their own needs. FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH 161 [T]he farmers' role in technology development becomes more critical and increasingly cost effective as the proposed technology becomes more multifaceted and complex; as research is focused on limited-resource producers farming under highly variable conditions... it is the farmers them- selves who hold the keys for developing, evaluating, and val- idating [technologies] (Sumberg and Okali, 1988:336). Farmers become the researchers, experimenters, and evaluators in this process. They actively participate in the identification of pro- blems, needs, opportunities, and priorities, in the design and imple- mentation of experiments, and in the evaluation of results. Indigenous knowledge of local conditions and the capacity for experimentation are aspects of the research process as these factors facilitate the generation of technology. The knowledge farmers possess of their own farming systems, including climate and soils, and the social, institutional, and economic environment, is vital to the deve- lopment of appropriate technologies. Farmer participation assures the development of technologies suited to the very specific needs and constraints of the physical, social, and economic conditions found on the small, resource-poor farm. Horton (1986:105) suggests that [F]armers have a substantial comparative advantage over researchers and extensionists in arriving at the most appro- priate input levels and blending component technologies into cropping and farming systems which meet their specific needs and are consistent with their resource endowments. 3. Research is conducted in the farmers' fields Agricultural research institutions now generally agree that technologies intended for small farmers should be identified, designed, and evaluated within the context of the farming systems practiced by farmers themselves (Matlon et al., 1984:7). 162 PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH AND SOCIAL CHANGE The farm is the place where farmer participatory research is con- ducted as this is where production occurs and farmers make their major production decisions. When developed under real conditions, the characteristics of agricultural technology will reflect the objectives and criteria of farmers, based on their access to resources and inputs, agronomic constraints, marketing possibilities, and so on. Appropriate technology is thus more likely to be developed and adopted to fulfill farmers' needs. Since farmer participatory research is location-specific, research must be conducted on farms representative of those in other areas so the technology developed can be more broadly disseminated. 4. The scientist is an investigator, colleague, and advisor Scientists learn and work with farmers, facilitating and provi- ding support. In collaboration, researchers and farmers set the research agenda, and experiment with and evaluate technologies. The scientist's role is that of colleague and advisor who brings new ideas and/or unknown technologies to the community. He or she can also facilitate analysis of the farming system for the purpose of identifying potential areas for improvement and supporting the infor- mal agricultural research of farmers. 5. Farmer participatory research is based on a systems perspective A farm is a system composed of interacting subsystems. Farm subsystems include land, labor, capital, crop and animal production, off-farm income, social and economic components, physical and bio- logical components, and so on. Farmer participatory researchers emphasize the importance of understanding the entire system. The research effort focuses on solving an agricultural technology problem in order to benefit the farm as a whole. Farmer participatory research promotes gradual, adaptive changes in the farming system rather than the abrupt transformation of the system. FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH 163 According to Byerlee et al. (1982:898), the complexity of farms as systems is due to: (a) direct physical interactions between production activities generated by intercropping and crop rotation practices, (b) competition and complementarity in resource use between different production activities, and (c) the multiple objective function of the farm household. These interactions, from both biological and socio-economic sources, underlie the need for a farming systems perspective and a multidiscipli- nary approach in research on improved technology. 6. Farmer participatory research requires interdisciplinary collabora- tion between researchers and farmers Interdisciplinary analysis of the farming system is imperative for successful farmer participatory research. This involves collaboration between farmers and agricultural and social scientists. The research agenda must be established and the entire process conducted in a col- laborative mode, focusing on farmers' real needs. Dialogue between scientists and farmers is essential. What farmers can bring to the dialogue is a wealth of knowl- edge and skills to deal with the environment's harsh con- straints: the true value of these assets must be recognized and understood. The researchers' contribution is innovation and resources... (Tourte, 1984:7) Interaction between farmers and scientists can be contractual, consultative, collaborative, or collegial (Biggs, 1989). Ideally, this is a relationship between legitimate colleagues and partners working as equals. Direct interaction between researchers and farmers increases the former's understanding of the farmers' decision-making criteria, and of the conditions in which they work. Researchers have to make sure that solutions, rather than developing along the lines of any spe- cific discipline, emerge from a holistic analysis by farmers and researchers. 164 PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH AND SOCIAL CHANGE 7. Farmer participatory research promotes innovative methodologies and flexibility Proponents of farmer participatory research encourage the use of a variety of innovative methods. Creative methodologies are neces- sary in developing appropriate technologies for resource-poor farmers working under very different conditions. Because this approach is broad, flexible, and adaptive, scientists and farmers must be in continuous contact to agree on research proce- dures, monitor trials, and respond to unexpected changes along the way. Because initial assumptions, hypotheses, needs, and local condi- tions may change over time, flexibility facilitates adaptation to new cir- cumstances. UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS OF FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH One of the principal tenets underlying farmer participatory research is that farmers act rationally in using resources available to achieve their production needs. Farmers manage a complex set of bio- logical processes which transform these resources into useful products, either for home consumption or for sale. Decisions about crop and livestock production, and the methods and timing of cultivation, hus- bandry, and harvesting are determined not only by physical and bio- logical constraints but also by economic, socio-political, infrastructur- al, and policy factors that make up the larger milieu within which farm- ers operate. In undertaking a farmer participatory research project, researchers assume that farmers 1) possess indigenous knowledge of their farming systems and their environment; and 2) have a capacity for experimentation that must be used and strengthened for technology development. FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH 165 Farmers' indigenous knowledge system Traditionally, the technical knowledge of farmers has been regarded as "backward and irrational" by researchers who rely on sci- ence-based knowledge. However, the fact that scientists are unaware of the scientific value, principle, or explanation for a practice does not mean said practices or knowledge do not work well for farmers, nor that they lack a scientific basis.1 Instead, it may be that no one has con- ducted research on traditional farming practices and thus little is known about them (Selener, 1987). According to Howes and Chambers (1979:7), this is due, at least in part, to the fact that officials-agricultural extension staff, planners, research workers, 'experts' and others-depend on scientific knowledge to legitimize their superior status. They thus have a vested interest in devaluing indigenous technical know- ledge and in imposing a sense of dependence on the part of their rural clients. Consequently, scientists often do not allow farmers to partici- pate in the process of generating new technical knowledge and agricul- tural practices. The task of scientists involved in farmer participatory research is to engage farmers in research so that they will gain confi- dence and knowledge (Howes and Chambers, 1979). In the last decade, a growing body of literature has demonstra- ted the importance and validity of indigenous knowledge and its cru- cial role in rural development activities (Thurston, 1992; McCorkle, 1989; Thrupp, 1989; Farrington and Martin, 1988; Haverkort et al., 1988; Carlier, 1987; Selener, 1989; Wilken, 1989; Richards, 1985, 1979; Compton, 1984; Biggs, 1980a; Howes and Chambers, 1979; IDS, 1979; Conklin, 1957). According to McCorkle (1989:4), indigenous knowledge systems consist of the 1 For an example of this phenomena see Box, 1988, p.71. 166 PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH AND SOCIAL. CHANGE theories, beliefs, practices, and technologies that all peoples in all times and places have elaborated without direct inputs from the modern, formal, scientific establishment (McCorkle, 1989:4). These systems are concrete, practical, utilitarian (Howes and Chambers, 1992), broad, detailed, comprehensive, and usually sustain- able (Thurston, 1992). They are based on empirical observation, trial and error, and controlled experimentation over centuries. Years of experience have led to the development of sustainable farming prac- tices involving a minimum of risk (Selener, 1987). Farmers are fully cognizant of their physical and biological environment, including microclimatic conditions, rainfall patterns, water retention capabilities of soils, appropriate plants for specific soils, mixed cropping patterns, ways of controlling or eliminating plant and animal diseases, and so on (Compton, 1984). Haskell et al. (1981) describe traditional farming systems based on indigenous knowledge as follows: (T)raditional peasant systems of agriculture are not primi- tive leftovers from the past, but are, on the contrary, systems finely tuned and adapted, both biologically and socially, to counter the pressures of what are often harsh and inimical environments, and often represent hundreds, sometimes thousands, of years of adaptive evolution in which the vagaries of climate, the availability of land and water, the basic needs of the people and their animals for food, shelter, and health, have been amalgamated in a system which has allowed society to exist and develop in the face of tremen- dous odds. Indigenous knowledge systems do not focus exclusively on far- ming practices. In addition to agricultural knowledge, the adaptations farmers have evolved lead to knowledge about health, education, hou- sing, community organization, management of local resources, and so on. The inclusion of indigenous knowledge in the development of technologies to be used by small farmers increases the likelihood that FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH 167 innovations will be more sustainable and environmentally sound (McCorkle, 1989). Further, the inclusion of local knowledge, ideas, and experiences in research and development projects assures that local people's self-respect, confidence, and pride will increase, leading to empowerment (Thrupp, 1988). Cost-effective research and the development of appropriate technology for farmers requires that indigenous knowledge systems be strengthened so that the capacity of farmers to experiment, evaluate, and anticipate the performance of new agricultural practices under local conditions can complement the science-based development of technology. This implies that researchers view farmers as more than mere sources of information. Farmers' capacity for experimentation Along with growing recognition of the value and usefulness of indigenous knowledge systems, scientists are increasingly aware of farmers' capacity for experimentation, resulting in the evolution and adaptation of indigenous knowledge systems to production needs (Ashby, 1990; Box, 1988; Bunch, 1988, 1982; Farrington and Martin, 1988; Harverkort, 1988; Waters-Bayer, 1988b; Lightfoot, 1987; Rhoades, 1987; Gibbon, 1986; Tan, 1986; Richards, 1985; Rhoades and Booth, 1982; Kirkby et al., 1981; Biggs, 1980a,b; Brammer, 1980; Johnson, 1972). Farmers' capacity for research and experimentation generally goes unacknowledged by agricultural researchers and society at large. 'When we think of a technological invention, we may think of the telephone of Alexander Graham Bell, the light bulb of Thornas Edison, or polio vaccine of Dr. Jonas Salk. But who of tus in the supermarket, after seeing literally hundreds of foods, thinks of the farmers who ctultured, domesticated, and constantly improved them for our use today? (Rhoades, 1987:3). 168 PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH AND SOCIAL CHANGE Rhoades (1987:3) argues that for 10,000 years farmers have been experimenting to develop their farming systems, and that before the arrival of science "farmers already had an evolutionary impact on plants, animals, and the land. The advances they made were not only in production but in processing and storage as well." He also notes (1987:3) that all theories on the evolution of farming include the view of the farmer as "an active actor in the process: selecting, consciously observing, and manipulating and experimenting with plants, animals, tools, and the environment to improve production output." Farmers experiment in one way or another in order to adjust to changing circumstances. This experimentation has led to the develop- ment of productive and sustainable farming systems well suited to their needs, environment, and resources. Box (1988) notes that farmers experimented in the past to domesticate "wild species." They selected, bred, and promoted particu- lar qualities of a species, and turned it into a crop. Even today, farmers do not control all aspects of their physical and biological environment, and so they must continue to experiment because success depends, to a great extent, on the continuous adaptation of a given practice or tech- nology to changing local conditions. Major breakthroughs in technology generated by scientists in experimental stations have been based on experiments conducted by farmers. By way of example, Rhoades (1987) describes the invention of diffuse light storage in Peru and the introduction of paddy rice pro- duction in the Amazon basin, and Biggs (1980) points to rice produc- tion in Bangladesh and wheat in Mexico. Biggs also describes farmers' successful adaptations of high-yield varieties of wheat in India and Bangladesh in the 1960s and 1970s, as well as other innovations in Bangladesh. Kirkby et al. (1981) explain the practices developed by farmers and the ways they adapt technologies introduced by extension agents to local conditions in Ecuador. Based on successful experiences in Guatemala and Honduras, Bunch (1988) reports that the emphasis on improving farmers' inherent capacity for experimentation is an important element in the sustainability of agricultural development programs. When an organization withdraws from a region, farmers continue to conduct experiments and share information with members of farmers' groups and organizations. FAR,MIER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH 169 According to Biggs (1980:25), the examples above demonstrate that rural communities throughout the world are more than "passive recipients of technology that is transferred to them from Western countries or formal research and development programs." He identifies three inter-related types of information generated by farmers' informal research: 1) technical and organizational innovations that use scarce resources efficiently, 2) signposts for new research that scientists in for- mal research and development systems might start to work on, and 3) methods for conducting cost-effective research and classifying know- ledge, with the farmer as principal researcher. Scientists must facilitate farmers' experiments "to bring back or affirm [their] inherent ability to adapt technical options to specific farm conditions" (Lightfoot, 1987:81), and "to improve the transfer of information and technology from the grassroots up to high levels of decision-making" (Biggs, 1980:26). In addition to the value and use of indigenous knowledge sys- tems and farmers' experimentation, Ashby (1990:246) has identified other benefits resulting from participation by farmers in the process of technology development: a) improved understanding by scientists of the needs of small farmers, leading to better identification of problems appropriate for adaptive, on-farm research; b) improved feedback on farmers' needs and objectives to guide applied research in research stations; c) accelerated transfer and adoption of improved technolo- gy by small farmers; d) efficient, cost-effective use of scarce resources in on-farm research through better linkages among farmers, researchers, and extensionists; e) development of organizational models, professional skills, and values appropriate for demand-driven, problem-ori- ented technology design. 170 PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH AND SOCIAL. CHANGE MAIN TYPES OF FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH It is useful to classify research conducted on farms according to the level of control and management exercised by farmers and researchers. This classification includes four categories (figure 1): 1) researcher-managed on-farm trials, 2) consultative researcher-managed on-farm trials, 3) collaborative farmer-researcher participatory research, 4) farmer managed participatory research. The first two types are not examples of farmer participatory research, but simply conventional on-farm research. The last two types are forms of farmer participatory research and, as such, reflect the characteristics and are based on the assumptions presented earlier in this chapter. on-farm trials farmer participatory non-participatory research researcher 2) consultative 3) collaborative 4) farmer managed managed Figure 1. Types of On-Farm Research On the left side of the spectrum are the non-participatory on- farm trials conducted by researchers in farmers' fields; on the right side, the forms of farmer participatory research in which farmers are deci- sion-makers. Between these poles, there exists a range of possibilities, combining farmer and researcher participating in the control and management of the research process. The four approaches are present- ed below to differentiate non-participatory on-farm trials (1 and 2) from genuine farmer participatory research (3 and 4). A review of the literature suggests that the tendency in the 1970s and 1980s was to conduct non-participatory, researcher-managed on- FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH 171 farm trials, often in conjunction with FSR projects. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, farmers began to participate more actively in the research process. Current literature (Proyecto IPRA-CIAT, 1993; Chambers, Pacey, and Thrupp, 1989; ILEIA, 1988, 1989) indicates a strong move toward farmers assuming the role of principal researcher, or farmers and researchers engaging in a truly collaborative process. Researcher-managed on-farm trials Proponents of researcher-managed trials work in farmers' fields to develop technology for farmers or to test and validate research fin- dings obtained in the research station. However, farmers do not partic- ipate actively in this process. Instead, researchers generally design, implement, and evaluate the technology in the farmers' fields, or they define the research agenda and design trials which farmers are allowed to implement under their supervision. Occasionally, scientists may also allow farmers to comment on the outcomes of experiments. The expe- rimental designs used in this approach are similar to those used in research stations. Thus, the relationship between the researcher and farmer is hie- rarchical. Researchers are the main decision-makers, setting the research agenda and designing and implementing trials. Researchers identify the problem upon which research is based. Participation by farmers in conventional on-farm trials is mini- mal. They often rent their land to researchers conducting experiments, or are paid for their labor. But farmers do not define the research agen- da or participate in decision-making. Because scientists bring techno- logy'from the experimental station to the farm for testing and valida- tion, farmers are not involved in technology generation. Ultimately, farmers become the passive recipients of researchers' recommenda- tions. Scientists using this approach include Collinson, 1987; Knipscheer and Suradisastra, 1985; Effendi, 1985; Hildebrand and Poey, i985; Gomez, 1985; Harrington and Tripp, 1984; Shanner et at., 1982; Zandstra et at., 1981; and Byerlee et al., 1980. 172 PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH AND SOCIAL CHANGE Consultative researcher-managed on-farm trials In this approach, farmers are consulted by researchers about their needs, problems, goals, and preferences. They are also asked about their agricultural practices and knowledge of the local environment, resource availability, and so on. Researchers may also ask farmers for feedback on their perceptions of the new technology under study. Although farmers may be consulted at the beginning of the research process, "such consultation is aimed primarily at assisting researchers in interpreting farmers' circumstances, problems, or needs, and to arrive at experimental designs for trials which often will not include farmer participation in the initial stages of on-farm testing (Ashby, 1987:237). Technologies are developed for farmers based on the researchers' understanding of their farming systems. The relationship between researcher and farmer is consultative: scientists interview farmers about their problems and needs at the beginning of the process, with the former making decisions as to appropriate solutions, designing and implementing trials, and assum- ing responsibility for all data collection and analysis. Some researchers may allow farmers limited participation in the testing, validation, and evaluation of the new technology developed at the experimental station. Experiments are conducted for the purpose of answering researcher's scientific concerns as related to farm-level conditions. Trials are designed to acquire accurate information about the response of technologies in the farmer's fields, but do not incorpo- rate the farmer's criteria on testing or evaluation. If farmers are asked to evaluate technology, it is "only after the outcomes of the on-farm testing are well-rehearsed and predictable to researchers and extension workers" (Ashby, 1987:236). This type of on-farm trial is the last step of research conducted at the experimental station, as trials are usually aimed at adapting a given technology to farm conditions through testing and modifying practices most likely to be recommended to farmers. Compared to the conventional on-farm trial conducted solely by scientists, this approach involves more interaction between researchers and farmers. However, researchers continue to control the research FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH 173 process and develop technology. The farmer's minimal involvement does not include decisions regarding the research agenda, trial imple- mentation, or evaluation criteria. The power of choice in practice mostly remains with scien- tists: information is extracted from the farmers and their farms and analyzed by scientists, in a manner which enables the scientists to diagnose and prescribe for the farmers. Even if farmers' diagnosis of problems is one of the starting points, the diagnosis is translated into terms testable by scientists and the solutions are derived from scientists' knowledge sys- tems. The key decisions about what to try and what to do remain with the scientists (Chambers and Jiggins, 1986:11.). Representative examples of this approach are found in works by Collinson, 1987; Martinez and Araujo, 1984; Byerlee et al., 1982; Rahman, 1985; Tripp, 1982; and Kirkby et al., 1981. Fussell (in Chambers et al., 1988) describes the approaches pre- sented above as "lip service" to genuine farmers participation in tech- nology development, since scientists develop technology at research stations for farmers who are not involved in any substantive way in the process. The finished product is tested by researchers to assess its per- formance in the farmers' fields. Because farmers do not participate in problem definition, experiment design, and evaluation, these approaches are consistent with the transfer-of-technology model, and therefore likely to result in agricultural practices and technologies that fail to meet farmers' needs. Collaborative farmer-researcher participatory research Farmers and researchers work together in this approach on problem definition, design, management and implementation of trials, and evaluation. In the early phases of the process, scientists and farm- ers discuss potential areas for collaborative research and choose deci- sion-making and evaluation criteria. By combining informal research by farmers with formal on-farm testing procedures, indigenous know- 174 PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH AND SOCIAL CHANGE ledge and science-based knowledge are mixed to meet farmers' needs. Ideally, a collaborative relationship means balanced participation in and control over the research process in order to achieve the objectives of both farmers and scientists. Proponents of this approach include Kotschi, 1989; Conway, 1988; Lightfoot et al., 1988a/b/c; Maurya et al., 1988; Ashby, 1987,1986; Box, 1987; Fernandez and Salvatierra, 1986; Matlon, et al., 1984; Rhoades and Booth, 1982; and Harwood, 1979. Farmer-managed participatory research Farmers are the main actors and decision-makers in this approach, developing technology through a process that includes pro- blem definition, trial design, the implementation of experiments, and the evaluation of results. In the diagnostic phase, farmers identify the problems and needs they want to address. In the planning and design phase, they choose the most important problem, identify potential solutions, design prototype technology, and decide how to test it. In the experimentation phase, they test and evaluate the technology. Finally, in the adaptation and va- lidation phase, farmers further test the technology developed prior to dissemination (Ashby, 1991). The experimental capacity and indigenous knowledge of far- mers are used to the maximum in this approach. The scientist's role is to assure that the community's local experimental capacity is fully uti- lized and to link farmers to information and resources for which the community has expressed a need but which are unavailable at the local level. Proyecto IPRA-CIAT, 1993; Ashby, 1991, 1986, 1987; Scheuer- meier, 1988; Lightfoot, 1987; Chambers and Ghildyal, 1985; Chambers and Jiggins, 1986; Tan, 1985, 1986; Shiva, 1982; Bunch, 1982, 1988; Brammer, 1980; and Biggs, 1980 report on the application of this approach. FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH 175 EPISTEMOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS OF FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH: COMBINING SCIENCE-BASED AND INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS Practitioners of farmer participatory research generally agree that the technologies developed through this approach will, ideally, contain a balance of science-based and indigenous knowledge (Ashby, 1990; Chambers, 1989; Jiggins, 1989; Kotschi, 1989; Thrupp, 1989; Waters-Bayer, 1989; Farrington, 1988; Farrington and Martin, 1988; Loux, 1988; Lightfoot, 1987, 1985; Gibbon, 1986; Lightfoot and Barker, 1986; Compton, 1984; Rhoades, 1984; and Kassorla, 1977). However, there is a difference between recognizing the value of indigenous knowledge and romanticizing it. Farmers' practices are not always optimal, especially when external factors (population pressure, climatic changes, sharp decline in soil fertility) lead to rapid evolution in traditional farming systems in response to changing conditions. Scientists and development workers must merge science-based knowl- edge with farmers' indigenous knowledge (Selener, 1987). With respect to the design of an experimental program, farmers should be seen as researchers who are willing and able to test new techniques. But it should be emphasized that their observations will generally be more valuable than their explanations, and the criteria they apply for selecting new technologies more exacting than their experimental methods (Tripp, 156:7). Since experimentation by farmers cannot entirely replace con- ventional scientific research and conventional scientific research can- not replace farmers' on-farm research, practitioners of this approach favor a "symbiotic relationship" between the two. The result is the incorporation of the most important and valuable aspects of each into a new system which will both benefit the small farmer and contribute to the scientific knowledge base. 176 PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH AND SOCIAL CHANGE [N]either `on farm' nor 'on-station' trials are the solution, but it is precisely the mixture of the two which generates new knowledge (Loux, 1988:62). Indigenous knowledge systems refine or enhance science-based knowledge which, in turn, complements farmers' knowledge. By capi- talizing on indigenous knowledge, scientists can develop technologies at research stations more likely to benefit resource poor farmers who, for their part, can adapt or reject these according to their own criteria. Farmers experiment with and make decisions about a technology, bringing to bear their knowledge of the environment. Trials by farmers in their fields further reveal the kind of basic research still needed to generate information that will complement experimentation and lead to appropriate recommendations for refining the technology to meet their needs. Science-based knowledge results in the refinement and strength- ening of indigenous knowledge systems by providing the previously unknown scientific rationale or principle behind successful indigenous practices. A principle that is known and understood can be used to design additional appropriate technologies. Therefore, science-based knowledge plays a critical supportive role when it is conducted with the consent and active participation of farmers, thus assuring that scien- tists do not fall into the trap of designing new packages of technologies for the farmer, like in the transfer-of-technology model. Farmers can also use modern science for their own benefit, adapting science-based knowledge to solve their practical production problems. In the process, they are "counter-coopting" conventional empirical science, controlling and using it to their own advantage. Scientists, or "converts," committed to helping resource-poor farmers may explain to their conventional colleagues, or "non-con- verts," the scientific value behind traditional practices by using scien- tific language, thus legitimizing indigenous knowledge. But Thrupp (1989:19) warns that scientists risk "scientizing" indigenous knowledge in an irresponsible manner: FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH 177 [T]raditional knowledge may be marginalized or lose its value when well-intentioned scientists and researchers `sci- entize' it by examining it with formal empirical methodolo- gies and using laboratory controlled trials. Although such studies can be somewhat useful to verify or demonstrate the function of local people's practices and ideas, this form of sys- tematization can be inappropriate to an appreciation of the true function and the subtle complex nuances of such know- ledge systems. This 'scientization' in Western terms, there- fore, is not a true form of legitimization, and is abstracted from the value of the peoples' knowledge on their own terms. From the perspective of small farmers who have been sub- jected to this kind of scrutiny, the `scientization' of tradition- based practices by foreign researchers is a farce. In summary, farmer participatory research attempts to synthe- size farmers' indigenous knowledge and experience and researchers' science-based knowledge to complement each other: ...[Indigenous knowledge systems is important for its] capac- ity for location-specific classification of aspects of the bio- physical environment, though it may [also] supplement sci- ence in the functions of explanation and prediction. Science's principal role lies in the provision of technology options to address the problems and constraints identified by farmers, and those relevant to their conditions of which farmers may be yet unaware" (Farrington and Martin, 1988:29). ROLE OF THE RESEARCHER IN FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH In supporting farmer participatory research, scientists play a new role. Instead of the missionary role of those who transfer technol- ogy, the new role is that of a convener, catalyst, colleague, and consultant. The outsider sets up discussions and analy- 178 PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH AND SOCIAL. CHANGE ses by farm families and acts as a catalyst, in the strict chem- ical sense of that term, meaning an agent which speeds up reactions. The outsider is a colleague for farmers in their experiments, and a consultant who can search for and sup- ply ideas and technologies (Chambers, 1988:35). Researchers must respect farmers' needs and knowledge, as the relationship between researcher and farmer is a crucial aspect in imple- menting the process. In the early stages of the project, scientists direct their efforts toward understanding the farmers' socio-economic, cultural, and bio- physical milieu. They identify key informants and "local agricultural researchers" or innovators in the community who are experimenting with different crop varieties and agricultural practices. Researchers learn and understand farmers' practices, indigenous knowledge, and decision-making criteria. Dialogue with farmers is vital to understanding problems, opportunities, and potential solutions from the farmers' point of view. When farmers feel that researchers are genuinely interested in their practices, they take pride in their own knowledge and are willing to work in a collaborative mode. As they become more knowledgeable about the farmers' practices and environ- ment, researchers are better able to participate collaboratively in the design, implementation, and evaluation of on-farm trials (Waters- Bayer, 1990). Researchers promote the formation of farmers' groups by orga- nizing field days during which farmers consult with one another, iden- tifying common technical problems they might solve with the know- ledge they already have and through experimentation. Researchers arrange group meetings, ask key questions, and promote discussion and analysis (Norman et al., 1988). Scientists act as facilitators and advisors when farmers engage in problem definition, experiment design, and evaluation. They support farmers' criteria and choices. In identifying priority problems, researchers facilitate and participate in discussion and analysis of the situation. After the problem has been identified, participants begin to examine potential solutions. If a solution is not available at the local level, the researcher informs farmers of appropriate, low cost technolo- FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH 179 gies which may be available and already in use by other farmers in dif- ferent regions or countries. As the technology's potential and limita- tions are analyzed, the researcher provides critical information or seeks planting material, seeds, scientific information, and so on. In some cases, researchers may arrange for farmers to visit research stations or other communities where they can learn from other farmers' experi- ences (Chambers, 1990, 1989). When solutions are not readily available, participants must experiment. Researchers have to avoid imposing their own research agenda on farmers when working in a collaborative relationship (Ashby, 1987). When scientists conduct trials with farmers, they become acquainted first hand with the limitations faced by farmers and learn how they cope with risk and ensure family sustenance (Waters- Bayer, 1990). By participating in farmer-managed research, researchers strengthen farmers' capacity for experimentation, facilitating rapid and efficient accommodation to changing circumstances. Researchers strive to help... farmers decide what to observe and measure so that they can assess their results in a meaningful way to them and show farmers how they can obtain information from formal research services to aid in interpreting their results (Waters- Bayer, 1989:12). METHODOLOGICAL GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH There is no single way to implement farmer participatory research. Researchers may choose from a variety of appropriate tech- niques, always keeping in mind that their primary task is to work in collaboration with small farmers to solve their agricultural production problems. When conducting farmer participatory research activities, the researcher first needs to be apprised of what farmers are producing, 180 PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH AND SOCIAL CHANGE and how and why. The researchers should assess problems and poten- tial within the existing farming system in order to work from and build on that system rather than introduce alien technological packages or try to change the entire system. In other words, this is a bottom-up strategy based on the existing farming system, and the research process and outcomes must reflect its complexity, responding to and taking advantage of the opportunities it offers (Sumberg and Okali, 1988). Ashby (1990:250) identifies a number of principles associated with different farmer participatory research methods which reflect the dynamic and iterative nature of the process. According to Ashby, meth- ods applied in this approach are: Interactive, emphasizing immediate two-way information flows both in the farmer-researcher-extensionist interface, and in the farmer-to-farmer information exchange. Flexible, tending to minimize researcher control and maximize farmer intervention in research design. Multiple, such that different techniques are applied simultane- ously or overlapping in time, rather than sequentially. Rapid, to maximize ability to respond to farmer initiatives or unanticipated areas of research. The stages of farmer participatory research include: 1) problem identification, 2) search for solutions, 3) on-farm experimentation and trials, and 3) evaluation of technology. In practice, these constitute a continuum rather than discrete stages. The methodology presented below is meant to be a guide rather than a fixed methodology, and includes elements from methodologies proposed by Kotschi, 1989; Waters-Bayer, 1989; Lightfoot et al.,. 1988c; Sumberg and Okali, 1988; Tan, 1986; Rhoades and Booth, 1982; Biggs, 1980; Byerlee et at., 1980; and Harwood, 1979. Detailed descriptions and analysis of operational approaches to farmer participatory research are presented by Farrington and Martin (1988), ILEIA (1989), and Lightfoot et al. (1991a), and Proyecto IPRA-CIAT (1993). FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH 181 Problem identification Before researchers begin working with farmers to define a pro- blem, they observe, characterize, and understand the context within which farmers function, including circumstances, practices, and indigenous knowledge. To this end, researchers may conduct short rapid appraisals in the target area where a majority of the population consists of small, resource-poor farmers. Researchers are advised to identify groups of farmers who work under similar conditions and share similar problems and potential. Norman et al. (1988) notes the advantages of working with groups, including 1) improved dialogue leading to increased farmer participa- tion, 2) increased efficiency and use of research resources, 3) opportu- nities for field days with more farmers sharing their knowledge and experience, and 4) potential for improving linkages among researchers, farmers, and extension agents. In addition, farmers and scientists identify the major technolo- gical problem, limiting production from the farmers' point of view. Problems usually focus on practices related to technology, such as pest control, soil erosion and declining fertility, post-harvest technology, cultivation practices, and so on. Scientists research the problem per- ceived by farmers to be the most significant, thus assuring, as far as pos- sible, that solutions will be adopted. Researchers must make every effort to view the problem through the farmers' eyes. Because research resources are usually limited, and farmers are generally amenable to the gradual modification of elements in their farming systems rather than the transformation of the entire system, emphasis is on the identification of priority problems, the solutions to which will lead to the maintenance of or increase in production levels. Researchers act as catalysts, facilitating discussion by assisting in problem analysis and needs identification, and recognizing possibilities for overcoming these. Participants analyze the problem in order to dis- cover its causes. Researchers do not impose their own views but enrich the dialogue, participating as equals with farmers. Effective communication between researchers and farmers increases understanding of problems farmers face in their production 182 PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH AND SOCIAL. CHANGE systems and limitations they encounter in the process of developing or adapting technologies. Both social and bio-physical elements are equal- ly important in problem analysis, which is a learning process for both researchers and farmers. Exploring and selecting potential solutions In the second stage, participants identify potential solutions or alternatives to technological problems experienced by farmers. Farmers and researchers determine whether a solution already exists. Alternatives based on science-based knowledge may be available at research centers or universities. Similarly, the appropriate solutions may be found in the indigenous knowledge system of the local com- munity or other farming communities. The researcher's role is to broaden the range of options available, but farmers always choose tech- nologies to be tested. A special effort is made to search for solutions in similar farm- ing systems. A visit to neighboring villages may reveal practices worth testing under conditions in farmers' fields. Because proposed solutions are seldom fully compatible with the particular farming system under study, it is imperative that participants test and adapt these. Testing and adapting the technology Farmers and researchers begin by agreeing on a simple working hypothesis in which the main objectives of trials are explicitly stated. They then plan experiments, determining who will conduct trial activ- ities, care for plots, provide material such as seeds, plants, and animals to be tested, and so on. After identifying a potential technology or practice, participants conduct further study to assess its biological and/or physical character- istics and value, that is, to find out why the technology is likely to work. When the biological principle of a given technology is known and its validity demonstrated, participants develop a broad understanding of the way the principle can be adapted to the farmers' production needs. This should include an appreciation of the range of management FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH 183 options available to farmers and how they might apply these to fulfill their objectives (Sumberg and Okali, 1988). When technologies are designed, tested, and adapted in the farmers' fields, taking into account local conditions, they are more like- ly to meet farmers' needs. Thus, the next step involves on-farm trials so that farmers can appraise the appropriateness of the technology, vari- ety, treatment, and so on, selected to solve a given problem. In this process, potential solutions are compared with practices currently used by farmers. Ideally, all activities are recorded in simple ways for later analysis. The testing and adaptation process might go on for several seasons before farmers are ready to adopt a technology, and even after adoption they will continue to adapt it as necessary. As farmers assess innovations during on-farm trials, the ways in which they adapt a technology to their conditions and the criteria on which they base adaptations is described and analyzed collaboratively by researcher and farmers. This process facilitates critical reflection and why changes did or did not fulfill intended objectives. Evaluating the technology In this final stage, farmers assess their experiences in using the technology on their farms prior to recommending that it be adopted by members of other communities farming under similar conditions. The evaluation validates or negates research results. It also points to ways for further refining the new technology. In practice, evaluation takes place throughout technology deve- lopment, usually under the guise of an on-going informal exchange of ideas. The final evaluation is a stock-taking of the final product. The new practice or technology is assessed using farmers' deci- sion-making, risk aversion, cost-benefit, use of labor and other criteria. Usually, the researchers' final evaluation involves an explanation for the adoption or rejection of a technology or principle, or the modification of some element in an existing practice or technology. Analysis of the research process with farmers who have shared costs, inputs, labor, and ideas is an important learning experience, enhancing their capacity to develop technologies on their own in a sus- tained manner. 184 PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH AND SOCIAL CHANGE At the conclusion of the experiment, participating farmers plan further technology development, assuring that everyone has access to and benefits from new findings. If farmers did not adopt the innovation resulting from the research, an in-depth analysis will be conducted to learn why. This process may lead to changes in the research program in order to arrive at more appropriate recommendations. INTENDED OUTCOMES OF FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH The main result expected from farmer participatory research is the generation and adoption of new, appropriate technologies by small, resource-poor farmers to aid in solving production problems in order to increase farm productivity and income. Other outcomes are related to this primary objective. One of the most important of these is better understanding, on the part of researchers, of systems used by resource-poor farmers, including the rationale behind agricultural practices, indigenous knowledge systems, and decision-making criteria, i.e., the goals, needs, and incentives affecting the selection of production alternatives. It is equally important that scientists characterize and under- stand the complex bio-physical and socio-economic constraints to sus- tainable production, and that they identify potential agricultural pro- blems requiring basic research in experimental stations. In addition, it is likely that technologies developed through a combination of conventional research and farmer experimentation, with farmers participating in the development and adaptation of tech- nical innovations, will meet farmers' production needs. (Lightfoot, 1987). An improved research and extension system is another probable outcome, with increased interaction among researchers, extension workers, and farmers at the farm level leading to a redirection of on- station research and extension practices more in line with farmers' needs and circumstances. FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH 185 The implementation of farmer participatory research also leads to empowerment by improving resource-poor farmers' capacity for self-directed technology development and ability to adapt farming sys- tems to changing conditions. Farrington and Martin (1988:65) note that increased democratization and cost-effectiveness are likely out- comes of this approach. Farmer participatory research has the potential to generate user-demand for technology which historically has sharp- ened the focus of research in developed countries, but hither- to has been widely absent in less developed countries. As part of this process, indigenous knowledge systems would be made more dynamic, and especially community-level mechanisms for the implementation and enforcement of indigenous tech- nical knowledge strengthened. This is to be welcomed as -in philosophical terms- a move towards democratization of the processes of technology development and -in practical terms- towards a greater cost-effectiveness in the design, implemen- tation, and diffusion of technology. CASE STUDY The following case study, illustrating farmer participatory research, is based on experiences with small, resource-poor upland farmers in Eastern Visayas, the Philippines. The original studies were written by Lightfoot, de Guia Jr., Aliman, and Ocado (1989b); Lightfoot, de Guia Jr., and Ocado (1988a); Lightfoot and Ocado (1988c); Lightfoot, C., O. de Guia Jr., A. Aliman; and F. Ocado (1987b). Conventional agricultural researchers working in the area tradi- tionally focused on improving cropping patterns. However, poor upland farmers did not adopt technologies generated in research sta- tions because these did not meet their needs, requiring, as they did, high inputs of fertilizer, pesticides, and labor from farmers. Hoping to do research that would be adopted, researchers in this case study deci- ded to involve farmers in all stages of the process. Participating 186 PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH AND SOCIAL CHANGE researchers and farmers used systems logic in order to conduct a holis- tic analysis of the problem. Systems logic links the biological, social, political, and economic components of agricultural production to arrive at a full description of all aspects of a problem. This approach was vital to developing solutions appropriate to the conditions faced by small farmers. Research was undertaken in three villages in the Philippines, Natimonan, Santo Nino, and Simun, in the Municipality of Gandara on Samar. The villages were small, with a combined population of about 150 households. The site was characterized by rolling hills with infertile soils. Farmers participating in this project cultivated in four agro-ecological zones: sloping forest; rolling fallow land where tall grass, or cogon, grows; flat upland areas; and bunded or dammed rice fields. The farmer participatory research process involved three stages. During the first stage, farmers identified and analyzed problems. Identification involved 1) group meetings to find out what farmers generally talked about, 2) farm visits to clarify issues that had come up in group meetings, and 3) a group meeting to arrive at a consensus as to which problem farmers considered a priority. In the next step, scien- tists worked with farmers to understand and diagram the problem identified. This involved a) developing guide topics, b) conducting a qualitative survey to gain a holistic understanding of the problem and determine if the entire community agreed that this was an important issue, and c) interpreting survey results and drawing a systems dia- gram. In the second stage, scientists and farmers identified potential solutions for further research. This involved 1) looking for potential solutions and 2) selecting those on which to experiment. In the third stage, participants experimented with the potential solution selected. This included 1) defining a test hypothesis, 2) design- ing an experiment, 3) conducting the experiment in on-farm trials, and 4) analyzing and evaluating the experiment. FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH 187 STAGE I: Researchers help farmers identify and analyze a problem Step 1. Problem identification by farmers Group meetings Scientists met with approximately twenty farmers, self-selected, who attended because they were simply interested and/or had partici- pated in other cropping pattern trials. Researchers found that they were able to stimulate more discussion by asking farmers what they general- ly talked about rather than inquiring directly about problems. Although participants were free to talk about anything, they focused on agricultural issues, possibly, researchers speculated, because farmers knew they were from the Department of Agriculture. Researchers encouraged farmers to brainstorm on a variety of topics. They wished to avoid the emergence of a strong leader or minority interest group that would inhibit free discussion. Farmers focused on specific topics they wanted to explore fur- ther. Initially, they talked about credit and seed supply. Researchers believed they were probing to determine if they would be given free inputs, as had previously been the case. When it became clear that free supplies were not available, participants began to discuss declining soil fertility on cogonal lands, an extremely important issue in the area. They invited researchers to visit their fields so that they could explain the problem more clearly. Farm visits Researchers visited four farms. In the course of conversations ranging from one to two hours, farmers explained their view of the linkages between soil productivity and other aspects of their farming systems. Researchers came to understand that farmers were forced to clear and cultivate cogonal lands knowing that soils were poor because, due to population pressures, they needed more land and better areas were too far away. A typical cycle on a newly cleared field began with two years of corn or rice. These crops depleted soil fertility, causing 188 PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH AND SOCIAL CHANGE yields to diminish significantly. In the third year, farmers grew root crops. During this time, cogon grass began to invade fields, making cul- tivation increasingly difficult. Farmers then allowed fields to lie fallow for nine to twenty years, the time required for the land to recover its fertility. During this time, the cogon became a thick mat and other shrubs took root. When a farmer believed that a field was sufficiently fertile, she or he cut or burned the brush and plowed as many as ten times to prepare the field for the first planting. In spite of this intensive preparation, cogon still sprouted from rhizomes for the first year or two. It would also reestablish itself when seeds blew in from fallow fields in the vicinity. In addition, the land included hard soils and steep slopes. Farmers said that more draft animals, plows, and/or labor or cash to hire laborers, all in short supply, would make cultivation easier. Consensus building group meeting The same twenty farmers met to select a problem for study. Researchers emphasized the need for initial consensus to avoid a drop in interest and cooperation. However, they also realized that declining interest would probably have indicated that the research undertaken was not considered relevant by farmers and therefore ought to be redi- rected. Members of the group agreed that the study of cogonal lands was central to their interests. Issues discussed included control of cogon, declining soil fertility, and the high cost of labor and draft ani- mals. Step 2. Understanding and diagramming systems problems Development of a topics guide by researchers and "key informants" During step 1, researchers gathered enough information to pre- pare a list of key issues for further study. They discussed these topics with four "key informants" and developed a guide of topics to be elicit- ed through a qualitative random sample survey. This guide, pretested with five farmers, included: 1) the types of farms in the area, including farm size, family size, and number of livestock; 2) a description of cul- FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH 189 tivation processes, including land selection, cultivation procedures, and crop rotations; and 3) the nature and causes of the problem, including the reason cogon was present, why farmers needed to cultivate.cogonal lands, and the constraints involved in cultivating them. Data gathered in the survey was used later to select farmers for experiments and dis- semination. Qualitative survey Researchers surveyed twenty-four randomly selected households from a total of one-hundred-fifty. A qualitative rather than quantitative methodology was selected, involving informal, free-flowing conversa- tions with interviewees. Topics in the guide were not necessarily dis- cussed individually or in any specific order. Researchers returned to the site several times to continue discussions. Farmers usually requested that they visit a specific part of their land so that they could explain cer- tain things more fully. According to researchers, the time and patience required by this approach were justified by the enormous amount of information they gathered. During the survey, researchers also made estimates of the amount of cash, labor, and draft power required to cul- tivate cogonal lands. Interpretation of results and drawing of systems diagram Participants analyzed survey data. Bio-physical causes and socio- economic constraints related to cogonal lands were illustrated in boxes on a blackboard. Five "key informants" explained the relationships. between the boxes by linking them with arrows. Based on this diagram, a circular systems diagram was drawn. A meeting of all survey respon- dents confirmed that the diagram accurately represented their perspec- tive of the problem. The problem summary, based on data analysis, included bio- physical and socio-economic factors. On the basis of the bio-physical systems analysis, participants concluded that cogon was the cause of difficulties in cultivation. Infertile soils contributed to this problem. After only four years of use, farmers had to let fields lie fallow for 190 PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH AND SOCIAL CHANGE decades while they regained fertility. But because they did not, have suf- ficient lands, and because fields were frequently burned accidentally, they were not always able to let the land lie fallow long enough for the soil to recover fully. Soils were infertile because extensive cropping exhausted them. In addition, soils exposed to the elements as a result of accidental burning and intensive tillage were subject to erosion and this increased soil infertility. Farmers needed to cultivate lands that had returned to cogon, a process involving two to four months of labor and costing 1200 to 1600 pesos per hectare; the average annual income of farmers in the area was 3000 pesos. Socio-economic constraints included labor, draft power, and land shortages. Labor was scarce due to poor health, lack of cash to hire workers, and the need to work off the farm for income. Insufficient income also made it difficult to rent draft animals Access to land was restricted by lack of tenure, money, peace and order, and population pressures. Researchers and farmers brainstormed ways to solve the problem arising from limited land, labor, and capital. STAGE II: Identifying a possible solution for study Step 1: Looking for potential solutions According to researchers, the systems diagram helped farmers analyze the problem by presenting visually all bio-physical causes. This led to suggestions for solutions, while the analysis of socio-economic constraints provided a realistic basis for discussing the viability of solu- tions suggested. Key informants suggest solutions For each bio-physical cause in the systems diagram, four "key informants" suggested solutions based on their indigenous knowledge, observations, and experiments. They had observed that shade would eliminate cogon grasses, an observation validated by experiments with legumes. In Jaro, a study indicated that Kudzo, a legume used as a live mulch under coconut trees, was effective in shading out cogon grass. In FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH 191 addition, this land was easier to prepare for new crops, and carabao, goats, and sheep could graze on it. Further, since legumes fix nitrogen, scientists assumed they would improve soil fertility. On the basis of another study, researchers concluded that Desmodium ovalifolium, another legume, could reduce the fallow period to three years follow- ing the typical four-year cultivation period. Kudzo was found to be more effective in controlling cogon, but Centrosema, also a legume, was easier to furrow into when planting. Farm visits in search of solutions Following the lead of farmers, as originally planned, researchers visited five farms to encourage farmers to suggest solutions. They observed experiments and natural phenomena. -Farmers offered a number of suggestions, including plowing and planting cassava and sugar cane. Researchers complemented these ideas by suggesting the use of herbicides. Step 2. Screening possible solutions Group meetings Researchers presented these ideas to a group of farmers for fur- ther analysis and final selection. Participants discussed the ideas, but before coming to a decision as to implementation, some proposed a field trip to see how these potential solutions worked in practice. Researchers opted for taking as much time as necessary to get unani- mous approval rather than advocating an experiment about which some farmers were skeptical. After the field trip, participants selected an idea for implementation. Having decided that plowing would be too costly in labor, draft animals, and cash, and that herbicides would also be expensive, they chose to experiment with vining legumes. 192 PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH AND SOCLU CHANGE STAGE III: Experimenting with a possible solution Step 1: Defining test/trial hypothesis Farmers intuitively believed that vining legumes would shade out cogon and improve soil fertility, and that fields of vining legumes would be easier to recultivate than those covered with cogon. This was the hypothesis they tested. Step 2: Designing an experiment to test the hypothesis Farmers suggested the use of Pueraria and Centrosema legume species. They underbrushed or burned cogon-covered fallow land and then broadcast the legume seeds which, they hypothesized, would cre- ate shade that would control cogon. The legume dominated vegetation would then be underbrushed and seeded with another legume, Desmodium ovalifolium, which, due to its higher nodulation activity, regenerates soil more quickly. Each farmer adapted this general plan to their own farms. They selected plot location and size from a range defined by researchers who also set the total number of replicates or farms within acceptable limits. Farmers selected parameters for mea- surement based on what they wanted to determine. Researchers relied on farmers' assessments, together with standard biological measure- ments. Step 3: Implementing the experiment on farms Together, researchers and farmers marked out the experimental plot. The latter then prepared the site and broadcast seeds provided by the former. Researchers documented the densities of cogon, took soil samples, and measured the labor required for planting. Periodically, researchers and farmers visited the plot to take measurements and observe progress. When the legumes were damaged by drought or acci- dental burning, researchers encouraged farmers to plant again. Eight months after the experiment began, thirty farmers had seeded plots with Pueraria and Centrosema, and twelve began nurseries of FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH 193 Desmodium ovalifolium. Due to lack of rain, legume growth covered only 25% of the plot. Some fields also burned accidentally. Ten farms required reseeding and seven nurseries replanting. Nevertheless, inter- est remained high, and farmers from the neighboring villages of Casandig and Datag asked to participate. Step 4: Analysis of the experiments Because the most recent publication on this experiment was written soon after researchers began the process, it is too early, in tech- nical terms, to assess the hypothesis that legumes will shade out cogon, enrich soils, and make recultivation easier. However, we have enough information to assess other aspects of the experiment. One surprising result is the long-term holistic perspective adopted by farmers, as evi- denced by their decision to study fallow land rather than ways to increase present yields. [T]his experiment is very different from typical agronomic work. Agronomists usually experiment in maximizing crop grain yield per hectare while economists want to maximize income returns to cash investment. Upland farmers not only led us away from immediate increases in crop yield through cash input but took us right out of the cropped area into long term rehabilitation of cogonal fallow areas. They were inter- ested in stabilizing production over time and saving labor (Lightfoot, de Guia Jr., Altman, and Ocado; 1987b). It is also too early, to make long-term assessments of the process. Researchers do not yet know whether farmers have learned the process itself and used it to solve other problems, or even whether the initial group of farmers followed the experiment through to its conclusion. However, initial results are promising. Due to the participation of farmers in all stages of research, including the crucial problem defini- tion and methodology selection phases, adoption rates are high. The high level of participation and the interest evidenced by residents of other villagers indicate that the problem farmers chose to focus on is 194 PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH AND SOCIAL CHANGE relevant to their community. An evaluation of the Farming Systems Development Project in Eastern Visayas, conducted in 1989, indicates that farmers are adopting the technologies at a high rate..This case study was among a number of projects evaluated in the report and thus data are representative of, but not specific to, the case study. In Jaro, about 55% of the adopters applied the enriched fal- low technology in less than a month after their first know- ledge of the idea. Another 10% adopted within three months, 2% within a year, and one-third of the farmers after more than one year. Reasons given for quick adoption included the need to control cogon grass, and for the value of the forage produced. Reasons given for slow adoption included off-farm commitments and a `wait and see' attitude (Mandala and Experience, 1989:47). The process led to another positive outcome: extension workers learned a new methodology for reaching resource-poor farmers and changed their view of members of this group. The project has proven that extension in the upland and hilly land is not an exercise in futility. It was earlier believed that no new technology can be extended to solve the pro- blems of soil erosion and the resource-poor farmers. Equally, it was believed that the isolated and resource-poor farmers of the upland and hilly land are extremely conservative and will not respond to educational assistance. These were dis- proved in this project. While there was a lack of technology produced by research institutions there was available con- ventional wisdom and practical technologies which had been successfully practiced by farmers in other regions... (Mandala and Experience, 1989:40). The process also has the potential to empower farmers: now that they have learned this method of problem analysis, they can apply it to other issues. FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH 195 But what if the technology does not work? If legumes do not provide the hoped-for results, interest will no doubt decline, in spite of the initial success in generating participation leading to adoption of the experiment. Technically, of course, the experiment will be a valid con- tribution to science, even if the technology does not solve farmers' problems. However, it may well be that positive initial experiences, in terms of both process and technology, are essential if farmers are to adopt the process. Participatory Research and the Race to Save the Planet: Questions, Critique, and Lessons from the Field* Dianne E. Rocheleau Dianne E. Rocheleau is an Assistant Professor in the Graduate School of Geography at Clark University in Worcester, MA. She holds a Ph.D. in Geography with a minor in Systems Ecology from the University of Florida. She teaches courses on social forestry, tropical ecology, political ecology, gender, and development. Her research focuses on social and ecological dimensions of forestry and rural landscape change in East Africa and Central America. She has conducted research on land use, forestry, and watershed management in the Dominican Republic (1979, 1992), worked as a senior scientist at the International Council for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) in Nairobi (1983-1986), and was a Forestry and Agricultural Program Officer for the Ford Foundation in Eastern and Southern Africa (1986-1989). Dr. Rocheleau is senior author of Agroforestry in DrylandAfrica and has authored several articles and book chapters on the social and ecological dimensions of land use change. She serves on the advisory board of the Land Tenure Center and is a member of the Policy Consultative Group on Africa (World Resources Institute and USAID). Her current research includes the multiple histories of ecological, economic, and cultural change in the dry forests and savannas of Ukambani (Kenya); gendered knowledge, rights, and institutions shaping the landscape of farm and forest regions in the Dominican Republic; and "sustainable development" as ecological and economic restructuring ABSTRACT Participation has been widely touted as "the answer" to a number of problems facing sustainable development programs. It is not enough, however, to involve rural people as workers and informants in research and planning endeavors defined by outsiders. A truly collaborative approach will depend upon our ability to broaden our definitions of research and participation, to accommodate a wide spectrum of land users and local knowledge, and to expand our repertoire of research methods. This paper presents a critique offacile approaches to participation, outlines a more inclusive framework for who participates on what terms, and reviews a variety of methods that address the complex realities of rural livelihoods and landscapes. The final section of the paper suggests a multi-institutional model that combines the complementary strengths of several types of organizations in participatory field research and planning. Introduction the world's people over the past thirty years, as noted "Sustainability" and "participation" have become the by Susan George (1992), Vandana Shiva (1988), development watchwords of the decade, and with good Wolfgang Sachs (1992) and many others (Escobar, reason, since both concepts were sorely lacking in 1992; Esteva, 1992; Hancock, 1989; Marglin and development practice from the early 1960s well into Marglin, 1990; Mies, 1988; Wisner, 1989/1990; Wisner the 1980s. To assail either of these trends in interna- and Yapa, 1992). tional development at this juncture is to risk feeding Beyond the concerns over more-of-the-same, par- the new "green backlash" (New York Times, July 29, ticipation and sustainability might even serve as Tro- 1993), or worse, the resurgence of top down develop- jan horses to bring a new level of global economic and ment and calls for a new custodial colonialism, as environmental restructuring processes directly to rural expressed by Johnston (New York Times Magazine, communities, bypassing national institutional buffers April 18, 1993). Yet a critique of these recent waves of and preempting critical review. These might include development theory and practice might rest on the such diverse efforts as the negotiation of resource premise that such reforms only help to foster a kinder, management plans for parks and reserves, the planning gentler image of development-as-usual, which has of "alternative" development strategies for people depen- been somewhat less than kind and gentle with many of dent on forest and wildlife utilization, the expansion of 4 Rocheleau: Participatory Research and the Race to Save the Planet rural services and infrastructure, and the promotion of years of technology development and resource man- more productive, environmentally sound agriculture, agement as well as from socially focused rural devel- forestry, and water management. All of these stand to opment programs. In particular, the recent history of be affected by community-based planning, research, research and development in agriculture, forestry, and and extension efforts linked to environmental interests conservation illustrates the distinct approaches and as well as to agents of "economic development". Rural converging experience of technical and social devel- communities may find themselves negotiating with opment programs in pursuit of broader participation banks, international NGOs, multinational corporations, and environmental objectives. The 1980s brought a church based organizations, bilateral aid agencies, and profusion of research and extension programs in farm- United Nations agencies. Moreover, they may be set ing systems, sustainable agriculture, agroforestry, and upon by a combination of such agencies, sometimes social forestry. Over the last decade many of these working in concert or at cross-purposes, depending on programs have reached beyond the confines of profes- the issues and the context. sional scientific traditions. They have experimented Questions and critique of participatory approaches with more direct collaboration with rural people and/or to sustainable development seem more than justified, with rural development, social service, and relief agen- since the consequences of "maldevelopment" (even in cies already well-established in rural communities. In participatory clothing) are both real and serious (Mies turn, community development agencies of many types and Shiva, 1993; Shiva, 1988). A careful critique, have also expanded their efforts to test and develop however, need not lead to rejection of either local agricultural, forestry, and conservation technologies participation or ecologically-based planning processes or have sought to collaborate with research organiza- in rapidly changing landscapes and shifting economic tions in the field. contexts. An outright rejection of sustainability and The converging experience of participatory re- participation from a critical perspective assumes that search initiatives in research and development institu- both concepts have been totally assimilated and al- tions can provide a more advanced point of departure ready belong to the world of development-as-usual or for the sustainable development initiatives of the 1990s "normal professionalism" (Chambers, 1993). and beyond. A decade of intensive documentation, There is, however, the possibility for an alterna- research, and development in agriculture, agroforestry, tive practice that seeks to promote broader social and social forestry, and conservation has taught us to look ecological options, combining livelihoods and life beyond our traditional research models. Experience support in local landscapes that are at once home, suggests that the scientific establishment is too small habitat, and workplace to those who live there. There and too specialized to generate fixed "packages" of is also ample opportunity for locally based initiatives production and resource management technologies for to join together and to reach out across national bound- the multiplicity of diverse environments in the world. aries (Perlman, 1990), taking advantage of the same Fortunately, there is no need to do so, since farmers, flexibility and globalization (if not the financing) that pastoralists, and forest dwellers already have substan- facilitates direct access to local spaces worldwide by tial knowledge as well as the ability to conduct both corporate interests and international bodies. There is collaborative and independent research. Rural people scope to share a broad range of experience and exper- often possess an inherent advantage over research tise from the past, a wide array of evolving ecological institutions when dealing with trials of complex land and production sciences and a multiplicity of visions use systems, as systems, in situ (Chambers, 1989). We of the future, across the permeable boundaries defined have also found that there is no single best, fixed land by gender, class, race, culture, and nationality. use "package" for any given region or group of people, The discussion that follows is presented in the but rather a vast array of principles and components interest of furthering such a science and practice. It that can be constantly recombined, tested, and modi- proceeds from a belief that for every assimilation there fied to suit changing social, economic, and ecological is a counter-assimilative opportunity, that is, a new conditions for individuals, households, communities, space for exercising our social and ecological imagina- and nation-states (Rocheleau, 1989a). tions and our practical skills in the interest of a better Participatory research represents one way to ex- world. Neither participation nor environmental crite- pand sustainable development research capabilities in ria automatically guarantee just, equitable, and eco- the complex conditions faced by rural people (Uphoff, logically viable futures, but both constitute essential 1992). For some professional scientists, "participatory ingredients of a common future worth sharing. research" implies that "we" allow "them" (rural people) to participate in "our" research. For community orga- Learning from Experience nizers or rural communities it may mean that "they" As we, consider new initiatives in "sustainable devel- allow outsiders (us) to take part in local land use opment" we can learn much from both the successes experiments and their interpretation. What we all im- and failures of local participation in the past thirty ply, but seldom discuss, is that we propose to join 5 AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES - SPRING-SUMMER 1994 together people and institutions with very distinct place. traditions of acquiring and testing knowledge, in order Within this approach, we tend to assign "participa- to develop sustainable land use practices of interest to tion" to discrete steps within the research process, and both. we have defined the terms of participation and the We cannot expect to achieve this through simple participants rather narrowly. Farming systems ap- addition of conventional research methods and a new proaches often relegate participation entirely to the interest in local participation. Many participatory re- first and final phases in the technology testing process, search "recipes" suggest that we take one standard as "problem diagnosis" and "adaptive research", re- research trial, one part good will, one plot of land, add spectively. For example, researchers consult selected local participants, and stir. The results rarely meet the farmers about their production problems in a particular expectations of either outside researchers or partici- crop or livestock system. The research team designs a pating communities, despite considerable effort on technology to address the problem(s) and on-station both sides. A truly honest joint effort will require trials to test their ideas, as illustrated in the first part of everyone involved to stretch their imaginations, their Figure 1. Later, in "adaptive" on-farm research, par- skills, and their definitions of science. Although the ticipating farmers (usually male heads of household) question has many facets, this paper will focus on: (1) contribute a plot, their own and family labor, and broadening the definition of research; (2) widening the perhaps their opinions as to the performance of a scope for who participates, where, and on what terms; particular tree species, or an entire agroforestry pack- and (3) an expanded repertoire of practical research age. The research is deemed to be participatory by methods and flexible institutional arrangements. virtue of its response to farmer problems, its location in a farmer's field (off-station), the farmer's presence, Formal Research Models or the farmer's judgment of the technology. This view Most agriculture and forestry research for the last of "participatory research" limits formally recognized decade has followed a linear model that tests species, scientific research and land users' knowledge to fixed interactions, and prototypes for new technologies first times and places and diminishes their joint capacity as on-station, and then later evaluates and refines the innovators and experimenters. "winners" on-farm or in-the-forest (Figure 1). We However, there is also some experience beyond often ask the "basic" questions on-station and the the traditional linear research model (Hildebrand and "practical" questions on-site, though it might make Poey, 1985), with parallel lines of research on-station more sense to address both types of questions in each and on-farm (Figure 1). While researchers may pursue Figure 1. parallel, independent, non-participatory projects on- station and on-farm, they can also tie the activities at Unilinear Research Process both sites into an interactive process. Farmers and species researchers may exchange information, planting mate- 1.On Station Interaction rial, and evaluation 1 1 screen prototype of experiments at both sites. A 1.2 design farmer's exploratory trial on-farm may inspire an ex- 1 3 test 1 4 select periment on-station to monitor tree-pest-crop interac- tions, while a researcher's idea from a species screen- ing may 2. On - farm trial on-station lead to the introduction of an 2.1 evaluate prototype, exotic tree into traditional home gardens on several 2.2'retihe l farms. In such a case participation permeates all re- search activities and joins research station and on-farm Parallel Research Processes endeavors (Biggs, 1988). Likewise in cases of parks, reserves, and wildlife Iterative management, Process there is an opportunity to broaden the established linear model of research and planning and the limited scope for local participation. In most such cases rural people do not participate in problem defini- tion, as they themselves are often already identified by outsiders as part (if not all), of the problem. Local residents are often brought into the picture to make a choice between predefined options or perhaps to help implement prearranged solutions to hunting, habitat why? what? Regional destruction, and other threats to wildlife. The research where? in such cases may serve more inform how? to national and international environmental organizations about the "perceptions" of local people, their "receptivity" to 6 Rocheleau: Participatory Research and the Race to Save the Planet conservation initiatives, and their potential as allies on-site research; it may also take place in the labora- and collaborators in a preset agenda than to incorpo- tory, on a "model" farm, in a park, on open rangeland, rate local interests and priorities into conservation in-the-forest, or at a combination of these sites. We can plans. also refrain entirely from experimentation and conduct For example, in a "people-friendly" wildlife ini- survey research, as in ecological sampling of tree tiative, outside researchers might choose to establish a species in a forest, a sociological questionnaire to "buffer zone" of regulated land use around the periph- determine community structure, or an ethnographic ery of a park, based on carefully documented needs 'survey to explore and document local botanical sci- assessments of wildlife populations. They might then ence (both popular and specialized). In short, research involve local people in trials of various new land use not only extends beyond the research station; it encom- practices to reduce stress on the park. A more fully passes substantially more than can be held within the participatory approach would require: 1) joint consid- confines of controlled experimental plots on any prop- eration of problems and opportunities in the status erty. quo; 2) sharing of knowledge about economic, eco- logical, and social processes; 3) open negotiation of The Varieties of Participation new land use options that address conflicts as well as Participation is likewise subject to a broad range shared objectives between distinct groups at the local of interpretation. It has been variously construed to level and between local, national, and international catalyze, facilitate, assimilate, and suppress the initia- interests; and 4) joint development of technologies, tive of rural people, depending upon the context and management plans, and the performance criteria that the players (Langley, 1986; Oakley, 1987). For the research would seek to test. However, to develop a sake of simplicity Oakley (1987) reduces the varieties dynamic research program of this type we first need to of participation to two basic forms: mobilization and broaden our definitions of research and participation. empowerment. Where research is concerned we can also distinguish between extractive and interactive The Broader Potentials of Research approaches. "Scientific" research need not be synonymous Agricultural and environmental research programs with a randomized block design field trial or S multiple often equate participation with mobilization and ex- transect survey of plants and wildlife; nor must it tract contributions of work, knowledge, and other imply a statistically analyzed survey questionnaire resources from participants. Many scientists rely on administered to a "random sample" of a population. rural people mainly to provide land and "authentic" While all of these research types are valid and obvi- labor for experiments and to indicate "consumer pref- ously useful, none of them possesses an inherent ad- erences". In fact, rural people are often well-placed to vantage for all research questions and circumstances. identify problems, formulate solutions, and devise In sustainable agriculture and forestry we can identify tests of complex innovations in situ. They may partici- several categories of research topics and activities, as pate in land use research in roles ranging from free well as place, scale, timing, and methods of research labor on-farm to board members of research stations. (Chambers et al., 1989; Muller and Scherr, 1990; We can identify several distinct roles of land users in Rocheleau, 1991b) that are also valid for the broader the research process: concerns of sustainable development. 1) Labor (free, paid); In fact, the range of choices is far wider than 2) Hosts (to guests, to parasites); formal research publications suggest. Land use re- 3) Informants (representative, specialized); search on production and conservation technologies 4) Evaluators (of technology, of research process); can include observation, measurement, description 5) Collaborators (occasional, regular); (qualitative or quantitative), data and sample collec- 6) Partners (senior, equal, junior); tion, design, testing, analysis, and evaluation. Our 7) Advisors (informants with authority); mandate may be prediction, explanation, or technol- 8) Board members (participants with power). ogy development. Our analyses may be static or dy- There is ample precedent for these roles and for namic with respect to time, and they may focus on interactive approaches in health, literacy, and agricul- problems at varying scales, from nutrient uptake by ture (Bunch, 1985; Feuerstein, 1986; Jiggins, 1988). plants to production processes in whole landscapes to the division of labor, land, and authority at the house- Who Participates? hold and community levels. We may conduct con- The quality of participation, by itself, does not guaran- trolled, semi-controlled, or uncontrolled experiments, tee that local participants represent all the diverse or even transform a structured observation of existing groups that have a stake in the results. For example, processes into an "insinuated experiment". agricultural projects often limit participation to farm Moreover, sustainable land use research should tran- owners, managers, or heads of household. Yet, these scend our convenient dichotomy between on-station and actors are embedded in a social web of family and 7 AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES - SPRING-SUMMER 1994 community members, many of whom have a stake in diverse qualities, scales, and interests of user groups the use and management of farm lands, although they named in the table imply a flexible repertoire of meth- do not own or manage a farm (Rocheleau, 1987b). ods for local participation. Sustainable development ought, at least, to refrain from harming their livelihoods; at best, it should im- Participatory Research Expertise: Non-Existent prove their lot, regardless of land rights, gender, or or Just Invisible? occupation. Most participatory field research in agriculture, for- A land user focus can accommodate all of the estry, and conservation has, to date, focused on rapid groupings that define privilege, power, and poverty in appraisals for research or development planning, or on a given time and place. We may distinguish between surveys (quantitative, qualitative, and combined). We land user groups based on activity, tenure (terms of have much less collective experience with the design access, use, and ownership), and social unit of organi- and management of on-site experiments or sampling zation (Table 1). For example we can determine which and monitoring programs in partnership with rural people. Of the technology trials conducted on-farm Table 1. Subdivision of Land User Groups most of the documented cases have involved farmers Land Users...by activity in controlled experiments designed by outside research- A. Producers ers. The more collaborative trials have often been ad Gatherers hoc or have not been reported in the literature. Hunters Similarly, little has been reported in the way of Herders detailed documentation and analysis of locally initi- Farmers ated trials and experiments, with a few notable excep- Large tions (Gumbo et al., 1988; Juma, 1989; P. Richards, Small 1985; Scoones, 1988; Wilson, 1987, 1989). The com- Farmworkers bination of any sort of trial or experiment with histori- B. Processors cal documentation and analysis is even less common. C. Market Vendors Most reporting of rural people's production and con- D. Consumers servation science has been limited to descriptions of Land Users...by rights of access and ownership (ap- existing and/or traditional practice as an accomplished plies to trees, water, wildlife, and/or land) fact. Within forest and wildlife management, rural A. Owner (State, Group, Individual; dejure or people's knowledge has been increasingly recognized de facto) by outsiders, only to be cast as "timeless and uncon- B. Tenant (Rent paid) scious ecological wisdom" or as remnants of "tradi- C. User by permission or exchange agreement tional" practice. There is, however, an emerging body Continuous of literature that treats local science and practice as the Regular latest expression of a continuing process of learning Occasional and discovery (Anderson, 1990; Anderson et al.,1991; D. Squatters, "Poachers" (illegal users) Brokensha et al., 1980; Chambers and Jiggins, 1986; Land Users...by management unit/unit of analysis Colfer et al., 1989; Denevan et al., 1985; Dewees, A. Individuals or household subgroups 1989; Flores Pait$n, 1987; Roe and Fortmann, 1981; Men, women, children; age group Gupta, 1989; Oldfield and Alcorn, 1991; Owusu- B. Households Bempah, 1988; Posey, 1985; Pretty, 1991; P. Richards, Managed by men, women; 1985,1989; Rocheleau, 1991a; Scherr, 1990; Scoones small/large; young/old; rich/poor and McCracken, 1989; Turnbull, 1992; Warren and C. Communities and community groups Cashman, 1991; Warren et al., 1994). Families, clans, self-help groups Does this mean that only a few researchers have D. Companies or Cooperatives addressed any of these points that seem so simple and E. Administrative Units based on "common sense"? A multitude of field States, districts, villages, etc. workers continue to conduct isolated, undocumented Excerpted from Rocheleau, 1987b. research within forestry, agriculture, and conservation programs. Likewise, researchers often participate in groups use specific land areas, plants, products, or community organization and institutional innovation services in a given place, and the importance of the to improve their research and attune it to local condi- resources to them, as an indicator of their stake in land tions. However, they are unlikely to report even the use change. This, in turn, can help us to identify fact itself, let alone the process. This is particularly convergent, complementary, and conflicting interests crucial in the rapidly growing number of wildlife of affected groups in the process and the eventual results management projects that address complex relation- of sustainable land use research and development. The ships between people and wildlife through separate 8 Rocheleau: Participatory Research and the Race to Save the Planet programs of biological research and public relations an invitation to modify and combine these tools to suit (local and international). Social research and manage- the problem, the participants, and the institutional ment programs in this context are often couched in opportunities in a given case. Each entry carries abrief terms of social engineering to achieve conservation descriptive note and a selected list of references to objectives. The ecology embedded in local society and facilitate access to the relevant literature. the cultural threads that run through the surrounding ecosystems are seldom addressed formally and almost Appraisal Methods never documented. Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) consists of short, Beyond the research and participation dichotomy intensive, informal field surveys that focus on consul- we face a braided institutional divide along social- tation between teams of outside "experts" and rural biological, production-conservation, and government- people to define research and development problems NGO lines that constitutes a substantial barrier to and solutions. Researchers, planners, administrators, shared knowledge. The existing institutional structure or technical advisors travel to rural communities for a encourages silence on work at the boundaries between few days to a few weeks to meet individuals, house- research, development, and participation by those who holds, and community groups. They discuss local views actually know the territory best. As long as the more of social, economic, and technological problems and integrative work is submerged, it remains inaccessible determine priorities for research, development, or to review, constructive criticism, and progressive im- policy intervention. The early versions of RRA were provement through collective learning and innovation. developed and widely used to identify household level Alternatively, we can make the most of opportuni- problems and research priorities in farming systems ties to link these non-reinforcing cycles of research (Collinson, 1981; Hildebrand, 1981) and agricultural and development, social process, and technology inno- development research (Chambers, 1981,1983; Cham- vation, to stop spinning our wheels and get some- bers and Ghildyal, 1985; Chambers and Jiggins, 1986). where. Some of our best data and insights are transmit- Several recent publications summarize the methods ted through stories, a professional oral tradition, and now commonly used in farming systems research and through the skills of our trades. The challenge will be agroforestry research and extension (Chambers et al., to distinguish significant stories from mere anecdotes 1989; Feldstein and Jiggins, forthcoming; Khon Kaen (Rocheleau, 1991a) and to combine them with classi- University, 1987; MUller and Scherr, 1990; Rocheleau fication and description of possible field methods. et al., 1988). From these we need to build a coherent, larger body of While many people automatically equate RRA shared knowledge and practice accessible (at least in with popular participation, research and development part) to our various domains of science, practice, and workers may use it in an extractive or interactive spirit. critique, including those of rural people. Rural people definitely participate, but they may or may not ever see any concrete results. Moreover, Expanding Our Repertoire where outside experts do take action, the results may or We can improve our capabilities for participatory re- may not serve the interests of any (or all) of the land search if we abandon fixed packages of research meth- users in the community. Seeing is not necessarily odology and broaden our horizons to include a wide believing, and hearing is not necessarily understand- variety of principles, methods, and other people's field ing. Even when outsiders do comprehend the problem, experience. The broad principles presented above, the they may not translate that into appropriate solutions. "stories" of colleagues from the field, and the partial If rural peoples' participation begins and ends with a list of specific methods summarized below represent single appraisal to identify problems, the larger effort tools and raw materials. From these, individuals and will still bear the marks of a top-down approach. institutions can develop appropriate participatory re- Fortunately, the tools and the practice of RRA have search programs for sustainable production and con- expanded to better meet the needs of researchers, servation within a multiplicity of local and national development workers, and rural people (Chambers et conditions. al., 1989; ILEIA, 1988a, 1988b; RRA Notes Newslet- Most of the methods or techniques listed below ter, 1988 et seq.). can be used in an interactive or extractive way and The spin-offs from this approach include research most of them could in fact help to describe, plan, test, on farmers' prior knowledge and experience, as well as monitor, or evaluate a technology, to document an farmers' innovations and their modification of re- existing system of resource use and management, or to searcher-designed "packages" in agriculture facilitate the development of a new one. Some of the (Fernandez, forthcoming; Jiggins, 1986a, 1986b; methods listed are actually labeled packages of meth- Rhoades, 1982,1984, 1987, 1989; Rhoades and Booth, ods, but need not be kept intact. The list is meant to 1982), agroforestry (Rocheleau, 1987b; Rocheleau et convey a sense of the wide range of possibilities, a al., 1988; Scherr, 1990; Scoones, 1989; Wilson, 1987, history of development and application for each, and 1989), pest ecology and control (Malaret and Ngoru, 9 AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES - SPRING-SUMMER 1994 1989) soil and water conservation (Jama et al., 1992; programs (Abel et al., 1989; Buck, 1988, 1989; Davis- Kiriro and Juma, 1991), and national park manage- Case, 1989; Feldstein et al., 1989; Hoskins, 1982; ment (Abel and Blaikie, 1986; Berger, 1993; Dhyani Rocheleau et al., 1988, 1989; Scherr, 1988a, 1988b, Berger, personal communication, 1993; Drijver and 1990; Scoones, 1988). Croll, 1992; Murphree, 1993; Parkipuny, 1991; Wells Community-based ecological research focuses et al., 1992). Field practice 'has extended the process initial appraisal on local knowledge systems, particu- within and beyond "the household", including specific larly knowledge that links livelihood to ecology. These techniques for gender analysis (Ashby, 1987; Feldstein approaches have special relevance for sustainable ag- and Jiggins, forthcoming; Poats et al., 1988, 1989; riculture, forestry, and water management as well as Polestaco, 1993; Rocheleau, 1987a, 1989b; Thomas- wildlife and biodiversity programs. The science of Slayter et al., 1993), and for group and community everyday life in rural landscapes often involves the level interviews and workshops (Bruce, 1989; integration of wildlife, water sources, crops, livestock, Fernandez and Salvatierra, 1989; Gupta and IDS Work- and woody plants, within forests, rangeland, crop- shop, 1989; Jiggins, 1986a, 1986b, 1988; Kean, 1988; lands, and gardens. It also encompasses the invisible Lightfoot et al., 1988, 1989; Norman et al., 1988, food, fodder, and wood production systems in the 1989; Rocheleau et al., 1988; Sutherland, 1987). "spaces between": roadsides, fences, fallows, gullies, Field research and development workers have fur- and streambanks (Rocheleau et al., 1988). Field re- ther stretched and reshaped this robust set of tech- searchers affiliated with ENDA Zimbabwe and the niques to address issues of sustainability and the larger Zimbabwe Forestry Commission have developed par- landscape beyond the farm boundaries. Agroecosystems ticipatory approaches to forestry and agricultural re- Analysis (Conway, 1985, 1987) focuses on villages, search that build on local science and practice (Clarke, communities, or watershed units and deals explicitly 1990; Gumbo et al., 1988; Matose, 1993; Scoones, with long term ecological concerns and environmental 1989; Seitz, 1993; Wilson, 1988). The process begins management in rural farming systems. Researchers with a fairly lengthy exploration by a resident action and local representatives walk along transects through research team. From the outset, researchers and local the landscape and conduct interviews with individuals, participants compile written records of local ecologi- households, and groups. The team maps whole com- cal history and science, as well as a set of action munities, ecosystems, and specific plots with residents research proposals. and key informants. This approach has been developed Similar methods have been elaborated by Grandin and applied primarily in studies of watershed manage- (1988) in veterinary research with pastoralists in Kenya, ment and water use within agricultural systems, from by Cashman (1988) with women alley-cropping farm- hillslope farms to lowland rice paddies. Another ex- ers in Nigeria, and by Fernandez and Salvatierra (1989) ample is Total Catchment Management, and the Land in livestock management and veterinary research with Care movement as documented by the University of women's groups in Peru. Several researchers (Davis- Western Sydney at Hawkesbury in Australia (Martin, Case, 1989; Gupta et al., 1989; Rocheleau et al., 1988) 1991; Woodhill, 1990; Woodhill et al., 1990). This have combined group discussions and mapping exer- approach begins with RRA, but then emphasizes ac- cises based on local knowledge of ecosystems and tion research and land user participation in resource livelihoods. Carney (1988) has combined participant management under complex, changing, and highly observation and ethnographic survey with appraisal of uncertain conditions, with constant readjustment and class and gender division of knowledge and resource ongoing processes of information exchange, discus- use in an irrigation project in the Gambia. sion, and conflict resolution/management. In a creative synthesis of rapid appraisal, ethno- Diagnosis and Design adapts farming systems botany, and sociological survey techniques Calestous approaches and RRA for agroforestry design and test- Juma (1989) conducted community-based surveys us- ing (Miiller and Scherr, 1990; Raintree, 1987a, 1987b). ing a combination of community meetings, key infor- Reconnaissance surveys, informal household level in- mant interviews, and survey questionnaires. Locally terviews, and alternating cycles of survey and technol- nominated participants developed and refined the for- ogy testing allow for design of agroforestry technolo- mal questionnaires in a workshop setting. The work- gies that address local problems and fit within the shop served as an extended two-way key informant larger farming system (Raintree, 1983a, 1983b). This "interview" that shaped both the content and format of approach can be expanded to include land user groups the subsequent survey. Representatives of the research at the community level (Rocheleau, 1985, 1987b, project and local residents learned about each other as 1991a) or research and development interests at the well as about indigenous plants, their uses, and their national level (Scherr, 1987). Some researchers have habitats. This process made the survey effective as a combined Diagnosis and Design, Agroecosystems learning tool both for researchers and for the partici- Analysis, and related approaches to fit the needs of pating communities. community-based agroforestry research and extension Research on local ecological science is richest if 10 Rocheleau: Participatory Research and the Race to Save the Planet we combine the study of both popular and specialized between them, and in the shift from researcher-subject knowledge. Many researchers start from interviews to joint exploration as equals. In some cases, outside with a broad base of representative community groups, researchers function mainly as facilitators of a com- to determine what is "common knowledge". They can munity-run process, and increasingly, as trainers of then ask the groups to identify knowledgeable group facilitators from rural communities (Chambers, 1992, members and other specialists in the community forthcoming; Chambers and Conway, 1992). Overall, (Rocheleau et al., 1988, 1989; Maslaret and Ngoru, PRA relies more heavily on the judgment and analyti- 1989). Eventually, researchers learn enough about the cal capabilities of rural people, rather than simply topics at hand and about the identity of specialists to "tapping" their knowledge in bits and pieces to fill-in- allow them to record the knowledge of the eldest or the the-blanks in the analytical frameworks of outsiders. most skilled members of the community.2 They can The methods of inquiry are more explicitly interactive also identify and record the emerging knowledge and and tend to be more visual in orientation than earlier practice of the rising generation or the distinct science RRA approaches (Chambers, 1992, forthcoming; and practice of particular groups, whether by gender, Chambers and Conway, 1992). In addition, PRA in- ethnicity, class, occupation, or locality. cludes, by definition, leadership and technical exper- If the work is applied within an action research tise from local residents and sometimes public ser- approach, then this same understanding and informa- vants (Kabutha et al., 1991). tion can be mobilized within the community's own The "steps" have been recorded and described by research and development efforts (Bebbington, 1990; some practitioners as a discreet package of activities, Thrupp, 1989). The involvement of local residents as with a given order (NES et al., 1991). Others (Cornwall researchers, recording their own community's knowl- et al., 1992; Pretty and Chambers, 1992; Scoones and edge, can also serve as a catalyst to organization and Thompson, 1992) eschew any attempt to regularize the educational initiatives. When women, children, and process and prefer to discuss principles, document the poor formally record their own experience the specific techniques, and report on particular case stud- research effort can also strengthen their position within ies in an effort to inform further work in a variety of the larger community (Fortmann, 1993). This is argu- contexts. One element that characterizes many ver- ably one of the most productive frontiers of research sions of PRA is greater attention to history and to the and action in sustainable development. possible futures of rural people (Chambers, 1992, Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) has grown forthcoming; Chambers and Conway, 1992; Rocheleau out of a synthesis of RRA, Agroecosystems Analysis, et al., 1988, 1989). In general, PRA includes matrix Diagnosis and Design, and other appraisal methods ranking exercises, community histories, diagrams of with action research and community organization tech- organizations and institutions, maps of farms, land- niques. It has coalesced from a number of centers of scapes or watersheds, and diagrams of production innovation, including: The International Institute for systems, ecosystems, and social processes. Often people Environment and Development (MacCracken, 1988; will rank themselves and their neighbors with respect MacCracken et al., 1988; Mascarenhas et al., 1991; to wealth and well-being (Grandin, 1988), to clarify Pretty and Chambers, 1992; Scoones and Thompson, social structure and process and to situate their own 1992); The Institute for Development Studies at the knowledge and perspective for themselves and outsid- University of Sussex (Chambers et al., 1989); Clark ers. They often also engage in several ranking exer- University, World Resources Institute, the National cises to clarify the use and relative importance of Environment Secretariat of Kenya, and Egerton Uni- various water sources, soil types, land types, crops, versity (Ford et al., 1993a, 1993b; Kabutha et al., livestock, trees, fodder sources, fuelwood, and other 1991; NES et al., 1991; Thomas-Slayter et al., 1991, energy sources, insects, wild plants, and wild animals. forthcoming; Thrupp, 1989; Veit, 1993; Zazueta et al., They may discuss and rank these elements of liveli- 1992); several NGO networks (Bunch, 1989; ILEIA, hood and landscape as problems, as resources, or as 1988a, 1988b); international agricultural centers desired characteristics of a possible future. (Feldstein and Jiggins, forthcoming; Lightfoot et al., While PRA has often been used to mobilize com- 1991; Rocheleau et al., 1988); and United Nations munity discussion, planning, and immediate action on organizations (Davis-Case, 1989; Project Reach, 1993). resource management, it can also facilitate develop- This approach, in its several versions, has enjoyed ment of health, agricultural, or water supply programs, widespread application in resource management, con- or longer term action research on a variety of topics servation, and rural development programs. from famine relief to migration and resettlement. In Like other forms of rapid appraisal, PRA normally addition, there is ample scope for use of PRA in consists of a one- to three-week exercise based on evaluation of ongoing projects and programs, whether collaboration between rural people from someplace large scale or local in nature. The emerging techniques and outside "experts" from somewhere else. The dif- of PRA could facilitate widespread adoption by na- ference is in the structure and tone of interaction tional and international bodies of participatory methods 11 AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES - SPRING-SUMMER 1994 previously limited primarily to literacy, health, and forthcoming). community organization programs (See methodologi- Researchers can also use informal trials to explore cal works by Feuerstein, 1986; Freire, 1968, 1973; H. technology design prior to more formal, elaborate Richards, 1985). trials (Attah-Krah and Francis, 1987; Sumberg and All of these appraisal methods can help to describe Okali, 1989; Rocheleau, 1985) or simply as a way to a particular place and situation, and to direct research learn more about the detail of farming practice and development plans that fit rural people's realities (Edwards, 1987a, 1987b, 1987c) before committing and aspirations. There is some danger that single rapid local residents and research institutions to a substan- appraisals or surveys may not be adequate for long tial research effort. It is also possible (though profes- term planning or may simply raise expectations and sionally risky) to pursue formal but not controlled leave residents (as in many clinics) with a free "diag- experiments on complex land use systems with farm- nosis" and a prescription for "medicine" that is not ers (Flores Paitdn, 1987). This applies particularly to locally available. To be effective, appraisal must lead technology innovations for home gardens and simi- to action, with continuing participation by rural people. larly complex systems both on-farm and in the larger Several of these approaches, in fact, work best within landscape.. Robert Chambers and Janice Jiggins (1986) a recurring cycle of surveys and trials of various types, have explicitly challenged researchers to go beyond including some of the experimental approaches listed the confines of "normal professionalism" in order to below. address complex and changing rural realities. They document the limitations of disciplinary paradigms Field Experiments and Trials and call for a "new professionalism" supported by Much of the literature on on-farm agricultural institutional reform. This is particularly crucial for research discusses "how to" reconcile statistically valid both social and ecological innovations in complex experimental designs with field conditions (Collinson, rural ecosystems characterized by a high diversity of 1981; Hildebrand, 1986; Shaner et al., 1982; Tripp, land cover, land use, and species. 1984). The most frequently used methods are those A few sources also treat the issue of farmer partici- that allow for control plots, some variation in treat- pation and the quality of interaction between outside ment, and statistical analysis of variable performance researchers and farmers, as well as research designs by different treatments within or between farms. that fit the needs of both (Hildebrand and Poey, 1985; Farmer and researcher preferences for different Scoones, 1989). The possible terms of collaboration research designs may differ substantially. While out- on research trials range from researcher-designed tri- side researchers can gain substantial information by als on research stations and in parks to rural peoples' varying treatment between farms, farmers may gain, own experiments that are "discovered" and documented and subsequently share, more insights by having con- by research institutions (Rocheleau et al., 1989). The trols and/or a range of treatments on their own farms to following typology (Poats et al., 1989; Rocheleau and compare close-up (Robert Hart, personal communica- Malaret, 1987) presents a spectrum of collaborative tion, 1984). However, farmers may not appreciate the arrangements between local science and practice and placement of these various treatments within a ran- "the scientific establishment": domized block design. This is especially impractical (1) Researcher designed and managed trials, for forestry, water management, wildlife management, (usually on station or special plots). Land users are and conservation practices, which are not divisible consulted and their problems are addressed, but into small fractions of a single plot. Group-focused their resources, management practices, and evalua- trials at multiple sites provide an alternative, by com- tion are not part of the research design. bining different real-scale treatments on various mem- (2) Researcher designed and managed trials, bers' lands with regular group meetings to observe and on site, in local peoples' work and production sites, compare all treatments in the multi-site experiment. whether individual or shared space. Land users are Herders and farmers of the Aramachay Women's consulted, their problems are addressed and they Production Committee in Peru requested a similar evaluate the results. There is little involvement of research design in a collaborative livestock and crop- land users' management, since all labor and mate- ping research project. In veterinary experiments based rial inputs are planned and paid for by the research on local and outsiders' science, they separated blocks institution. and treatments by family herds, rather than mix treat- (3) Researcher-designed and user-managed ments across herds. Likewise, farmers took an active trials, on site. This is the same as case 2, above, with role in the design and evaluation of the cropping the difference that land users' resources and man- systems research process, as well as participating in agement are included in the trial, their evaluation technology evaluation. As a result, the project team and feedback are continuous, and land users' per- developed a robust, statistically valid research design formance and judgment are part of the trial. that was convenient for farmers and herders (Fernandez, (4) Joint design and management of on-site 12 Rocheleau: Participatory Research and the Race to Save the Planet trials by researcher and land users. Local people spectrum of situations that they may encounter. They and outside researcher(s) collaborate in the design may well benefit over the long term from replicated of the trial and confer on management decisions. experimental testing of agroforestry innovations. They Land users' management and decision-making are may also contribute key questions and performance explicitly treated as experimental variables, their standards to narrowly focused species selection and feedback and evaluation are high priorities in the plant interaction trials (types 1, 2, or 3), on station or research endeavor, and they consciously evaluate on-site. However, non-replicable experience may also their own and researchers' decisions. be extremely instructive. Farmers, herders, and forest (5) Trials designed and managed by land us- dwellers may benefit substantially from a combination ers, with outside researcher(s) consulting. Outside of historical analysis, consideration of possible fu- researcher(s) enter into on-going trials as occa- tures, and qualitative comparison of existing practice sional consultants or regular collaborators, and (Hope and Timmel, 1984). document results and/or process. Researchers may or may not alter trial design. Experience as Experiment (6) Trials designed and managed by land us- Beyond the terms of cooperation in specific ex- ers. Outside researchers observe and document ex- perimental activities lies the question of how to recon- isting trials, experiments, and ongoing innovation. cile our own experimental inclinations with the "sci- Outsiders may also produce documents for local ence of survival". When we (outside researchers) rec- review, revision, and use. ognize rural people as independent innovators and co- The choice of trial types will also depend on the researchers we may reconstruct them in our own im- type of question, the variability of social, economic, age. However, we need to recognize that they may be and ecological conditions in the region, and the time, scientific without subscribing to the norms of indus- space, and precision required to produce useful an- trial science. Their process of experimentation may be swers to the questions. For example, farmers in south- more like that of a concert pianist than an industrial ern Zimbabwe have participated in agroforestry projects chemist (Richards, 1989). that include species trials in community experimental In his discussion of agriculture as a performance, plots, farm trials of tree establishment techniques, and Paul Richards (1989) notes that farmers must integrate resource management trials in shared and private lands. all of their past experience at critical moments (such as Trials have combined controlled experiments (types 2, drought, flood, pest outbreak, or market fluctuations). 3, and 4) with more informal observation plots (types They must make binding decisions that will affect the 5 and 6) and "perturbation experiments" (a kind of season's harvest or even their very survival as farmers before and after comparison of a whole system with a (Richards, 1989; Watts, 1983). Long-term learning particular treatment introduced). In trials on-farm, on- and innovation are likewise accelerated during times station, and in-the-commons, farmers have partici- of rapid and dramatic change such as land tenure pated in roles ranging from advisor to employee (Clarke, reform, large scale migration, an exodus of part of the 1990; Gumbo et al., 1988; Matose, 1993; Scoones, work force, or the introduction of new technology 1988; Seitz, 1993; Wilson, 1987). In such cases, the (plows, tractors). Farmers react much as a concert entire project can become an experiment, if research- violinist on stage might improvise on a piece of music ers carefully document the process and the effects of to avoid a broken or out of tune string. The outcome "work in progress". influences future decisions of a similar nature, but the In contrast, some projects have emphasized farmer same situation (same song, same string, same audi- participation in formal research station experiments. ence) might never repeat itself. Like the violinist, Researchers in Rwanda have reported major advances farmers might not have the luxury of designing con- in potato and bean varietal selection and breeding trolled experiments to solve pressing problems, nor research through surveys of farmer knowledge would they gain much from highly precise results that (Haugerud, 1986) and involvement of farmer "ex- would apply only to a repetition of the same condi- perts" in on-station research (Sperling, forthcoming). tions. Unlike the violinist, farmers might face more This approach recognizes that farmers develop their than a bad review if they fail at a crucial time. How- knowledge and skills over long time periods and across ever, their process of learning and innovation clearly a wide range of microenvironments. It couples the has more in common with the acknowledged imme- richness of farmer experience and judgment with the diacy of the stage performance than with the purported precision and control of research station experimental control and replicability of the laboratory experiment. regimes. Some types of research directly address the sci- If rural people are to use production and conserva- ence of survival under uncertain conditions. Tech- tion research results under a wide range of conditions, niques from industrial psychology and marketing have then the experiments and the larger research program proven useful to identify successful strategies for cop- must be robust enough to accommodate the broad ing with change or stress or for reducing vulnerability 13 AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES - SPRING-SUMMER 1994 to economic and environmental stress (Jiggins, 1986a, existing land use system and to predict the likely 1986b, 1988). For example, aerospace industry re- outcome of a prolonged drought or a new settlement searchers developed critical incident analysis to iden- program. tify early indicators of trouble and to document the In most cases, rural people can be part of the decisions taken by pilots who survived potentially system as well as active observers, recorders, analysts, fatal crashes. Janice Jiggins adapted this to learn from evaluators, and independent experimenters. They may poor and "average" rural people who survived drought, monitor and evaluate projects and research process as famine, and public health crises in farming communi- well as specific technologies (Davis-Case, 1989). They ties of Africa and Asia.3 The study of survivors and can also conduct their own "perturbation experiments" "success" stories (stratified by class, gender, age, eth- with "real world" models to observe the response of nic group, and locality) can better inform people from local landscapes, livelihoods, and ecosystems to spe- the place about their own options in similar' future cific changes. The "control" is in their memory. This events. This technique consists of applying an experi- type of experiment may well prove more coherent from mental frame of mind to the documentation and inter- their point of view than a replicated experiment laid pretation of remembered events. It lends itself well to out according to a randomized block design. studies of wildlife management, watershed manage- ment, deforestation, reforestation, and agricultural in- Group Methods Applicable Throughout the Re- tensification. search Cycle Rural people can also reverse the time sequence to Farmer panels (Sperling, forthcoming), focus conduct "what if" simulations, applying an experi- groups (Feldstein and Jiggins, forthcoming), group mental mindset to visions of the future as well as to interviews (Buck, 1988; Rocheleau et al.,1988), group memories of the past. Extrapolating from current trends, ranking exercises (Grandin, 1988; Scoones, 1989), it is possible to imagine a range of possible futures and participant observation (Ashby, 1987; Ashby et (Davis-Case, 1989; Martin, 1991; Rocheleau et al., al., 1989) can all provide information about the sub- 1988; Woodhill, 1990) based on a combination of stance and the distribution of knowledge, practice, conscious choices and chance occurrences. Choices resources, opinions, and interests on a particular issue could include national wildlife, forest, and land tenure within a given community (Davis-Case, 1989). While policy, community resource management strategies, individuals may provide detailed information in inten- landscape design, household migration decisions, and sive interviews, their responses often represent one introduction of trees as cash crops. Externally deter- position on a larger spectrum that remains unknown or mined events might include drought, plant and animal must be inferred by the researcher from a large random diseases, groundwater depletion, and price fluctuation sample. or market collapse for particular commodities. For any of these methods, researchers may choose a group at random, or select groups systematically to Sampling and Monitoring represent a range of characteristics present in the Although scientists often make controlled labora- community. Alternatively, participant groups may be tory conditions conform to the demands of particular selected by the larger membership in a preexisting statistical analyses, it is also possible to fit multivari- group, they may volunteer according to researcher ate and time series analyses to complex field condi- criteria, or key informants may nominate groups. Both tions. Oceanographers, meteorologists, geologists, and the origin and the composition of groups have strong field ecologists are all accustomed to working with implications for the substance, the style of interaction, "experiments" designed by "nature". This differs from and the locus of control within research activities. survey research in that researchers may gather detailed Researchers who collaborate with groups may work data on complex systems over time, within an experi- with: (1) preexisting groups that take on research tasks mental framework that embraces variability. They can as a group, (2) preexisting groups that facilitate the monitor and test relationships between specific prac- participation of a subgroup of members as a special tices, processes, species, site characteristics, land- optional activity, or (3) groups created by and for holding types, and land user groups. They can sample researchers for the explicit purpose of research col- and monitor land use systems or trees-in-the-land- laboration. scape according to maps of existing variation in prac- In the case of preexisting groups, there are several tice or in vegetation. Such "inferred" or "insinuated key questions: whether they are formal or informal (as experiments" can explain the economic and ecological in legally. registered vs. family and friends); whether significance of these patterns in the landscape. Re- membership and contributions are voluntary or co- searchers may also use monitoring data to develop erced; whether the group represents the community as models that can simulate potential changes in land use a whole or specific segments thereof (by gender, class, systems. For example, researchers could use farmers' ethnicity, religion, occupation, location); whether they records and their own field observations to model an are traditional or recently initiated; whether they are 14 Rocheleau: Participatory Research and the Race to Save the Planet internally or externally organized; and whether they leaves or stems of seedlings, and volume and/or weight are perennial, multipurpose organizations or were of fuelwood harvested. Records might also provide formed to accomplish a specific task. If researchers substantial insight into seasonal and periodic price misunderstand the purpose or composition of a partici- fluctuations of local products and purchased items. pating group it can bias the research results and distort Individual, household, or group diaries provide the quality and distribution of participation within the scope for sharing judgments and reflections about community. changing conditions or new activities in a rural com- Preexisting groups can apply their own usual terms munity. For example, a women's group might keep a of leadership and participation to research activities long term narrative record of significant events and (Fernandez and Salvatierra, 1989). These may not be peoples' interpretations of these occurrences, includ- egalitarian nor are they likely to reward research apti- ing suggested solutions to land use and environmental tude and performance, but they have the advantages of problems. A diary could also focus on a specific tech- familiarity, local control, and credibility. Special re- nical topic such as tree seedling condition and sur- search groups formed from preexisting groups retain vival. Entries could emphasize pest attacks on planted the advantage of group and community linkages and seedlings, with comments about when, where, and why credibility, yet can provide freedom for group mem- pest attacks occur, as well as a description of the pests. bers and researchers to choose leaders and follow A diary of tree use and management might also provide procedures that facilitate the research task. They can comments about which trees are harvested, whether also remain accountable to the larger group and respect there is adequate supply, about the quality of products, the spirit of its organization in research activities. the potential uses and users, and the decisions about When researchers form new groups from the larger who will use what tree and what product. Alterna- community, based on open enrollment, direct selec- tively, diaries could focus on sightings and observa- tion, or "conscription", then the control of group pro- tions of wildlife, including rare or endangered species cess and activities is far more likely to reside with the sighted at home, at work sites, on regular trails, or on outside researchers. The form and substance of the extended journeys. research may differ substantially as a result. Such Individual, household, or group plant or insect groups make convenient participants in quantitative collections may serve several purposes, some a bit research designs. They lend themselves readily to more "participatory" than others. A collection may be controlled experiments, test panels for prepackaged for the collector's own use, for outside researchers products, or as representative qualified informants according to specific lists, or for shared use from (Norman, et al., 1988, 1989; Baker, forthcoming). jointly compiled lists of plant and insect types and However, they are less likely to promote continuing sampling sites. The use may be as general as "basic local innovation, research, or information exchange. research" or as practical as a reference guide to iden- Groups of this type may make significant contribu- tify medicinal herbs for local preparation and use. tions to formal research efforts (Sperling, forthcom- Public participation in collecting work can also facili- ing), but they should not be confused with self-sustain- tate discussions of ecological history, ecosystem struc- ing groups that participate in research efforts as part of ture and function, and the future landscape. This, in their own long-term agenda. turn, may affect planning, management, and improve- ment of land use systems, including domestication or Individual, Household, or Group Data Collection protection of wild plants and forest or range ecosys- and Record-Keeping tems. Record keeping, measurements, diaries, plant col- Oral history, while less tangible than some of the lections, oral histories, maps, and sketches may be data collection methods described above may well limited to "just the facts" or may include a substantial prove crucial to subsequent planning efforts to shape dose of rural people's judgment, skill, and worldview. the landscape and livelihood systems of the future. The While all of these can be very labor intensive and are objectives may range across a broad spectrum from: 1) sometimes used in an exploitative fashion, these meth- the postmodern project of liberating (apparently) sub- ods can allow for accurate data collection, analysis, jugated knowledges (Foucault, 1980; Stamp, 1989); to and interpretation by and for rural people. 2) empowerment of local communities and organiza- Records might include only qualitative observa- tions (Fortmann, 1993; Rocheleau et al., 1994; Ross, tions such as time and labor allocation within the 1994); to 3) supplementing written and photographic household, or simple quantitative notes on nursery records of soil erosion, water supply development, operation, such as records of seeds planted, plants deforestation, reforestation, technology adoption, or germinated, seedling survival, number distributed, to land use and land cover change (Malaret and Rocheleau, whom, number planted, damage, growth, and survival 1994; Rocheleau et al., forthcoming; Tiffen et al., (Buck, 1989; Davis-Case, 1989). Records could also 1994). Oral history has recently gained formal recog- include measurements of tree growth, insect damage to nition as a tool of environmental and land use research 15 AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES - SPRING-SUMMER 1994 (Showers, 1989; Showers and Malahlela, 1992) and forest communities have also begun community-based enjoys increasing use within research on environment, mapping exercises to delineate established terrains of development, and agricultural technology generation. resource use and rights to particular places as territory, The applications include personal life histories, which using survey maps (Chambers, 1992, forthcoming; are now widely used by feminist scholars to portray the Chambers and Conway, 1992; Colchester and Alcorn, diversity and depth of experience among women and to 1993; Herlihy, 1993). Members of the Rubber Tappers illuminate the political and the sublime embedded Union and farmers' associations in the Brazilian Ama- within the personal and the everyday. Life history zon have undertaken training to read and utilize aerial approaches can be extrapolated to discussions of com- photographs and remotely sensed satellite imagery so munity and regional history, and can be specifically as to locate their communities within larger regions focused on landscape, land use, land degradation, and to conduct land use research in coordination with biodiversity, and ecological processes (Rocheleau, other communities. They have also mapped their lands 1983b). Likewise, researchers and local residents can at community and regional scales for use in surveys construct matrices and diagrams describing inputs and and legal proceedings against government and private outputs for a given area, or documenting energy flows sector encroachment on their resources (Anderson, and material cycles in a local ecosystem and its link- 1993). The Land Care groups in Australia (Martin, ages to larger economic and ecological systems 1991) also depend on mapping and mapped informa- (Rocheleau, 1993a). tion at multiple scales to facilitate participatory plan- Mapping of past, present, and possible future land- ning for resource management. The Arusha Diocesan scapes is yet another way that research programs can Development Office (ADDO) has assisted Maasai com- collaborate with rural people to document, analyze, munities in Tanzania to map their customary grazing and predict ecological and land use changes. Maps and lands, water sources, and current settlements in re- sketches facilitate discussions of topics ranging from sponse to increasing conflicts over land use and access biodiversity to food production to water management. (Fr. Ben Ole Nangore, personal communication, 1989). The spatial configuration of landscapes is changing In Sri Lanka, researchers have joined rural communi- swiftly and dramatically in many agrarian, rangeland, ties in the use of geographic information systems and forest landscapes, and this method allows for an (GIS) for collaborative planning approaches with gov- integrative and rapid portrayal of the range of microen- ernment (Batuwitage, 1992) and NGOs (Yapa, 1991). vironments available to plants, animals, and people in This may well become a major tool of action research rural communities. The approach is particularly useful on natural resource allocation and management in for botanical research as well as land use planning and communities throughout the world. resource management programs that transcend single plots and landholdings (Chambers et al., 1989; What Institutions Can and Will Do Participatory Rocheleau et al., 1988). Research? Visual aids for discussion and graphic representa- Most national and international agricultural research tion can include a wide range of media and approaches. institutions already provide some scope for participa- Researchers have recorded a number of techniques in tory survey research, adaptive technology trials, and recent field exercises: landscape drawings with pens land user evaluation of new technologies and land use and ink markers drawn by researchers and local resi- plans. Enterprising field researchers, from anthropolo- dents (Rocheleau et al., 1994); chalk sketches and gists to ecologists, have seized upon or created oppor- maps on blackboards drawn by groups and individuals tunities to inform mainstream technology research (McConnell, 1992); clay models, sand paintings, and from local science and practice. They have incorpo- stick-drawings on the ground (Chambers, 1993; rated rural peoples' contributions to formal and "infor- Fortmann, 1993; MacCracken, 1988; MacCracken et mal" surveys, trials, and research planning. Instances al., 1988; Mascarenhas et al., 1991); felt board land- of such "injections" of local participation have been scapes with plants, animals, people, landscape fea- reported for several of the international agricultural tures, and infrastructure for iterative construction of research centers (see above) as well as in several alternative scenarios by groups and individuals international environment and development research (Rocheleau et al., 1994); flow diagrams and systems institutions (Bruce, 1989; Kiriro and Juma, 1991; diagrams of various types (Lightfoot et al.,1991); and McCabe, 1990; Murphree, 1993; Thrupp, 1989; Veit, computer mapping simulations of farms, watersheds, 1993; Zazueta et al., 1992). Rapid Rural Appraisal is and larger landscapes on portable computers. Most of now widely used to identify problems and to inform these techniques have been employed in planning re- technology design and research planning. Several major search and action on land use issues at the farm and international and national research programs have in- community levels, with some larger scale applica- corporated participant observation, ethnobotanical tions. surveys, and "directed" participation, as in the case of Beyond the local scale, some programs based in farmer panels, focus groups, and key informants, both 16 Rocheleau: Participatory Research and the Race to Save the Planet group and individual. sharpened their skills in participation. During the last five years a parallel stream of These programs have already accomplished much reports has issued from the field through new channels independently. However, they constitute a potentially Fiyure 2. explicitly created to give voice to participatory re- more powerful mix of complementary skill, experi- search experience in NGO and national government ence, and institutional strengths. The optimal combi- programs (Buck, 1989; Bond-Stewart, 1986; Bunch, nation in any one case might vary, but overall this 1985, 1989; ILEIA, 1988a, 1988b; Martin, 1991; approach would join organizations with different Maundu Munyao, 1992; Ngugi and Buck, 1989). The sectoral expertise and mandates (water, soil, crop pro- case studies, methodological summaries, and field duction, forestry, wildlife, employment, education, trial results include applications of Rapid Rural Ap- and culture). At the same time, the mix of participating praisal, Agroecosystem Analysis, Participatory Rural organizations would combine distinct types of institu- Appraisal, and a host of untitled but no less valid tions: popular NGOs, technical NGOs, universities, approaches. They all include rural peoples' skills, national extension agencies, national research agen- concerns, and judgment in survey and monitoring cies, and international research, development, relief, activities. and environmental agencies. The key message this conveys for sustainable The "spinning wheel" model of collaborating in- development researchers and planners is simple. Sev- stitutions (Figure 2) suggests that each institution could eral kinds of organizations, from the local to the'inter- spin on its own internal axis, yet contribute to a broader, national in scale, and from basic research to local shared circulation of participatory research for sus- empowerment in mandate, have successfully entered tainable development. Each institution would also con- into participatory research activities in forestry, ag- tinue to contribute to specialized networks of like riculture, conservation, and related fields (Korten, 1990; organizations. The work within the wheel would take Uphoff, 1992). While the mainstream research and policy place at a single site or a series of shared sites. communities have not yet incorporated these approaches Depending on local and national circumstances, as a whole into their explicit mandates, they have already the institutions and their activities would vary substan- (in some cases unwittingly) integrated many methods and tially. For example, in an agroforestry and rural liveli- principles of participatory research into daily field prac- hoods program the linked activities might include the tice. Conversely, many development agencies and NGOs following: have integrated an increasing number of research activi- 1) an ethnobotanical survey; ties into participatory development programs and have 2) a series of formal trials to determine the best 17 AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES - SPRING-SUMMER 1994 placement of a favorite local tree within a new (Mark Poffenberger and Fran Korten, personal com- settlement pattern; munication, 1988) and Kenya (Bradley, 1991; Buck, 3) exploratory trials with different types and 1989; Kerkoff, 1990; Ngugi and Buck, 1989; Scherr, sizes of tree nurseries; 1990). The Total Catchment Management and Land 4) management and tenure experiments to test Care groups in the Hunter Valley of Australia repre- alternative rules of use and access on farm, along sent yet another example of multi-institutional and forest margins, and in the forest; interdisciplinary research and action on environment 5) ecological and social baseline surveys using and development issues (Martin, 1991; Woodhill et local criteria to stratify the sample by environments al., 1990). and social groups; There is ample precedent within the international 6) documentation of prior and ongoing experi- and grassroots NGO community4 for long-standing ments by farmers; action research programs and collaboration with popu- 7) participant observation by researchers in lar organizations in technology innovation and devel- group agricultural and conservation work; opment (Korten, 1990; Uphoff, 1992). These experi- 8) a seed evaluation, selection, and collection enced groups are well-placed to inform and mediate program for favorite local and exotic plants; the convergence of environment and development in- 9) a marketing study on existing and potential stitutions with both research and action mandates to local tree products; play complementary roles in participatory land use 10) a local board to oversee all project work at research (Woods, 1983). We need not reinvent this the site; and particular wheel (Figure 2) from agriculture, forestry, 11) a farmer advisory group to collaborate on and conservation, but merely need to balance it for research station experiments of interest to the com- easy and effective use in a variety of sustainable land munity. use initiatives. Lest we become complacent about the A different agency might carry out each task, and ease of this task, we need only remind ourselves how the participants might include an international church- a careless neglect of the relations of power can threaten based NGO; a national forestry research agency; a such a carefully balanced process. This will surely national agricultural extension program; local self- prove to be another necessary focus of participatory help groups; district officials; a national university research over the coming decade (Cohen, 1993; research team of ecologists and social scientists; an Cornwall et al., 1992; Fraser, 1989; Watts, 1993). association of local teachers; and an international con- servation organization. Common interest in viable Conclusion agroforestry systems and "livable landscapes" would The last decade of experience in forestry, agriculture, drive the wheel, along with the cost savings of linking and conservation research has taught us what we can several activities in one place (a spatial economy of and cannot do alone as scientists and planners working shared focus). The result could be one successful within national and international institutions. Many of process, easy to multiply (not clone), rather than sev- us have explored the soft edges of our own science and eral specialized, incompatible environment and devel- the regions of overlap with local science and practice opment successes that don't add up. in isolated rural communities throughout the world. Throughout the world there are partial examples We have also discovered a wealth of experience and of the "spinning wheel" already turning. For example, information in the larger scientific and development the herbarium of the National Museums of Kenya has community, often in institutions previously invisible combined with Kenya Freedom From Hunger and to us, from our respective perches. We can use the Worldview International to conduct research and ex- decade ahead to employ our new-found collective tension on indigenous wild food plants (Maundu skills in sustainable development and to demonstrate Munyao, 1992). Their complementary skills have al- what is possible when we combine our efforts and our lowed them to link several distinct activities into a insights with those of rural people. Participatory meth- single coherent effort. They have been able to survey ods cannot guarantee socially just sustainable devel- the use and knowledge of edible wild plants, to prepare opment. They can facilitate democratic or self-deter- and disseminate planting and cooking information on mined programs to protect, create, and maintain sus- the best known plants, to promote domestication in tainable livelihoods and living landscapes for a multi- community fruit and vegetable gardens, and to estab- plicity of unfolding futures. lish seed multiplication plots. In other cases "working groups" (networks that emphasize "work") have coor- Notes dinated national research and extension agencies, eco- * Portions of this article have previously appeared in nomic planning, energy research, grassroots tree plant- Rocheleau, 1991b and are reprinted with the per- ing efforts, and rural development agencies to promote mission of Agroforestry Systems. social forestry within a single district, as in Indonesia 1. "We" refers here primarily to fieldworkers and 18 Rocheleau: Participatory Research and the Race to Save the Planet researchers engaged in critical exploration, review, and Ashby, Jacqueline, Carlos Cuiros, and Yolanda Rivers. revision of participatory methods for ecological, social, 1989. "Farmer Participation in Technology Develop- and economic research and action in "sustainable de- ment: Work with Crop Varieties." In Farmer First: velopment". This does not seek to exclude the people Farmer Innovation andAgricultural Research (Robert directly affected or those who reject the possibility of Chambers, Arnold Pacey, and Lori Ann Thrupp, eds.), any positive "development". The designation of "we" London: Intermediate Technology Publications, pp. simply acknowledges the major audience as the group 115-122. referred to above. Atta-Krah, A. N. and P. A. Francis. 1987. "Me Role of On- 2. It is important to keep in mind that "tradition" also Farm Trials in the Evaluation of Composite Technolo- changes. The body of "traditional" knowledge and gies: The Case of Alley Farming in Southern Nigeria," practice is constantly revised and redefined and may Agroforestry Systems, 23:133-152. become a contested point between land user groups Baker, Doyle. Forthcoming. "Women and Trials Manage- (Carney, 1988). ment in Botswana: Experience with Farmer Groups." 3. While there may be an ethical question raised about the In MethodologiesHandbook: Intra-householdDynam- advisability of outsiders reaping advantage from disas- ics and Farming Systems Research and Extension ter, this type of study can be either extractive or interac- (Hilary Feldstein and Janice Jiggens, eds.), New York: tive. It can help to prepare rural communities to avoid Population Council. or survive future disasters of the same or similar type. Batuwitage, Gamini. 1992. Effectiveness of Collaborative 4. This includes such groups as Intermediate Technology Planning as a Strategy for Sustainable, Integrated Area Development Group (ITDG), Oxfam, Oxfam America, Development. Ph.D. Dissertation Proposal. Worcester, World Neighbors, Care International, SOS Sahel, Save MA, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University. the Children, Catholic Relief Services, Lutheran World Bebbington, Anthony. 1990. "Farmer Knowledge, Institu- Services, Mennonite Central Committee, QuakerPeace tional Resources and Sustainable Agricultural Strate- and Service; American Friends Service Committee, gies: A Case Study from the Eastern Slopes of the Carinas, CEBEMO, Gandhian development organiza- Peruvian Andes," Bulletin ofLatinAmericanResearch, tions, International Institute for Rural Reconstruction 9(2). (IIRR), IRED, International Organization of Consumer Berger, Dhyani. 1993. Wildlife Extension: Participatory Unions (1000), Environment Development Action Conservation by the Maasai ofKenya. Nairobi: ACTS (ENDA), and many other numerous relief and develop- Press. ment organizations. Biggs, Stephen. 1988. Resource-Poor Farmer Participa- tion in Research: A Synthesis ofExperiencesfrom Nine References National Agricultural Research Systems. The Hague: Abel, N. O. J. and Piers Blaikie. 1986. "Elephants, People, ISNAR. Parks and Development: The Case of the Luwanga Bond-Stewart, Kathy. 1986. Land. Harare: Mambo Press. Valley, Zambia," Environmental Management, 10 Bradley, Phillip. 1991. Woodfuel, Women, and Woodlots, (6):735-751. Vol. 1. London: MacMillan. Abel, N. O. J., M. Drinkwater, J. Ingram, J. Okafor, and R. Brokensha, David, D. Michael W arren, and Oswald Wemer, T. Prinsley. 1989. Guidelines for Training in Rapid eds. 1980. Indigenous Knowledge Systems andDevel- Appraisal for Agroforestry Research and Extension. opment. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. London and Harare, Commonwealth Science Council Bruce, John. 1989. Community Forestry: Rapid Appraisal and Forestry Commission. of Tree and Land Tenure. Rome: FAO. Anderson, Suely. 1993. "Participatory Research and Map- Buck, Louise. 1989. "Planning Agroforestry Extension ping with Peasant Organizations and Forest Peoples." Projects: The CARE International Approaches in Kenya A paper presented at the Sixth International Forum of In Planning for Agroforestry (William Budd, ed.), the Association for Women in Development, October Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 101-131. 21-24, 1993, Washington, DC. Buck,Louise.1988.AgroforestryExtension Training Source Anderson, Anthony, ed. 1990. Alternatives to Deforesta- Book. New York, CARE International. tion: Steps toward Sustainable Use of the Amazon Bunch,Roland. 1989."EncouragingFarmers'Experiments. " Rainforest. New York: Columbia University Press. In Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Anderson, Anthony, Peter May, and Michael Balick. 1991. Research (Robert Chambers, Arnold Pacey, and Lori Subsidy from Nature: Palm Forest Peasantry and Ann Thnipp, eds.), London: Intermediate Technology Development on an Amazon Frontier. New York, Co- Publications, pp. 55-61. lumbia University Press. Bunch, Roland.1985. TwoEarsof Corn: A Guide toPeople- Ashby, Jacqueline. 1987. "The Effects of Different Types of Centered Agricultural Improvement. Oklahoma City: Farmer Participation on the Management of On-Farm World Neighbors. Trials," Agricultural Administration and Extension, Carney, Judith. 1988. "Struggles Over Land and Crops in an 24:235-252. Irrigated Rice Scheme: The Gambia." In Agriculture, 19 AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES - SPRING-SUMMER 1994 Women, and Land: The African Experience (Jean Innovation andAgriculturalResearch (Robert Chambers, Davison, ed.), Boulder: Westview. Arnold Pacey, and Lori Ann Thrupp, eds.), London: Inter- Cashman, Kristin. 1988. "Promoting the Fertilizer Bush mediate Technology Publications, pp. 151-157. Among Nigerian Farmers," VITA News, July/October. Collinson, Michael. 1981. "A Low-Cost Approach to Un- 7-10. derstanding Small Farmers," Agricultural Administra- Chambers, Robert. Forthcoming. "Participatory Rural Ap- tion and Extension, 8:433- 450. praisal: Analysis of Experience," World Development. Conway, Gordon. 1987. "The Properties of Agroecosys- Chambers,Robert.1993. Challenging theProfessions:Fron- tems," Agricultural Systems, 24: 95-117. tiers for Rural Development. London: Intermediate Conway, Gordon. 1985. "Agroecosystem Analysis," Agri- Technology Publications. cultural Administration, 20:31-55. Chambers, Robert. 1992. "Methods for Analysis by Farm- Cornwall, Andrea, Irene Guijt, and Alice Welbourn. 1992. ers: The Professional Challenge." A paper presented at "Acknowledging Process: Challenges for Agricultural the 1991-1992 Symposium of the Association forFarm- Research and Extension Methodology." Overview pa- ing Systems Research/Extension, September 11, 1991, per No. 2 prepared for IIED/IDS Beyond Farmer First Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Workshop, October27-29,1992,Brighton,Institute for Chambers, Robert. 1989. "Farmer-First: A Practical Para- Development Studies, University of Sussex. digm for the Third Agriculture. In Agroecology and Davis-Case, D'Arcy. 1989. ComnutnityForestryParticipa- Small Farm Development (Miguel Altieri and Susanna tory Assessment, Monitoring and Evaluation. Rome: Hecht, eds.), Florida CRC Press. FAO. Chambers, Robert. 1983. Rural Development: Putting the Denevan, William, John Treacy, Janis Alcorn, Christine Last First. London: Longman. Padoch, Julie Denslow, and Salvador Flores Paitdn. Chambers,Robert. 1981. "RapidRural Appraisal: Rationale 1985. "Indigenous Agroforestry in the Peruvian Ama- and Repertoire," Public Administration and Develop- zon: Boralndian Management of SwiddenFallows." In ment, 1(2). Change in theAmazonBasin, Volume 1: Man'slmpact Chambers, Robert and Gordon Conway. 1992. "Sustainable on Forests andRivers (John Hemming, ed.), Manches- Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st ter. Manchester University Press, pp. 137-155. Century." IDS Discussion Paper No. 296. Brighton, Dewees, Peter. 1989. "The Woodfuel Crisis Reconsidered Institute for Development Studies, University of Sus- Observations on the Dynamics of Abundance and sex. Scarcity," World Development 17(8):1159-1172. Chambers, Robert and B. P. Ghildyal. 1985. "Agricultural Drijver C. A. and Elizabeth Croll. 1992. "People's Partici- Research for Resource-Poor Farmers: The Farmer- pation in EnvironmentalProjects. In Bush Base, Forest First-and-LastModel,"Agricultural Administration and Farm. Culture, Environment, andDevelopment (Eliza- Extension 20:1-30. beth Croll and DavidParkin, eds.),London: Routledge, Chambers, Robert and Janice Jiggins. 1986. "Agricultural Re- pp. 131-145. search for Resource-Poor Farmers: A Parsimonious Para- Edwards, R. J. A.1987a. "Farmers' Knowledge: Utilization digm." IDS Discussion Paper No. 220, Brighton, Institute of Farmers' Soil and Land Classification." A paper for Development Studies, University of Sussex. presented at the IDS Workshop on Farmers and Agri- Chambers, Robert, Arnold Pacey, and Lori Ann Thrupp, cultural Research: Complementary Methods, July 26- eds. 1989. Farmer First: Farmer Innovation andAgri- 31, 1987, Brighton, Institute of Development Studies, cultural Research. London: Intermediate Technology University of Sussex. Publications. Edwards, R. J. A. 1987b. "Farmers' Groups and Panels." A Clarke, J. 1990. "On-Farm Agroforestry Research Lessons paper presented at the IDS Workshop on Farmers and and Innovations from a Pilot Project in Zimbabwe." A Agricultural Research: Complementary Methods, July paper presented at ICRAF workshop on participatory 26-31, 1987, Brighton, Institute of Development Stud- methods for on-farm agroforestry research, February ies, University of Sussex. 19-23, 1990, Nairobi. Edward s, R. J. A.1987 c. "Mapping and Informal Experimenta- Cohen, A. P. 1993. "Segmentary Knowledge: A Whalsay tion by Farmers: Agronomic Monitoring of Farmers' Sketch." In (Mark Hobart, ed.), London: Routledge. Cropping Systems." A paper presented at the IDS Work- Colchester, A. and Janis Alcorn. 1993. Indigenous Territo- shop on Farmers and Agricultural Research: Complemen- ries and Resource Use Mapping Project: South East tary Methods, July 26-31, 1987, Brighton, Institute of Asia Region. Second draft of project proposal. Development Studies, University of Sussex. Chadlington, England and Washington, DC: World Escobar, Arturo. 1992. "Culture, Economics and Politics in Rainforest Movement and World Wildlife Fund. Latin American Social Movements Theory and Re- Coffer, Carol J. Pierce with Fahmuddin Agus, Dan Gill, M. search." In The Making of Social Movements in Latin Sudjadi, Gofo Ueharu, and M. K. Wade. 1989. "Two America (Arturo Escobar and Sonia Alvarez, eds.), Complementary Approaches to Farmer Involvement: An Boulder. Westview Press, pp. 62-85. Experience from Indonesia" In Farmer First: Farmer Esteva, Gustavo. 1992. "Development." In The Development 20 Rocheleau: Participatory Research and the Race to Save the Planet Dietionary.AGuide to Knowledge asPower (Wolfgang 1988. "Indigenous and Exotic Fruit Trees: Why Do Sachs, ed.), London, Zed Press, pp. 6-25. People Want to Grow Them?" A paper presentedat the Feldstein, Hilary and Janice Jiggins. Forthcoming. Method- Commonwealth Science Council Conference on Eco- ologies Handbook: Infra-household Dynamics and nomics of Agroforestry, April 23-27, 1988, Mbabane, Farming SystemsResearch and Extension, New York: Swaziland. Population Council. Gupta, Anil. 1989. "Scientists' Views of Farmers' Practices in Feldstein, Hilary, Dianne Rocheleau, and Louise Buck. India Barriers to Effective Interaction." In Farmer First: 1989. "The Siaya Agroforestry Project in Kenya." In Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research (Robert Working Together: Gender Analysis in Agricultural Chambers, Arnold Pacey, and Lori Ann Thrupp, eds.), Research, Vol. 1. (Hilary Feldstein and Susan Poats, London: IntennediateTechnologyPublications,pp.24-31. eds.), West Hartford: Kumarian Press. Gupta, Anil and IDS Workshop. 1989. Maps Drawn by Fernandez, Maria. Forthcoming. "The Influence of the Farmers and Extensionists. In Farmer First: Farmer Aranachay Women's Production Committee on Plan- Innovation and Agricultural Research (Robert Cham- ning the Research Agenda and Trial Design." In Meth- bers, Arnold Pacey, and Lori Ann Thrupp, eds.), Lon- odologies Handbook: Intra-household Dynamics and don: Intermediate Technology Publications, pp. 86-92. Farming Systems Research and Extension (Hilary Hancock, Graham. 1989. Lords of Poverty. New York, Feldstein and Janice Jiggens, eds.), New York: Popula- Atlantic Monthly Press. tion Council. Haugenrd, Angelique. 1986. "An Anthropologist in an African Fernandez, Maria and Hugo Salvatierra. 1989. "Participa- Research Institute: An Informal Essay," Bulletin of the tory Technology Validation in Highland Communities Institute for Development Anthropology, 4: 2. in Peru. In Z(Robert Chambers, ArnoldPacey, andLori Herlihy, Peter. 1993. Indigenous Mapping ofthe Honduran Ann Thrupp, eds.), London: Intermediate Technology Mosquitia: The Design and Methodology of a Partici- Publications, pp. 146-150. patory Project. Draft Document, Washington, DC: Feuerstein, Marie-Therese. 1986. Partners in Evaluation: World Wildlife Fund. Evaluating Development and CommunityProgrammes Hildebrand, Peter, ed. 1986. Perspectives on Farming Sys- with Participants. London: MacMillan. tems Research and Extension. Boulder, Lynne Reiner Flores Paitan, S. 1987. "Agroforestry Systems in Iquitos." Publishers. ICRAF Working Paper, Nairobi: ICRAF. Hildebrand, Peter. 1981. "Combining Disciplines in Rapid Ford, Richard, Charity Kabutha, and Barbara Thomas- Appraisal: The Sondeo Approach," Agricultural Ad- Slayter. 1993a. "Erosion Control in Machakos, Kenya." ministration 8:423-432. In Working with Farmers for Better Land Husbandry Hildebrand, Peter and Federico Poey.1985.On-Farm Agro- (Norman Hudson and Rodney Cheatle, eds.), London: nomic Trials in Farming SystemsResearch and Exten- Intermediate Technology Publications. sion. Boulder: Lynne Reiner Publishers. Ford, Richard, Charity Kabutha, and Barbara Thomas- Hope, Anne and Sally Timmel. 1984. Trainingfor Transfor- S layter.1993b. "Participatory Rural Appraisal: A Case mation, Vols. 1-3, Harare: Mambo Press. Study from Kenya." In Rapid Appraisal Methods Hoskins, Marilyn. 1982. "Social Forestry in West Africa: (Krishna Kumar, ed.), Washington, DC, The World Myths and Realities." A Paper presented at the annual Bank. meeting of the American Association for the Advance- Fortmann, Louise. 1993. "Learning from People, Learning ment of Science, Washington, DC. with People, Empowering People with Research." A ILEIA. 1988a. "Towards Sustainable Agriculture (Parts 1 paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rural and 2)," ILEIA Newsletter, 4 (1). Sociological Society, August 9, 1993, Orlando, FL. ILEIA. 1988b. "Participative Technology Development," Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Inter- ILEIA Newsletter 4 (3). views and Other Writings, 1972-1977. New York: Jama, M., L. Malaret, D. Rocheleau, and 1. 0. Jondiko with Pantheon Books. B. M. Wanjohi. 1992. Farmer/Researcher Collabora- Fraser, Nancy. 1989. Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse, tive Approach to Rural Development. A report to the and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory. Minne- IDRC. Nairobi: Institute for Development Studies, apolis: University of Minnesota Press. University of Nairobi. Freire, Paulo.1973. "Research Methods." InStudies inAdult Jiggins, Janice. 1988. "Farmer Participatory Research and Education. Dares Salaam: Institute of Adult Education. Technology Development," Occasional Papers in Ru- Freire, Paulo. 1968. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: ral Extension No. 5. Guelph, Canada, Department of Penguin Books. Rural Extension Studies, University of Guelph. George, Susan. 1992. The Debt Boomerang: How Third Jiggins, Janice. 1986a. "Problems of Understanding and World Debt Harms Us All. Boulder: Westview Press. Communication at the Interface of Knowledge Sys- Grandin, Barbara. 1988. WealthRanking. London, Interme- tems." In Gender Issues in Farming Systems Research diate Technology Publications. and Extension (Susan Poats, Marianne Schmink, and Gumbo, D., B. Mukamuri, M. Makondo, and I. Scoones. Anita Spring, eds.), Boulder. Westview Press. 21 AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES - SPRING-SUMMER 1994 Jiggins, Janice. 1986b. "Women and Seasonality: Coping Malaret, Luis and Dianne Rocheleau. 1994. Landscape with Crisis and Calamity," IDS Bulletin, 17 (3): 9-18. Pattern, Land Use Change and Biodiversity in Forest/ Juma, Calestous. 1989. Biological Diversity and Innova- Farm Mosaics. A proposal submitted to the National tion: Conserving and Utilizing Genetic Resources in Science Foundation. Worcester, MA: New England Kenya. Nairobi: African Centre for Technology Stud- Science Center and Clark University. ies. Marglin,Frederique and Stephen Marglin, eds. 1990. Domi- Kabutha, Charity, Barbara Thomas-Slayter, and Richard nating Knowledge: Development Culture, Resistance. Ford. 1991. Assessing Mbusyani: Using Participatory Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rural Appraisal for Sustainable Resource Manage- Martin, Peter. 1991. "Environmental Care in Agricultural ment. Worcester, MA: Clark University. Catchments: Toward the Communicative Catchment," Kean,Stuart 1988."DevelopingaPaMershipbetweenFarmers Environmental Management, 15(6):773-783. and Scientists: The Example of Zambia's Adaptive Re- Mascarenhas, James, Parmesh Shah, Sam Joseph, Ravi search Planning Team," Experimental Agriculture, 24 Jayakaran, John Devavaram, Vidya Ramachandran, (3):289-299. Aloysius Femandez, Robert Chambers, and Jules Pretty. Kerkoff, Paul. 1990. Agroforestry in Africa: A Survey of 1991. Participatory Rural Appraisal: Proceedings of Project Experience. London: Panos. the February 1991 Bangalore PRA Trainers Work- Khon Kaen University. 1987. Proceedings of the 1985 shop. RRA Notes Number 13. London: International International Conference on Rapid Rural Appraisal. Institute for Environment and Development. Khon Kaen, Thailand, Faculty of Agriculture. Khon Matose, Frank. 1993. "Gender and Local Knowledge of Kaen University. Trees and Crops in a Pilot Project in Zimbabwe." A Kiriro, Amos and Calestous Juma, eds. 1991. Gaining paper presented at the Sixth International Forum of the Ground: Institutional Innovations in Land Use Man- Association for Women in Development, October 21- agement in Kenya. Nairobi: African Centre for Tech- 24,1993, Washington, DC. nology Studies. Maundu Munyao (1992) Biodiversity and Wild Foods. Korten, David.1990. Getting to the 21 st Century: Voluntary Manuscript. Nairobi, Indigenous Food Plants Action and the GlobalAgenda. West Hartford: Kumarian Programme, National Museum of Kenya. Press. McCabe, J. Terrence. 1990. "Turkana Pastoralism: A Case Langely, Phillip. 1986. "Popular Participation as a Cargo Against the Tragedy of the Commons," Human Ecol- Cult?" ENDA African Environment Occasional Paper ogy, 18 (1): 81-104. Series No. 95-86. McConnell, William. 1992. Local Ecological Knowledge Lightfoot, Clive, Nancy Axinn, K. C. Joh, Robert Cham- and Environmental Management in the Republic of bers, R. K. Singh, Dennis Garrity, V. P. Singh, P. Mali, West Africa. M. A. thesis. Worcester, MA, Pro- Mishra, and Ahmad Salman. 1991. Training Resource gram in International Development and Social Change, BookforParticipatoryExperimental Design. India and Clark University. Manila: NDUAT, ICLARM, and IRRI. Mies, Maria. 1988. Patriarchy and Accumulation on a Lightfoot Clive, Olimpio de Guia, Jr, Aniceto Aliman, and World Scale. London: Zed Press. Francisco Ocado. 1989. "Appraisal by Group Trek." In Mies, Maria and Vandana Shiva. 1993. Ecofeminism. Lon- Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural don, Zed Press. Research (Robert Chambers, Arnold Pacey, and Lori Muller, E. U. and S. K. Scherr. 1990. "Planning Technical Ann Thrupp, eds.), London: Intermediate Technology Interventions in Agroforestry Projects," Agroforestry Publications, pp. 93-100. Systems, 12: 23-44. Lightfoot, Clive, Olimpio de Guia, Jr., and Francisco Ocado. Murphree, Marshall. 1993. "Decentralizing the Proprietor- 1988. "A Participatory Method for Systems-Problem ship of Wildlife Reserves in Zimbabwe's Communal Research Rehabilitating Marginal Uplands in the Phil- Lands. In Voices from Africa: Local Perspectives on ippines," Experimental Agriculture, 24 (3): 301-309. Conservation (DaleLewis and Nick Carter, eds.), Wash- MacCracken,Jennifer.1988. ParticipatoryRapidAppraisal ington, DC: World Wildlife Fund. in Gujarat: A Trial Model for the Aga Khan Rural National Environment Secretariat,EgertonUniversity, Clark Support Programme. London: International Institute University and Center for International Development for Environment and Development. and Environment of World Resources Institute. (NES) MacCracken Jennifer, Jules Pretty, and Gordon Conway. 1991. Participatory Rural Appraisal Handbook: Con- 1988. An Introduction to Rapid Rural Appraisal for ducting PRAs in Kenya. Washington, DC: World Re- Agricultural Development. London: International In- sources Institute. stitute for Environment and Development. Ngugi,AandL. Buck. 1989.Proceedings of theAgroforesiry Malaret, Luis and Francis Ngonr.1989. "Ethnoecology as a Monitoring and Evaluation Methodology Project Re- Tool for Community Based Pest Management: Farmer gional Workshop. Nairobi: CARE International. Knowledge of Termites in Machakos District, Kenya," Norman D, D. Baker, G. Heinrich, C. Jonas, S. Maskiara, Sociobiology 15 (2): 197-211. andF. Worman.1989. "FarmerGroupsforTechnology 22 Rocheleau: Participatory Research and the Race to Save the Planet Development: Experiences from Botswana. In Farmer 1992, . Brighton, Institute for Development Studies, First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research University of Sussex. (Robert Chambers, ArnoldPacey,andLori AnnTh upp, Project Reach. 1993. "Gender Concerns in Sustainable eds.), London: Intermediate Technology Publications, Development: The Case of Katheka, Kenya." Draft pp. 136-146. Paper. Nairobi, Project Reach. Norman, D., D. Baker, G. Heinrich, and F. Worman. 1988. Raintree, J. B., ed. 1987a. D&D User's Manual: An Intro- "Technology Development and Fanner Groups: Expe- duction toAgroforestryDiagnosisandDesign.Nairobi: riences from Botswana," Experimental Agriculture, 24 ICRAF. (3): 321-331. Raintree J. B. 1987b. "The State of the Art of Agroforestry Oakley, P. 1987. "State or Process, Means or End? The Diagnosis and Design," Agroforestry Systems, 5 (3): Concept of Participation in Rural Development Ideas," 219-250. RRDC Bulletin, March. Raintree, J. B., ed. 1983a. "Resources for Agroforestry Oldfield, Margery and Janis Alcom. 1991. "Conservation of Diagnosis and Design." ICRAF Working Paper No. 7. Traditional Agroecosystems." In Biodiversity: Cul- Nairobi, ICRAF. ture, Conservation and Ecodevelopment (Margery Raintree, J. B. 1983b. "Strategies for Enhancing the Adopt- Oldfield and Janis Alcorn, eds.), Boulder. Westview ability of Agroforestry Innovations," AgroforestrySys- Press, pp. 37-58. Reprinted from Bioscience, 37 (3). tems, 1 (3): 173-188. Owusu-Bempah, Kofi. 1988. "The Role of Women Farmers Rhoades,Robert 1989. "TheRole of Farmers in the Creation of in Choosing Species for Agroforestry Farming Sys- Agricultural Technology." In FarmerFirst: Farmerlnno- tems in Rural Areas of Ghana." In Gender Issues in vationandAgriculturalResearch (RobertChambers,Amold FarmingSystemsResearchandExtension (SusanPoats, Pacey, and Lori Ann Thn.rpp, eds.), London: Intermediate Marianne Schmink, and Anita Spring, eds.), Boulder. Technology Publications, pp. 3-9. Westview Press, pp. 427-443. Rhoades, Robert. 1987. "Basic Field Techniques for Rapid Parkipuny, M. S. 1991. "Pastoralism, Conservation and Rural Appraisal." In Proceedings of the 1985 Interna- Development in the Greater Serengeti Region." LIED tional Conference on Rapid Rural Appraisal, Khon IssuesPaperNo. 26. London, International Institute for Kaen, Thailand, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen Environment and Development. University. Perlman, Janice. 1990. "Introduction: A Dual Strategy for Rhoades, Robert 1984. Breaking New Ground: Agricul- Deliberate Social Change in Cities," Cities, 1990 (Feb- turalAnthropology, Lima, International Potato Centre. ruary): 3-15. Rhoades, Robert. 1982. TheArt of thelnformal Agricultural Poats, Susan, Hilary Feldstein, and Dianne Rocheleau. Survey. Training Document. Lima: International Po- 1989. "Gender and Intra-Household Analysis in On- tato Centre. Farm Research and Experimentation." In The House- Rhoades, R. E. and R. H. Booth. 1982. "Farmer-Back-to- hold Economy: Reconsidering the Domestic Mode of Farmer: A Model for Generating Acceptable Agricul- Production (Richard Wilk, ed.), Boulder. Westview tural Technology," Agricultural Administration, 11: Press. 127-137. Poats, Susan, Marianne Schmink, and Anita Spring, eds. Richards, Howard. 1985. The Eval uation of Cultural Action, 1988. Genderlssues in Farming Systems Research and Ottawa, International Development Research Centre. Extension. Boulder. Westview Press. Richards, Paul. 1989. "Agriculture as Performance." In Polestico, Rachel. 1993. "Participatory Research: Its Applica- Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural tion to Development, Gender, Sexuality, andReproductive Research (Robert Chambers, Arnold Pacey, and Lori Health." In Gender, Sexuality, andReproductive Health in Ann Thrupp, eds.), London: Intermediate Technology the Philippines (PilarRamos Jimenez and Patricia Monina Publications, pp. 39-43. P. Yadao, eds.), Manila: Social Development Research Richards, Paul. 1985. Indigenous Agricultural Revolution: Center, De la Salle University, pp. 3-28. Ecology and Food Production in West Africa. London: Posey, Daryl. 1985. "Indigenous Management of Tropical Hutchinson. Forest Ecosystems: The Case of the Kayapo Indians of Rocheleau, Dianne. 1991a. "Gender, Ecology and the Sci- the Brazilian Amazon," Agroforestry Systems, 3 (2): ence of Survival: Stories and Lessons from Kenya," 139-158. Agriculture and Human Values, 8 (1): 156-165. Pretty, Jules.1991. "Farmers' Extension Practice and Tech- Rocheleau, Dianne. 1991b. "Participatory Research in nology Adaptation: Agricultural Revolution in 17-19th Agroforestry: Learning from Experience and Expand- Century Britain," Agriculture and Human Values, 8 (1- ing our Repertoire," Agroforestry Systems, 9 (1). 2):132-148. Rocheleau, Dianne. 1989a. "Agroforestry as Popular Sci- Pretty, Jules and Robert Chambers. 1992. `"Turning the New ence: A Land User Perspective for Research and De- Leaf: New Professionalism, Institutions and Policies sign in Rural Landscapes." A paper presented at the for Agriculture." Overview paper prepared for IIED/ Annual Meeting of the American Association for the IDS Beyond Farmer First Workshop, October 27-29, Advancement of Science, January 14-19, 1989, San 23 AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES - SPRING-SUMMER 1994 Francisco. Committee, Cornell University. Rocheleau, Dianne.1989b. "The Gender Division of Work, Ross, Laurie. 1994. The Partnership Between Grassroots Resources and Rewards in Agroforestry Systems." In Social Movements and Development Organizations: Agroforestry Development in Kenya (A. E. Kilewe, K. Identity Reinforcement and Reinvention in Zambrana- M. Kealey, and K. K. Kebaara, eds.), Nairobi: ICRAF, Chacuey, Dominican Republic. M. A. thesis. Worces- pp. 228-245. ter, MA, Program in International Development and Rocheleau, Dianne. 1987a. "Gender, Resource Manage- Social Change, Clark University. ment and the Rural Landscape: Implications for RRA Notes Newsletter. 1988 et seq. London, Sustainable Agroforestry and Farming Systems Research."InGen- Agriculture Program. International Institute for Envi- derlssues inFarming SystemsReseareh and Extension ronment and Development. (Susan Poats, Marianne Schmink, and Anita Spring, Sachs,Wolfgang, ed. 1992. TheDevelopmentDietionary:A eds.), Boulder. Westview Press, pp. 149-169. Guide to Knowledge as Power. London: Zed Press. Rocheleau, Dianne.1987b. "The User Perspective and the Scherr, Sara. 1990. "The Diagnosis and Design Approach to Agroforestry Research and Action Agenda." In Agroforestry Project Planning and Implementation: Agroforestry: Realities, Possibilities and Potentials Examples from Western Kenya." In Planning for (Henry Gholz, ed.), Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, pp. Agroforestry (William B udd, ed.), Amsterdam: Elsevier, 59-87. pp. 132-160. Rocheleau, Dianne. 1985. "Criteria for Re-Appraisal and Re- Scherr, Sara. 1988a. Current Agroforestry Practices and Design: Intra-Household and Between-Household As- ExtensionReeommendationsofthe CAREAgroforestry pects of FSRE in Three Kenyan Agroforestry Projects." Extension Project. ICRAF-CAREProjectReportNo. 8. ICRAF Working Paper No. 37. Nairobi, ICRAF. Nairobi: ICRAF. Rocheleau, Dianne. 1983a. "Appendix A-5: Ecosystems Scherr, Sara. 1988b. Pilot Survey of Adopted Agroforestry Analysis in D&D Applications." In Resources for Practices in the CAREAgroforestry Extension Project. Agroforestry Diagnosis and Design (ICRAF Working ICRAF-CARE Project Report No. 6. Nairobi: ICRAF. Paper No. 7), Nairobi, ICRAF, pp. 137-155. Scherr, Sara. 1987. "Planning National Agroforestry Re- Rocheleau, Dianne. 1983b. "Appendix A-8; Watershed search: Guidelines for Land Use System Description." Evaluation Guidelines." InResourcesforAgroforestry ICRAF Working Paper No. 48. Nairobi, ICRAF. Diagnosis and Design (ICRAF Working PaperNo. 7), Scoones,Ian,ed. 1989.ParticipatoryResearchforRuralDevel- Nairobi: ICRAF, pp. 165-17 1. opmentinZimbabwe:AReportofaTrainingWorkshopfor Rocheleau, Dianne, Patricia Benjamin, Alison Field-Juma, ENDA-Zimbabwe Trees Project. London: International and PhilipSteinberg, with AnaNzisaandPeterOndiege. Institute for Environment and Development. Forthcoming. History, Ecology and Environmental Scoones, Ian. 1988. Community Management of Indig- Change in EastAfrica: The Case of Ukambani. Tokyo: enous Woodland Project. A series of unpublished re- United Nations University Press. ports (Nos. 1-9). Harare, ENDA-Zimbabwe. Rocheleau, Dianne and Luis Malaret. 1987. "Use of Scoones, Ian and Jennifer MacCracken, eds. 1989. Partici- Ethnoecology in Agroforestry Systems Research." In patoryRapidRural Appraisal in Wollo: PeasantAsso- How Systems Work. Selected proceedings of the Farm- ciation Planning for Natural Resource Management. ing Systems Research Symposium, Fayetteville: Uni- London: IIED and Ethiopian Red Cross Society. versity of Arkansas and Winrock International. Scoones, Ian and John Thompson. 1992. "Beyond Farmer Rocheleau, D., L. Ross, J. Morrobel,R. Hernandez,C. Brito, First: Rural People's Knowledge, Agricultural Re- and C. Amparo. 1994. "Farming the Forest, Gardening search and Extension Practice: Towards a Theoretical with Trees: Gendered Landscapes and Livelihood in Framework." Overview paperNo. I prepared forlIED/ Zambrana-Chacuey, Dominican Republic." Working IDS Beyond Farmer First Workshop, October 27-29, paper. Worcester, MA, Clark University. 1992, Brighton, Institute for Development Studies, Rocheleau, Dianne, Kamoji Wachira, Luis Malaret, and University of Sussex. Bernard Muchiri Wanjohi. 1989. "Ethnoecological Seitz, Virginia. 1993. "Gender and Rural Organization in a Methods toComplementLocal Knowledge and Farmer Pilot Project in Zimbabwe." A paper presented at the Innovations in Agroforestry. In Farmer First: Farmer SixthlntemationalForum of theAssociation for Women in Innovation and Agricultural Research (Robert Cham- Development, October 21-24,1993, Washington, DC. bers, Arnold Pacey, and Lori Ann Thrupp, eds.), Lon- Shaner, W. W., P. F. Philipp, and W. R. Schmehl. 1982. don: Intermediate Technology Publications, pp. 14-24. Farming Systems Research and Development: Guide- Rocheleau, Dianne, Fred Weber and Alison Field. 1988. lines for Developing Countries. Boulder. Westview Agroforestry in Dryland Africa. Science and Practice Press. of Agroforestry Series, Vol. 3. Nairobi: ICRAF. Shiva, Vandana. 1988. Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Roe, Emery and Louise Fortmann. 1981. Season and Strat- Survival. London: Zed Press. egy: The Changing Organization of the Rural Water Showers, Kate. 1989. "Soil Erosion in the Kingdom of Sector in Botswana. Ithaca, NY, Rural Development Lesotho: Origins and ColonialResponse,1830s-1950s," 24 Rocheleau: Participatory Research and the Race to Save the Planet Journal of Southern African Studies, 15 (2): 263-286. Washington, DC: World Resource Institute. Showers, Kate and Gwendolyn Malahleha. 1992. "Oral Evi- Warren, D. Michael, L. Jan Slikkerveer, and. David dence in Historical Environmental Impact Assessment: Brokensha, eds.1994.IndigenousKnowledgeSystems: Soil Conservation in Lesotho in the 1930s and 1940s," The Cultural Dimension of Development. London: Journal of Southern African Studies, 18(2):276-296. Intermediate Technology Publications. Sperling, L. Forthcoming. "Methods for Integrating Farmer Warren, D. Michael and Kristin Cashman. 199 1. Indigenous Experts into On-Station Research." In Methodologies Knowledge for Agriculture and Rural Development: Handbook for Gender Analysis in Farming Systems Some Practical Applications. London, International Research (Hilary Feldstein and Janice Jiggins, eds.), Institute for Environment and Development. New York: Population Council. Watts, Michael. 1993. "Development I: Power, Knowledge, Stamp, Patricia. 1989. Technology, Gender and Power in Discursive Practice," Progress in Human Geography, Africa. Ottawa and West Hartford: International Devel- 17 (2): 257-272. opment Research Centre and Kumarian Press. Watts, Michael. 1983. Silent Violence: Food, Famine, and S umberg, J. and C. Okali.1989. "Farmers, On-Farm Research, Peasantry inNorthernNigeria. Berkeley: Universityof and New Technology." In Farmer First: Farmer Innova- California Press. tion andAgriculturalResearch (RobertChambers, Arnold Wells, Michael, Kai ina Brandon, and Lee Hannah. 1992. Pacey, and Lori Ann Thrupp, eds.), London: Intermediate People and Parks: Linking Protected Area Management Technology Publications, pp. 109-114. with Local Communities. Washington, DC, World Bank. Sutherland, A. J. 1987. "The Benefits of Adopting a Com- Wilson, Ken. 1989. `Trees in Fields in Southern Zimbabwe," munity Approach to Farmer Selection." A Paper pre- Journal of Southern African Studies, 15 (2): 369-383. sented at the Workshop on Household Issues in Farm- W ilson, Ken.1988. CommunityManagemen t oflndigenous ing Systems Research. April 27-30, 1987. Lusaka, WoodlandProject. Unpublished report Harare,ENDA. CIMMYT. Wilson, Ken. 1987.Research on Treesin theMazvihwa and Thomas-Slayter,Barbara,AndreaEsser,andM. Dale Shields. Surro undingAreas. Unpublished report. Harare, ENDA. 1993. Tools of GenderAnalysis. Worcester, MA: Clark Wisner, Ben. 1989/1990. Power and Need in Africa. London University. and Trenton, NJ: EaNrscati and Africa World Press. Thomas-Slayter, Barbara, Charity Kabutha, and Richard Wisner, Ben and Lakshman Yapa. 1992. Building a Case Ford. Forthcoming. "ParticipatoryRural Appraisal: An Against Economic Development. Manuscript Hamp- Innovative Methodology for Improved Community shire College and Pennsylvania State University. Development." In Participatory Methodologies in Woodhill,J.1990. "Landcare-Who Cares? Current Issues Development (K. Kumar, ed.). andFutureDirectionsforLandcare inNSW "Adiscus- Thomas-Slayter, Barbara, Charity Kabutha, and Richard Ford. sion paper from the 1990 review of Landcare in New 1991. Traditional Village Institutions in Environmental South Wales. Hawkesbury, Australia, Landcare and Management. From the Ground Up Case StudySeries,No. Environment Program, Centre for Rural Development, 1. Washington, DC and Nairobi, The Center for Interna- University of Western Sydney. tional Development and Environment, World Resources Woodhill, J, J. McKenzie, and A. M. Wilson. 1990. "Post Institute and the African Centre for Technology Studies. Course Report" A paper prepared following the Thrupp, Lori Anti. 1989. "Legitimizing Local Knowledge: Landcare and Total Catchment Management Coordi- From Displacement to Empowerment for Third World nators Workshop, July 1990. Hawkesbury, Australia, People," Agriculture and Human Values, 6 (3): 13-24. Faculty of Agriculture and Rural Development, Uni- Tiffen Mary, Michael Mortimore, and F. Gichuki. 1994. versity of Western Sydney. More People, Less Erosion: Environmental Recovery Woods, B.1983. "Altering the Present Paradigm: A Differ- in Kenya. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. ent Path to Sustainable Development in the Rural Tripp, Robert. 1984. "On-Farm Research and Applied Nu- Sector." Unpublished paper. Washington, DC: The trition: Some Suggestions for Collaboration Between World Bank. National Institutes of Nutrition and Agricultural Re- Yapa, Lakshman. 199 1. "Is GIS Appropriate Technology?" search," Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 6 (3). International Journal of Geographic Information Sys- Turnbull, David. 1992. Local Knowledge and Comparative tems, 5 (1):41-58. Scientific Traditions. Manuscript. Victoria, Australia, Zazueta Aaron, Bruce Cabarle, and Lori Ann Thrupp. 1992. School of Social Inquiry, Deakin University. Linking Participatory Methods with Policy Dialogue Uphoff,Norman.1992. "Local Organization for Supporting andPlanningProcesses:Multi-InterestResourceMan- People-Based Agricultural Research and Extension." agement in Latin America. A paper presented at IIED/ A paper presented at BED/IDS Beyond Farmer First IDS Beyond Farmer First Workshop, October 27-29, Workshop, October 27-29,1992, Brighton, Institute for 1992, Brighton, Institute for Development Studies, Development Studies, University of Sussex. University of Sussex. Veit, Peter. 1993. Local Level Natural Resource Manage- ment: Lessons from the Ground Up. Draft manuscript. 25 Extending The Horizons Of Agricultural Research And Extension: Methodological Challenges Andrea Cornwall, Irene Guijt, and Alice Welbourn Andrea Cornwall is a social anthropologist based at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London. She is currently engaged in research on relations of conflict and cooperation among Yoruba women of SW Nigeria, focusing on stress and coping strategies in response to economic adversity. She has worked in Africa and Latin America in anthropological research and as a trainer in PRA. Irene Guijt is a Research Associate with the Sustainable Agriculture Programme at the International Institute for Environment and Development, London. Trained as an irrigation engineer, she has worked in PRA training in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Her current projects include the production of audio visual training material on PRA, gender, and environment. Alice Welbourn is a social development consultant, with extensive experience of working with NGOs and donor agencies in the field of health and community development in Africa and Asia. She has a background in social science involving fieldwork in rural Kenya for her doctoral thesis. She is currently working on a training video concerning AIDS and community action in Africa. ABSTRACT The recent enthusiasm for "participation" in agricultural development has fueled the development of new approaches to research and extension. The rhetoric of "participation" extends the horizons of agricultural research and extension beyond technical problem-solving. Yet in practice few of the personal, political, and experiential aspects of this process are addressed. This paper aims to draw attention to these elements of practice and to locate research and extension within wider social processes. Through a critique of conventional methodological strategies, this paper considers the possibilities offered by "participatory" alternatives. Considering the scope and objectives of agricultural development raises a series of methodological questions: What counts as knowledge? Who defines and represents this knowledge? Whose knowledge counts? Knowledge for what? Knowledge for whom? The paper goes on to assess a number of these "new" methodologies, within and beyond agricultural development. Through a consideration of their strengths and weaknesses, a series of further issues are highlighted for future methodological development. It is argued that for agricultural research and extension to acknowledge process, closer attention needs to be paid to context. The activities of research and extension need to be set in time. Strategies are needed to explore and address diversity and difference in communities. Situating the actors and agencies involved in development within relations ofpower involves addressing- and redressing-the nature ofinteractions between these actors. These changes require not an ever increasing array of methods, it is argued, but new approaches to learning. Rethinking Methodology opment of alternative, more participatory, methodolo- gies. Yet there is continued neglect of the social pro- Changing Theory, Changing Methodology? cesses that take place during and following the use of Over the last decades, pragmatic and ethical con- these methodologies. Our concern is with these pro- cerns about the inadequacies of conventional ap- cesses and with the experiential, practical, and politi- proaches to agricultural research and extension in cal elements that are often overlooked in the literature Asia, Africa, and Latin America have fueled the devel- on agricultural research and extension. 38 Cornwall et al.: Extending The Horizons Of Agricultural Research And Extension New practices have challenged some of the funda- or the conditions set by donors. Other, more personal, mental assumptions of conventional agricultural de- criteria also play a role, such as habit, fear of otherwise velopment. In this paper, we highlight some of the not being respected, level of enjoyment, and imposi- methodological issues posed by shifts in theoretical tion by superiors. The choice of a methodology is, as perspective from "a unique truth and a world fixed and Hesse (1978) suggests, a decision that is both personal found, to a diversity of right and even conflicting and political. Recognizing this enables us to look more worlds in the making" (Goodman, 1978: x). We argue closely at the consequences of certain choices. for a broadening of perspective, locating farmers, re- searchers, and extensionists as social actors within the Constraining Conventions social practice of agricultural production. Conventional approaches to agricultural research We begin by clarifying the role of methodology in and extension are based on assumptions that limit their agricultural research and extension. We review chal- ability to deal with complex and changing realities. lenges to mainstream thinking in agricultural develop- Linear development sets boundaries of time and cost ment, and several participatory methodologies that based on assumptions of stability (Korten, 1980), op- have developed mainly in Africa, Asia, and Latin erating outside of historical time and neglecting America. Through a critical examination of existing people's experiences of intervention and change. Plans alternatives, drawing on experiences from community are often constructed according to priorities that have development, we explore possibilities for new forms little to do with the contingencies of life as lived from of practice to enrich current agricultural research and day to day or season to season in changing social and extension. ecological environments. Objectives, set outside the contexts in which they are to be realized, create the Methods and Methodologies expectation of a predictable outcome. Progress is mea- Methods are the nuts and bolts of data collection sured by outcome indicators that define what consti- and information exchange, the "how-to-do-its"; meth- tutes success or failure with little reference to local odologies shape and inform the processes of research perceptions. Typically, farmers are viewed and treated and extension. Methodologies orient the user by pro- as recipients rather than agents of change, even where viding a framework for selecting the means to find out their ideas are sought. about, analyze, order, and exchange information about Conventional experimental design reduces the a particular issue. They define what can be known or complex dynamics of farming, as practiced by diverse exchanged as well as how that should be represented, social actors in changing social, economic, and eco- and by and for whom this is done. logical environments, to technical procedures. Spe- The ways in which we conceptualize problems cialists select desirable characteristics and determine defines potential outcomes, as well how we choose to appropriate benefits of varieties according to their own arrive at them. The process of research or extension is criteria. On-station research is complemented by costly, often seen only in terms of these outcomes: the produc- time-consuming surveys, which provide a cumber- tion or transfer of "facts". Methodologies are seen as a some and often ineffective research tool (Chambers, means to that end, but involve more than simply select- 1983; Inglis, 1991). Questionnaires are designed by ing appropriate methods. Tools such as experiments, specialists, often with little experience of rural life, surveys, diagramming techniques, or interviews can and used to extract answers to predetermined ques- be put to many uses by different actors, which may tions. Information is aggregated and analyzed accord- result in divergent and sometimes conflicting informa- ing to variables that researchers regard as significant. tion. These differences arise only in part from the kinds Social complexity is masked by a focus on "the house- of information the methods themselves generate. It is hold" (Guyer and Peters, 1987; Kabeer and Joekes, through the application of methodological strategies 1991) and reduced to aggregate outcomes. Conflictual, by particular actors in particular settings that these cooperative, or organizational links between farmers, "facts" are produced. The choices that are made in this vital for the social organization of production and the process stem from personal experiences, beliefs, and spread of innovation, remain hidden. assumptions. These aspects often go unquestioned and The "embedded models" (Moris,1991) of conven- unacknowledged, yet influence both the procedures tional agricultural science define not only how re- and outcomes of research or extension. search or extension is carried out, but also the nature of The conventional natural and social sciences set relationships between the various actors involved. The certain parameters within which interpretation takes entire apparatus of agricultural research and extension place and favor the use of particular methodologies for - from the structure and location of agricultural col- specific purposes. The choice of a methodology is, how- leges or institutes, to institutional and conceptual hier- ever, not determined solely by fit to the kind of informa- archies, to the discourses of scientists, planners or tion that is sought.1 It often involves less "scientific" extension workers - confirms the "superiority" of concerns, such as time constraints, financial constraints, Western science and scientists; and the "privileged 39 AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES - SPRING-SUMMER 1994 solutions" (Moris, 1991) they offer. Areas of interest, emphasis). These observations suggest changes in the expertise, or engagement are allocated to individuals roles conventional research and researchers have to on the basis of discipline and status. People's lived play in agricultural development. experiences of the interlinkages between the domains that disciplines separate are overlooked. Those in the Methodological Issues higher ranks define what is worth knowing and deploy Conceptualizing agriculture as a purely technical others to make this known to those who lack it. Exten- activity obscures the social, cultural, personal, and sion agents, as bearers of these "privileged solutions", political dimensions both of rural farming practice and are required to bridge the gaps between technical Western agricultural science. Environmental condi- recommendations and local practices, yet their under- tions and technological inputs do not provide the only standings are rarely considered. constraints to agricultural development. Agricultural While natural and social scientific research can production possibilities are not only constrained by make important contributions to agricultural develop- differential access to land, labor, and capital, but also ment, even the most well-intentioned scientists, using by the opportunities available to different actors within the best conventional methods available, may still and beyond the household (Leach, 1991; Cornwall and produce totally inappropriate recommendations (Moris, Scoones, 1993). In a single setting, these may be 1991). The limitations of these approaches stem from distinctly different for female and male farmers of the ways in which agriculture is conventionally viewed: different ages and vary with the different social groups as a technical activity rather than as social praxis. of which they are a part. A wide range of actors and agencies impinge in Challenges to the Mainstream various ways on the processes taking place in farm- Over the last decades, some of the fundamental ers' fields. Each actor in agricultural development assumptions made by agricultural researchers and ex- is located within relations of power that extend beyond the situations in which they work and have tension workers working in Africa, Asia, and Latin wider implications for the work they do. Long and America have shaken (cf. Thomp- been Scoones and van der Ploeg argue that: conceptualizing interven- son, 1993). Farmers have been proven to be both tion as a discrete and clearly localized activity (i.e. knowledgeable about their farming systems, and ca- as a "project") obscures the theoretically important pable of conducting trials and experiments. Research point that intervention is never a'project' with sharp (cf. Amanor, 1990) has shown that: boundaries in space and time .... Interventions are Farmers continuously conduct their own always part of the chain or flow of events located trials, partially adopt and adapt technologies to within the broader framework of the activities of the their own particular circumstances, and spread state and the activities of different interest groups (1989: innovations through their own networks;2 operative in civil society. 228) There are significant differences between The research and extension process is closely linked the procedures of farmers' and research station with expectations of what and whom it is for, experiments, and their criteria for assessment;3 considerations that affect both the choice of methodol- The strategies of farmer experimentation ogy and how knowledge is defined and used. Situating are dynamic and adaptive; quicker and more those who practice agriculture and those who attempt to inform or influence this that we able to accommodate changing circumstances process demands and diversity than those of research scientists;4 ask questions about ways of making known in research Farmers' own analysis of farming sys- and extension: What counts as knowledge - and who for tems offers important, and different, insights;5 decides? Whose knowledge counts? Knowledge what? And knowledge for Recognition of the variability and complexity of whom? Methodologies local ecosystems has led to multi-location trials off the provide the means to produce research station. Yet conventional methodologies do knowledge, not to discover it. Knowledge is often treated methodologically as if it not extend to exploring the equally variable, complex, could be amassed or distributed, built on or destroyed, found or lost. Yet and diverse processes of knowing about and doing knowledge is not that be revealed it farming in these environments. Attempts to under- something can - is produced the interactions of people in par- stand what farmers do has been based on the assump- through situations. People actively interpret, rather than tion that farming practice corresponds with scientific ticular of these interactions within procedure. Yet, van der Ploeg argues, "local methods just describe, the outcomes their own frames of reference and according to their fall outside the scope of scientific design" (1989:157). own assumptions and priorities (cf. Uphoff, 1992). Richards suggests that rather than "an attempt to imple- Acts of interpretation that convert these processes into ment a general theory", the results achieved by farmers "data" or recommendations always involve changes in represent "what happened to a specific farmer on a form from observations into numbers or narratives, specific piece of land in a specific year: not a design - from dialogue into monologue, from terms lodged in but . . . a completed performance" (1989:40: our 40 Cornwall et al.:Extending The Horizons Of Agricultural Research And Extension one conceptual framework into another. These transla- are asked and by whom. Sometimes rural people offer tions carry the preconceptions of the interpreter from idealized versions or repeat things they have been told the process into the product. by extension workers. They may provide information The notion of objectivity within Western social that they feel is expected, reveal what is least damag- and natural science implies, however, that the re- ing to their interests, or conform to what external searcher or extension worker is an instrument for organizations may have on offer. How rural people conveying information rather than an interpreter and react and what they say are also products of "collective actor. Attempting to control experiments for "un- and individual memories" (Long and van der Ploeg, wanted" variation, or to minimize the "outsider effect" 1989:230) of interventions. Their "hidden transcripts" denies the part people play in constructing versions of (Scott, 1990) may vary considerably from the "offi- reality and the personal and experiential elements of cial" versions they communicate. Strategies of resis- this process. By reporting "findings" in the passive tance are all too easily interpreted as conservatism or voice, they appear neutral and authoritative. Through ignorance. tables, graphs, and descriptions, knowing is cut loose Locating exchanges of information within rela- from contexts and interactions. tions of power raises wider questions about method- Conventional interviewing techniques require ological choice. Asking "whose knowledge counts?" people to convey what, they know verbally to a ques- reveals how certain kinds of knowledge turn others tioner who has set the frame of reference for the into ignorance (Vitebsky, 1993; Hobart, 1993). Con- answer. Statements are often translated literally, as- ventional research and extension aims to produce and suming equivalence between the concepts used and convey recommendations to remedy an absence of masking the use of metaphor (Pottier, 1992; van der knowledge. The methods that are used work on an Ploeg, 1989; Salas, 1992). Rendered as statements, assumption that farmers are ignorant about certain farmers' observations may lack the specificity re- elements of their practice and render their knowledge searchers and extension workers look for or make no invisible. sense at all (van der Ploeg, 1989),6 as they do not fit the Defining rural people's knowledge as "indigenous world described by Western agricultural theory. Re- technical knowledge" obscures its social and cultural garded as statements of fact, the things people say are dimensions. The methods used to elicit ITK reflect the disconnected from how they know things or what they way it has been conceptualized as a "stockpile" of know things as (Cohen, 1993). Many things we know knowledge, to be `mined' or "tapped" (Farrington and (and know how to do) simply cannot be stated: "they Martin, 1988; see Scoones and Thompson, 1993). can be represented-and made present -only through Assumed to be a shared body of knowledge, ITK is action, enactment and performance" (Fabian, 1990:6). regarded as unequally distributed (Swift, 1979). This If instead of abstract "facts", knowledge is re- guides researchers to those who are presumed to know garded as a process that is constantly changing in the most, so-called "key informants", and entails choosing contexts of its production and use, then research and their versions over others.? The contributions of others extension take on a different cast. And if knowers may - often women or children - are often not solicited. themselves hold multiple and conflicting versions, That they may have different rather than less knowl- finding out about rural people's knowledge becomes edge is rarely acknowledged. more complex than simply asking questions or observ- If local knowledge counts, what counts as "local"? ing what people do. Methodologies that offer changing In any place actors move and interact in many do- frames of reference can provide a range of different mains, as part of overlapping social networks, creating perspectives. Those that allow people to express them- complex "knowledge chains" (Box, 1987) about issues selves in other ways, such as through visualization or and innovations. Many sources of rural people's knowl- performance, reveal the multidimensional and interac- edge stem from outside their immediate environment. tive nature of knowing. Different ways of representing Local actors include teachers, extension work, visitors what is known offer opportunities to explore other from town, and relatives from elsewhere. Labelling "ways of worldmaking" (Goodman, 1978). Becoming them as "insiders" and "outsiders" simplifies a more aware of our own use of metaphor (Salmond, 1985) complex relationship between them. People may be and the assumptions that are often inherent in our "outsiders" and/or "insiders" according to their activ- choice of language allows us to explore the ways in ity or purpose. The difference between them may be which messages are conveyed and interpreted locally. one of degree, rather than kind, and may be based on Those who ask questions and deliver recommen- quite different criteria in different settings. Defining dations at the "interface" (Long, 1989) with rural "local knowledge" may preclude asking more interest- people influence what can be said, as well as how ing questions. Some of the most constructive possibili- information is represented. Statements are not made in ties for collegiate work lie precisely in understanding a vacuum, they are made to people. Responses depend how people bridge different ways of knowing, adapt not only on how questions are phrased, but how they extension recommendations and tips from friends or 41 AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES - SPRING-SUMMER 1994 relatives from outside the area, and work elements of to overcome some of the limitations of mainstream the "new" into "traditional" practices. agricultural research and extension, by addressing some Asking "knowledge for what?" locates the pro- of the concerns discussed here. What alternatives do duction of knowledge within frameworks for action they offer? and raises questions about the kind of knowledge that is needed and by whom. Do researchers actually need "Participation": Rhetoric or Revolution? to know all that they seek to find out? Why? And "Participation", the banner under which the dissenters should only researchers be given the responsibility for of the 1970s and early 1980s clustered, has become a producing knowledge or recommendations? As Korten familiar part of the rhetoric of institutions ranging (1980) notes, functional hierarchies in conventional from the smallest NGO to the World Bank. The adop- agricultural development work on the assumption that tion of participation as a guiding concept has been knowledge can be generated independently of the or- driven by both ideology and pragmatism (Farrington ganizational capacity needed for it to be put into and Bebbington, 1993). Many institutions with ex- practice. What counts as knowledge may be entirely plicit aims to reach the "poorest of the poor" focus on inappropriate for action. Knowledge is not necessarily methodologies consistent with their ideology, involv- generated in line with the needs of the different con- ing intended beneficiaries in the process. Participation stituencies of farmers. Organizations have their own has also been recognized as contributing to a more agendas for development, which set the terms for effective and sustainable impact of the work done. As interventions. Each actor in each layer of the hierarchy a result there has been an immense surge in the condi- has a personal agenda that may include promotion or tionality of participation attached to much agricultural publishing papers. These personal, professional, and research and extension. Appearances may deceive, as institutional interests cannot be separated from the Cernea warns: choices of methodology that are made. We hear sudden declaration of fashionable sup- The question "knowledge for whom?" places the port for participatory approaches . . . social scien- quest for understanding firmly in the political and tists should not confuse these statements with actual personal arena. Conventional approaches generally participatory planning, because under the cloud of cosmetic rhetoric, technocratic planning continues regard local people as passive recipients, incapable of to rule. (1991:25) analyzing their own situations or producing their own Operating under the guise of a professed intention solutions. Chambers contends: for "participatory" research, conventional approaches Outsiders have been conditioned to believe and in many quarters assume that villagers are ignorant and have either continue to set the parameters for lectured at them, holding sticks and waving fingers, what is know-able and do-able. Although the style of or have interviewed them, asking rapid questions, interaction might change, the principles upon which interrupting and not listening beyond immediate research and extension are based remain unchanged. replies. "Outsider lecturing" and interviewing are "Participation" is easily woven mechanistically into much of the problem. The apparent ignorance of the process of linear development. Often the actors rural people is then an artificial product of "outsid- involved are neither convinced by the pragmatic argu- ers" ignorance of how to enable them to express, ments nor politically committed to devolving respon- share and extend their knowledge. The attitudes and sibility to local people. behavior needed for rapport are missing. (pers. The enthusiasm for the P word is matched by comm.) interpretations as wide ranging as those who use it. Working with people or facilitating them to work Participation has been differentiated according to dis- with each other requires a shift in perspective. The tinct stages of agricultural research and extension methodological challenge is not necessarily that of (Farrington and Martin, 1988). Others have drawn how to produce more or better information. Chambers distinctions based on the kind of interactions that take argues: place. Biggs (1989) distinguishes four types of farmer The idea is not to improve our analysis, or even participation: contractual, consultative, collaborative, our learning, but their analysis and their learning . . . it has been revealed again and again that they can and collegiate. Farrington and Bebbington (1993) ex- do what only we thought we could so, and often that pand Biggs's typology, drawing attention not only to they can do it better. (1992a: 14) the dimension they identify as "depth of interaction", The development of new and more appropriate which runs from shallow to deep, but to that of its methodologies can only succeed if researchers and scope, which ranges from narrow to wide. In doing so, extension workers are brought into the process at a they highlight organizational issues, arguing that, more personal and experiential level. To do so, the "deeper levels of participation tend to rely more on emphasis must shift from expanding the repertoire of group than individual approaches" (1993: 105). methods to enriching the learning experience that those Whereas in "wide participation" there is room for involved in agricultural research and extension un- agendas to be set by local people, in "shallow participa- dergo. "Participatory" approaches try, in different ways, tion", scientists and planners often continue to control 42 Cornwall et al.:Extending The Horizons Of Agricultural Research And Extension decisions on the viability of options that arise. The In many of these approaches, rural people's par- available "choices" have often already been chosen ticipation is limited to providing information to re- according to the agendas of the development organiza- searchers, whose analysis generates solutions to be tion. Local people are often simply being invited to approved by farmers. In several of these methodolo- participate in a development process already struc- gies (e.g., BA, FSR, D&D, AEA, RRA) the responsi- tured by others. bility for representation, in terms of choosing the form Amidst the rhetoric, some participatory approaches information takes and in terms of speaking for people, have brought significant innovations and challenges to lies with external agents. Others (e.g., PAR, PRA, the mainstream. The methodologies listed in Box 1 DELTA, Theater for Development) aim to enable rural contain the germs of a revolution in agricultural devel- people to explore their own visions and solutions, opment. Celebrated as "new" directions, these ap- through forms they themselves generate. These "new proaches have a half-forgotten history in community methodologies" have important contributions to make to agricultural research and extension, yet raise a Box 1. Some participatory approaches of the 1980s- (Pretty 1990s (in alphabetical order). number of institutional challenges and dilemmas and Chambers, 1993; Farrington and Bebbington, AEA Agroecosystems Analysis 1993). BA Beneficiary Assessment We review six of these approaches: FSR, FPR, DELTA Development Education and Leadership PRA, PAR, DELTA and Theater for Development. Teams in Action Developments in FSR and FPR, in particular, contrib- D&D Diagnosis and Design uted to and drew on the "Farmer First" perspective. By DRP Diagnostico Rural Participativo examining them, we highlight areas germane to a FPR Farmer Participatory Research "Beyond Farmer First" focus. PRA bridges the inter- FSR Farming Systems Research face between agriculture, health, and community de- GRAAP Groupe de recherche et d'appui pour velopment, broadening the scope of agricultural devel- 1'autopromotion paysanne opment to focus on livelihoods and well-being. We MARP Methode Acceldre de Recherche examine the innovations it offers and its shortcomings. Participative Finally we draw on three community development PALM Participatory Analysis and Learning approaches - PAR, DELTA, and Theater for Devel- Methods opment - committed to empowerment, to consider PAR Partcipatory Action Research several key issues that are often neglected in agricul- PD Process Documentation tural development. In reviewing these approaches we PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal highlight the roles of extension workers and/or re- PRAP Participatory Rural Appraisal and searchers - it is from this, in particular, that much can Planning be learned. The challenge for the future is to draw from PRM Participatory Research Methods this array of innovations to create new syntheses. PTD Participatory Technology Development RA Rapid Appraisal Farming Systems Research and Extension RAAKS Rapid Assessment of Agricultural Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSR/ Knowledge Systems E) emerged in the late 1970s in reaction to the prevail- RAP Rapid Assessment Procedures ing transfer of technology model. The principal argu- RAT Rapid Assessment Techniques ment for a new approach was that constraints at the RCA Rapid Catchment Analysis farm level limited the adoption of new technologies REA Rapid Ethnographic Assessment coming from outside the system (Gartner, 1990). Ad- RFSA Rapid Food Security Assessment vocates of the FSR/E approach, initially mainly agri- RMA Rapid Multi-perspective Appraisal cultural economists, argued that research should be ROA Rapid Organizational Assessment determined by explicitly identified farmers' needs, RRA Rapid Rural Appraisal rather than according to the preconceptions of re- SB Samuhik Brahman (Joint trek) searchers. Accordingly, applied agricultural research TFD Theater for Development was relocated from the stations to the farm (Gilbert et TFT Training for Transformation al., 1980; Shaner et al., 1982; Collinson, 1981). Re- searchers and extensionists were encouraged to work development initiatives spanning the last four decades with farmers to design, test, and modify improved (Holdcroft, 1978; cited in Korten, 1980). Many draw agricultural technologies to suit local conditions. on techniques developed in community development Although FSR/E has developed in many different are for empowerment, yet only a few acknowledge or directions, making generalization difficult, there respond to the political, personal and institutional three common key principles: challenges of a "deep and wide" participatory process. joint effort by researchers, extensionists, 43 AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES - SPRING-SUMMER 1994 and farmers to design, test, and modify im- the "ignorant" or recalcitrant farmer, pronouncing her/ proved agricultural technologies appropriate him "rational" and "right" (cf. Gupta, 1989; Chambers for local conditions; et al., 1989). Researchers set about identifying the agriculture seen an holistic system in concepts and procedures used by farmers in their which all important interactions that affect its experiments, often by applying the positivist assump- performance should be considered; tions of technical science to "ITK" and disregarding its a multi-disciplinary perspective to prob- social and cultural aspects. A single rationality, mod- lem analysis, technology design, trial imple- eled on that of Western logic, was presupposed and mentation, and evaluation. other "ways of reasoning" (Hacking, 1983) were not In practice, FSR/E activities stretch from basic considered. Issues of diversity and difference among (laboratory) research, to research station trials, to on- farmers were virtually disregarded. farm trials, multi-location trials, extension programs, Recent agricultural anthropological work on farm- and production programs. Most work is done through ers' knowledge (van der Ploeg 1993; Fairhead, 1990; on-farm and multi-location trials, for testing under Salas, 1992) raises a number of challenges to the farm conditions and learning about farmers' problems Farmer First approach. While there appears to be little and constraints. The results are then communicated to prospect for productive collaboration unless each party experiment stations. It thus conforms to the linear develops an understanding and appreciation of the model of conventional research, although sometimes others' methodological approach (Millar, 1992; Salas, initial diagnosis starts without specific reference to 1992), this may in itself preclude the possibility of innovations of interest to researchers. certain kinds of collaboration. FSR/E's contribution is most obvious in a histori- The methodological issues at stake are threefold. cal perspective. Its development signified a move Firstly, to what extent do farmers and research scien- away from crop-only fixation (although this remains a tists share the same notion of what constitutes an favorite focus of activities) and a negation of "the experiment or an innovation? If, as Richards (1989) farmer" towards an appreciation of the complexity of suggests, agricultural production resembles a "perfor- agricultural systems and decision-making. FSR/E pro- mance" of complex, situation-specific adjustments vided the means for making decisions about what may rather than a planned sequence of events, the boundary be more cost-effectively done on-farm and on-station. between "experiment" and "normal procedures" be- However, the assumptions on which it depends derive comes blurred. This raises the question of whether from a positivist approach to agricultural systems and farmers regard changes in practice as "innovations" at their optimization through interventions by the "expert all (Fairhead, 1990). Where collegiate research and technologist" or "management consultant" (Bawden, extension are aimed at facilitating the spread of inno- 1992). Scientists continue to investigate on behalf of vations or encouraging farmer experimentation, these or sometimes even on their farmer "clients", rather observations raise a number of challenges. than with them. Reliant on conventional natural and A second set of difficulties arises when we con- social scientific research methods, FSR/E remains sider the basis on which such a partnership might take largely insensitive to farmers' knowledge and the flow place. Fairhead anticipates the problems that might be of knowledge is generally in the researcher-back-to- faced in establishing a basis for collegiate dialogue researcher mode. either between researchers and farmers, or between farmers themselves: Farmer Participatory Research The catch is that local knowledge is good precisely Farmer Participatory Research (FPR) developed because it is hypothetical and relatively unformu- in the 1980s to involve farmers more closely in on- lated, and yet precisely for this reason it is almost farm research and to contextualize agricultural pro- impossible to access. (1993:194) duction in interactions between on- and off-farm re- If, as van der Ploeg (1989) contends, farmer's source management strategies. It signaled a move understandings of these processes are a complex of beyond simply contracting or consulting farmers. A personal, metaphorical, and contextual knowledge that growing recognition of what came to be termed "indig- becomes almost impenetrable when subjected to sci- enous technical knowledge" (ITK) led to a focus on the entific scrutiny, reaching a common understanding farmer as innovator and as experimenter. This has led may be extremely difficult. Both Fairhead and van der in recent years to increasing interest in "collaborative" Ploeg draw attention to intimate linkages between and "collegiate" relations between researchers and cosmological beliefs and processes of agricultural ex- farmers (Biggs, 1980; Richards, 1985; Farrington, perimentation and innovation (see also Salas, 1992). 1988; Farrington and Martin, 1988; Amanor, 1990; Such associations create difficulties not only for colle- Hiemstra et al., 1992). giate relationships with rationalist scientists, but also Advocates of this shift called the new approach for extension. "Farmer First" (Chambers etal.,1989). They reappraised A third and related stumbling block to research 44 Cornwall et al.:Extending The Horizons Of Agricultural Research And Extension and extension that is based on facilitating dialogue and that come together in one domain do not necessarily mutual learning is the issue of power and control over share other concerns; conflicts of interests and rela- knowledge. Fairhead (1990) describes four discrete tions of power between actors affect the extent to "domains of discourse" for agricultural knowledge in which sharing can take place. Fairhead's (1990) and Kivu, Zaire, noting that much discussion takes place Pottier's (1992) observations about secrecy and power within the private domain. He observes that it may be are important to consider. Creating groups requires a precisely those innovations that are most new and sensitivity to local political and social dynamics, and exciting that are least likely to be shared. Innovations interface relations, which is often lacking. do not stand apart from those who develop or have Without the skills to facilitate communication, access to them. Farmers' knowledge cannot simply be these attempts merely reinforce previous patterns of aggregated as if it were the "property" of farmers in interaction. Sikana (1992) describes the experience of general: making it common property has social and ARPT in Zambia, where the style of intervention political entailments (Pottier, 1992). effectively undermined their attempts to bring about What, then, are the prospects for collaboration? sharing. "Participation" was limited to co-opting will- Three kinds of approach can be identified. In the first, ing farmers into a project initiated, managed, and run agricultural science retains a pivotal role. Collabora- by ARPT. Such an approach courts the danger of tion involves either disseminating simple experimen- working only with those farmers who present them- tal techniques to farmers (Lightfoot et al., 1988; Bunch, selves as suitable candidates: typically male farmers 1985, 1987; Gubbels, 1990) or making cultivators' who are well versed in the discourse of "modern" trials more amenable to statistical analysis, thus en- agriculture (Sikana, 1992). Others may well be ex- hancing research station replicability (Box, 1987). The cluded from such initiatives, increasing rather than emphasis is on changing methods of work, rather than redressing the social distance between them and devel- on a new methodological approach. "Knowledge" is opment workers (see Drinkwater, 1992; Sikana, 1992). treated as purely technical or instrumental, expressed Unless the personal and political dimensions of these literally and amenable to open sharing. Richards (1992) encounters are recognized and addressed, through an offers a pragmatic solution along lines that make ex- explicit focus on empowering those who are otherwise plicit that which is implicit in much FPR work: to marginalized, change will be limited. identify those farmers who work along positivist lines The other approach aims to change the relation- and to work with them to enhance their capacity. ship between and the roles of researchers, extensionists, However, selecting research partners from those who and farmers. Collaboration involves mutual learning conduct experiments in ways that are seen as compat- as colleagues with different contributions to make ible with Western science further narrows the constitu- (Chambers, 1993). Farmer and research station experi- ency of farmers involved. The tired old distinction mentation are seen as parallel, yet complementary, between "progressive" and "conservative" farmers activities, with different roles to play. The shift is from remains unchallenged and farmers' strategies remain a supply-led to a demand-led process, where farmers' invisible. priorities set the terms for collaboration. Giving farm- The second and third sets of approaches partially ers an array of choices, allowing them to suggest overlap. Both provide radical alternatives to conven- criteria for technological development and select ele- tional research and extension. One places farmers at ments of packages to adapt and adopt (Rhoades, 1983; the center of both activities, focusing on facilitating Bunch, 1989) and facilitating processes through which exchange between farmers and enhancing their organi- they can analyze and implement their own solutions zational capacity to diagnose and solve problems them- bypass some of the thornier questions of commensura- selves. Over the last few years, several strategies have bility. However, similar concerns about the clientele developed that draw on this alternative. These include: for these interventions emerge and need to be ad- Farmer-back-to-farmer (Rhoades and Booth, dressed. 1982; Rhoades, 1983); The challenges ahead for FPR lie in ways to Village research groups (Drinkwater, 1992; channel institutional and scientific resources more Sikana, 1992); effectively in directions the farmers themselves take Farmer experimenter networks (Box, 1987); part in determining (Pretty and Chambers, 1993). With- Farmer groups (Norman et al., 1989; Ashby et out an appreciation of contextual issues and a focus on al., 1989). empowerment, initiatives such as these may flounder. Questions remain about the clientele at whom this It is particularly important that issues of difference, approach may be aimed. Where existing social networks power, and control in rural communities are better of actors are drawn upon, this process may complement understood before research efforts are implemented. the sharing processes that take place between them. This can help to broaden the scope of agricultural However, assumptions that local interest groups are ho- research and extension to view the "farmer" as a social mogenous and harmonious can be misleading. Groups actor who works and interacts in many spheres rather 45 AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES - SPRING-SUMMER 1994 than someone whose life revolves around the single and institutional relations. PRA approaches, combin- axis of agricultural production. A key area for method- ing research and practice, also offer opportunities for ological change is that of improving communication mobilizing local people for joint action (Mascarenhas between the actors involved and addressing the per- et al., 1991; Devavaram et al., 1991). sonal and political issues that are too often disregarded Box 2. Methods used in Participatory Rural Ap- in FPR. praisal Visualized Analyses Rapid and Participatory Rural Appraisal Participatory mapping and modeling While FSR and FPR retained a focus on agricul- Aerial photograph analyses tural aspects of rural people's lives, another method- Transect and group walks ological approach developed that quickly cast its net Seasonal calendars wider to locate agriculture as one among other ele- Daily and activity profiles ments of people's livelihoods. Growing dissatisfac- Historical profiles and trend analyses tion with two common approaches to development Time lines and chronologies research, "rural development tourism" and "survey Matrix scoring and preference ranking slavery" (Chambers, 1983), led to the emergence of Venn and network diagramming Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) in the late 1970s (KKU, Flow diagrams on systems and impact 1987; Carruthers and Chambers, 1981). RRA stressed Pie diagrams cost-effective trade-offs between the quantity, accu- Interviewing and Sampling Methods racy, relevance, and timeliness of information. It com- Semi-structured interviewing bined a range of diagramming, observational, inter- Direct observation view, and ranking techniques for rapid and reflexive Focus groups data collection. Key features of this approach include: Key informants an emphasis on multi-disciplinarity, cumulative learn- Ethnohistories ing, a semi-structured and flexible research program Futures possible that is regularly reviewed and refined, and an emphasis Well-being and wealth ranking on exploring local categories, classifications, and per- Social maps ceptions. Initially, RRA teams gathered, represented, Group and Team Dynamics Methods and analyzed the information. Farmers participated in Team contracts generating data and in discussing the researchers' Team review sessions findings, but were excluded from the processes of Interview guides analysis. Rapid report writing RRA developed further in the 1980s and gained a Work sharing (taking part in local mantle of respectability. By the late 1980s, the empha- activities) sis changed, fueled by innovations from agroecosystems Villager and shared presentations analysis (Gypmantasiri et al., 1980; Conway, 1985, Process notes and diaries 1987), applied anthropology (Brokensha et al., 1980; Rhoades, 1983, 1990), participatory action research One of the key strengths of PRA is the emphasis on (Rahman, 1984; Gaventa and Lewis, 1991) and FSR/ visualization. In formal surveys, the interviewer ap- FPR (Ashby, 1990). The focus shifted from the rapid propriates verbal information and converts this into collection of data by researchers to facilitating farmers words on a page. Diagramming enables control over to generate, represent, and analyze their own data the creation and analysis of maps, models, or diagrams (Mascarenhas et al., 1991; Theis and Grady, 1991; to be shared. Rather than answering a stream of ques- IIED, 1988-1992). Innovative methods alone could tions directed by the values of the researcher, local not deal with the implied reversal of roles for farmers people represent their ideas in a form they can discuss, and development workers. Changing the behavior and modify, and extend. They become creative analysts attitudes of "outsiders" became a priority. A new label and performers, rather than reactive respondents emerged: Participatory Rural Appraisal. Advocates of (Chambers, 1992a). Seasonal calendars offer a means this approach argued that the production of knowledge of understanding the many dimensions to seasonal and the generation of potential solutions should be welfare beyond the narrowly agricultural (Chambers, devolved onto those whose livelihood strategies formed 1993), and of exploring people's own perceptions of the subject for research. seasonality and change. Ranking and scoring exercises The methods of R/PRA now comprise a rich menu of provide opportunities to understand some of the com- visualization, interviewing, and group work methods plexities involved in decision-making; aspects that are (Box 2). These techniques have proven valuable for rarely accessible through formal surveys. Ranking understanding local perceptions of the functional value of generates locally appropriate criteria for selecting and resources, the processes of agricultural innovation, social evaluating particular varieties or technologies. This 46 Cornwall et al.:Extending The Horizons Of Agricultural Research And Extension enables agricultural researchers to appreciate farmers' the "P" of PRA is, as Chambers (1992a) urges, not only requirements and preferences as well as to become about facilitating "participation" but also about chang- aware of how these vary with personal circumstances. ing the approach of development agencies at their core. Methods such as crop biographies, network and path- Yet the ideals of democracy embodied in the PRA way diagramming (FARM-Africa/IIED, 1991), and approach may bear little relation to local level pro- systems diagramming (Guijt andPretty,1992; Lightfoot cesses, let alone national or global institutional strate- et al., 1992) have added to the repertoire of methods in gies (Fleming, pers. comm.). which researchers or extension workers can communi- cate with farmers. Participatory Action Research (PAR) Although visualizations reveal much that is hid- Participatory Action Research developed during den by approaches based on the verbal alone (Cham- the 1970s and draws together the personal and the bers, 1992a; Cornwall, 1992), they are not a neutral political. Recognizing the marginalizing effects of medium that bypasses all the problems of translation. "universal science" and how it produces ignorance, Versions are presented to and interpreted by the viewer. PAR aims to challenge relations of inequality by re- Visualizations facilitate, rather than replace, discus- storing people's self-respect and agency. PAR is ex- sion. Also, while these forms of representation encour- plicitly political in its aims, and explores the experi- age a wider participation from people, the presence of ences of poor, oppressed, and exploited groups. These an audience influences what is drawn. Local people versions of knowledge are recognized as "people's can be aware of the uses to which these media can be science" and are used to confront systems of domina- put and accordingly present not only their concerns, tion. Local people are involved at all stages in re- but also their expectations of what is on offer (Jonfa et search. Rather than being the objects of research, they al., 1992). become the producers and owners of their own infor- The primary emphasis in PRA has been on shifting mation. the role of the external agent and changing her/his "Participation" in PAR involves breaking out of behavior. It tends to be assumed that if they behave relations of dependency to restore to people the ability appropriately and hand over control, then they will not to act on and transform their worlds for themselves (cf. bias the information. This is both unrealistic and naive. Freire, 1972). In theory, in this process the initial External agents, no matter how well they behave, are agents of change "become redundant ... that is, the often (and rightly) assumed to have access to resources transformation process continues without the physical of some kind or even to represent threatening forces presence of external agents, animators and cadres" (Mosse, 1992). Their motivations behind the guise of (Fals-Borda, 1991:5). Practitioners of PAR place a open-minded curiosity may well continue to be ques- particular emphasis on recovering people's own histo- tioned. ries, as a vital part of the process of collective confi- The apparent ease with which information can be dence-building and transformatory change. They seek gathered using P/RRA methods belies the more com- to disrupt the hegemony of Western science and offi- plex political and social context in which such interac- cial histories in which the contribution of ordinary tions take place. Farmers arc often regarded as all-too- people plays no part. The techniques employed in PAR willing participants without their own agendas. What include: they say is frequently regarded as a statement of fact, collective research - meetings, socio-dra- rather than as a product of an encounter that is always mas, public assemblies; set within relations of power. Recent innovations have critical recovery of history - through collec- begun to address local power dynamics and conflict tive memory, interviews and witness accounts, (Conway et al., 1989; Poffenberger, et al., 1992), but family coffers; less attention has been paid to the impact these pro- valuing and applying "folk culture" - through cesses can have on what versions farmers offer. Meth- the arts, sports, and other forms of expression; odological challenges include ways to facilitate a more the production and diffusion of new acute awareness of the interactional dynamics that knowledges through written, oral, and visual produce "data" and more sensitive tools to explore forms. social processes. The principles of PAR have influenced recent devel- PRA offers a creative approach to information opments within PRA. As an approach, it has much from sharing and a challenge to prevailing biases and pre- which to draw inspiration. Yet in its direct concern with conceptions about rural people's knowledge. It recog- the politics of inequality it is often perceived as deeply nizes that, besides producing knowledge, rural people threatening to established interests: both those within should have control over its use. However, the tools of communities and those of the agencies involved in devel- P/RRA are easily applied mechanistically within any opment. Its goal of societal transformation is a long-term framework and for any agenda. PRA is rapidly becom- "project" for which the personal and political commit- ing a fashionable label for shortcut research. Adopting ment of external agents is vital. 47 AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES - SPRING-SUMMER 1994 DELTA (Development Education and Leadership (1979:22). By inviting people to intervene in drama- Teams in Action) tized scenarios of their everyday lives, Boal's method DELTA developed in the mid-1970s in Kenya and encourages them to create their own solutions. Acting is much used in grass-roots community work in several out becomes a rehearsal for action. East African countries. It offers dynamic, process- In common with DELTA agents, Theater for De- oriented ways of identifying and responding to local velopment practitioners use the "listening survey" and interests and concerns by emphasizing long-term com- "codes", in the form of open-ended problem-posing mitment and building confidence and trust. The ap- sketches. They perform in places where people gather. proach brings together Freire's (1972) work on critical Spectators are drawn into the performance, to act out awareness and conscientization, human relations train- their versions and experiment with possible solutions. ing in group work (Hope et al., 1984), organizational In contrast with DELTA, creative conflict rather than development, social analysis, and ideas from Libera- consensus provides the framework for stimulating the tion Theology. These sources are depicted as flowing process of action and reflection. Practitioners recog- together into a river of DELTA training that, in turn, nize the inherently conflictual nature of community forms a delta of sectorally divided issues (literacy, relations. They seek to build the awareness to confront agriculture, health, management, family and social or expose the relations of power that sustain inequali- problems). Facilitators conduct "listening surveys" in ties (Abah and Okwerri, pers. comm.). communities and prepare "codes", such as pictures or Theater for Development techniques have been songs, which reflect local problems. Each code is then used in several development settings to raise aware- discussed in an open meeting and "processed". Fol- ness and mobilize, as well as to monitor and evaluate low-up is in the form of an "action plan", which aims projects (Mavro, 1991; Cornwall et al., 1989). The to address the causes of the problem. principal strength of this technique lies in its emphasis DELTA offers an approach that places people's on a performative approach to research and extension, experiences of their problems at the core of research and on the power of theater as a mobilizing and en- and extension. Rather than prescribe or project solu- abling force for change. As such, Theater for Develop- tions, DELTA agents facilitate local level reflection ment offers complementary methodological strategies. and action. By building confidence and giving a space and a voice to those who are so often marginalized, New Directions for Agricultural Research and DELTA brings more people into the process of local Extension self-development. However, the process initiated by Due to its orientation towards technical and economic DELTA agents is also determined by them as it is they problem-solving, conventional agricultural research who provide the codes for discussions. The facilitator and extension often reduces the complexity of rural becomes the lynch pin and their own agendas can life, masking the many dimensions of agriculture as frame the process. Resting, as it does, on a notion of social praxis. The participatory approaches reviewed "the community" and on reaching a consensus, this here aim, in different ways, to restore some of these approach may fail to confront the relations of power complexities. With the recognition that "participa- that establish hierarchies of interests and agendas among tion" involves more than simply consulting rural people, members of a community. This is particularly prob- there has been a shift towards treating those whose lematic where the Christian message of DELTA may livelihoods form the focus for research and extension marginalize or exclude those who do not share these as actors rather than just as instruments in the develop- beliefs. ment process. To move toward acknowledging process and to- Theater for Development ward a "learning approach" (Korten, 1980), it is essen- Performance arts, such as theater, song, dance, tial to remember the constraints we face and must and puppetry are used in extension in many parts of the accept. Communication, perhaps the most important world. In some places, performance provides a means constraint to effective agricultural research and exten- to convey prescriptive messages as part of a strategy of sion, is also the area where the problems we draw top-down extension. Harding (1987) distinguishes the- attention to are most acute. Rather than despair at the ater in development from theaterfor development. The seemingly insurmountable problems of achieving "real" former is created and performed by external agents to communication, due to the strictures imposed by lan- offer their recommendations and solutions. The latter guage and by our own particular ways of reasoning, "aims to make the processes of drama-building acces- recognizing some of the issues and potential problems sible to people who can in turn use it as part of their involved in bridging different realities is already an access to development" (Harding, 1987:332). Augusto important step forward. Realizing that communicating Boal, whose work forms one of the major influences on what is known and showing what is done involves Theater for Development, contends: "Theater is a interpreting others' intentions from the standpoint of weapon and it is the people who should wield it" our own enables us to pay greater attention to our own 48 Cornwall et al.:Extending The Horizons Of Agricultural Research And Extension prejudices and preconceptions. Using other methods, located within a complex of historical processes. Par- such as performances or visualizations, will not lay ticipatory approaches increasingly draw on oral his- bare what people know, but it will offer important tory to explain the past, to make sense of the present, opportunities for reflection and, the possibilities for a and to plan for the future. Both FSR and FPR are still range of different interpretations. weak in this respect. PAR offers important experiences While exploring these multiple versions courts the for agricultural methodology, which PRA is increas- danger of drowning in pluralities, it also draws our ingly incorporating in its approach. attention to the criteria for making choices. If many As Cross and Barker (1991) show, accounts of different versions can be produced through shifts in history as told by local people also change over time. perspective, context, or scale (Strathern, 1991), no They are retold and reshaped to reflect current con- single version can provide the "right answer". If truths cerns and contingencies. Histories, like any form of are relative, choosing a version becomes more a matter knowledge, are neither singular nor necessarily con- of appropriateness or applicability (Goodman, 1978; sensual. Rather, they present particular reactions to Vitebsky, 1993). The grounds for preferring one ac- and experiences of events. As such, they offer an count over another are, therefore, less objective and important resource for locating innovations as well as neutral than conventional science would let us believe interventions as perceived by different actors (Box, (Quine,1953). Choices are made on the basis of politi- 1987; Long and van der Ploeg, 1989). Without under- cal and personal beliefs. Being explicit about the standing these processes, agricultural research and grounds for choice would already be an enormous step extension may obstruct, rather than facilitate, positive forward. change. Extending the horizons of agricultural research One implication of participatory work is the need and extension demands that closer attention is paid to to move away from quick-fix solutions, a fallacy which contextual issues. Agricultural development needs to remains largely unchallenged. There is no such thing be set in biographical and historical time, as a longer- as a timeless, perfect variety that stands outside wider term process rather than a series of discrete projects processes of change. Whilst dwindling financial re- (Long and van der Ploeg, 1989). Issues of diversity and sources make ever-increasing demands for short-term difference, both within rural communities and among solutions to problems, experience has repeatedly shown external agents need to be addressed with greater that these interventions either do not work or are methodological clarity and sensitivity. Issues of power, unsustainable. Cost-cutting does not equal cost-effec- control, and conflict are central to agriculture as a tiveness, no matter how desirable this might be. Mak- social process and require greater consideration. Chang- ing long-term commitments is clearly crucial, yet de- ing the mold of conventional approaches involves pends on the willingness and capacity of those within addressing and redressing the nature of interactions agricultural institutions to make the appropriate deci- between rural people, and researchers or extension sions (Pretty and Chambers, 1993). workers. Training plays a key role in this shift towards Change takes place over time: it takes time. Radi- recognizing the political and personal dimensions of cal changes to existing forms of practice may be agricultural development. Drawing on the methodolo- desirable, but they too take time to germinate and take gies reviewed here, we go on to take up these five root. Slowly, within existing frameworks, practitio- themes in more depth, exploring some of their implica- ners are starting to change their approaches and seek tions for changes in practice. alternatives to conventional practice. As they, through their networks and interventions, influence others, Time further changes come about. The history of "participa- The only thing that one really knows about tion" in development work is a history of discontinu- human nature is that it changes ... The systems that ous attempts to find alternatives, rather than incremen- fail are those that rely on the permanency of human tal change. Often what appear to be "new" discoveries nature, not on its growth and development. Oscar have emerged and been submerged decades before in Wilde, in the early 1890s. other domains, only to resurface in a different form Locating agricultural processes in time requires elsewhere. Recovering this history and drawing to- an appreciation of local histories. All change is relative gether the disparate threads to consolidate what has to experience: crop varieties, like people, previous been learned may increase the momentum, but the have their own biographies, which are often intimately process of institutional change is a long-term project. entwined with those who cultivate them (Box, 1989). can be woven into "New" crops "old" systems of Location practice, or stand alone uncelebrated as products of If we acknowledge. that each person has her/his modernity with no intrinsic value beyond the market. own valid version of events, methodological change Cropping patterns, land preparation techniques, own- will be needed to address issues of difference such as ership, innovation, and varietal selection are always gender, age, and ethnicity, more systematically 49 AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES - SPRING-SUMMER 1994 (Welbourn, 1991). Gender analysis has been partially In answer to the question of whose knowledge or incorporated into some methodologies, such as FSR solutions count, protagonists of such approaches may and PRA, and differences in economic status guide emphatically reply: those of the rural people. Yet if most participatory approaches, albeit not always in a they are asked to think about their own roles, expecta- thorough manner. Yet all too often outsiders' notions tions, and influence, the reply might be more hesitant. of difference are imposed on rural people. There is no The "local community" who are urged to control reason to assume that "our" notions of gender or their own research and solutions consists of many wealth are shared by others. It is critical that locally different people. Their relative positions of power perceived axes of difference form the basis for re- offer differential access to the support or the labor of search and extension activities. The relational aspects others, and to resources. Competing, contested, and of difference are often overlooked. Axes of difference changing versions of "community needs" emerge ac- are not rigid, universal categories that hold for all cording to which interest groups or individuals are aspects of people's lives. Rather they are often fluid, consulted. There are not only different interpretations, crosscutting, and defined according to the situation. but also different agendas and means for enacting To take the example of gender, in certain activities it is some solutions or blocking others. women's age that matters, rather than their female- These considerations raise several questions that ness. In others it may be their wealth, ethnicity, or need to be addressed. Can all the, potentially conflict- religion, or a combination of all of these differences. ing, versions and solutions be considered? If not, how We need to ask: Which differences make a difference? are choices to be made and whose side will be taken? To whom? And in which settings?8 These complexi- Who stands to benefit or lose in the long-term from ties present important methodological challenges. interventions that might initially be aimed at marginal Differences between the disciplines and approaches groups? These are political questions that are as rel- used in research and extension also need to be consid- evant for crop breeding as for community develop- ered. Multi-disciplinary teams have been stressed es- ment. Even if they are not explicitly addressed, im- pecially in FSR and RRA. Rarely, however, are the plicit choices will always be made. methodological challenges of this kind of teamwork The main question is: who calls the shots? Insen- fully addressed. Specialists often continue to impose sitive intervention by development workers can under- their own fragmented concerns, rather than explore the mine the strategies used by marginalized people to challenges of interdisciplinarity and break down the resist domination, disarming them of their "weapons" boundaries to create new areas for investigation (cf. -(Scott, 1985). Women, for example, may not wish to Rhoades et al., 1987; Rhoades, 1990). Rather than have their interests represented where it involves ex- creating a common focus for Western trained experts, posing their strategies for dealing with present con- we could benefit from looking at what rural people straints. The passing presence of resource-bearing have to offer in their own analyses of the complex and agents may temporarily force concessions or gloss interdependent systems in which they work (Cham- over deep-rooted conflicts, but may offer little scope bers, 1992a). Methodologies are needed that focus for structural change. And if the focus is entirely on more on both team-building and on exposing the link- creating consensus and resolving conflict, marginal ages between disciplines and sectors, for which PRA voices may be effectively silenced. By ignoring rather has much to offer. than exploring conflict, they may make matters worse. Locating intervention within the multilevel link- In general, existing methodologies are weak at recog- ages of institutions and organizations of agricultural nizing and dealing with situations of conflict. development extends our concern beyond facilitating Not all conflict is negative, nor should it necessar- communication between farmers and external agents. ily be stifled. Provoking creative conflict can have a Inevitably, the idea of working at multiple levels is positive impact. In situations where overt conflict is fraught with practical as well as conceptual difficul- lacking, creative conflict may stimulate constructive ties. Yet for agricultural research and extension meth- change. Here the presence of external agents or facili- odologies, it is important, at the very least, to consider tators is less as listener and learner than as catalyst. the politics and implications of how these different There are times when the power and agency of external levels interact, and how this might influence the pro- agents can be used to positive ends. Rather than a cess. Locating their intervention in the political arena limitation, the "outsider effect" can also have its ad- is rarely considered in methodologies other than PAR. vantages (Messerschmidt, 1991, 1992). One method- ological area worth exploring is how to generate and Whose Knowledge Counts? Control and Conflict deal with creative conflict, for which Theater for De- Participatory approaches for empowerment aim to velopment offer interesting possibilities. place control of the development process into the Part of the methodological challenge lies in en- hands of rural people. This aim is explicit in the theory abling external agents to cope with creative conflict of PAR, DELTA, Theater for Development, and PRA. and conflict resolution. Equipping local people with 50 Cornwall et al.:Extending The Horizons Of Agricultural Research And Extension the tools, be they skills or increased awareness, with confronted. PAR offers a model for collegiate rela- which to conduct their own struggles according to their tions in which external agents have an explicitly own priorities, is an important step towards enabling proactive role, yet this is only possible where common them to realize their own visions, as the following goals can be identified. This poses considerable meth- example from India shows: odological and institutional challenges. Some village women adopted the analytical The most important question for conventional process of map-drawing from a PRA exercise that agricultural scientists and extension workers is how to had been carried out in their village by a local NGO. deal with the changes of roles this implies. Chambers women wanted to for themselves The investigate (1993) describes how some of the conventional wis- the incidence of "elopement" in their own and sur- doms of mainstream agricultural development will rounding villages. (Girls were being kidnapped by need men and, after two days, had to become the men's to be dismantled. When farmers analyze and brides, against their will.) The women used the experiment, external agents will serve as advisers, mapping system to identify the households where catalysts, and convenors. When farmers choose spe- this had happened. They then collected case-studies cific changes, external agents will help to search for of what had happened and presented the informa- and supply them with it. Opening up research and tion to the local authorities. (Sheelu Francis, pers. extension institutions and enabling rural people to comm.) understand the workings of Western science in prac- FSR and FPR neither recognize nor deal with tice is as important as exhorting external agents to conflict or political choices. PRA has been used for appreciate rural people's knowledge. Rather than teach- conflict resolution (Conway et al., 1989), but it does ing the farmers "basic science", it may be more con- not approach this systematically. DELTA tends to structive to allow them to ask their own questions obscure conflict by dealing with "the community". about Western scientific experimentation and develop Both PAR and Theater for Development are based on their own alternatives to conventional extension. the assumption that conflict exists and must be dealt with. There is a great need to start addressing conflict Toward Experiential Learning more explicitly in agricultural research and extension. Establishing a basis for dialogue, through which ideas are shared and developed through mutual under- Interaction standing, requires a fundamentally different approach Agricultural research and extension is based on to research and extension. New approaches to learn- interactions between the external agents and farmers. ing, as a continuous activity, need to be extended both Although starting points and strategies used by the within and outside agricultural institutions. Such a approaches discussed here differ, all stress the impor- learning process is quite different from the formal tance of rapport between external agents and rural training setting "where the trainee becomes the object people. Yet the effect that external agents can have on of training and a depository of knowledge delivered by the processes of knowledge production is only par- a trainer" (Tilakaratna, 1991:138). Shifting from a tially recognized, and little attention is given to com- teaching to a learning style has many implications, munication skills. such as increasing the focus on how we learn rather PRA practitioners stress the importance of being than what we learn, and making personal exploration aware of and suspending biases, although in practice and experience central. this generally falls short of the ideal. PRA methods Bawden (1988, 1992) distinguishes three facets of attempt to elicit rural people's knowledge without the learning process, arguing that only two of these imposing Western notions, in concept or form. PRA, aspects - scientia (learning that) and techne (learning along with DELTA and Theater for Development, how) - form part of standard curricula for agricultural appears to offer a strategy where the initiator of a students. The third, which he calls praxis and concerns collective exercise plays no further part in determining the experiential aspect, is too often ignored. Bawden what is represented. In practice, this often leads to the urges a recognition of the central importance of per- mistaken belief that they do not influence the produc- sonal development in learning. This involves not only tion of information. Yet the identities and personalities addressing and affirming the experiences through which of external agents clearly have an effect on how the students develop their understanding of processes, but interaction develops. also acknowledging the limited role that technical Important lessons can be learned from PAR that training plays in becoming an agricultural worker. involve further reversals between Western science and Transforming agricultural research and extension rural people's knowledge. PAR situates research in a to take up some of the challenges that we have drawn process of mutual learning between people with differ- attention to here requires a concerted effort. In many ent experiences, knowledges, and skills. The conven- respects this is quite a frightening prospect. To address tional subject/object relations between researcher and the issues of time and of location requires a fundamen- researched, and the power relations this implies, are tally different approach to the scope and dimensions of 51 AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES - SPRING-SUMMER 1994 research and extension. Diminishing resources force a which is preferred over others that equally "fit the review of existing strategies, particularly in the public facts". Regarding "truths"' as chosen or preferred sector. While some contend that the costs involved in explanations, rather than "reflections" of "reality" change might be too high, the current channeling of (Rorty, 1980) enables us to explore the effects of resources into high input agriculture has offered few these choices. long-term benefits and bears high social, economic, 2. See Box 1987; Winarto, 1992, Millar, 1992; Bunch, and ecological costs (Clunies-Ross and Hildyard, 1992). 1990; Maurya et al.,1988; McCorckle et al., 1988; Acknowledging the political dimensions to agriculture Basant, 1988; FARM-Africa/IIED, 1991. by addressing issues of interaction, control, and con- 3. See Ashby et al., 1989; Gubbels, 1992; Haugerud flict reveals the wider implications of the choice of and Collinson, 1991; Jodha and Partep, 1992; methodology and of the role that different actors play Maurya et al., 1988; Rhoades and Booth, 1982; in the process. Incorporating experiential learning in Richards, 1989; Salas, 1992. developing new methodologies that embrace these 4. See, for example, Abedin and Haque, 1987; Hossein challenges is a highly personal and political process. et al., 1987. For such changes to spread and be sustained will 5. Lightfoot et al.,1991; Guijt and Pretty, 1992; Cham- require the mutual reinforcement of participatory meth- bers, 1992a. ods, new approaches to learning, and institutional 6. Van der Ploeg notes that it is in their very impreci- support (Pretty and Chambers, 1993). Many method- sion and vagueness that the value of these con- ological limitations are a result of insufficient atten- cepts lies, as they do not provide a blueprint but tion to the institutional contexts in which they take enable change through acts of interpretation. place. As Farrington and Bebbington note: 7. This also reflects the ways in which the social While the literature on methods for promoting relations of agricultural science are superimposed farmer participation has burgeoned over the last on rural communities: specialist scientists are pre- decade, we lag far behind in understanding how that sumed to know most and the versions of enumera- participation can be institutionalized. (1993: xvii) tors or extension agents are rarely sought or con- This is where many of the challenges lie. Learning sidered. to acknowledge the value and specificity of our own 8. Discussions with Lori Ann Thrupp, Norman Long, experience, while seeking ways to appreciate other and Ruth Alsop at the RPK workshop in October, perspectives will inevitably entail making "mistakes". 1992 helped develop these questions. These should be recognized as being valuable opportu- nities for reflection and change. Institutions will need References to support self-critical awareness to benefit fully from Abah, S. and J. Owwerri. April, 1992. these opportunities. Personal development is the step- Abedin, Z. and Haque, F. 1987. "Learning from farmer ping stone from which methodological choice and innovation and innovator workshops: examples institutional development can gradually grow. from Bangladesh." Paper presented to IDS Work- shop Farmers andAgriculturalResearch: Comple- Acknowledgments mentary Methods. University of Sussex. The writing of this paper was made possible by Amanor, K. 1990. "Analytical abstracts on farmer financial support to the Sustainable Agriculture participatory research." ODI Agricultural Admin- Programme of IIED from the Swedish International istration Unit Occasional Paper, 10. Overseas Development Authority (SIDA), the Swedish Agency Development Institute, London. for Research Cooperation with Developing Countries Ashby, J. 1990. Evaluating Technology with Farmers: (SAREC), and the Overseas Development Adminis- a Handbook. Colombia: IPRA, CIAT. tration of the UK. We would like to thank the following Ashby, J., C. Quiros, and Y. Rivers. 1989. "Farmer people for their contributions to this paper: Sam Musa participation in technology development: work and Sheelu Francis, who both kindly agreed to be with crop varieties." Pp. 115-122. in Chambers, interviewed at short notice; Koos Neefjes, Nigel R., A. Pacey, and L. Thrupp (eds.). Farmer First. Padfield, Jules Pretty, and Ian Scoones who made Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. helpful comments on earlier drafts. We are grateful to London: Intermediate Technology Publications. the editors and anonymous reviewers for their com- Basant, R. 1988. "The diffusion of agro-mechanical ments. All responsibility for the end product remains technology for Indian rainfed farming: an explor- ours. atory analysis." Agricultural Administration (Re- search and Extension) Network, 24. London: Over- Notes seas Development Institute. 1. Quine (1953) points out that no theory can exhaust the B awden, R. 1988. Experiential Learning and Strategic possibilities offered by empirical data. The "truths" Change. Hawkesbury College, Australia. (Mimeo). that are produced offer merely one interpretation, Bawden, R. 1992. "Of systemics and farming systems 52 Cornwall et al.:Extending The Horizons Of Agricultural Research And Extension research: a critique." In Raman, K. and T. Balaguru. Chambers, R. personal communication, 1993. Farming systemsResearch in India: Strategiesfor Chambers, R., A. Pacey, and L. Thrupp (eds.). 1989. Implementation. Hyderabad: NAARM. Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricul- Biggs, S. 1980. "Informal R&D." Ceres. 13(4): 23-26. tural Research. London: Intermediate Technol- Biggs, S. 1989. Resource-poor farmer participation in ogy Publications. research: a synthesis of experience from nine Clunies-Ross, T. and N. Hildyard. 1992. The Politics national agricultural research systems. OFCOR of Industrial Agriculture. Earthscan. Project Study No. 3. The Hague: ISNAR. Cohen, A. 1993. "Segmentary knowledge: a Whalsay Boal, A. 1979. Theatre of the Oppressed. London: sketch." In M. Hobart. (ed.) The Growth of Igno- Pluto Press. rance: a Critique of Development. London: Box, L. 1987. "Experimenting cultivators: a method- Routledge. ology for adaptive agricultural research." ODI Collinson, M. 1981. "A low cost approach to under- Agricultural Administration (Research and Ex- standing small farmers." Agricultural Adminis- tension) Network Discussion Paper, 23. Overseas tration, 8(6): 433-450. Development Institute: London. Conway, G. 1985. "Agroecosystem analysis." Agri- Brokensha, D., D. M. Warren, and O. Werner. 1980. cultural Administration, 20: 31-55. Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Development. Conway, G. 1987. "Rapid Rural Appraisal and Latham, MD: University Press of America. agroecosystem analysis: a case from northern Pa- Bunch, R. 1985. Two Ears of Corn: a Guide to People- kistan." In KKU Proceedings: 228-254. centered Agricultural Improvement. Oklahoma: Conway, G. 1989. "Diagrams for Farmers." In Cham- World Neighbors. bers, R., A. Pacey, and L. Thrupp (eds.). Farmer Bunch, R. 1987. "Small farmer research: the key ele- First. Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Re- ment of permanent agricultural improvement." search. London: Intermediate Technology Publi- Paper presented to IDS Workshop Farmers and cations.. Agricultural Research: Complementary Methods. Conway, G., P. Sajise, and W. Knowland. 1989. "Lake University of Sussex. Buhi: resolving conflicts in a Philippines develop- Bunch, R. 1989. "Encouraging farmer's experiments." ment project." Ambio, 18(2): 128-135. In Chambers, R., A. Pacey, and L. Thrupp (eds.), Cornwall A., M. Chakavanda, S. Makumbirofa, G. Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricul- Shumba, and A. Mawere. 1989. "The use of com- tural Research. 1989. London: Intermediate Tech- munity theatre in project evaluation: an experi- nology Publications. mental example from Zimbabwe." Sustainable Bunch, R. 1990. "Low Input soil restoration in Hondu- Agriculture Programme RRA Notes, 6: 30-37. ras: the Cantarranas Farmer-to-Farmer Extension IIED, London. Programme."IIED Gatekeeper Series, SA 23. IIED: Cornwall, A. 1992. "Body mapping in health RRA/ London. PRA." Sustainable Agriculture Programme RRA Carruthers, I. and R. Chambers. 1981. "Rapid Rural Notes, 16: 27-30. IIED, London. Appraisal: rationale and repertoire." IDS Discus- Cornwall, A. and I. Scoones. 1993. "Exploring Diver- sion Paper No. 155. Institute for Development sity and Difference in Food Systems under Stress." Studies, University of Sussex, UK. In J. Pottier (ed.) African Food Systems Under Cernea, M. (ed.) 1991. Putting People First. Socio- Stress: Issues, Perspectives and Methodologies. logical Variables in Rural Development (2nd Brighton: SOAS/Desktop Display. ed.). Washington, DC: World Bank. Cross, N. and R. Barker. (eds.) 1991. At the Desert's Chambers, R. 1983. Rural Development: Putting the Edge: Oral Histories from the Sahel. London: Last First. London: Longmans. Panos/SOS-Sahel. Chambers, R. 1986. "Normal Professionalism, New Devavaram, J., Ms Nalini, J. Vimalnathan, A. Sukkar, Paradigms and Development." IDS Discussion A. P. Mayandi Krishnan, and Karunanidhi 1991. PaperNo. 227. Institute for Development Studies, "PRA for rural resource management." Sustain- University of Sussex, UK. able Agriculture Programme RRA Notes 13: 102- Chambers, R. 1992a. "Rural Appraisal: Rapid, Re- 111. IIED, London. laxed and Participatory." IDS Discussion Paper, Drinkwater, M. 1992. "Knowledge, consciousness and 311. Institute of Development Studies, Sussex, prejudice: towards a methodology for achieving a UK. farmer-researcher dialogue in adaptive agricul- Chambers, R. 1992b. "Methods for Analysis by Farm- tural research in Zambia." Discussion paper pre- ers: the Professional Challenge." MS. sented at the IIED/IDS Beyond Farmer First: Chambers, R. 1993. Challenging the Professions: Fron- Rural People's Knowledge, Agri cultural R esearch tiersfor rural development. London: Intermediate and Extension Practice Conference, 27-29 Octo- Technology Publications. ber, Institute of Development Studies, University 53 AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES - SPRING-SUMMER 1994 of Sussex, UK. IIED, London. Agricultural Research and Extension Practice Fabian, J.1990. Power and Performance: Ethnographic Conference, 27-29 October, Institute of Develop- Explorations Through Proverbial Wisdom and ment Studies, University of Sussex, UK. IIED, Theater in Shaba, Zaire. Madison: University of London. Wisconsin. Guijt I. and J. Pretty. 1992. Participatory Rural Ap- Fairhead, J. 1990. Fields of Struggle: Towards a praisal for FPR in Rural Punjab, Pakistan. Lon- Social History of Farming Knowledge and Prac- don: Sustainable Agriculture Programme, IIED. tice in a Bwisha Community, Kivu, Zaire. Doctoral Gupta, A. 1989. "Scientists' view of farmers' practices Dissertation, SOAS, University of London. in India: barriers to effective interaction." Pp 24- Fairhead, J. 1993. "Representing knowledge: the `new 30 in Chambers, R., A. Pacey, and L. Thrupp, farmer' in research." In Practising Development: (eds.). Farmer First. Farmer Innovation and Ag- Social Science Perspectives. Ed. J. Pottier. Lon- ricultural Research. London: Intermediate Tech- don: Routledge. nology Publications Ltd. Fals-Borda, O. and Rahman, A. (eds.). 1991. Action Guyer, J. and P. Peters. 1987. "Introduction. In and Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly with Par- Conceptualising the Household: Issues of Theory ticipatory Action Research. New York: Apex. and Policy in Africa." Special issue of Develop- FARM-Africa/IIED. 1991. Farmer Participatory Re- ment and Change, 18 (2): 197-214. search in N. Omo, Ethiopia. London: IIED. Gypmantasiri, P., A. Wiboonpongse, B. Rerkasem, I. Farrington, J. (ed). 1988. "Farmer Participatory Re- Craig, K. Rekasem, L. Ganjapan, M. Tityawan, M. search." Experimental Agriculture, 24(3). Seotisarn, P. Thani, R. Jaisaard, S. Ongprasert, T. Farrington, J. and A. Martin. 1988. "Farmer participa- Radanachaless, and G. R. Conway. 1980. An In- tion in agricultural research: a review of concepts terdisciplinary Perspective of Cropping Systems and practices." Agricultural Administration Oc- in the Chiang Mai Valley: Key Questions for casional Paper No. 9. Overseas Development In- Research. Multiple Cropping, Faculty of Agricul- stitute, London. ture, University of Chiang Mai, Thailand. Farrington, J., A. Bebbington, with K. Wellard and D. Hacking, I. 1983 Representing and Intervening: Intro- 1. Lewis. 1993. Reluctant Partners? Non-govern- ductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Sci- mental organizations, the state and sustainable ence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. agricultural development. London: Routledge. Harding, F. 1987. "Theatre for development." In Afri- Fleming, Sue. personal communication, September, can Futures: Proceedings of the 25th Conference 1993. of the Centre of African Studies, Edinburgh. Francis, Sheelu. personal communication, September, Haugerud, A. and M. Collinson. 1991. "Plants, genes 1993. and people: improving the relevance of plant breed- Freire, P. 1972. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. ing." Sustainable Agriculture Programme Harmondsworth: Penguin. Gatekeeper Series, SA 30. IIED, London. Gartner, J. 1990. "Extension education: top(s) down, Hesse, M. 1978. "Theory and value in the social sci- bottom(s) up and other things." Pp. 325-350 in ences." In C. Hookway and P. Pettit, (eds). Action Jones, J. (ed). Systems Theory Applied to Agricul- and Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- ture and the Food Chain. New York: Elsevier. versity Press. Gaventa, J. and H. Lewis. 1991. "Participatory Educa- Hiemstra, W., C. Reintjes, and E van der Werf (eds). tion and Grassroots Development: the Case of 1992. Let Farmers Judge: Experiences in Assess- Rural Appalachia." Sustainable Agriculture ing the Sustainability of Agriculture. London: Programme Gatekeeper Series No. 25. IIED, Lon- Intermediate Technology Publications. don. Hobart, M. (ed.) 1993. An Anthropological Critique of Gilbert, E., D. Norman, and F. Winch. 1980. "Farming Development: The Growth of Ignorance. London: Systems Research: a Critical Appraisal." MSU Routlege. Occasional Paper No. 6, Michigan. Holdcroft, Lane C. 1978. "The Rise and Fall of Com- Goodman, N. 1978. Ways of Worldmaking. Hassocks: munity Development in Developing Countries, Harvester. 1950-65: A critical analysis and an annotated Gubbels, P. 1990. Peasant Farmer Agricultural Self- bibliography." MSURural Development Paper 2, Development: The World Neighbors Experience Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan in West Africa. Oklahoma: World Neighbors. State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Gubbels, P. 1992. "Farmer First Research: populist Hope, A., S. Timmel, and C. Hodzi. 1984. Training for pipe-dream or practical paradigm? A case study of Transformation. Harare: Mambo Press. the Projet Agroforestiere (PAF), Burkina Faso." Hossein S., M. Sattar, J. Ahmed, M. Salim, and M. Discussion paper presented at the IIED/IDS Be- Islam. 1987. "Cropping System research and farm- yond Farmer First: Rural People's Knowledge, ers' innovations in a farming community in 54 Cornwall et al.:Extending The Horizons Of Agricultural Research And Extension Bangladesh." In Chambers, R., A. Pacey, and L. Long, N. and J. van der Ploeg. 1989. "Demythologiz- Thrupp (eds.). Farmer First. Farmer Innovation ing planned intervention: an actor perspective." and Agricultural Research. London: Intermediate Sociologica Ruralis XXIX (3/4): 227-49. Technology Publications.. Mascarenhas, J., P. Shah, S. Joseph, R. Jayakaran, J. IIED, 1988-present. RRA Notes. Sustainable Agricul- Devavaram, V. Ramachandran, A. Fernandez, R. ture Programme, IIED, London. Chambers, and J. Pretty (eds.). 1991. Participatory Inglis, A. 1991. "Harvesting local forestry knowledge: Rural Appraisal: proceedings of the February 1991 a comparison of RRA and conventional surveys." Bangalore Trainers Workshop. RRA Notes No. 13. Sustainable Agriculture Programme RRA Notes Sustainable Agriculture Programme, IIED, Lon- No. 12: 32-40. IIED, London. don. Jodha, N. and T. Partep, 1992. "Folk Agronomy in the Maurya D., A. Botrell, and J. Farrington. 1988. "Im- Himalayas: implications for agricultural research proved livelihoods, genetic diversity and farmer and extension." Case study presented at the 'Be- participation: a strategy forrice-breeding in rainfed yond Farmer First: Rural People's Knowledge, areas of India." Experimental Agriculture, 24: Agricultural Research and Extension Practice 311-320. Conference, 27-29 October, IDS, Sussex. Mavro, A. 1991. Development Theater: A Way to Johnson, A. 1972. "Individuality and experimentation Listen. Newbury Park, CA: SOS-Sahel. in traditional agriculture." Human Ecology, 1(2): McCorkle, C., R. Brandsletter, and D. McClure. 1988. 149-160. A Case Study on Farmer Innovation and Commu- Jonfa, E., H. M. Tebeje, T. Dessalegn, H. Habla, and A. nication in Niger. Washington, DC: Communica- Cornwall. 1992. "Participatory Modelling in North tion for Technology Transfer in Africa, Academy Omo, Ethiopia: Investigating the Perceptions of of Educational Development. Different Groups through Models." Sustainable Messerschmidt, D. 1991a. "Some advantages of hav- Agriculture Programme RRA NotesNo. 14:24-26. ing an outsider on the team." Sustainable Agricul- IIED, London. ture Programme RRA Notes, 12: 4-7. IIED, Lon- Kabeer, N. and S. Joekes (eds.). 1991. "Researching don. the Household: methodological and empirical is- Messerschmidt, D. 1992b. Rapid Appraisal for Com- sues." IDS Bulletin, 22:1 munityForestry. The RA Process and Rapid Diag- Korten, D. 1980. "Community organisation and rural nostic Tools. Pokhara, Nepal: Institute of For- development - a learning process approach." estry. Public Administration Review, 40 (5): 480-511. Millar, D. 1992. "The relevance of rural people's KKU. 1987. Proceedings of the 1985 International knowledge for reorienting extension, research and Conference on Rapid Rural Appraisal. Khon Kala, training: a case study from Northern Ghana." Case Thailand. study presented at the IIED/IDS Beyond Farmer Leach, M. 1991. "Locating Gendered Experience: an First: Rural People's Knowledge, Agricultural anthropologist's view from a Sierra Leonian Vil- Research and Extension Practice Workshop, 27- lage." In Kabeer, N. and S. Joekes (eds.). 1991. 29 October, Institute of Development Studies, "Researching the Household: methodological and University of Sussex, UK. IIED, London. empirical issues." IDS Bulletin, 22: 1 Moris, J. 1991. Extension Alternatives in Tropical Lightfoot C., O. de Guia, and F. Ocado. 1988. "A Africa. London: Overseas Development Institute. participatory method for system problem research: Mosse, D. 1992. "Authority, Gender and Knowledge: rehabilitating marginal uplands in the Philippines." Theoretical Reflections on the Practice of PRA."" Experimental Agriculture 24: 301-309. [Unpublished paper] Lightfoot, C., R. Noble, and R. Morales. 1991. Train- Norman, D., D. Baker, G. Heinrich, C. Jonas, S. ing Resource Book on a Participatory Method for Maskiara, and F. Worman. 1989. "Farmer groups Modeling Bioresource Flows. Manila: ICLARM. for technology development: experience in Lightfoot, C., P. Dalsgaard, M. Bimbao, and F. Fermin. Botswana." Pp. 136-146 in Chambers, R., Pacey, 1992. "Farmer Participatory Procedures for Man- A. and Thrupp, L. A. (eds.). Farmer First. Farmer aging and Monitoring Sustainable Farming Sys- Innovation and Agricultural Research. London: tems." Paper presented at the Second Asian Farm- Intermediate Technology Publications. ing Systems Symposium, BMICH, Colombo, Sri Poffenberger, M., B. McGean, A. Khare, andJ. Campbell. Lanka. (eds.). 1992. Community Forest Economy and Use Lincoln, Y. and E. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Patterns: ParticipatoryRuralAppraisal (PRA)Meth- Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. ods in South' Gujarat, India, Volumes 1 and 2. New Long, N. (ed.). 1989. Encounters at the Interface: a Delhi, India: Joint Forest Management Support Perspective on Social Discontinuities in Rural Programme, Ford Foundation. Development. Wageningen. Pottier, J. 1992. "Harvesting Words? - No Thanks?: 55 AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES - SPRING-SUMMER 1994 thoughts on agricultural advice and extension work study presented at the LIED/IDS Beyond Farmer in urban Rwanda." Discussion paper presented at First: Rural People's Knowledge, Agricultural thelIED/IDSBeyond FarmerFirst: Rural People's Research and Extension Practice Workshop, 27- Knowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension 29 October, Institute of Development Studies, Practice Workshop, 27-29 October, Institute of University of Sussex, UK. IIED, London. Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK. Salmond, Anne. 1985. "Theoretical Landscapes: On IIED, London. cross-cultural conceptions of knowledge." Pp. 65- Pretty, J. and R. Chambers. 1993. "Towards aLearning 87 in David Parkin (ed), Semantic Anthropology, Paradigm: New Professionalism and Institutions London: Academic Press. for Agriculture." IDS Discussion Paper 334. IDS, Scoones, I. and J. Thompson. 1993. "Beyond Farmer Brighton. First - Rural People's Knowledge, Agricultural Quine, W. V. O. 1953. "Two Dogmas of Empiricism." Research and Extension Practice: Towards a Theo- In From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge, MA: retical Framework." IDS Discussion Paper 332, Harvard University Press. IDS. Brighton. Rahman, M. (ed). 1984. Grass-Roots Participation Scott, J. 1985. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday forms and Self-Reliance. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH of Peasant Resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale Publication Co. University Press. Rhoades, R. 1983. "Technicista versus Campesinista: Scott, J. 1990. Domination and the Arts ofResistance: Praxis and Theory of Farmer Involvement in Ag- Hidden Transcripts. New Haven, CT: Yale Uni- ricultural Research: a Post-Harvest Example from versity Press. the Andes." Paper presented at ICRISAT/ Shaner W., P. Philipp, and W. Schmehl. 1982. Farm- SAFGRAD/IRAT Conference, Burkina Faso. ing Systems Research and Development: Guide- Rhoades, R. 1990. The Coming Revolution in Methods lines for Developing Countries. Boulder, CO: for Rural Development Research. Manila: Users' Westview. Perspective Network (UPWARD), International Sikana, P. 1992. "Indigenous soil characterisation and Potato Center (CIP). farmer participation in Northern Zambia: implica- Rhoades, R. and R. Booth. 1982. "Farmer-back-to- tions for research and extension delivery." Case farmer: a model for generating acceptable agricul- study presented at the IIED/IDS Beyond Farmer tural technology." Agricultural Administration, First: Rural People's Knowledge, Agricultural 11, 127-137. Research and Extension Practice Workshop, 27- Rhoades, R., D. Horton, and R. Booth. 1987. Anthro- 29 October, Institute of Development Studies, pologist, Biological Scientist and Economist: the University of Sussex, UK. IIED, London. Three Musketeers or the Three Stooges of Farm- Strathern, Marilyn. (1991). Partial Connections. Sav- ing Systems Research? Lima: CIP. age, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield. Richards, P. 1985. Indigenous Agricultural Revolu- Sumberg, J. and C. Okali. 1988. "Farmers, on-farm tion: Ecology and Food Production in West Af- research and the development of new technol- rica. London: Hutchinson. ogy." Experimental Agriculture, 24: 333-342. Richards, P. 1987. "Experimenting Farmers and Agri- Swift, J. 1979. "Notes on traditional knowledge, mod- cultural Research". [Unpublished UCL paper]. em knowledge and rural development." IDS Bul- Richards, P. 1989. "Agriculture as performance." Pp. letin 10: 41-43. 39-43 in Chambers, R., A. Pacey, and L. Thrupp Theis, J. and H. Grady. 1991. Participatory Rapid (eds.). 1989. Farmer First: Farmer Innovation Appraisal for Community Development: a Train- and Agricultural Research. London: Intermediate ing Manual Based on Experience in the Middle Technology Publications. East and North Africa. London: Save the Children Richards, P. 1992. "Rural development and local knowl- Fund/lIED. edge: the case of rice in central Sierra Leone." Tilakaratna, S. 1991. "Stimulation of Self-Reliant Ini- Discussion paper presented at the IIED/IDS Be- tiatives by Sensitized Agents: Some Lessons from yond Farmer First: Rural People's Knowledge, Practice." In Fals-Borda, O. and A. Rahman, A. Agricultural Research and Extension Practice (eds.), Action and Knowledge: Breaking the Mo- Workshop, 27-29 October, Institute of Develop- nopoly with Participatory Action Research. New ment Studies, University of Sussex, UK. IIED, York: Apex. London. Uphoff, N. 1992. Learningfrom Gal Oya: Possibilities Rorty, R. 1980. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. for Participatory Development. and Post- Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Newtonian Social Science. Ithaca: Cornell Uni- Salas, M. 1992. "Extension, knowledge systems and versity Press. potato production in the Peruvian Andes: chal- Van der Ploeg, J. 1989. "Knowledge systems, meta- lenging the transfer of technology model." Case phor and interface: the case of potatoes in the 56 Cornwall et al.:Extending The Horizons Of Agricultural Research And Extension Peruvian highlands." In N. Long (ed). Encounters Welbourn, A. 1991. "RRA and the analysis of differ- at the Interface. a Perspective on Social ence." Sustainable Agriculture Programme RRA Discontinuities in Rural Development. Wageningse Notes No. 14. IIED, London. Sociologische Studies, 27. Landbouwuniversisteit Wilde, O. 1978. "The soul of man under Socialism." In Wageningen. The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde. London. van der Ploeg, J. 1993. "Potatoes and Knowledge." In Winarto, Y. 1992. "Farmers' agroecological knowl- M. Hobart (ed.), An anthropological Critique of edge and integrated pest management in North Development. The Growth of Ignorance, London: West Java." Case study presented at the IIED/IDS Routledge. Beyond Farmer First: Rural People's Knowledge, Vitebsky, Piers. 1993. "'Shamanism' as Local Knowl- Agricultural Research and Extension Practice edge in a Cosmopolitan World." Unpublished pa- Workshop, 27-29 October, Institute of Develop- per presented to the Association of Social Anthro- ment Studies, University of Sussex, UK. IIED, pologists' Decennial Conference, Oxford, 26-31, London. July, 1993. 57 I I I ICI II III III IGiili " !''I 'i III !' II 4ihllll! 1I1°;'I,!,;,d°IN!Ilhllalll(°1111 IIIIIII!Iihil!II'!lil VIII'Ili''Illi'II'"+IIIIIIIi!;I'''I!;IiIIIIiNllr!ilhdUlIill!i!I{!I14!!Il;flih''!!;IP;!!il'luili!iil! I I I I 111111Itliilllilillliillillu Illlilll!VIII!IIIIIIIIIIIiIIICiiiGil'" III,IIII!VillldiihIhilllillllluIVlllllllu!IilIliViIIIIIIIICIIII!lifIIIIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIiJIV!IVililllhllll In many development efforts, academicians or technical experts are the ones to gather and analyze information, while the people look on. Tools that promote participation in gathering data are key to raising people's awareness of problems and enabling them to ana- lyze causes and find solutions. The following tools enable villagers to do their own assessments by collecting and compiling data on situations in their own locale. 77 ...111. ,IIIII 11 ', I'; LI !tql !' " t ,. , 1I I III r'!Ilf'' III 1' r.r Ir :, 'IIII III 11:, 1 III I.':i'f!4iIL :pj1;1 A'' r'LIY I'I 11 1111 1; 11111 .I In. 11111 I,,1 ,'.'IIIIIII .;11'11,II'I''. 11111'1 I, q1! .',I I'1 11'Ii ,: I, I III i 11 1. 11,:11rI .:Irl!'I IIII II I. 11.. I.1 'I'. dill (IIII IIIIIIII I.I! IIII 11p 11 111.,1 I,i1 VIII '.,IIII, I'llll III11111,1 1 111 III VI II 1i1i11'I, 111 1!1'11111 III IIII'. ,,, r;,,,I IIII III 11 1I III, IIIII .,1, IIIIIII I'I.II L. IIII tllli III IrII, I, I1I!r1.,1 b , 11111I11 IIIIIII .IIII ,I I'I IIII . III u;,' , I. IlII lp IIIIIIIII , ,I III LI: }IIIIII. I VI r !11;1 II'V:'lj .,1nI I. IIII ,Il,ll , 11'1' 1, i,1..iii III. I. II II IIIIII III III, ii III I I ,'. II IIIIIIII 1 1I ,1,111 III III Trmcr ` , i 1,1 L;,.I i II 1 lr ` I I I ,II III ''I'1 nd I I , IIIIIUI I e C I .r I II" II : , I. 1'111 ICI! .111 l VIII , :I I I , I 1 . 111 . .I I II I li IIII' iI III I I I 111 11 I I 1.. 11 111 IIII'. I. II I II 1,1,1j1 11, a I ' I I. I... ! IIII I , II II II 111 r I I II I.:..Ir , III.I I I 1111 .l I 1 yr. I.1 . 1111 I !11 1 '111 I: (':111111 I{I I IIII 11 I I:' 1' 111,1 II'1 111 I I'I 111!11:1 IIII II,Il I1Iri 1 r, II.''i! r.l Ir.1l 1:x,1111 I l , 111.11, .IIII I, ,111 IIIIIIII 11 111 I'l : III ! rl :;11:1.1 I.I ,1.111 , I I I, 14,III I,, 111,.1,,{.IrI !11,1x11 .I '.:1,111x1 II II I(I ( ( III (IIII{II {I{II l,ll 11111 I,11,lill ,. (I,.. 11.1 ,.11 'l.' x11 III IIIIIIIII (VI t1 , , I "IIII ( I I 1 ( 1 , 1.11.,1 IIIIIII1.? 1 I. .III! I , II'II I . 11I I 1 I I I IrI., 111 I I lnl : r I ' I . ,;. I, 111 I , ,. I -. 11,1 I I I III II! 111111 11 , 1'.1,111111111. I 1 ::1.1 II I 1 ' 1 II I I' I .II I I I: ,I I!:III . ( LI 1 !11 I I r III III I ,I.I !III 1111 1 (II I 1 I I1 I,II, I.I II II ,1 ,111 1 I I ,IIIII I 1 I f fl I 11 II,11. I: I II II II , llt. ll I.! IIII l:i 1 yIJ r , I III' I .; rl 11111 .11111!111. rII ...,,n I L!Id,q..1 II I 11 1 1 ,I; . r,l 1 allll'p:; 1 ,1i'I . 11 1! III Lrll 1, 1 1'91'1111 III tl d;l'11 I I,I 11 t I r;,;. L I I III IrII , x1'1'1'1 I,I I (III l ; 'I: I. 1! IIII W, III Lrl .11,11 I III 1, I, L IIII .IIII it l l.,i!,i 111 l 'ill ill Irllil L!:IL;TaoI IIrn!II ;I, I r 111, t ;!I,i I (per ' ,IIyIV , I S e' II I' 100 ;,:III I "ll !. 1' V. 1x!111!11 , 'IJ III II r I 1111,.11 III- III. .Y 1 III III III IIIIII III 11;11 1. '' 1 l1.l1,1!:-III I, 11:1 I, 111 ....;;:I I11In,,:1,;,II . 1'111 lL r-I I'11,.11! III x61 1 i III III ! (IIII I I III !Il III I ,' III I I ',,LII 1 I I!II' 1111 , rf. x l 11 IIII II , L III , l u i; III I l ,. I !: l ll II ;I I ,. I L I t I '1 1 . Ildl l lltl I!1, 16111 . r .:"l ,l ,I:. Jl llllll IILI1 V I: IIIIIIIII II , I ,. , L, IIII ,.l. 1 I , ,. , I I I I I :II1 .4n1 1 I II1 ' II1 I 'I 1 I1,p ! nlllll!Ill,i'VII III sin 1h a em as u TRAM oa oval 11 andit , r,11,,,. I !rII. I! I II II I , I II y III', 1T '1';: I ,: 1r, III I. 1;1 : ,II! I IIIII III '11 1 I I I IIII Ui;lh '111111 II', II. IIII I.,,, I,,IL I,I, III III I III' r , I I{ 111 r III I II,I I' it I, Illtl;l I :III :VIII I,I, IJ'I ) 1I I 1411111 1,1.1;1 .I 111111 I, ,I I {` hII,,IIIII 111111 ,IIII{, .I:, IuII.I II' I'll({ I .I. IrI IIlIII11.j1 ,..'II(II11111,III 1,1i I. 11!''!I II II I III I II II,I 111111 VIII III, VII I I, x11,11 11,1' I Jlliail 111 IIIIIII I II 1111.. I11,'iaa1 I.'.,llI I IrI f , I, II Itl L 1 I 11 L III 1111. . 1 1 111 ' L1 I d - II I. 1 ,I x1 1 ,1 , I 4 I I rI 1 1 I : ,. 1 1. ' IL .. III I. I,,r 1e 1 L '. 1611 ,^I I III I I ,, IIII 111 ':r I .1:....11 If I I I ..i, 'I. 1,11,111,r., till I IIr IIJI I I I ' II II II 111:11 II .I: .. 1. IIL-, ,IIII ,111 F III I 11 1il! III .'I III .I, i IrI ,11!11 I '1111,1'1' 11. I'. 1 I , r I II III 'i1!IIIII:: 11111111 111 111 1' r IrII l ,: IIIIIII I III .,r p, l'. I .:.IIIIIII II I IIII I r 11 1 III 111 1 111'11111 1. III III II III LIII I 1, 1111 I ( 111. I Ill' 1. Irlrl r1' I I I , , .. Ilrl I ,. I . , 1.11'1 11111 . 1 I.1 r II, I Ir' x11 111 I . , . I,IIIltl ,l 1ul II I II I :, I .I I,r, I1 , I lI11 . , . III: 11.11.1 IIuI1, 1, rII III I,I 1! 11 1 I. :iil, IIII I I. ) II., .I. IIII ! 111 I III. - :. 1111 '!. .IrII I 11!: 1 I IIIII,, IITIrLm- 11111 Iil !Ill.r. '. II .. I .I r 'i1r .IIII III IIII _r:'i!'I 11111:.,,1 :1Y1 111,11,1 I,IIIIIIII 1111', I III ,IIII 111 1 1 IIII 1 III'1I111111 ''' II ,1 : $ .I' n ,ll 1. llil I IIIL1, 111 ,1 I 1' ,ILIII I 1 e ul, 1 , I,, T r' II I r.. x111.,III , 104 ooi- 1, ILI . I 11,,,11 1"l I e rr ,L rp, ,11.,1 1 I nl 11 IIII, 11, II..,.11I.I,1 11!:,1 II 1 llllII 11 111 111.,,1 1,1.,,,1,. '1I I III I.II 1:1 Ir14 1 1. .IIIr:eII', 1I IIIII .:rr x:1,1.1. 1 l I111 I l It en tif, n 1 'a n ig]TI C an 4' change °m' common tiles over time, "{ I..II1,Ij111!j Ij11111 j I '111,11 I :. 11'IJ1 1,1 IIIII III 111 " 1111114 I I . j' 1x1111 41r', 1' I 111111111 I'',I' '.N;i11!i1',. I "I li:. III$( 1111 111' 1 1 i1,11a I: ,,I ,11 111 ' Y NI 1, 11.1' 1I11 1 1111 .1. II 111'' 11.11!1. 4 ' , 'tl I- I.!III Will 1r ':I II! 11 . ; 11.,1 I 1, ' 1 . I I ! , d r x II 1 11 1 I .,I:1 I! 1 I:' I IL, ,1,,,!I1n I I III 1 1 1 1 III III 1 11111 III' l I I f L .; III IIII L, i ,.:.III I ir I I .. ,i I I, 1 1 1 l II III I I II .11111 .11,11 1,,,,11 1,1 ' IIII X111 ,111 I. I , . 111, 11111 1,11.- I !: IIII ., ,, l' '1 11, : II 1!1'11 ! ,11'11 I I . I 11 I III III IIII. I I III, IIIIII , i I,ILI, 11.1 IIIIII 1111 11,1 III '..:1, 1,. I Iiilllr III IIII11. II 1,1. L1, :.i l'l, l!1 L,..i I1L11 III 1 III 1 II,I ..,IIII II !! ,I, I'1J !I III II I'IW IL! ! IIIIIIII X1111 III I, III.II,;: 1111111 ACr f{1,.t 11111I ,,;'. 111 t a[a) e act ed rvit y,,CaCenda 1111 1111 I;I' TQO!°1 i41 r1 n 1. lir'I'111ir 1 1' , , .., (IIII II 107I , ' l , ' , ,r IILd 11 , 1 II III 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 III! 1,, I'Ii1 1 1 1ILIII 1 ' , LIt, y 1 11 11 '' I1!I ! I I r,6Ir,11 I 1 11I III; ,IL:Ir1 ' 1 1 Ill Ir,ulll 1.1 : I ,;li . I IIII. ,III I'll II i°IIIIIIII', IIII IiI I111 ! Jill IIII h111i lld66a1 LII, ',1III111P .1.11..11,, 'x I,I'11 ', I,,L::r,l. 111111 11 .111 II . 1,,11 1(Id1111i 1v. su altm s a n aI l attern o p rloduction andlIsu[ls%stence by,lage d I; ;I, 111 .:1 I1 .,I 1 I ,'. 1, ,,I I 11 I It I II 1 11, I :II III IIIIII11 119i I' III IIII,1, ,,IIIIII 11 ,I,; " ;a, IIII II; 'If''ll lI rl.,,.:.. IIIL.Ir, I 11 ,1111,1111 11,1 LI .. :I,Ilrl!!11111111 Il ' 111;1:: 1111, ,IIII I I h IIIIII lllul'ill I , 11 IJI ,11. i II111' I IPI 1.,11,h 1 dl 1 II,I I!1! 1 1 ! I"ll 111 1I IVi' Illpllll v1:11 ua ";r: 111 1.1j11 III 1111 I ,..III 1 I:'1 111111 11111 III III u ' I I IrI I p I, ',II, .!.11:! 1 1 ,11;1x,1 an ,.i'', 11 L LI, I,;i,11 a er IIII I !111 Il i;'I I'I pl. 11y!, d u'11' l 1111 1.: II r ; 11111 11 I:I11111.,1 6''Ilyl pr11,1111111.,1 blp LI,I;, II 4:1: IIII yin r, 111411 .111, .L'. 1 r 1111 n1 1!'1111 1111. QI 4,11,,111 :1 I,, I d I l 1 III III, 1111 '1. !1 11111:,11111, r III1:111!11,1 I, Lp11, IJ'II, 11 111 I l , II I 1 1 I , 1; IIII III I 11 I 1 11 , ! 1 III 111!, 1 ,1 11 rll 11, 1 111111 II I I II I I IIII 111; 111 , :1.1 ', ! ! .11 !I ! 1 I II II 1 I I x111,' 111 1 r IIII r.' "I II, 111 1, II 1 '1jj1 11, 1 11 11 L ,I1 ji1.1 11 L., 1 '! I I l ::1.j IIII III ;!1 .. ,: 111 Irir II 1Gr1 II '1 1. yr:; I,.; .11 I I 1 1.. 1 ,Ii;. 1 11111 1 x 1 11 1 i l ,1:111:.! 11..1.111 ! 1 I 11 I ia. l ll1 IIII ,1 1.r III I 1 1 I 1 11 :p ,:III lluultl X1;,1, Ill.III II . 111.' I II"611111 I II I II 1! , , , ,:,, 11,:11 1 I 1, ( a . 11.:1x! , Irrlll, I'll ' I .IIII, IIII ,III. ! 111 I . IIII III 1'11 i'i11 '' I 1111, ' Iq '1. II II N,rI ,, ,1111 11,,111111{ III -'II',1111 ! 9pf,t 1{ i,!cl;' I II I !li I II, 'I I ( 'III Ilrl'111IIIul 1, II,LI1111111 1 1'001; 1 , IMo aRI1I,1 I, (11 1,,11,1 . 111111 iI,1.',111 1111 ;111.1 11111n111 111 ';II'11 1...,, I I I 111, 1II1!11., I IIII IU III. 11111 I,1, 11 I''I,I 11111II l..I, I I a111 I I IIIII , I P!' !1111111IIW 111 11111 11. I II, IIi , ,I Illf'1'' Ifili !II 'I'li'lll I III 11,1111 I 1111'1 II ! 1111 11, , I:!L' III Ir;ldh IIII h II 11 ii41111'II 1'111 P I'! 'ASSe s"s' r`Qu(Im o H6 m 't structs.,time11111' 1,1 mite, culturakco ., ,111,.,III IIIII 1111". ,il llil :I; ,, ,I 111. {., IIIlil 11.,1III:Ir,. 11Idf II. 1 P11 IIVII ;.;I l l s 11 1j11 11111II!'r''I ._I,I I'IiIIII 1 ,; 1!1 lfi , , 1, 11 , I I II 1 1 I II!II I 41!! I I ; III I I pII III , i ,,.I I ,I Ih I 1 1 u 11 1 1 iQl N111 1 111 tl! I II I o U1u IIL !III VIfhI!di l, Jll4d!1 111 1 ! 11 1 !III II lll 1 111 I s ; ,' 4 1 I :1 lr11 111 1 I Ir, ,I 1! I I l 1 l I ,1 1 1 p Il I ,I I1 1 ; I III I II1Vgh I 11 I,I;I;I1 IIII !al ac atw e s.q,ur elacSe sllul l l l Il ,1111II 11! IIIII;I,IIIjI,1 ' X11', I1111I111111111'II'I!III nd 1111!111.;, LII 11111111pi: II. Ii;,1 L,r ,rI'I,I 1,111.1 I LIllll ..;1,11':1 1 111111..'.' III.1.111,!1'r .1 I ; 11 lylpl11111Iq I!i ;, n . 1 i':d:1II r) 1 i' v.'I,1 III 11,.11 I, 1' 1 111 x 11 1 II i1il1 11 1 '.Ii IIII11111:1 III 11'11;;111111111''1 'I:Ii I1111IIIt!I11111 111I l11 IIIII II1111 111111 111111111111111!IIi11 1111111illllil:11111111 I:lillli lr'I 1111!11, Ii IIII III I'.. 78 (jNti ill :i : I lllil liiillilllli Illli!III IIi!!IiVI II ill 11 Iliiil!illllll Interviewing is a data-gathering method where the respondent addresses a set of questions posed by the interviewer. Interviews can relay information about physical data such as household composi- tion, divisions of labor, and livelihood sources. Interviews can also be used to learn about people's perceptions, values, and attitudes. The two main types of interviews are structured and unstructured. Structured interviews are conducted with a set of formal questions to which succinct answers may be given. Unstructured interviews ask open-ended question to which respondents are encouraged to give detailed answers. Interviewers may probe respondents' remarks for further details or directions. When a community is not easily ap- proachable, unstructured interviews can be an entry point into light conversation that familiarizes the researcher and respondent and can lead to continued casual exchanges. Iliil ,. I 111111 1111 I . Interviews allow researchers to gather detailed information about how respondents frame their livelihoods, lifestyles, prob- I!E 411' 11 u lems and priorities. Community-wide patterns and trends can be extrapolated from this data. Controlling for gender, age, class or other social variables offers a truer representation of the com- munity as well as a means to compare groups. Interviews offer researchers or community organizers a chance to talk with residents who might not normally be included in meetings. 1. Researchers in rural communities should make their pur- pose clear to the community or neighborhood as a whole. The residents of the community should be offered an oppor- tunity to ask questions and to decide whether they would like to participate in the project. 2. Men have traditionally been disproportionately represented in interviews. Consideration should be taken to insure that women and other marginalized groups are represented so that their views and voices can be heard. To ensure that the views of all 'Source: Adapted from the World Education Publication From the Field, 1980; pp 45-48; Thomas-Slatyer et a/., 1993, Tools of Gender Analysis, pp 10-11; and Dawson et al., A Manual for the Use of Focus Groups, 1993. 79 Interviews socio-economic groups are represented, you may wish to first do the Wealth Ranking exercise (Tool #8) and then draw names randomly from within each socio-economic group. 3. Interviews with individuals should be scheduled to suit the respondent's availability. 4. Interview style and content will depend upon the data needs of the particular project but here are some interviewing guidelines that the researcher should bear in mind: make clear the purpose of the interview and how the results will be used before beginning a session assure the respondent of absolute confidentiality do not record names or include personal information that can be directly attributed to the respondent maintain a receptive demeanor - show interest in responses and give encouragement during the interview to establish a rapport speak clearly and at an even pace - be ready to restate or clarify questions if asked do not ask threatening or challenging questions - should a respondent not want to answer a particular question, move on to the next question but take note about the circumstances and reaction of the respondent watch for verbal and non-verbal cues that the respondent is uncomfortable answering - do not pressure respondents for answers 5. A brief casual conversation with the respondent before and after the interview is completed can help to foster feelings of a posi- tive exchange. Paper and pencil M6lduiillllilll!!if!IIllil ! Copies of the interview Tape recorder (optional) 80 Tool #6 Tape recorders may make respondents uneasy and hamper responses .. 1;9ICIi,y1fJII,rh that are controversial or thought to be contrary to the interviewer's Respondents recorded a) lttQt1,: I,,I bias. should only be with their full consent and if it is not possible to write responses. It is not uncommon in small communities for people to gather to observe the antics of a researcher or project team. The venue for interviews should offer some privacy so that answers are not influ- enced by the scrutiny of a crowd. The aggregate results of the interviews can be made available for community analysis and used as a means of empowering communi- ties to analyze their own data. _xam Administering Formal Interviews in the Dominican Republic* As part of a multi-method field study** on a social forestry project in the Dominican Republic, an ECOGEN research team conducted a formal interview based on a random sample of adult male and female members of a peasant federation. We had decided to administer a formal questionnaire only to confirm our findings generated from the qualitative methods, and to give our conclusions and recommendations legitimacy to natural resource managers and biological scientists. The formal survey mirrored the types of questions we asked during earlier stages of research-including questions about the respondent's birth family's history of migration, position in his/her conjugal family, their roles in resource management and agriculture, as well as their opinions of the forestry project, and the future of the Federation. The questions were also designed to gather "factual" information about the household (i.e., size of landholdings, species of trees present in different land use units or number of timber trees planted). Above and beyond confirming our findings, however, the process of generating the random sample and conducting the surveys revealed household situations that had previously been invisible to us and social categories that were underrepresented in the Forestry Enterprise Project. For example, it was not until we conducted the final survey that we became keenly aware of the number of younger families who lived on small residential plots and depended on off-farm work or on farm family (parent's), rented or sharecropped land. We visited many young women (from women's club lists) who were * Excerpted in part from, D. Rocheleau, and L. Ross, forthcoming ECOGEN case srudy. tendered landscapes, gendered lives: Maps and life histories in Zambrana-Chacuey, Dominican Republic and D. Rocheleau, "Maps, Numbers, Text and Context: Mixing Methods in Feminist Political Ecology". Forthcoming in Professional Geographer. * *D. Rocheleau and L. Ross combined several data collection activities: attendance at formal meetings; group interviews; focus groups; household histories, labor calendars and mapping exercises; key informant interviews; personal life histories; as well as the formal survey of a random sample drawn from the adult members of the Federation. 81 Interviews the main farmers in the household and whose family's contact with the project came through their women's club membership. There were also a number of people in the final sample (identified as "not really farmers" by promoters) who make a living by regular marketing trips to the capital to sell produce from their communities at retail markets and on the street and who also often had planted some trees. In addition we met three men who are members of the Federation, farm their own small plots, and make a living as caretakers of large holdings of absentee owners. All of these latter groups have some stake in the Forestry Enterprise Project, but were generally invisible to staff at EN DA (Environmental and Development Alternatives, an international NGO), Federation leaders, other national policy makers, and, initially to us. In addition to making the invisible visible, the questionnaire was a particularly effective and informative tool because we incorporated the farm sketching exercise into it. In the context of a two-hour interview, we drew pictures of the farm based on direct observation, a narrative recounted by each respondent, as well as prompts and questions made as necessary to complete the drawing and fill in a list of species and land use information on the questionnaire. The final result provided ample background and vocabulary to discuss the gender division of labor, responsibilities, access, use and control as well as gendered knowledge and values associated with the plants, animals, places, products and processes depicted in the image. The resulting image also provided a template for further coding and quantification of information derived from the picture after the fact. 82 plllillili.I,I,IIII I!!I,!161I If IIIIlililllll9lllllillllll'iilllillllllliilliluilil IIIIII1II '11111 11',1111161111 A focus group is a small group meeting to discuss a specific topic in an informal setting. A facilitator leads the discussion encouraging all present to offer their ideas and opinions. A record keeper may keep track of the exchanges. Focus groups are helpful in gathering data. Many of the tools in this manual rely on information gathered in groups discussions. Focus groups are useful, for example, in generating history time lines, diagrams of men's and women's perceptions of community organiza- tions and trend lines for resource issues such as rainfall, crop produc- tion, population, deforestation and health. 1. Logistics: Establish time, place and topic for discussion a few roce, s; days ahead of time. 2. Participants: Group members can be from the same neighbor- hoods, formal or informal community organizations and govern- ment or community-sponsored projects. Meeting with men and women in separate groups may bring out issues obscured in joint meetings. It is also helpful to listen to individuals from different age groups, ethnic groups or classes. 3. Group leaders: It is best to have two people to conduct the focus group: one to facilitate the discussion, the other to record information. Group leaders should be introduced to participants by community members. 4. Optimal length: between one and two hours. 5. Opening statements: each participant may make an individual, uninterrupted statement about themselves. 'Source: Adapted from B. Thomas-SIayter et al., 1993, Tools of Gender Analysis, p. 12. Stanley and Jaya Gajanayake, 1993, Community Empowerment, p. 27. 83 Focus Groups 6. Discussion Format: Unstructured: discussion centers around 1 or 2 broadly stated topic questions, or Structured: facilitator uses 4 or 5 questions (written up before the meeting) as a guide, with more specific probes under each major question. 7. Formulating Questions Decide on the information you want Use simple language Be sure the meaning of the question is clear Keep questions short: Do not have several parts to each question Do not word questions in a way that people are made to feel guilty or embarrassed Avoid using too many "why" questions: they may sound like an interrogation 8. Role of the Facilitator Low involvement. The facilitator: a. presents initial topic followed by unstructured group discussion b. introduces second topic, based largely on what points have already been raised c. allows discussion to come to an end on its own High involvement. The facilitator: a. maintains clear and consistent order by application of a guide throughout the discussion. S/he may find it helpful to: begin the structured discussion with a general question, not intending to get a full answer, but to set up an agenda of topics within the limits of the guide. hold off comments which don't quite fit in a particular stage of the discussion, but reintroduce them at a logical point; i.e. "I recall that some of you mentioned something a little different earlier, and I wonder how that fits into what we are discussing now.,, 84 Tool #7 b. Ends session with final summary statements from participants. Advantages of Focus groups Produce a great deal of information at low cost Are an excellent way to obtain information from illiterate participants May reveal a range of attitudes and opinions that might not come out in a survey Are well accepted by the residents in a community as they make use of group discussion - a form of communication found naturally in most communities Can be good fun Limitations of Focus Groups They require well-trained facilitators Results from discussion cannot usually be used to make statements about the wider community Participants often agree with responses from fellow members Focus groups have limited value in exploring complex beliefs and issues List of guide questions for facilitator Mate' ri Notebook and pen for record keeper Large paper for charts Colored markers for diagrams and time lines Circles of various sizes needed for community institution A focus group requires a competent facilitator to keep discussion on Notes to,,the track. The facilitator will need to foster interactions that explore the Faci I`itato' participants' feelings in some depth. Open questions (why, what and how) will elicit much information and keep discussion going. S/he will need to be prepared to: clearly explain the purpose of the discussion include all participants in the discussion assure that the full range of voices is heard make sure that certain interest groups do not dominate the discussion 85 Focus Groups be conscious of existing divisions within a particular group be aware that the group will not work if participants do not trust one another For more on leading group discussions, see Facilitation (Tool #1). In the case that there is no record keeper, a cassette recorder or video camera may be used, if the group finds it suitable and if the topic is not sensitive. This tool is also helpful for role definition, project identification and project formulation. Example' Focus Groups in Pwani, Kenya* Pwani, located on the periphery of Lake Nakuru Park in Kenya's Rift Valley Province, is a recently populated resettlement village. It was the first of several sites in the region in which Participatory Rural Appraisal exercises were con- ducted in 1990. Pwani was selected as a PRA site for primarily two reasons: 1) it is representative of settlement communities which have experienced stresses in natural resources management; and 2) it represents a situation encountered throughout the world by communities located adjacent to parks. Subsequent gender-focused research in Pwani addressed questions raised within the broader context of PRA. Focus group interviews and discussions can show priorities for community action based on gender, class, caste, race, ethnicity and religion. In Pwani, the problems identified by male leaders in the community, such as bad roads and lack of access to markets, did not consider women's issues. The PRA exercises did not reveal the extent of the fuelwood problem until women had an oppor- tunity to meet separately in a focus group to discuss issues of concern to them, such as the scarcity of fuelwood. *Adapted from Dianne Rocheleau et al., 1991, People, Property, Poverty and Parks, pp. 3-13. 86 III llll!I t ! Iltllilli' iiiiiiilltl ii VIII iIIIIII Il t l illll! II II lll, ' I I III I li' I ti ,II p hIIf li I llll;iiliII11111i1llliilllifllII lilI1I1iIIVI11IIilllililiia iii illlll!!II f i l II IIiiill IiI!llbl`PI hlil G Wealth ranking is a card sorting exercise to generate information from key informants about socio-economic distinctions among residents of a community. Wealth is regarded as more than an economic attribute of a person or household. The exercise identifies other indicators of "wealth" including social status, power and authority, education, and access to both local and wider resources. Wealth ranking can assist the researcher to devise a sample of Purpo'IIi I households which is representative of the community's different socio-economic groups. It also enables the facilitator or program coordinator to grasp the full range of socio-economic characteristics of households within a community, as viewed by residents of the community themselves. Important indicators about socio-economic strata within the community are thus determined by both male and female residents, and not by the researchers or facilitators. 'roces 1. Obtain the names of all households or a random sample of d; uIIG households. It is best to work with no more than 100. Write each name on a small card and give it a number to facilitate later calculations. 2. Clarify the meanings of words in the local language which are important to this exercise, such as "community" and "house- hold." Discuss local concepts of wealth and well being. Decide on the words or phrases to be used. 3. Choose informants. Each informant should be interviewed independently. About four or five should suffice, including both men and women. Choose informants, as much as possible, to represent a cross-section of the community in terms of gender, Source: Adapted from Barbara Grandin, 1988, Wealth Ranking in Smallholder Communities: A Field Manual. Also described by her in Feldstein and Jiggins, Tools for the Field, 1994, pp. 21-35. Thomas-Slayter, Esser and Shields, Tools of Gender Analysis , 1993, pp. 8-9, and Shields and Thomas-Slayter, 1993, Gender, Class, Ecological Decline, and Livelihood Strategies: A Case Study of Siquijor Island, The Philip- pines. 87 Wealth Ranking age, socio-economic status, and agro-ecological zones. 4. Find a quiet place to interview each informant. Explain the nature of the work and its purpose. Indicate that you are explor- ing what characterizes different levels of well being in this community, and how problems may differ among social groups. 5. Ask the informant to separate cards with family names into piles according to the interviewee's notion of the household's level of well being. Households placed in the same pile should have comparable levels of wealth or well being. Explain that the informant can make as many piles as he or she wants and can change the number in the course of the exercise. 6. One by one the interviewee puts cards in piles. If more than 40% of households are in a single pile, ask the interviewee to subdivide. 7. In the follow-up discussion with the interviewee, ask him or her about the characteristics associated with each pile the informant has made, and why the cards were placed in this way. Ask the informant to identify what characterizes those households in a given pile, generally, and how they might differ in terms of the specific goals of the project or research. The interviewer should record this information. Analyzing the data* 1. The information obtained may be used informally for project planning, or it may be used more formally to create a random sample for interviewing. 2. After each exercise, make a list of households classified under each pile. If informant number 1 has sorted the households in five piles, assign number 1 to the richest and number 5 to the poorest., Numbers 2, 3, and 4 are assigned to the not-so-rich, middle, and not-so-poor categories, respectively. If there are four categories, number 1 will be assigned to the richest, and number 4, to the poorest. 3. Compute the average scores for every household using the formula found on the next page. 'Source: Adapted from The TriPARRD Technical Committee, 1993, A Manual, pp. 96-97. 88 Tool #8 Category number x 100 Number of categories Example 1: Informant number 1 made five piles/categories. The score for the richest will be computed as follows: 1 x 100 100 5 = 5 = 20 Therefore, each card in the "richest" category of five piles will be assigned a score of 20. The score for the poorest will be computed as follows: 5 x 100 500 5 = 5 = 100 Each card in the "poorest' category of five piles will be assigned a score of 100. Example 2: Another informant made four categories. The score for the richest will be computed as follows: 1 x 100 100 4 = 4 = 25 Each card in the "richest' category of four piles will be assigned a score of 25. The score for the poorest will be computed as follows: 4 x 100 400 4 = 4 = 100 Each card in the "poorest" category of four piles will be assigned a score of 100. 4. Repeat the process with all your informants. Then, compute the average score for each household by adding all the scores given 89 Wealth Ranking by the informants which will be divided by the number of informants. The bigger the average score, the lower the category or ranking of the household, e.g., households with scores ranging from 90 to 100 will emerge as the poorest. The richest will be those with lower scores, probably ranging from 20 to 40. 5. Categorize the households into "rich," "middle," and "poor" (or into whatever categories that will emerge). The closeness of the resulting average scores will determine the number of groupings which should not, however, exceed the maximum number of piles given by the key informants. 6. Identify wealth indicators or the differences and features of the households in each grouping based on the ranking interviews and other sources of information. ate'ri"als, Cards, such as 3x5 index cards II I I III III "L I :MII Pen, pencil or magic marker lull) (i !Piil Il iu Tubod Philippines* xamp' U Wealth Ranking in on Siquijor Island in the Extrapolating from the ways in which informants assigned households to socio-economic categories, researchers on Siquijor ascertained the following about Tubod, a small baranguay located on the coast: The more prosperous households constitute 11 % in Tubod; 18% of the households are upper middle- income. Tubod has a group of households (24%) which constitute a new work- ing class and seem to be gaining a toe-hold in the modern economy as small - scale entrepreneurs, temporary, low paid government workers, or employees in someone else's business. Average income families in Tubod represent 22% of the total number of households. The poorest households represent 25% of Tubod. The wealth ranking helped to clarify the particular characteristics of each socio-economic group, such as size of holding, access to remittances and types of employment opportunities. It identified the categories which the research team needed for household interviews and surveys, and it assured that all voices were heard in the data-gathering process. 'Source: Adapted from Shields and B. Thomas-Slayter, 1993, "Gender, Class, Ecological Decline and Livelihood Strategies," p. 15. 90 iglIr) R AAWX it lllfilil (Venn Diagrams) There are many important actors and institutions in every commu- nity. It is critical to know which organizations are the most impor- tant and have the respect and confidence of the community. Institu- tional diagramming allows community members to gather informa- tion about the relationships of different organizations, as well as individuals, with one another and with outside groups. Using circles of different sizes to represent different organizations, institutions or influential people, participants create a visualization of these rela- tionships. Institutional diagrams can help participants: Purpdsel ,. understand how the community views these institutions and how they rank them according to their coritribution to community development; examine the problems of special groups, e.g., the women, the poor, the wealthy, the young and the elderly in a community; determine the internal and external resources that communitymembers can access. ProcQss! 1. Focus groups can be divided by gender, age, ethnic, socio- economic lines, or any other appropriate grouping such as village leaders or people who do not belong to any organization. 2. Through a group process, participants will decide which relation- ship is to be examined (e.g., the relationship of outside organiza- tions with the community, the alliance of organizations within the community, the relationship of village leaders and commu- nity members, and others). 'Source: Adapteu from The TriPARRD Committee, 1993, A Manual, pp. 84-88. B. Thomas-Slayter et al., 1993 Tools of Gender Analysis, p. 15 NES, et al., Participatory Rural Appraisal Handbook, pp. 48-49. 91 Institutional Diagrams 3. Cut out (ahead of time) different sizes of circles. Using differ- ently colored circles provides nice contrast. Local resources such as cut banana leaves can also be used. Also, draw a big circle on a large sheet of paper or newsprint. 4. Start the exercise by asking participants to list local organiza- tions, as well as outside institutions, that are most relevant to them. 5. Ask the participants to link the most important organizations in the community (in terms of their contributions to community development) to the largest circles, less important to medium- sized, and the least important to the smallest circles. 6. Indicate the name of the organization on each of the circles. Ask participants to place the circle inside the large circle on the sheet of paper. 7. Then ask which institutions work together and how closely. For those that cooperate or overlap a great deal, participants place the paper circles partly together. 8. Discuss as many institutions as possible and position them in relation to each other. There may be ample debate and reposi- tioning of the circles as the task continues. 9. Bring the groups together and compare the diagrams of each group, discussing how and why they differ. Sample questions to ask include: Tell us what you think about this institution in the large circle? What do they do? Tell me about the institution in the small circle? What is their work? Why has one group put a certain institution in the center of the diagram and another has given it a very small circle placed at the edges of the diagram? How is that organiza- tion relating differently to different members of the commu- nity? 92 Tool #9 Why has one group included fewer organizations in its diagram? To the group with fewer organizations in its community sample, questions might include: What do you know about x and y institutions? How do you feel about their role in the community? In what ways are you satisfied/dissatisfied with institutions in the community? What can they do to serve you better? How can you better make use of their services? Newsprint and markers t erla r, Tape or stapler m ,1....1 uVi 11 III!LIP .I II.64lIl n Circles of different sizes - large, medium, small Indicate the participants' names on the diagram to give them credit. N o el 111 II' l i t,i III Refer (Tool Focus for Fad I l litatorll to Facilitation #1) and Groups (Tool #7) more nl d information on leading groups in the construction of the Venn Diagram. See Conflict Management (Tool #4) for discussion on resolving dissention in groups. 93 Institutional Diagrams I', II , Ii li 'l tl IillllII IF'IIII II 11 161 VIII ,aii l: Figure 2.1. Gender Perceptions of Institutional Networks L il II''I Igllll i 111hiii VIIIIhlGil{I1111iViuh11 in El Zapote, Honduras* Youth lub Club Church occer Council of Co'n"qTearn Develo menc ,Association School Women's Perceptions Public Health PRODESAI ED Men's Perceptions The above illustration shows the importance of gathering information from both men and women about existing institutions. Focus groups discussions showed that men and women ranked the relevance of community groups for local welfare very differently. This example focuses on gender differences. Fur- ther differentiation is possible across socio-economic, age, and ethnic lines. *Source: Anne Marie Urban and Mary Rojas, 1994, Shifting Boundaries: Gender, Migration and Community Resources in the Foothills of Choluteca, Honduras, p. 35. 94 lll'i l V ' ! U. LJ ii'IIhIIV!nlffilll Baseline community data is usually collected by external researchers who take the information to be compiled and analyzed elsewhere. Community members are commonly unsure why particular ques- tions are asked and how the information is used. The demographic analysis activity allows people to analyze demographic data about their community as a means to assessing their needs. Using differ- ently sized and shaped local objects to represent groups by sex and age, participants create a visual representation of demographic groupings which provides a format for discussing specific needs and characteristics of individual groups. The demographic analysis activity allows communities to analyze ose the particular needs of different demographic groups and to use that data as a means for planning a program which serves priority needs. 1. Before the meeting, gather a large number of pebbles, seeds, Process1,1;1 I shells, or other local objects of different sizes, shapes or colors. Use objects of like sizes and shapes to represent demographic groupings. 2. Label one container with pictures or words for each demo- graphic group. Suggested categories are: Elders, Men, Women, Girls (age 5 - 16), Boys (age 5 - 16), Children (under age 5). 3. During a community meeting or other gathering, invite volun- teers to participate by selecting objects from each category to represent their family. A sufficient number of volunteers should be selected to provide a good representation of the community. Unless the community is very large, approximately one-third of the families is a good target. 4. Ask the volunteers to put the objects representing their families in the corresponding container. Leave a sample pebble or other 'Source: Adapted from L. Srinivasan, 1993, Tools for Community Participation, pp. 140-141. 95 Demographic Analysis object next to the label of each container to avoid confusion. 5. Ask the community to reflect on their demographic composition with questions such as: Which category has the largest number of people? What are the implications of this? Which group has the most immediate problems? What can be done about the problems? If a program focus exists, ask questions regarding special prob- lems such as: Which group is most affected by a lack of fuelwood? What do people in that group think about what should be done? 6. If suitable to the literacy of the community as a whole, write on chalkboard or newsprint key ideas elicited during this exercise. IIP "I: 'I'lll'll'il npl!!' " Pebbles or other small objects of different sizes, shapes and TpC,Fals colors Containers with labels or pictures Newsprint and markers or chalkboard (optional) In some cultures, people may not like the idea of being counted. ote s !to l , j't he i Field use in Asia has not encountered any resistance, but one trainer ` u l l 1' I 'II [I Fac I Ii tato,r has encountered problems in Africa. Make sure to find out how d. II IGIIIII I'I Ili I"I people feel about a census-like activity before using this tool. Do not use a chalkboard or newsprint to sum up key points if the information will only be accessible to privileged groups of people. For example, if men are mostly literate and women are mostly not, it would be better to simply reiterate key ideas verbally or using symbols rather than writing them. 96 ui I'C"lily q°,'I" I' 111{1199' 11 Ilil n"la {,'II!uf.41'1{i{illl{li IIIJIII 1illIIIIIII{i l{liilil{IVI{IPr{111411i1{IIlii Once a disadvantaged group has been identified, special efforts must be made to understand how programs may differentially affect that group. The special needs and skills of the priority group should be identified. Rather than have development agents "guess" what the unique circumstances are of a marginalized group, the Priority Group Analysis allows community members from both advantaged and disadvantaged groups to work together to analyze the situation of a marginalized group within a larger community. The Priority Group Analysis helps community members analyze the needs and potentials of a marginalized group in relation to a particular program area. !'i! 1. Divide participants into groups of ten or less members. P rocs :1 ; ' ;li iili,lln ..;I, I IJtll; Y 2. Give each group newsprint and markers. 3. Have participants draw one large circle on the newsprint with a smaller circle inside of it. The large circle represents the whole community; the small circle is the priority group. 4. Ask participants to write or draw in the larger circle all of the program-related problems that affect the entire community. For example, if the program has a health focus, participants should note problems related to health and sanitation. 5. Next ask participants to note program-related problems which affect the priority group and place these in the inner circle. Some of these problem will be the same as in the larger circle; some may be different. 6. Bring the groups together for a discussion. The facilitator may ask questions such as the following to focus the group: 'Source: Adapted from L. Srinivasan, 1993, Tools for Community Participation, pp. 140-141. 97 Priority Group Analysis How do the problems in the two circles differ? How are they the same? What solutions can be found which give priority to the needs of the disadvantaged group? What can the disadvantaged group contribute to a project (e.g., knowledge, resources)? ateriafs Newsprint Markers Do not ask people to write their ideas if a high rate of illiteracy exists Note's to,th, 6 or if particular segments of the community will not be able to partici- c .Itator pate. Symbols may be used. Or if the group is small enough, you may want to keep the group intact rather than subdivide. In this case the facilitator may write down the ideas along with the symbols and invite people to participate verbally. If this method is used the facilitator should consistently reiterate key ideas so that all partici- pants can follow. The drawback to this methods is that people are usually more apt to participate in smaller groups, but it may be the best method for a given situation. N Priority Group Analysis of Adivasi Women Exdty and Their Community SARTHI, an NGO based in Rajasthan, India, has been helping Adivasi women organize themselves around the rehabilitation and management of common lands. For a look at the experience of SARTHI and the Adivasi women's groups in Panchmahals District, see pp. 33-44 in Part I of the SEGA manual. In Figure 2.2 the large circle represents the program-related problems that affect the Adivasi community. Since the SARTHI program is focused on the rehabilita- tion of grazing lands, problems related to the lack of vegetative matter are listed. The program-related problems affecting the Adivasi women, the priority group, are noted in the smaller circle. Some of the problems facing the priority group are the same as those facing the community. Others, such as no land tenure and no crop ownership, pertain specifically to the Adivasi women. 98 Tool #11 Figure 2.2. Priority Group Analysis of Problems Facing Adivasi Women and their Community Adivasi Community Lack of ' Adivasi Lack of fuelwood Women fodder Lack of fuelwood Poor topsoil Lack of fodder No crop ownership More floods No land tenure Lower crop yields Poor topsoil 99 11 111 ;Irp 4 VIII lijl' II li II! VIII III ! III''. 'Il PIIi'l 1111 'I, I !'I'CI II lu"I°' 14III1,111 I I Illlllllll,llllilllll II'IIII, IIIIj !I IIII l III I Illlilil I i I" u l l it I lil 'I!!I I I IIIi t Iiil1 LEI I I Ij I I 'II II',I. I Il 12 Iag Sketch .. ii"IIIIIiIIIi IIIIiIi,liill 'I l.i!!L.;i. Ili I',,, ! I llilll' I .a II!I nllI' Ilill.Ii,d l ill Ill cle uu, I'I,unI IIIIII,iIIII I ! l'I Ia.lll it ''I Upon entering a community, it is often difficult to know where and how to begin using participatory methods for data gathering and project design. Most community members are not accustomed to being asked for their opinions and expertise. Conversely, participa- tory methodologies are new to many development professionals. The Village Sketch Map is often a good place to begin because it is an easy exercise that initiates dialogue among participants and organizers. While participants produce the map, issues emerge and discussions can begin about some of the community's problems. The map can also serve as a visualization of the initial conditions in the community which can be used as a point of comparison for project impact. I i i,a. 1?I'iIl I'I',Iill PlUrpose'Ilrtll The sketch map is a representation of a community and its resources which begins to focus participants and planners on problems and issues for further investigation. The simplicity of the exercise makes it a suitable entry point in which many participants can contribute. VIII I Process' 1. Ask participants who have gathered for the exercise to draw a IhI1191 I it sketch of their village on the ground using any local materials they choose. Participants may use sticks, pebbles, leaves, saw- dust, flour or any other local material. Paper and markers may also be used. 2. Participants should determine the boundaries and contents of the map, focusing on their perceptions and what is important to them. Maps may include: infrastructure (roads, houses, buildings) water sites and sources health, education, and religious facilities agricultural lands (crop varieties and location) agro-ecological zones (soils, slopes, elevations) 'Source: Adapted from John Bronson, 1995, Conducting PRA in the South Pacific, pp. 13-17. 100 Tool # 12 forest lands grazing lands other resource areas or special use places 3. Because this exercise is designed to understand local perceptions and relationships with resources, facilitators should be more concerned with the process than the results. It is important that the exercise not be dominated by a few individuals. Contribu- tions from members of marginalized groups may need to be especially sought. Some possible methods for balancing group contributions follow. Also see Facilitation (Tool #1). Ask uninvolved observers whether or not they think the placement of a particular feature is accurate. If they disagree with the placement, invite them to indicate its proper posi- tion. Ask observers to map something specific or give them a stick or other tool and ask them to indicate something they would like to see on the map. Ask a particularly dominant participant specific questions about the village. By engaging this person in conversation away from the map, his or her influence over the process can be lessened. 4. Sometimes more information will be elicited if separate groups form to make their own maps. Facilitators may want to suggest this if it appears that one group (male elders, for example) is dominating the process. Sometimes groups will choose to make their own maps without the facilitators' intervention. Separate group maps can be contrasted to provide useful information regarding each group's perceptions and priorities. 5. Throughout the exercise facilitators should note any information garnered during the process about both village resources and group dynamics. When the map(s) have been completed, participants should describe their representation. Facilitators will want to draw a copy of the map on paper for future reference. 101 Village Sketch Map 6. After maps have been completed and discussed, facilitators may want to ask participants to indicate some things they would like to see in their village that are not currently on the map. This allows an incorporation of preliminary planning components into the exercise. It also encourages people to begin contributing their thoughts at early stages of a participatory process. arr paper and pens for facilitators video to record process and product (optional) i' liiVh'h 'il 11411'111 ihllll;lllilll The sketch map is constructed on the ground to help ensure that all Not'eS to'`It community members can participate, including those uncomfortable Fad I Itator with paper and writing implements. This also allows a large crowd to 1.1 411!'11 view the map and contribute to it. The number of people involved in this exercise is less important than ensuring that all subgroups and interests within the community are represented. Facilitators need not be concerned if-there is a small turnout, especially if this is the first activity undertaken in a village. A positive exchange for participants during this process can help lead to more participation at later stages. In some situations it might be useful to assure participants that the sketch maps will not be used for taxing or controlling resources - that the maps belong to the community. Exam p',lelli,li Village Sketch Map Lesoma, Botswana* The sketch map exercise conducted in Lesoma helped to begin a dialogue between and among villagers and the external organizing group. Besides eliciting information on the village resources and infrastructure, issues such as limited transportation, few opportunities for employment, and concerns over rising population (particularly due to in-migration) were identified during the mapping. These issues were discussed openly as groups created and later presented their sketch maps to the larger group of participants. Opportunities to further analyze issues, state concerns, and search for solutions were provided during discussions following the mapping and with subsequent exercises. 'Source: Richard ford et at.., Managing Resources with PRA Partnerships: A Case Study of Lesoma, Botswana, p. 12. 102 Tool # 12 Figure 2.3. Village Sketch Map Lesoma, Botswana VILLAGE KDADS T1 6AKERI uNr p Pmvpae Pipe STAND ACACIA FGREsr ®Q IcTTIF, STORE WOODLAND Y+MAICFFICLr ®.RY GRAVEL PIT A VIUAME WATER -a vDc 6UILD1r1C5 a $DF ANY Mc UMMNr TTNK SCHOOL ` - EPRJNE, 19-fW COMMON C:EMETARY EE9 CLINIC_ UZ KS-%U KPt NT FARMS m YILtME rP1gHoLF OLD CEMETAWy 19 wALS -- - -OTPt AS kULTN =ARM -- EM STANDQIPE 103 Illill' iI 13 A time line is a list of key events in the history of a community that helps identify past events, problems and achievements. A trend line is a diagram or graph showing the significant changes in a commu- nity over time. Making both time and trend lines entails general discussions with community members on the important events that have happened in the locality. Involving older women and men in these activities is essential because they are more knowledgeable about past events. The time line helps the community organizer or field worker better Pur ilk', i I "IVIhVaui ,i', understand what local, national, and global events the community considers to be important in its history and how it has dealt with crises and natural disasters in the past. Trend analysis helps the field worker learn from the community how it views change over time in various sectors. Trend lines are helpful in identifying problems and organizing the range of opportunities for the community to consider. It also enables the community to focus their attention on the positive and negative changes over time of certain resource management practices. The field worker and participants can organize the range of opportunities for the commu- nity to consider. 1. Organize one or more groups of manageable size, especially roc including older men and women and long-time residents of the community for the time line exercise. The trend line activity can also include younger participants including leaders of church groups, women's cooperatives, self-help groups and men and women farmers. 2. Discuss with the group the purpose of making a time line or trend line. 'Source: Adapted from NES et al., Participatory Rural Appraisal Handbook, pp. 25-34 and TriPARRD Technical Committee, 1993, pp 50-66. 104 Tool # 13 3. For a time line start discussion by asking the group questions such as: When was the first settlement established? Who were the founding families? What is the first important event you can remember in your community? Have there been significant migrations in or out of your community? Have there been occurrences such as wars, famines, epidemics, natural disasters or significant historical events? What are some of the best things your community has done? 4. Once the time line is agreed upon, you can explore trends with the group. For a trend line, draw a blank matrix on the board or paper (see below). Indicate the years along the bottom axis. The facilitator decides on the interval of years s/he wishes to use, e.g., 1950, 1960, 1970, and so on. Explain how the years move from left to right along the axis and how the estimates of increase/ decrease are to be indicated on the vertical axis. Various trends can be explored: vital statistics, such as population, mortality and marriage age; quality of life indicators, such as health, nutrition, education and employment; and resource use and availability, such as water, firewood, land and fertilizer. Ask the group about significant changes in the community. Determine whether different events (epidemics, floods, infant mortality, deforestation, for example) seem to be increasing in intensity. 5. When the diagrams are done, encourage a discussion on the reasons for the trends that have emerged. This will help identify problems and activities to resolve the situation. For example, if the group agrees that deforestation is getting worse, ask why. Discuss what solutions have been tried in the past and how effective they were. Ask what might ease the situation. ateria Large pieces of paper and markers; or Chalkboard and chalk 105 Time and Trend Lines 9'pqglll'I'I;dR1141111II'I'lll"I'"' "'" Il,,l l,li; I I li Group discussions are preferred to interviews of key individuals be- ICJ Ot Jill cause they encourage dialogue among older participants, helping them dV'i IIII!'I `II,II' II II''l'l F cOij1 at °111iilllill'1II'i remember events from the distant past. 1 li!II1{lN111illli;IIl fill!II+ ill Time and trend lines allow the field worker to develop rapport with community members. By doing these exercises s/he is perceived by the residents as interested in learning about their lives. Ip Exarn Figure 2.4. Trend Lines from Hog Harbour, Espiritu, iifniullllll I i ail ili'ullUl Vanuatu* The trend lines below are taken from a PRA case study conducted in Hog Harbour, Espiritu, Vanuatu in September, 1994. The PRA team divided the community into two groups by gender. Each group charted the issues important to them. (Divisions could also have been made along class or geographic lines to highlight different perspectives.) The men's group charted a number of trends including population in the area. The men traced changes in the village population since its establishment. The chart below demonstrates a population decline for the first 40 years, due to poor health services and tribal conflicts. The population began to rise again after the churches established good health services and resolved tribal strife. The women highlighted the difficulties they faced as managers of households by charting the cost of living. In the charts below they noted that the increase in the price of goods outpaced the increase in wages. Population in the Area Cost of Living Trend Charted by Men's Group Charted by Women's Group M L 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 1990 1994 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 1990 1994 *Source: Bronson et al., Conducting PRA in the South Pacific, pp. 32-37. 106 NII 1 ,Iiil 1. i'. o, i IlII'llMil 111 VIII sIU41111iliiillliiiui11illliii liiilll Illol,`Illlllllluuuii II I Illilili6i!IiIii lll1 Ilil Ili lililllli6ll! lillillil!illilo l! i l Calendar Livelihood activities vary with seasonal cycles and by age and gender. The activity calendar makes patterns of production and subsistence (such as plowing, harvesting, marketing, animal care, and fetching wood and water) visible to development professionals and community members. By categorizing responsibilities by season, gender, age, and intensity of activity, the calendar highlights constraints to participation which can then be factored into project planning and timeframes. The Gender-Disaggregated Activity Calendar generates information on gender- and age-based seasonal divisions of labor in livelihood systems. The calendar can be a tool for working with the community to analyze livelihood responsibilities and to address imbalances between genders. idl'b,, plil I II 1. Calendars should be developed with both men and women's P roces$!; ill I l i Illllll' input across socio-economic groups, but the facilitator can work with individual key informants, families, or focus groups as best suits the situation. 2. Community members work with the facilitator to develop calen- dars fashioned after the model in Figure 2.5. The facilitator may want to prepare the calendar outline before the meeting leaving space to draw in the activities and agents during the meeting. 3. Those who perform activities (agents) should be separated by age and gender with separate symbols for adult male, child male, adult female, and child female as shown in the key to Figure 2.5. 4. Activities should be tailored to reflect the particular setting. Categories to consider include: 'Source: Adapted Thomas-Slayter et a/,,1993, Tools of Gender Analysis, pp. 22-23, and Feldstein and Jiggins, Tools for the Field, pp. 103-105. 107 Cender-Disaggregated Activities Calendar Stress periods: food shortages, drought, monsoon, extra expenses Household production: cooking, construction/home repair, childcare, care for elderly, fetching firewood, fetching water Animal care: small livestock, large livestock Farming activities: crops (cash and subsistence) listed by type, plowing, weeding, watering, preparing fields, harvesting, marketing Fishing activities: commercial or subsistence fishing, fishponds, marketing Other livelihood activities: wage/salaried labor, small handi- crafts, cottage industries 5. Activities may be divided by intensity of task by varying the type of line. As shown in the key in the calendar example, continu- ous activity is denoted by a solid line, sporadic activity is shown by a dotted line. A heavy black line may be used to show intense activity. 6. A group discussion to analyze the data on the Activities Calendar can enable communities to think through a number of issues. Some suggested areas of questioning follow: Why are there shortages of food or money during certain months? Who feels these shortages most? What is done to guard against shortages? What more can be done? Who is responsible for which types of livelihood activities? Does the division of labor seem fair? Are men working harder than women? What do people do during the months where activity is more sporadic? Who is doing which types of household tasks? How much time out of each day would you estimate these tasks take? Is this an equitable breakdown of tasks? Why or why not? 108 Tool #14 What jobs do children do? Do male and female children do the same jobs? Why or why not? Are children doing too much work? Too little? Why? A12;1 IIIIi';iiilJl 1 Poster board, newsprint, or roll of brown paper iif:i; 1111iiilltdidiI"!,iiilldlli iiiiiiiGlilNii:iiilii: Markers II ,: it The calendar is designed to elicit age and gender-disaggregated `I iI IIIi N ote Shiq1l:i:t' ,i information, but calendars will also vary along socio-economic lines. Facl i I it 'a Facilitators can control for this by developing calendars with repre- sentatives from high and low status groups. Or, if a project is focus- ing only on poorer groups, facilitators can develop calendars with these groups only. Wealth Ranking (Tool #8) can help to delineate between more and less advantaged groups so that facilitators can work with designated groups. 109 Gender-Disaggregated Activities Calendar "jilli'iiii161I1i!!!I!!!Ili$I'I Figure 2.5. Gender- Disaggregated Activities Calendar am, Calansi, Camarines Sur, Philippines* 4 ::we:t: Activities J F M A M J J A S 0 N D Stress Periods A M J J .A S O N 0 Many expenses fiesta, school fees - Christma Food/Money Shortages - - - - rough seas, typhoons, no harvest S , Ma `or Livelihoods c a "° _ $F k^ g};,,: Mx A M j 1 A 0 N D Tiger grass M F - - - harvest planting Copra M ------harvest eviry60-90 nonths Fishing Mm ------swordfish good catches Selling Fish F ------depends 6n success of catchei ------ M J N F A M A Household Tasks J= -S O D' Cooking F ------Cleaning F f ------Caring for is F f ------children Washing F f ------clothes Collecting F M ------fuelwood Fetching F M f m water furtherdistance during dry season + - Caring for F ------animals - - - - Sporadic Activity M = Adult Male - - - Continuous Activity m = Male Child F = Adult Female f = Female Child `Source: Andrea Esser, 1995, Trends and Transitions: The Relevance of Gender, Class and Age to Understanding Community Change in a Philippine Village. 110 iii I 11 1111111 ii 15 11 Ill 1111111 illli it II I $1 IIIGiI! IIiIITf111i Mobility is influenced by economic and social factors. Individuals grouped by characteristics such as class, gender, and ethnicity often move in patterns that reflect their socio-cultural or economic circum- stance. For example, women's mobility in traditional Muslim societ- ies is culturally limited. Yet economic conditions may necessitate that poorer women travel to markets or other work areas. Distances traveled for education will often depend in part on one's gender and socio-economic class. An understanding of patterns of movement of different sectors of a community can inform projects that address inequities while operating within existing contexts. I°I'IIIIffillllll'Itl'glilp,u'd!i;,.: A Mobility Map reveals the frequency, distance, and purpose of ' u rpbse l i ' ' ,IilPlli1111ll,i III!'IIIIJli;6iiliVlfl61111i,.IPI!. travel. It also shows how much time is spent traveling. An analysis of mobility allows researchers or development professionals to assess a group's mobility in terms of cultural constructs, time allocation, and resource access. Proves 1. Prepare a sketch map locating the community at the center with surrounding points of possible travel destinations. Reasons for travel may include work, health, education, social visits and marketing. 2. Using the sketch map as a guide, work with participants one at a time to note destination points, frequency and reason for travel, and time spent traveling. Write in any destinations or reasons for travel not on the original form. 3. Draw lines between the community and the destinations noting approximately how often a particular route is traveled and how long the journey takes. Different colored markers may be used to clarify the purpose of travel. For example, blue lines may be used for health-related trips and green lines may signify social visits. An alternate method to using markers is using `Source: Adapted from RRA Notes 10, pp. 14-15 Assessing Women's Needs in Gaza Using Participatory Rapid Appraisal Techniques. 111 Mobility Map different types of lines (e.g., dotted, straight, cross-hatched) as shown in Figure 2.6. Note: some destinations may have mul- tiple lines showing travel to the same place for different pur- poses. 4. Alongside each travel line, note how often the route is travelled for that purpose. For example, a line to a city for health services may be marked "4X/yr" to signify that the trip is undertaken approximately four times a year. Travel may be broken by years, months or weeks as best suits the group. 5. Mark each destination with the amount of time it takes to com- plete one round trip from home to the destination. Alternatively, the amount of time taken both travelling and performing a task may be noted. In Figure 2.6, for example, women are shown to spend 80 hours a month traveling to and from Cagayan de Oro city and shopping. 6. Mobility Maps should be done with a representative sample of community members so that comparisons may be made between groups along class, gender, religious or other lines. Maps may be consolidated within groups for easier comparison. 7. Work with groups to analyze and compare information elicited from maps. Sample questions include: Who spends the most time working? Is this what you would expect? What is the furthest distance people travel? For what purpose? Do all groups travel to the same places? Why or why not? What surprises you about this information? Does it seem right? Is it equitable? Should anything be changed? I ,r.U ;i 'Il' Ul'ilil iillililllill III A.I Copies of sketch maps ulillSil Colored markers or other writing implements 112 Tool #14 'llI!ikL.III The Wealth Ranking exercise (Tool #8) is a good way to divide I; Ililllilliiliiil;illl households into socio-economic groups. Wealth ranking can be - 4V -acid IIIIIIIItoIl;;llli done before making mobility maps to ensure that a sample represen- lul'!!!iCIIIIIIIVI!IIIiVIII.! I?Ililll! tation of all classes is obtained. Figure 2.6. Women's Mobility Map Salimbalan, Bukidnon, Philippines* Task Hours/Month $ $ $. Y. x Education 16 - - - - Health 4 Cagayan De Oro City -H N Church 8 00 CDI*oC Washing 11 d, 0 4-V-V11='K Meetings 16 P p o 0 0 0 0 Shopping 80 0 PO 0- 0-O- Visiting 80 0 Work 192 0 Elementary School o 0 J or 0O op Y 0 - dp Meeting Center o/O "o o P .bX11- P, k Farm Plots 'Based on field testing on Mindanao, the Philippines, June, 1995. 113 Part III - Procedures and Methodologies This part provides a general guide to RAFMS activities from start to finish. These include: (1) preparatory activities (e.g., site selection and team organization); (2) reconnaissance survey; (3) field data collection; (4) preliminary analysis of data; ()organization of initial results; (6) community validation; and (7) final report writing. Emphasis is given to field data collection. Each group of attributes to be examined is presented in a seven-column matrix that summarizes data collection and validation techniques. Sample tables, figures and charts are also shown. 21 PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGIES Step 1. Preparatory activities Preparatory activities include site selection, team organization, and collection and analysis of secondary data. They are done prior to field visit and are joint activities of RAFMS practitioners and local researchers. SITE SELECTION RAFMS can be used to evaluate fisheries management systems in any fisheries village or community. There are considerations that must be met, though. 1. There must be a group of local researchers (from government, aca- deme, private group or NGO) who are willing to collaborate. Without this group, it is extremely difficult for outside RAFMS practitioners to enter into a community. 2. The local fishing community (and local government authorities) must be willing to cooperate and actively participate. There is no use con- - ducting RAFMS in an area where the populace is hostile to the re- searchers. 3. Fishing must be an important economic activity. 4. The size of the area must be manageable enough so that fieldwork, in both land and sea, can be accomplished within four to seven days. Thus, focus is on the village or community rather than on the larger geographic or political area. If the area is large, like a bay or a gulf, two alternative approaches may be undertaken: subdivide the site into more manageable units and do a series of RAFMS or conduct RAFMS only in representative sample sites. 5. The fishing village must be accessible. TEAM ORGANIZATION Personnel requirement is dictated by the 33 attributes to be examined (Table 4). Although the suggested ideal is eight and the minimum is five researchers, this is not a hard-and-fast rule. Actual composition will be ulti- mately decided by factors such as expertise available, quality of secondary data and other practical realities in the field. Since RAFMS is multidisciplinary in approach, the more important consideration is balance of expertise coming from both natural and social 22 Table 4. Researchers required for the conduct of RAFMS. Group I. Biological, physical and technical Ideal Minimum attributes Physical attributes U resource use Land use planner/ U climatic data forester U physiography Coastal habitat U physical oceanography 7 Water quality expert U water quality analyst Biological and habitat attributes U seaweed/seagrasses Marine biologist/ 0 mangroves ecologist U coral reefs Technical attributes i gear/fishing technology Fisheries/marine species harvested Fisheries biologist biologist level of exploitation Group II. Market (supply-demand) attributes U supply of marine products U pricing scheme/system U market functions Li market rules Economist Economist _' stability of demand market structure U market orientation Group Ill. Characteristics of fisher, stakeholders and community U demography 7 Sociologist/ U tenurial status anthropologist U economic status : Economist Sociologist/ U culture anthropologist U livelihood (occupational structure) U attitudes and outlook of fishers Sociologist/ Li resource use/harvesting conflicts anthropologist U ecological knowledge D community Group IV. Fisher/community institutional and organizational arrangements U individual organizations Political scientist/ U institutional arrangements public policy analyst Group V. External institutional and organizational Political arrangements scientist/ U individual organizations Political scientist/ public policy U institutional arrangements public policy analyst analyst Group VI. Exogenous factors U natural calamities U macroeconomic/political/sociocultural I Resource planner 23 sciences, and ideally from integrative sciences such as environmental resource planning or systems analysis. It may be feasible to have two RAFMS practitioners complemented by four local researchers. For instance, RAFMS practitioners could consist of a fisheries biologist and an economist while the local researchers may be a marine habitat expert, an anthropologist, a public policy analyst and a resource planner. Given sufficient training in RAFMS, local researchers or NGO members may form a group and conduct the survey themselves. The long-term vision is for local scientists to be able to undertake RAFMS on their own. The position of the team leader is crucial because the success or failure of the exercise depends to a large extent on his/her handling of the situa- tion. He/she may be appointed beforehand or the team members may col- lectively decide among themselves who the leader will be. He/she may have no technical assignment or may be a leader of any subgroup acting in a concurrent capacity. In a typical RRA, some team members have dual roles: as technical specialist and as support staff for administrative operations. During preparatory and field activities, team members may be divided into three small groups: socioeconomic, institutional and biophysical. Each group must be handled by a leader specializing in socioeconomics, public policy/political science and marine/fisheries biology, respectively. Table 5 presents the actual composition of the RAFMS team in Indonesia. There must be at least a pair in each group. Similar to sondeo (Hildebrand 1981), members may be rotated during the conduct of the interviews. An expert from one discipline may join another group to provide an interdisciplinary perspective. As a rule of thumb, however, at least one specialist must remain Table 5. Composition of the RAFMS team in Nolloth Village, Saparua Island, Indonesia, 25-28 April 1995. Group/technical Institutional affiliation Administrative role expertise Biophysical group 1. Marine bioloolst RAFMS practitioner Group leader 2. Fisheries biologist Local research agency Treasurer 3. Resource economist Local research agency Socioeconomics group 4. Resource economist RAFMS practitioner Group leader 5. Sociologist Local research agency 6. Agricultural economist Local research agency Institutional group 7. Planner RAFMS practitioner Team leader 8. Resource economist Local research agency Co-team leader 9 Institutional economist RAFMS practitioner 10. Resource economist Consulting firm 24 in each group, e.g., one marine biologist must remain in the biophysical group or an economist in the socioeconomic group. COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF SECONDARY DATA Secondary data analysis operationally defines data coverage of appraisal and covers both published and unpublished data. Of significance here are the spatially related data, particularly thematic maps and aerial photographs. McCracken et al. (1988) emphasized that "time spent on quickly reviewing and summarizing secondary data in the form of simple tables, diagrams or brief written notes can be of considerable value in setting the RRA task in the context of previous work." This activity can be undertaken by means of a team workshop. The collection of hard copies of secondary literature is the responsibility of the collaborative local research group. The analysis of secondary data, however, is the joint responsibility of RAFMS practitioners and the local re- search group. The available secondary literature shall be evaluated by each concerned group. By convention, the socioeconomic group shall take charge of reviewing information relevant to social and economic characteristics (Groups II, 111, VI and some aspects of I); the institutional group, to organiza- tions, legal and institutional arrangements (Groups IV and V); and the bio- physical group, to natural resources and general environmental setting (Group I) The guide questions for each group of attributes (see section on tools and procedures according to group of attributes below) may help in the analy- sis of secondary data. This phase shall facilitate "scoping" of data to be collected in the field. The scale of base or working map must be agreed upon. Overlay map- ping will be facilitated at a later stage if all groups work with maps of the same scale. Maps with larger than 1:50,000 scale are recommended. Step 2. Reconnaissance survey This stage is the first field activity and is Step 2 in the RAFMS four- step process. It includes both field reconnaissance and final selection of survey instruments. One to two days must be allotted for this purpose. FIELD RECONNAISSANCE The main purpose of field reconnaissance is for team members to use their "power of observation" to get a general "feel" of the fishing village and 25 to set activities for field data gathering (Step 3). This stage allows the mem- bers to familiarize themselves with important field features, such as terrain, natural resources and concentration of fishing activities and human settle- ment, and to know firsthand the feasibility of conducting surveys. Dangers (e.g., peace and order situation), may be evident at this stage. As part of research, members shall annotate the checklist of field indica- tors provided in each of the six matrices (see Appendix). The base/working maps must be annotated. The initial transect map may be also constructed to include observations about key biophysical processes, social events and relationships between people and their natural environment. Reconnaissance makes possible the identification of various fishing zones and the noting of differences between reported and real conditions. Such annotated notes will be helpful in revising, as needed, guide questions for semistructured interviews (SSTs). Instruments or equipment must also be checked if they are working under field condition, e.g., a handheld global positioning sys- tem, camera, compass and water quality kit. The team may also settle administrative arrangements such as briefing local government officials and community organizations on upcoming RAFMS, arranging accommodations of the team during the survey and list- ing key informants. Where applicable, respondents or key informants may be also organized in fishing communities, according to ethnolinguistic origin or groups, such as cooperatives. These teams shall be used when conduct- ing focused group discussions (FGDs). The selection of respondents and key informants must ideally represent a cross-section of the target population. In this case, fishers that include men and women, young and adult, are the target population. The respond- ents may be divided into groups, for example, according to income level, occupation, gear type. There is no rigid rule on the ideal number of respond- ents because the sample population is not subjected to a statistical analy- sis. The key informants must have special knowledge of the site and can discuss key issues or specific topics. They include but are not limited to the following: local government officials, community leaders, elders, teachers, model citizens and religious leaders. Special attention should be given to elders because of their knowledge of informal fisheries management sys- tems in the area, handed down to them through generations. DETERMINATION OF SURVEY INSTRUMENTS Based on the annotated checklist, decisions may have to be made in terms of revising survey instruments, particularly SSIs. Some RAFMS tools 26 initially considered, e.g., FGD, may have to be dropped or altered. New techniques may be also introduced. Step 3. Field data collection Field data collection, Step 3 of the RAFMS cycle, is divided into two parts. The first describes generic or general RRA tools which may be used for RAFMS. The second describes detailed methodologies that include sur- vey procedures, guide questions and the matrix of attributes and their data collection techniques. Sample figures, tables and diagrams are also pro- vided. The methodologies are classified according to six groups of attributes. GENERAL TOOLS A variety of techniques or tools can be used for collecting RAFMS pri- mary data. Many of these are fairly standard tools for conducting rapid ap- praisal. They overlap with one another. McCracken et al. (1988); Sajise et al. (1990); Townsley (1992, 1993a, 1993b); Schonhuth and Kievelitz (1994); and Mikkelsen (1995) may be referred to for detailed descriptions of such tools or techniques. Basic definitions follow. Semistructured interviews (SS) Probably the most powerful of RRA techniques (McCracken et al. 1988), the semistructured interview(SSI) is a field technique where the informant is guided by the researcher in session interview by means of a key, predeter- mined set of questions. Through an interview schedule, the construction of key questions must be prepared with care. Table 6 is a guide to conducting SSIs. This technique, however, is flexible because new lines of questioning or inquiry can be opened during the actual interview. The SSI is ideal for dis- cussing specific topics or issues, building up case studies and collecting historical information. The information derived from SSIs will be among the most vital acquired during field data gathering if one knows in essence what to ask, how to ask and whom to ask (Sajise et al. 1990). Group interviews A variant of SSI, group interview is used in both field data gathering and community validation. Among the popular versions are FGDs. Dur- ing fieldwork, it is effective in identifying social norms and accepted views; 27 Table 6. Guide to conducting SSIs (adapted from Sajise et at. 1990). 1. Properly introduce yourself before starting the interview. 2. Those who are conducting the interview should be familiar with the local dialect; if not, bring an interpreter. (If an interpreter is used, it is important that he/she understands the objectives and applications of RAFMS. If necessary, involve the interpreter in the re- searchers' discussions so meaning and style of interaction are not lost in the translation.) 3. Put the fisher or key informant at ease before starting the interview. Ask easy questions first before difficult ones. 4. Do not ask leading questions. Open-ended questions should be used to generate more information. 5. Do not write in front of fishers or carry tape recorders unless they give prior permission. 6. Do not promise anything. 7. Do not ask questions simultaneously. 8. Use indirect questions for sensitive aspects, e g., income, ownership, disability, age, marital status, educational attainment, etc. 9. Blend in with the fishers' activities. 10. Be conscious about the time you conduct and spend during the interview. 11. Do not abuse fishers' hospitality. Try to pay/compensate for products given in great quan- tities. 12. Obtain information from other members of the family, e.g., wife, children. 13. Do not interpret in front of fishers. pinpointing special interest groups; and knowing collective views and feelings. It may be used at the end of the fieldwork to cross-check infor- mation. FGDs can be used to generate more information regarding specific topics. Separate sets of key questions or interview schedules may be prepared and administered to an ethnolinguistic group, e.g., those who speak Cebuano in the Philippines, or to a particular organization, e.g., a multipurpose cooperative. FGDs can also facilitate accumulation of diverse information, such as market- ing structure, problems and priorities. Table 7 provides useful hints on conduct- ing FGDs as well as community dialogues and meetings. Participatoly exercises Among the popular modes of participatory exercise are: diagramming, rank- ing, and stories and portraits. Diagrams are simply models that convey informa- tion in easily understandable visual forms. They have the advantage of forcing participants to think through the dynamics while constructing the models. Dia- grams are also a good medium for stimulating discussion with local people as well as communicating ideas and findings. Following the AEA concept (Conway 1985, 1987), diagrams may be expressed in terms of space, time, flow and decision. Ranking is an analytical game used to find out the preferences or priorities of an individual or a group. It takes various forms. A simple ranking may only ask a series of simple questions while a more complex one uses a series of two-way comparisons. Stories and portraits are short, colorful. descrip- tions of situations encountered by the team or stories recounted by people in 28 Table 7. Guide to conducting FGDs and community dialogues (adapted from Sajise et al. 1990). 1. Set the meeting at a date, time and place most convenient to the community. 2. Assign someone to preside over the meeting, and request a local leader to introduce the group to the community. 3. State clearly the purpose of the visit. 4. Maintain eye contact especially with the less active members of the community to encourage them to participate in the discussion. 5. Tactfully tone down community members who tend to monopolize the discussion. 6. Do not leave issues hanging. Carefully synthesize the discussion and dearly phrase the conclu- sions for approval. the field (McCracken et al. 1988). As such, they describe information not easily converted or transformed into diagrams. Local folk relate best to stories and portraits as a way of describing their way of life. Reporting and brainstorming These tools are done all throughout the field activities to cross-check find- ings and review the methods and techniques used. Both reporting and brain- storming may also be used to monitor progress of the appraisal. Mapping Spot mapping or sketch mapping is a simple procedure of laying down on paper the important features of an area, which can be related in spatial terms or referenced geographically. Among these features are settlements, infrastruc- ture and water bodies. The spot map must corroborate the map prepared dur- ing the earlier secondary data analysis, and portray the top view or aerial per- spective of the study area-(Fig. 6). The spot map is useful in locating all households or clusters of households in a community. It can be used to select a random sample if necessary. For RAFMS, maps are especially important in locating marine resources, fishing areas and gear, water transportation routes and fish landing facilities. This map can also be used to segregate the community according to ethnic group, clan, family, wealth, length of residence, etc. The main points to remember are (Townsley 1993b): 1. Maps made during a rapid appraisal do not need to be exact, but they have to be clear since they will be mainly used to represent issues or par- ticular aspects of the community. 2. If good maps are available, trace an outline of the main features of the area being investigated, fill in the details and reproduce for team mem- bers. 29 Water Temple 2° Channel tower Fields worst affected by salinization Well D p Partly constructed ODD colony houses Colony ------^n ' houses -'O O 0 nnn ,n Traditional p?o jn r /1 Nyt houses n n , 1 1 n n f Trees I I t f'3 0 Sea Fig. 6. Spot map of Chinnamedu Village, Tamil Nadu, South India, pre- pared with the villagers (Townsley 1993a). 3. Prepare sketch maps based on information provided by local people, or ask the local people to prepare the maps themselves. 4. Don't try to get too much information into one sketch map. Transect-making' A transect is a general reference line cutting across a representative portion of the study area (Sajise et al. 1990). In effect, the transect line is the side view or cross-section of the site. Transects are both a way of representing information and a technique for familiarizing with the different parts of the community and the agricultural and ecological zones that make up the area (Townsley 1993b). Among the advantages of a transect is the simple portrayal of the resources present and the associated economic, social and environmental issues in spatial terms (Fig. 7). The four simple steps to transect-making are (Sajise et al. 1990) 1. Locate a line that will cut across the study site. 2. Superimpose along the transect line the critical biophysical infor- mation, such as slope, type of soil, marine habitats, etc. 3: Indicate the major resource uses, such as farming systems and fishing practices. 4. Plot out the problems encountered. 30 1,000rn Forest Marine/ 500rrj..__J Lowland rushland atitiiti coastal o- IPT!ft Slope Level to gently Strongly rolling to mountain entle slope Tuiird to roiiin^y ( .1 m) sloping (0.8%) 1Un ('18%) Sitidam Sandy, moody .n loam to sin aay andy clay loam co clay to clay General problems 1 Lack of production implements 2 Traoe monopoly 3 Siltat on 4 Lack of postproduction facilities 5 Lack of capital 6 Lack of appropriate technology 7 Inadequate drinking water facilities 8 Lack of transportation and communication facilities 9 Poor health and educational facilities and services Fishery problems t Declining fishery production 2 Illegal fishing 3 Freshwater flooding 4 Depos;non of agricultural chemicals Agricultural problems I Saltwater intrusion 2. Forest destruction 3 Vulnerability of soil to erosion 4 Low soil fertility 5 Flooding 6 Tenunal status 7 Pest and diseases Fig. 7. Transect of Malampaya Sound, Palawan, Philippines (Pido et al. 1990). 31 In the case of a large gulf or bay where there is great variation in terms of natural resource endowment or fisheries issues, several transect lines may have to be drawn to account for such variations. Timelines Timelines give a clear idea of what events in the past are considered important and how they occur in a sequence (Townsley 1993b). They can be used to represent data provided by informants. Calendarn Calendars show data relevant to fishing patterns and of labor throughout the year and food availability from different sources. Townsley (1993b) recommended these procedures on making calendars: 1. Find out how local people divide up the year, i.e., months, seasons, etc. Mark these divisions along the top of the calendar. 2. Focus attention on one particular aspect, e.g., time of access to fish- ing ground. 3. Plot responses on your calendar, or explain it to informants and get them to plot the topics themselves.'The calendar can be drawn on the ground. Historical transects Historical transects consist of a series of transects that illustrate how a particular area has changed over time. They show changes in land use in different zones along a transect or modifications in fishing practices through time. Transects are prepared as follows (Townsley 1993b): 1. Together with an informant, draw a transect through the area of inter- est. This can be derived from a more complete transect already prepared to tag the agroecological zones (fishing zones in the case of RAFMS) in the area. This can also be done from scratch. 2. Get the informant to describe what current conditions are like in each zone or in particular parts of the transect. 3. Ask what conditions were like 10 years ago, 20 years ago and so on. 4. Redraw the transect and strive to represent these conditions schematically. Process charts Helpful in breaking down and analyzing important activities (Townsley 1 993b), process charts specify the people involved in activities and alternative 32 ways of doing these activities. They get respondents to focus on and explain features of activities they might otherwise take for granted and not reveal to outsiders. The charts are particularly good for analyzing economic activities, and attendant inputs and outputs. They are prepared thus (Townsley 1993b): 1. Focus the informants' attention on a particular activity. 2. Ask them to describe in detail how the activity is carried out. 3. If informants try to rush through the description superficially, stop them and get them to describe in greater detail. 4. For each step in the activity, ask what inputs are involved, the quan- tities required, cost per unit of input and the resulting product or products, if any. 5. Mark each step down as a box in a process, with the inputs or outputs noted beside it. 6. Work through-the activity from beginning to end to get a complete picture. Decision trees Valuable in grasping resource management strategies of users, deci- sion trees also unearth reasons why users take up or give up particular technologies (McCracken et al. 1988). These trees analyze factors influenc- ing the local people's important decisions, thus clarifying their priorities. For fishers, the trees are useful in illustrating their decisions on resource alloca- tion and alternative or supplemental economic activities. Townsley (1993b) proposed that decision trees be created in two ways: 1. Start from a particular resource or activity and establish what alterna- tives are available. For example, point out different ways of using the same resource or activity. Find out why people decide on one alternative or the other. For each alternative, find out what further choices are available and why people might choose them. 2. Start from existing practices, find out what alternatives are available and what influences choices of alternatives. Work backwards through the various alternatives until the "original" resource and the decisions on its use are reached. Venn diagrams Venn diagrams can be used to show the relationships between different groups and organizations within a community (Fig. 8). Particularly useful in identifying potential conflicts between interest groups, Venn diagrams also clarify roles of individuals and institutions. They are prepared based on data 33 Fig. 8. Venn diagram of institutions on Kampai Island, North Sumatra, Indonesia (Townsley 1993a). provided by informants about groups and institutions. Townsley (1993b) recommended that team members should find out, with care, sensitive infor- mation about leadership, membership, activities, decisionmaking processes and interaction or conflicts. TOOLS ACCORDING TO GROUPS OF ATTRIBUTES The six groups of attributes have their own matrices (see Appendices) where the field data collection techniques are identified, among other as- pects. Group I - Biological physical and technical attributes Matrix 1 lays out Group I's attributes and techniques for data collection and validation. Much of the data for physical attributes may be generated through resource mapping. Key activities include demarcation of study area, establishment of base map and preparation of different thematic maps. These activities determine both marine and terrestrial extents of the study area. Since the focus of RAFMS is on the village level, maps of at least 1:50,000 in scale are required. The base and working maps should have the same scale. 34 A thematic map displays selected information relating to a specific theme, such as land use, coastal habitats, slope, elevation and soil. These may be qualitative (e.g., land use) or quantitative (e.g., population density). The three requisite thematic maps are land use, coastal habitats and transect/cross- section. All or some may be sourced from government agencies. A land use map refers to the actual land cover or any form of man's use of land, including special uses, such as built-up (settlement) and commer- cial areas or marginal lands. If this map is not available, the team can do spot mapping. A spot map is a sketch map that describes the area in terms of important features, such as roads, rivers, benchmarks, and natural or cultural landmarks. The team can determine distances with a measuring tape and geographical directions, i.e., east, west, north or south, with a compass. A spot map should be comprehensive in terms of all the charac- teristics of the area but clear enough to be understood by the users. Land use must be viewed from a historical perspective. The guide ques- tions for generating the elements of a land use map are given in Table 8. A coastal habitat map shows the location of mangroves, coral reefs, sea- weed/seagrass beds and other soft-bottom communities. It can be derived from a topographic map or generated through spot mapping. The land use and coastal habitat maps may be also merged. A transect map is produced by plotting alongside environmental resources the various problems and opportunities existing in the study area. (See earlier section on general tools, p. 30, for a review of transect-making.) The other maps, which are ideal to have on hand but are not obligatory, are the soil map, slope map and cli- matic map. For the water quality attribute, water transparency and pollution level indicators can be evaluated qualitatively. For example, murky waters indi- cate high suspended solids or a high silt load. The presence of floating solid waste indicates poor domestic or industrial waste management in the area. There are field techniques for assessing biological and habitat attributes, particularly major coastal habitats. For coral reefs, a rapid visual survey us- ing the manta tow reconnaissance technique is recommended as the basic minimum in assessing the quality of coral cover. This technique enables visual assessment of large reef areas within a short time and is highly rec- ommended for selecting sites for more detailed transect studies (Dartnall and Jones 1986; English et al. 1994). It is conducted by towing a snorkeler holding a manta board following the contour of the reef slope. The tow lasts for two minutes at a speed of 1 to 1.5 knots (0.77-1.03 m/s). This reconnais- sance technique allows the snorkeler to observe the coral community and describe it semiquantitatively by making estimates of the percentage cover 35 Table 8. Guide questions for land use, 1. Profile of the respondents Name: Age: Position: (i.e., village captain, elder, key informant) Address (i.e., village, town) 11. Data/information needed A. General land use 1. When did you arrive in the area (year)? What were the original land uses in the area? Approxi- mately, what is the area in hectares? 2. Has there been a change in the use of the land through time (the first time you arrived compared to the present)? What are the changes? B. Settlement pattern 1. Was there a settlement already? Approximately, what is the area? 2. Approximately, what is the present area covered by settlement? 3. How fast is the expansion of settlement? What is the direction (i.e., lateral or along the shore, or towards inland)? 4. What is the previous land use of the area covered by-expanded settlement (i e., agriculture, grassland, forest, etc.)? 5. If the direction of settlement expansion is inland, do you clear the area (cut trees or clear grass- land) for settlement? 6. What is the extent of clearing (area)? C. Mangrove area 1. Was there a mangrove area when you first arrived in the area? Approximately, how larce is the area? Describe the type (in terms of density and size of the tree). Where is it located? 2. Are the mangrove areas still there? Have they changed in area coverage and type? 3. Is there mangrove harvesting in the area? For what purpose, and what is the extent of harvesting? 4. Is there mangrove reforestation in the area? Who conducted the reforestation activity? Who is managing the reforestation area? What is the people's perception of mangrove reforestation? What are the benefits that the people can derive from mangrove reforested areas? D. Agriculture area 1. Is there any agricultural cultivation in the area? Where is it located? What type of crops are grown in the area? Approximately, what is the area of each crop? 2 In the uplands, is there also any form of cultivation? For what crops? What is the extent of cultiva- tion (in terms of area coverage) for each type of crop? of live, dead and soft corals using these categories: 1= 0-10%; 2 = 11-30%; 3 = 31-50%; 4 = 51-75%; and 5 = 76-100%. If time, equipment (i.e., SCUBA) and expertise are available, the more detailed study using line intercept method and fish visual census described by English et al. (1994) may also be done. These techniques will provide more reliable information on the percentage cover of living corals and rela- tive abundance or density of reef fishes, respectively. The manta tow technique can be employed also to check the extent or relative cover of seaweeds and seagrasses. If time permits and expertise is available, the modified transect-quadrat methoddescribed by Saito and Atobe (1970) and English et al. (1994) can be used to determine the species com- position or relative density of cover of both communities. For mangroves, the transect line plot method described by Dartnall and Jones (1986) should only be conducted in the absence of secondary data in 36 the study area and only if there is enough time. The method determines relative frequency, density and species diversity of mangroves. For each site, transect lines are drawn from the seaward margin of the forest at right angles to the edges of the mangrove forest. Plots are established at 10-m intervals along a transect through the mangrove forest in each of the main forest type or zone. The method provides quantitative descriptions of the species composition, community structure and plant biomass of mangrove forests. The technical attributes indicate what type of overfishing occurs and to what extent the study area is overfished. Table 9 presents an SSI guide questionnaire for capture fisheries assessment. Done properly, the SSI can generate data about the major species harvested, fishing grounds, the number of gear or fishers, and conservation awareness. It can also estimate fishing effort (Table 10), seasonality of species by gear type (Table 11) and catch rate changes over time (Fig. 9). The focus should be on gear composition of local versus migratory fishers. Site inspection shall be undertaken to deter- mine the use of destructive fishing methods. Group 11- Market (-5u y and demand) attributes Matrix 2 presents the market (supply and demand) attributes of fisheries and the tools/techniques for data collection and validation. Market informa- tion and orientation will be gathered mainly through these field data collec- tion techniques: SSI, FGD, market visit, and temporal diagramming or com- binations thereof. For SSI, only some questions and topics are predetermined, so probing can be extensive. Probing refers to follow-up questions aimed at clarifying a previous answer to a question or pursuing a previous topic. Individual re- spondents, key informants or groups may be interviewed. Attention must be given to the selection of respondents, time and location of interviews. Table 12 is a checklist of guide questions for market attributes. The FGD for homogenous groups can be conducted to gather informa- tion on specific topics and problems. Groups then will have the opportunity to answer specific questions and issues peculiar to their group or sector. Table 13 is a summary of relevant fish prices volunteered by fish traders during an actual FGD. SSIs and FGDs can be conducted for different types of persons involved in fish marketing, such as fishers, wives of fishers, fish traders, fish consumers, fish processors, boat operators, market agents, transporters and other market participants. The market visit is an ocular inspection of relevant fish products and byproducts in the marketplace. It is also a way of checking prevailing prices 37 Table 9. Guide questions for capture fisheries assessment. Name of respondent: Barangay/village: Municipality/province: Age of respondent: No. of years as fisher: Fishing gear used: No. of hours spent using gear type: Departure time: Arrival time: Is the catch increasing or decreasing? Previous catch rate (per day trip): Year: Current catch rate (per day trip): Reasons for change in catch rate: Are there changes in catch composition? Previous species caught (major species): Current species caught (major species): Fishing areas of major gear (use base map): Is there a shift in fishing areas? Reasons for shift in fishing areas: Previous fishing areas (use base map): Fig. 9. Trend of the catch rate of some species in Nolloth Village, Saparua Island, Indonesia (Andamaki et al. 1995). 38 Table 10. Estimates of fishing effort and season in Nolloth Village, Saparua Island, Indonesia, 1995 (Andamaki et al. 1995). Gear type No. of units Species caught Seasonality Volume of catch No. of fish (months) (per day trip) days/month Drift gillnet for flying fish 350 Flying fish Year-round 25 kg 20-25 Half-beaks Year-round 15 kg 20-25 Drift gillnet 75 Indian mackerel Sep-Dec 35 kg 20-25 (150 ind.)* Squid jigger 350 Yellow tail squids Jan-Apr 25 kg 20-25 Oct-Jan (200 ind.) 20-25 Handline I 100 Trevallies Year-round 510 ind. 20-25 cD Handline II 1.000 Scads Year-round 100 ind. 20 Handline III 5-10 Tuna Dec-Apr 25 kg 20-25 (2 ind. ) Troll line 1,000 Skipjacks Sep-Apr 25 kg 20-25 (10 ind.) Pole and line 4 Skipjacks Jun-Aug 500 ind. 15-20 Mini purse seine 4 Sardine Jun-Aug 250 kg 15-20 Scads Jun-Aug 250 kg 15-20 Beach seine 3 Anchovy Year-round 25 kg 20-25 Cast net 7 Anchovy Year-round 20 kg 20-25 'Ind. - number of individuals. Table 11. Seasonality of species by gear type in Binunsalian Bay, Palawan, Philippines, 1995 (Sta. Cruz et al. 1995). Gear type/species J F M A M J J A S 0 N D Kawil (Hook and line) Bisugo (Threadfin bream) Sa/imburao (Mackerel) Lapulapu (Grouper) Salay-salay (Crevalla) Larnbat (Gillnet) Bisugo (Threadfin bream) Isdang balo (Parrotfish) Dalagang bukid (Fusilier) ""> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Lapulapu (Grouper) Banak (Mullet) Sapsap (Slipmouth) Salmonele (Goatfish) Salimbarao (Mackerel) Salay-salay (Crevalla) Matang baka (Big-eyed scad) Talakitok (Long-finned cavalla) Danggit. Samaral (Rabbitfish) Pana (Speargun) Isdang bato (Parrotfish) Lapulapu (Grouper) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Maya-maya (Snapper) Gear operation Species seasonality Peak Lean - - - - No seasonality XXXXX Table 12. Guide questions for the market attributes. Supply What types of fish are caught ? When (what months) is fishing prevalent? Where are the different kinds of fish caught? What are the types of fish sold? Where are the different types of fish sold? Pricing How much do different classes of fish cost at the time of harvest? How much do different types of fish cost in the market? How are fish products priced? What other factors influence fish prices? What are the types of fisher-buyer relationships in the village? Are the fish prices affected by changes in prices of substitutes, such as pork? Market functions How is the fish catch handled? How is the fish catch packaged? How is the fish catch stored? How is the fish catch transported? Are fish graded/classified? How? Are fish processed? How? What are the marketing facilities, e.g., transportation/road networks, landing sites, port areas? Market rules Are there fees for landing the fish at the port? How much has to ba paid for fish landing? What are other restrictions or rules in fish trading? Stability of demand Is the demand for fish and other marine products changing? What are the reasons and patterns of change? Is there a change in d eta-y preferences? What is the rate of subst tution? Market structure and orientation What are the types of fishers, e g., municipal, commercial? How many fishers are there in the village? How many of the fishers are residents of the village and how many are not (i.e., migrant fishers)? At the local market, what is the ratio of direct buyers (consumers) to traders? How many fish traders are there? How does the fish catch reach the market? How many channels do they pass? Where are the markets? (e.g., local, city, provincial/regional, national, international export, etc.) Where are the fish traders from? How is price information disseminated? Are there traditional marketing arrangements? Is there a credit-marketing relationship between fish and fish trader? What are the problems in marketing of fresh fish? What are the constraints in marketing other fish products? 41 Table 13. General price levels of fish and marine products by channel and grade in Binunsalian Bay, Palawan, Philippines, 1995 (Sandalo et al. 1995). Type/class of fish Price range per kil ogram (in pesos) Fisher to consumer Fisher to fisher trader 1st 20-25 40 2nd 15-20 25-30 3rd 10-15 15-25 Others: squid, octopus, cuttlefish 20-25 40 USS1,00 = P26.02 as of March 1996. of fish products, both wholesale and retail. This visit also helps analyze the marketing process as well as market structure and orientation. Effective in gathering market information, temporal diagrams are graphic depictions of data on various topics, issues and concerns along the tempo- ral dimension. Group III - Fisher, stakeholder and community attributes The attributes of fishers and community stakeholders and tools/techniques for data collection and validation are plotted out in Matrix 3. Vital information on these characteristics are gathered mainly through SSI, FGD, house or home visit, temporal diagramming, resource mapping, and walk-through and boat ride. The SSI is used with individual and group respondents according to the procedure already explained in the section on Group 11 attributes. A guide questionnaire on the characteristics of fishers, stakeholders and the com- munity is given in Table 14. The FGD is used for gathering information from groups of persons who are expected to share common knowledge on specific issues. A summary of relevant information, which can be obtained during an FGD, is shown in Table 15. SSIs and FGDs will be conducted for different types of stakeholders, e.g., coral reef fishers, fisher-farmers, women, youth , elders, traders, mi- grant settlers, local government officials and others to determine, among other things, ecological knowledge. The house/home visitis an ocular inspection of the type of dwelling place of local folk, their real properties and assets. This also gives the researcher a good chance to observe the way of life, traditions, family activities and social structure prevailing in a given community. Usually, a visit can be com- bined with an SSI. 42 Table 14. Guide questions for the characteristics of fishers and community stakeholders. Demography Who is the oldest resident of the village? When did he arrive there? Are the local folk original inhabitants of the place or not? If migrants, where did they come from? When did they arrive? Are there schools in the village? Do the children and youth go to school? What is the prevailing religion? What are the other sects? What is the average family size? Tenurial status Do people own real properties? How about their home lots? What are the existing tenurial arrangements? Are there property rights in fishing areas? Do local fishermen establish boundaries in their fishing areas? Economic status What types of dwelling places exist in the village? What other assets, i.e., furniture, appliances, are commonly owned by the residents? What fishing gear, i.e., boats, engines, nets, do residents own? Culture What special occasions are observed by the local folk? What beliefs, superstitions, practices do the fishers/local folk adopt in relation to fishing? What are the people's pastimes and recreational activities? Livelihood What is the main source of livelihood and income? What are other alternative or supplementary sources of income? How many families/households depend on fishing for their livelihood? What is the proportion of the population dependent on other types of livelihood? Attitudes/outlook How do the local folk perceive the future of fishery resources? How do the local folk perceive their livelihood in the future? How do the local folk value cooperative action and community projects? How do the local folk identify with the larger community, i.e., town, province? Are community members concerned about the sustainability of resource use? What are their attitudes towards risk? Resource use/harvesting conflicts Are there conflicts in the fishing activity and use of other marine resources? What is the nature of these conflicts (gear, space, organization)? How are conflicts resolved? Are there informal ways of resolving conflicts? Ecological knowledge Do the resource users have indigenous or traditional ecological knowledge of the fisheries and coastal resources? Is the traditional ecological knowledge passed through generations? Is this traditional ecological knowledge compatible with conventional science? How does ecological knowledge relate to the conservation of marine habitats? Community What are the housing/settlement patterns? What are the services available in the community, e.g., health, physical infrastructure, communica- tions? What is the type and structure of formal political system? What are the linkages between formal and informal governance? 43 Table 15. An example of comparative socioeconomic characteristics of fishers/stakeholders in Manabore and Tarunayan, Ulugan Bay, Palawan, Philippines, 1995 (Sibal et al. 1995a). Attributes Indicators Manabore Tarunayan 0 demography age - new settlers; more of more of old population young population experience - experience carried over from experience carried over from in fishing previous place of residence previous place of residence length of - since 1987 since 1957 residence family size - 4-5 members 7 members religion - Pentecostal, Oneness United Church of Christ in with Christ the Philippines, Evangelist, Roman Catholic ethnicity - Leyte, Cebu, Masbate Bohol, Cebu, Samar, Iloilo population - with first-generation settlers more dense (man-land ratio) compared with Manabore U tenurial status land claim squatters in the area but they - unwritten land claims are not threatened (with relocation) fishery claim fish cages/corrals; areas - fish cages/corrals do not based on unwritten agreement exist in the area between operators they were not issued permits - hook-and-line fishers can by the city government for the fish anywhere previous and current years Temporal diagramming for Group III attributes is best illustrated by Table 16, a timeline. A chronology of significant events in the history of a commu- nity, a timeline is constructed together or in consultation with the local folk. It is ideally composed for specific events, such as migration patterns, popula- tion changes, livelihood changes, establishment of schools, social infrastruc- ture, industries, political history of village, etc. Resource mapping can be used to determine resource use/harvesting conflicts. The walk-through and the boat ride should be done in tandem to comple- ment other activities of field data gathering. Going around the village and the relevant fishing areas presents a broader perspective of the develop- ments in the community, e.g., the social infrastructure present; the sociocul- tural, political and religious activities in the area; and the state of the natural resource base. These techniques are also useful in observing the local folk's livelihood activities, including fishing, which is important to the community profile. Groups IV and V - Local and external institutional arrangements Matrices 4 -and 5 are outlines of the attributes of Group IV's local and Group V's external institutional arrangements as well as of the tools for data 44 Table 16. Timeline of Nolloth Village, Saparua Island, Indonesia, 1517-1995 (Hiariey and Kinseng 1995). Year Event 1517 Move from Nolloth and Hatarena to Air Ratu. 1603 War against the Dutch colonials. 1652 Move to Hatawano Bay (the place of Nolloth Village now). 1769 Construction of the Traditional Assembly Hall. 1860 Building of the church. 1950s Modernization of fishing tools (outboard motor and monofilament (tas!]). Establishment of cooperative at village level (KUD). 1960s Start of Asphalt Nolloth-Saparua road construction. Introduction of public electricity. Start of operation of public transportation (cars). 1964 Division of State Primary School (SDN) into two (SDN 1 and SDN 2). 1970s More motor boats. Coming of two Chinese traders. 1977 Construction of a primary school. Building of more small shops (warung). 1980s Completion of Asphalt Nolloth-Saparua road. Construction of more houses made of cement. 1985_ Building of village office. More televisions. Entry of more clove traders. More skipjack motor boats. 1986 Installation of electric posts along roads. Exclusion of the traditional leader (Kepala Soa) from the formal village organizational structure. Mechanization of sagu (palm) production. 1987 Abolition of sasi auction. Transmigration of Seram Island 1990s Decline of clove prices. Impact of logging industry in Serarn Island felt by fishers. Cancellation of church sasi. Conduct of land titling through Prona program. 1993 Two fishing boats owned by a Chinese businessman are operated by villagers. 1994 Building of canning factories near the village. Purchase of a fishing motor boat (an inboard) by the Village Cooperative Unit (KUD). collection and validation. Tables 17 and 18 provide guide questions for Groups IV and V's data generation. Both groups generate data using the following steps, which are not nec- essarily sequential: 1. Identify all the existing "village-level" institutions and organizations within the study area for Group IV and all the institutions above the village level for Group V. 2. Concentrate on institutions associated with fisheries or CRM. For example, Table 19 presents a list of livelihood associations around Ulugan Bay in Palawan, Philippines. Offhand, it can be deduced that only three organizations are in one form or another involved in fisheries. Hence, data gathering can be focused on their members. 45 Table 17. Guide questions for the local institutional arrangements. Individual organizations What village-level organizations exist in the area? Which are engaged in marine fisheries or CRM? Which are formal (legally recognized) groups, and which are informal? For formal groups, to which category do they belong: (1) LGUs, (2) NGOs,(3) POs, (4) private interest groups and (5) others? What are the organization's mandates or objectives and administrative structure? How long has the organization been in existence, and what is its historical development? Is the membership increasing or decreasing? What are the organization's technical, manpower and financial resources? How is the organization affiliated with other organizations vertically and horizontally? What is the members' awareness of the conditions of the fisheries/marine resources? U Local institutional arrangements What are the property rights in terms of access, withdrawal, management, exclusion and transfer? What are the operational rules that pertain to boundary, allocation, authority and equity? What are the regulatory mechanisms (e.g., quota, closed season, etc.) and incentives (e.g., taxation, licensing, etc.)? What are the collective choice rules, such as adjudication and enforcement? How is the rulemaking body formed in terms of leadership, membership and representation? What are the boundaries (i.e., political, gear type, traditional/customary, organizational, physical), their size/clarity, ownership, geographical coverage and changes over time? Table 18. Guide questions for the external institutional arrangements. U Individual organizations Which organizations existing in the area are above the village level? Which are engaged in marine fisheries or CRM? Which are formal (legally recognized) groups, and which are informal? For formal groups, to which category do they belong: (1) LGUs or other state-level bodies, (2) NGOs, (3) POs, (4) private interest groups, and (5) NGAs and other regional agencies, (6) bilateral/regional bod- ies, (7) international agencies and (8) others? What are the organization's mandates or objectives and administrative structure? At what level does the organization operate: (1) international, (2) regional, (3) nationallcentral, (4) re- gional, (5) province/state, or (6) district/municipal/town? How long has the organization been in existence, and what is its historical development? What are the organization's technical, manpower and financial resources? How is the organization affiliated with other organizations vertically and horizontally? What is the organization's awareness of the conditions of the fisheries/marine resources? External institutional arrangements For the relevant organizations, what are the formal policies, programs, regulations, laws and legislation related to fisheries and CRM? How do these national policies, programs, regulations, laws and legislation affect fisheries and CRM at the local level? How do the other national policies, programs, regulations, laws and legislation on economic development and general public administration affect fisheries and CRM? How is each organization affiliated with other organizations vertically and horizontally, or arranged in terms of nested layers with other formal or informal organizations? 46 Table 19. Livelihood associations around Ulugan Bay, Palawan, Philippines (Sibal et at. 1995b). Name of association Project No. of members Barangay/village 1. Umulagan Community Development Association Peanut production 15 Bahile 2. Bahile Central Multi-purpose Association Peanut production 13 Bahile 3. Dedicated Farmers Association Peanut production 10 Bahile 4. Pag-asa Women's Association Rice trading 14 Bahile 5. CEP Supporters' Association* Drugstore and fishing supply 23 Bahile 6. Samahang Kababaihan ng Manabore Community store 6 Bahile 7. Masaya Rice Trading Association Rice trading 22 Macarascas 8. Samahang Pangkabuhayan at Kaunlaran ng Bagong Sikat Community store 21 Macarascas 9. Baruang Livelihood Association Community store 8 Macarascas 10. Kapatiran Samahang ng Dacolanay Goat-raising and rice trading 12 Buenavista 11. Madahon Sari-sari Store Association Community store 17 Buenavista 12. Buenavisla Centro Livelihood Association Rice trading 18 Buenavisla 13. Tagabinet Valley Association Sugarcane milling 23 Tagabinet 14. Nasuduan Fishermen's Association Fish corral 11 Tagabinet 15. Makirawa Fishermen's Association Snack bar 12 Tagabinet 16. sa Tagnipa Nag-iisang Samahan Agricultural supply 11 Cabayugan With bearing on fisheries and CRM. 3. Classify the relevant organizations into clusters. For Group IV, these are village-level government agencies; NGOs primarily involved in the deliv- ery of projects; local people's organizations (POs), the primary beneficiaries or recipients of projects; private interest groups, which include middlemen, traders and money lenders; and other cultural/societal organizations, which include the religious sects, sociocultural groups and other traditional organi- zations. Group V's clusters are the LGUs or other state-level bodies; NGOs: POs; private interest groups; national government agencies (NGAs) and other regional agencies; bilateral and regional bodies; international agencies and others. 4. Identify the appropriate indicators from data gathered from organiza- tions' records or from interviews with their officers or members. 5. Construct Venn diagrams to illustrate interaction and relationships among various groups. If applicable, use plus and minus signs (+ and -) to indicate positive or negative relationships. 6. Construct a network chart of organizations at the village level for Group IV and at the municipal level and above for Group V. In addition, connect Group V organizations with Group IV's village-level ones. The nested or- ganizational and institutional arrangements for Binunsalian Bay, Palawan, Philippines, are shown in Table 20. 7. For Group IV only, plot in maps relevant boundaries: political; gear type; individual or organization; traditional/customary; natural; as well as other social ownership-constructed boundaries. If possible, illustrate the trend over time. 8. Enumerate and qualify local-level systems of rights and rules, both formal and informal, that govern resource use. Table 21 lists local-level sys- tems related to the use of artisanal fishing gear in Manabore, Palawan, Phil- ippines. For Group V, detail the formal systems for resource use. 9. Illustrate the conflict-resolution mechanisms at the local level for Group IV and at higher levels for Group V. Fig. 10 shows the conflict-resolution mechanisms in Tarunayan, Palawan, Philippines. Group VI - Exogenous or external factors Matrix 6 delineates the attributes that relate to external factors and the tools/techniques for data collection and validation. External factors are those brought about by natural occurrence or human intervention. Table 22 draws up the guide questions for data generation. 48 Table 20. Nested organizational/institutional arrangements for Binunsalian Bay, Philippines (Cabrestante et at. 1995). Administrative NGAs LGUs NGOs POs level National o DENR o DECS o DAR o DOJ (BOC) o National government - - Provincial o PENRO o Division o PARO o IPPF o Provincial government - Municipal o CENRO o District o MARO o Sta. Lucia o City government - - subcolony (Bantay Puerto) Village o Elementary/ o Mangingisda o Ligaya ng o Christian high school Barangay Council Buhay Multipurpose o Binunsalian Bay Cooperative Foundation, Inc. o Barangay Mangingisda Senior Citizens' Association o Charity Women's Association o SAMAMUCO o LUZMA Purok - - - - o Subvillage (purok) - - council (7) Puting Buhangin Rolling Hills Pantalang Bato Magsasaka Bagong Silang Paglaun Magtulungan BOP Bureau of Prisons LUZMA Luzviminda Mangingisda Ministerial Fellowship CENRO Community Environment and Natural Resources Office MARO Municipal Agrarian Reform Office DAR Department of Agrarian Reform PARO Provincial Agrarian Reform Office DECS Department of Education. Culture and Sports PENRO Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office DOJ Department of Justice SAMAMUCO Samahan ng Mangingisda at Magsasaka Multipurpose PPF Iwahig Prison and Penal Farm Cooperative Table 21. Informal rights-and-rules system in the use of artisanal fishing gear in Manabore, Palawan, Philippines. 1. Fish corral a. Gillnetters must stay 10 m away from the entrance of fish corrals. b. The number of fish corrals inside Manabore Bay should be limited to 13 units. c. Permission must first be secured from existing owners of fish corrals before a new one is constructed. 2. Gillnet a. In case of gillnet crisscrossing, the fisher who owns the topmost net should be the first one to remove it. The fishers should work down to the bottom net. 3. Hook and line a. No rights and rules exist. The open-access'system is practised. 4. Fish aggregating devices (FADs) a. Hook-and-line fishers can fish near FADs provided previous permission is given by the owners. Village captain or chief \ Village council member or other respected person Subvillage (purok) president / L / Elder Individual .11 .11 Fig. 10. Conflict- resolution mechanisms in Tarunayan, O.- = formal Palawan, Philip- pines (Sibal et al. ------I'' = informal 1995b) 50 Table 22. Guide questions for the exogenous attributes. Natural calamities Do natural calamities, such as floods, droughts and earthquakes, occur in the area? Macroeconomic/political/sociocultural factors Is there an ongoing war or an armed conflict? Has there lately been dramatic chances in the political leadership or agenda? Is there rapid growth in industrial or commercial development? Are there new technoloaical innovations related to harvesting and processing of fish and other ma- rine products? What are the impacts or implications of international agreements on fisheries (e.g., the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade on trading of fisheries products, disputes related to the Exclusive Economic Zone)? Is the current inflation beneficial or harmful to the trading of fisheries products? Step 4. Preliminary analysis of data Preliminary analysis pertains to on-field data analysis. At the end of each field day, the team leader convenes the members. The chief objective is to evaluate the progress of field data collection activities and make the neces- sary adjustments in terms of data collection or other administrative arrange- ments. Team members report or present their findings orally, preferably with the aid of tables, figures and charts, either individually or as a subgroup. During this session, the primary data collected shall be used to validate information generated during the secondary data analysis (Step 1) and re- connaissance survey (Step 2). For instance, the kinds of artisanal gear be- ing used, identified from secondary literature (Step 1) and annotated from the field checklist (Step 2), shall be verified. The three sources of data sets assembled at this stage are: (1) secondary literature, (2) direct observation and (3) interview. In effect, the process is triangulation "whereby one checks the validity of data using at least three sources of information or methodolo- gies" (Sajise et al. 1990). This preliminary data analysis is a team exercise. In RAFMS, the data shall be analyzed mainly through combinations of IAD and AEA (Conway 1985, 1987). The IAD framework focuses on institutional arrangements, set of rights and rules by which a group of fishers and government organize resource management and use in collective action situations. This frame- work provides for a structured approach to documenting and evaluating the origin, current status, operation, impact and performance of fisheries man- agement institutions. With the IAD framework, the essential elements of the action situation are identified and examined. Information on key attributes (Table 1) that characterize the collective action situation is collected and organized. These can be used to describe and analyze other situations, conduct a systematic and comparative analysis of diverse situations and identify relationships 51 among variables. Although it can be used to investigate causal relation- ships, the IAD framework is not a causal input-output model. Rather, it is a method for arranging information logically, examining relationships among attributes, and considering or describing outcomes. It can also be applied to different situations at varying levels of complexity and completeness (Oakerson 1992). In this framework, contextual variables characterizing resource and user attributes are linked with the local fisheries management's institutional arrangements. A causal relationship can be inferred among contextual variables, institutional arrangements (around which the analysis is. based) and the resulting transactional (action) situations (Fig. 11). The local institutional arrangements, structured-by contextual variables, shape the incentives and disincentives users face as they coordinate, coop- erate and contribute to resource management and use. The incentives, in turn, shape the patterns of interaction that result when resource users select and implement fishing strategies. These interactions give way to outcomes that, in turn, affect other outcomes. Time is a critical element. All the contex- tual variables can change through time. This change causes variations in institutional arrangements which influence incentives, patterns of interac- tion and outcomes. The users of fisheries resources often develop rules to establish how rights are to be exercised, e.g., harvesting rules. Rules give substance to rights, structure a situation, define the behavior of group members and re- duce conflict. They create different incentive structures that have bearing on cooperation or conflict among fishers. They structure human behavior into four categories: compulsory, permitted, authorized and nonauthorized (Thomson 1992). The types of rules that are devised will depend on the severity of the fishers' problem, the level of information they possess, the extent of the bundle of rights they hold, sociocultural traditions, the level of opportunistic behavior, and the ease with which actions can be monitored and enforced. Rules can provide stability of expectations, and efforts to change rules can rapidly reduce their stability (Ostrom 1990). The institu- tional arrangements fishers develop and use may not always be the same as formal laws and regulations. The fishers may develop arrangements that meet their needs but are not recognized and legitimized by government. These informal rights and rules may be equally or even more important and credible to local fishers than formal fisheries laws and regulations. In analyzing institutional arrangements, the basic strategy is to dissect the parts of the action situation-contextual variables,-incentives, pattern of interactions and outcomes; identify and collect data on the attributes and 52 Outcomes of users among resource Patterns interactions 1992). to Oakerson and cooperate contribute coordinate, from Incentives (adapted analysis I V fishers, physical, of institutional Group Group attributes organizational community technological stakeholders, arrangements and institutional Biological, Attributes External for CD level level _8_n fisher/ Fisher/ Outside -=,o framework community community research social A natural 11. attributes: Exogenous and political, macroeconomic, Fig. conditions of each part; and examine the relationships between and among the attributes and conditions of each part. Relationships between and among parts are examined when the action situation is dissected. Each part of the framework has a causal or feedback relationship with other parts. Biophysi- cal and technical attributes can have a direct effect on outcomes, for exam- ple, as high levels of fishing effort can lead to overexploitation, regardless of whether or not institutional arrangements are in place. Institutional arrange- ments, on the other hand, have an indirect effect on outcomes as they lead to changes in human behavior and choice, which affect interactions and outcomes (Oakerson 1992). Different combinations of these parts can be examined depending on the situation. These relationships can be analyzed forward or backward depending on the use of the framework, i.e., as an evaluative, diagnostic or design tool. Explicit and-implicit assumptions about the relationships help structure and guide the analysis. In the case of AEA, four patterns will be determined: space, time, flow and decision. Patterns in space may be revealed through overlays and transects. Over- lay mapping is done to discover patterns, problems or relationships of the area in terms of physical characteristics. It may be done manually or by using a computer. If you are doing,manual overlay, maps of the same scale should be prepared (transparency for small maps and Mylar for big ones) either by reducing or enlarging them with a pantograph. Once the maps have the same scale, a light table is needed to lay the different thematic maps on top of each other. Areas with homogeneous characteristics will be delineated and this is called land mapping unit. The delineation is necessary in describing the area in terms of resources and other features. If you are using the geographic information system (GIS), maps need not be on the same scale because the digitizing step will take care of standardizing the scale. GIS refers to an automated computer-based information system that uses geographically referenced information for decisionmaking. It is an inte- grated information system management that has the capability to store, edit, update, process, analyze and display spatial data for a particular set of pur- poses. What makes GIS different from other information systems and com- puter-aided design (CAD) is its ability to treat data together with its geo- graphic position, topological description and attributes. Spatial data are com- monly referenced to a location on the earth's surface through a system of coordinates, i.e., the x and y values. These coordinates may be local, na- tional or internationally accepted projections. Patterns in time may be reported using timelines. As the term suggests, the reference is time or the temporal dimension. In the case of marine 54 fisheries, it is usually a graphical combination of climate, gear, species caught and relevant socioeconomic variables (see Table 11). Flow patterns may be used to illustrate the flow of the major products harvested. They provide an idea on where the agricultural produce is going and by how much. Among the questions that need to be answered for fish- eries are: What are the economically important species being harvested? Where do these products go or where are they marketed? Who benefits, and what is the relative distribution? Decision patterns depict the options or alternative courses of actions that the fishers can undertake. Among the key questions that must be asked are: What makes fishers engage in fishing as their primary occupation? What are their alternative livelihood options if fishing is no longer economically viable? The factors identified may be used to formulate strategies as devel- opment entry points to attain sustainable management of coastal fisheries (Fig. 12). - Venn diagrams may be used to illustrate the interaction and relationship between groups, institutions and individuals in the community (Townsley 1993b). The size of the circles may indicate their relative size, degree of importance or overlap. Venn diagrams are particularly essential when doing institutional analysis (see Fig. 8). The various management issues or problems identified may be presented in a matrix format. Table 23 is an array of problems, perceived solutions and proposed projects for Malampaya Sound in Palawan, Philippines. Solutions perceived by the community are expressed as broad action strategies. The aim of the matrix is to show possible solutions to various issues identified in a "problem-perceived solution-proposed project" format. The proposed projects have research, development and policymaking implications. As described earlier, RAFMS aims to furnish the "entry points" for appropriate institutional, development and research interventions. In the case of fishery problems, the resource inventory of fishes and marine habi- tats is a research project. The acquisition of patrol boats is a development project. The communal fishing ground management, however, requires in- stitutional strengthening. Step 5. Initial organization of results The results of RAFMS must be organized in "synoptic formats," such as tables, figures, charts and matrices. Constructed on a daily basis, these should be written prior to community validation to ensure that primary data 55 Reasons illegal fishing natural calamity lack of capital spoilage declining catch due to increased fishing pressure bad luck low prices lack of implements high operating cost vices No big family Alternatives hired labor farming (during bad weather) poultry/livestock trade gathering of minor forest products Is income baby purse seine Fishing enough? gillnet fish corral Reasons crab pot bulldozer net fast returns Yes no farmland Gear hook and line skills needs less capital liftnet opportunity for high income purse seine accessibility good fishing grounds Fig. 12. Decision pattern for fishing as an occupation in Malampaya Sound, Palawan, Philippines (Pido et al. 1990). Vulnerability Saltwater Agricultural Malampaya Table effluents Deposition siltation Freshwater Illegal Declining Fishery Pests/diseases Tenurial Flooding Low to Forest community to the or grated. are parceled be local erosion field be accompanied soil Problems The At minds 23. drafted fishing destruction problems researchers. fertility prepared. status this fishery intrusion Matrix notes of most problems flooding/ Sound, of out agricultural stage, of soil validation. production of mainly the among important do agricultural Palawan, It researchers. not by the shall The from bullet - - get the summaries Philippines Forest Enhancement Introduction Forest resistant Introduction fishponds/livestock Conversion Building As Monitoring Forest of Review Conservation agricultural Introduction Land and viewpoint thing serve existing lost, the team a fisheries titling statements protection protection protection Perceived rule, and of rice twin is and fishery dikes of (Pido as technology of members. enforcement of of of to varieties chemical of of ricelands each appropriate appropriate saltwater- problems, and a perspectives resource of come that soil et solutions laws guide areas the al. fertility their diagram, or relevant 1990). into 57 up base fishing perceived notes. farming for accompanying with draft field of figure, community This a + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +++ +++ + + ++++++++ + ++++ ++ solutions written Application fishponds/livestock of Feasibility cal Communal Acquisition aquaculture nologies Application marine Resource Integrated Land Land Reforestation Riverbank Provision Introduction ISF land Integrated Hillside Upland Pilot-testing Feasibility Monitoring/evaluation ISF Reforestation ment Environmental RAFMS report converting insights parameters activity technology survey stewardship chart habitats stabilization farming for and of outline inventory pest protection social study study writing fishing of of of of of bullet mariculture/ fertilizer practitioners and Proposed ricelands proposed is patrol sloping or new organic may are education in management varieties on on yet forestry titling matrix selected contract ground fishing areas the dike of project of boats still subsidy statements and of agriculture have to fishes farming into projects economics the projects key construction (ISF) be fresh manage- tech- sites should during chemi- and items to inte- and be for in Step 6. Community validation The results of RAFMS (from secondary data analysis through field data gathering) will have to be validated with the members of the target commu- nity to come up with a synthesis or a "triangulated" perspective, i.e., the RAFMS practitioners, the local community and the local researchers as ear- lier depicted in (Fig. 2). It must be stressed to the members of the commu- nity that they are co-owners of the results of the study, which they can use for local-level planning and project development. The co-ownership of the results becomes an incentive for them to participate in the process. The community's verification of the results is an essential condition of the final report writing. The elements to be validated include facts and interpretation. The presentation of the results should be made simple and translated into layman's terms, whenever possible. Although achieving a consensus is ideal, the more important thing is for the community members to be more aware of their problems and opportunities as they relate to the management of their fisheries resources. Consensus may not be desirable or even realis- tic at the whole community level. Among subgroups of the community, it may be possible to gain consensus. It may be equally important to docu- ment differences among groups. At this juncture, these members can also fill in some of the data gaps and give recommendations on the issues and problems in their community. There are two ways of validating the results. First, invite only the key leaders and selected respondents of the community as was done in the conduct of RAFMS in the village of Nolloth, Saparua Island, Indonesia. Sec- ond, invite the whole community to one large forum as was done during the conduct of RAFMS in several coastal villages in the Philippines. The choice of community validation option depends on the political and social climate of the community. Community validation may also follow Table 7's seven steps to conducting FGDs. Step 7. Final report writing The final RRA report should be written immediately after the validation. The report should incorporate the necessary corrections and recommenda- tions of the target community. Table 24 presents a suggested contents page for the RAFMS report. The research team should promptly furnish copies of the report to the community, other relevant local government agencies or users. The report 58 Table 24. Suggested contents page of a RAFMS report. Executive Summary Preliminaries List of Tables List of Figures List of Acronyms and Abbreviations List of Appendices Background Situation/Area Profile Physical Attributes Biological Attributes Technical Attributes of Fisheries Market (Supply and Demand) Attributes Community Attributes Local Institutional Arrangements Cooperatives and other village-level organizations Rights-and-rules system External Institutional Arrangements Organizations above village level National fisheries policy National governrnent management system Exogenus Factors Analysis and Diagnosis of the Study Area Institutional Analysis of Fisheries Management Systems Pattern Analysis Patterns in space Patterns in time Flow patterns Decision patterns Recommendations Policy/Planning Agenda Research Agenda Development Agenda Acknowledgements References Appendices may be transformed into other documents, such as policy papers, back- ground papers for project development or references in preparing project proposals. 59 PLA Notes 28 February 1997 9 The use of complementary methods to understand the dimensions of soil fertility in the hills of Nepal Cate Turton, Ashok Vaidya, Junoo Tuladhar and Krishna Joshi Introduction Participatory and formal approaches in parallel Soil fertility in the hills of Nepal has been high on the research and development agenda for The study covered 13 villages, characterised by a many years. Yet quantitative data on the range of bio-physical and socio-economic spatial and temporal dynamics of soil fertility conditions to which farming systems have are few, and repetitive reports of `low and adapted. Realising the need for a better declining soil fertility' have little meaning quantitative and qualitative understanding of the without a reference point. Our study set out to problem, the multi-disciplinary team of develop a clear understanding of the magnitude researchers adopted an integrated approach, using and extent of the problem and the underlying a range of methods to build a picture of soil reasons for changes in soil fertility. fertility in the hills. The sequencing of methods (see Figure 1) and their likely outcomes were This paper describes how a variety of research carefully considered in the design of the study. methods were used to explore the complex issue of soil fertility. It also illustrates some of At the outset, a Literature review was carried out the problems faced in applying PRA by to establish the existing state of knowledge. The government research institutions with mandates team then visited a large number of villages and covering large areas. It suggests that the use of had extensive discussions (guided by a checklist) conventional surveys and participatory with groups of farmers. Of particular interest approaches in parallel is one solution to the during these initial visits was the type of soils challenge of achieving `breadth of coverage' found in each village. These were documented whilst maintaining `depth and quality of using indigenous classification schemes. On the information'. basis of these initial surveys, 13 villages were selected for more detailed investigation. It is important to distinguish between different levels of participation. In the context of this Informal group discussions guided by a checklist study, PRA is an appropriate term. In our were held in each of the 13 villages. Farmers research, farmers' participation was primarily began by drawing maps to illustrate patterns of in the definition and analysis of the 'soil resource use and features, such as land type, fertility problem', which had been given a high forest and grazing areas, landslides, gullies, water priority by farmers in previous surveys and courses and soil types. Groups which included during extensive interactions with institute retired soldiers produced highly detailed and staff. It is envisaged that in the follow up to technically sophisticated maps. These maps acted the study, farmers and researchers will work as a focal point for discussions on community together in the design and implementation of the forestry and its effect on soil fertility, erosion and research. changes in the resource base during the past 20 years. 37 PL4 Notes ?N Fehruoiy 199.' Literature review Stage I Figure 1. The sequence of methods adopted in the study Hill farmers have their own detailed soil BOX I classification systems, differentiating soils on the basis of texture and colour. These were used to Soil fertility management in Talbari locate sites for soil sample collection. Seven different practices are used to maintain and improve soil fertility, including: Many valuable indigenous management studies on Farm Yard Manure (FYM)/compost; practices have been carried out in Nepal, but they Terrace slicing; have tended to ignore the integrated nature of Chemical fertiliser; farmers' management strategies. In any one field, Mulches; and at any one time, a range of different practices Flood water; are used together to maintain and improve soil In-situ manuring; and fertility. Farmers were therefore asked to Trash burning. construct soil fertility management diagrams. In Talbari, as in other Practices were then listed and one fanner was villages, the importance of different practices has changed over time. asked to distribute 20 maize grits amongst them There has been a decline in the importance of according to their relative importance on khet in-situ manuring and traditional practices (such (irrigated) and bari (non-irrigated) land. The grits as green manuring and mulching) and an were adjusted until a general consensus was increase in the use of chemical fertilisers. reached. The exercise was repeated to show the There is also much variation in management importance of different practices 10-15 years strategies across the hills. In low altitudes, a decline in FYM has been previously (see Box 1). In a similar fashion, availability compensated for by an increase in the use of diagrams showing the relative workloads of men, chemical fertiliser. In higher altitudes, farmers women and children in different soil management continue to rely on the traditional practices of activities were constructed (see Box 2). in-situ manuring, trash burning and FYM/compost application 38 I'LAI Notes 2.4 Fehntm7I99- Whilst recognising the value of PRA. many have BOX 3 noted the difficulties of providing the representative quantitative data that are needed for A valid approach to wealth ranking? planning purposes using participatory approaches. Such data is essential in the context of a research One limitation of conventional wealth ranking station such as Lumle Agricultural Research is the relative nature of the grouping process. Centre (where this study was based), with a This leads to problems when it becomes necessary (as in our case) to compare mandate for agricultural research in a wide area, information from different villages. A across the eight lull districts that stretching household placed in the wealthiest category in comprise the Western Development Region of one village may be placed in the lowest Nepal. category in another, due to differences in village economic profiles. Thus, a short questionnaire was designed to collect information on farmers' perceptions of To overcome this problem, this study adopted a standardised set of categories. Previous fertility status, the reasons for change and the wealth ranking experiences in the hills showed associated with any change in soil fertility. factors that food sufficiency and pensions paid by The questionnaire was designed to enable easy British and Indian armies to ex-service men statistical analysis. Wealth ranking was carried are the most common criteria used to rank out to ensure that a representative sample of households. Key informants were therefore households was selected for survey (see Box 3). asked to place households into 1 of 3 groups: food and/or cash surplus for 12 months or more BOX 2 home grown food lasts between 6-12 months Division of labour home grown food sufficient for less that 6 months Soil fertility management practices include: Cutting/carrying grass and bedding The feasibility of adopting a fixed number of material pre-defined groups was tested in 3 villages by Cleaning shed comparing the results with those from a Carrying and spreading FYM conventional wealth ranking approach carried Staying/moving goth' out simultaneously by a separate group of Slicing terrace risers informants. A Spearman Rank Correlation Trapping flood water was used to test the association between the Burning trash in field composition of the 2 groups. High levels of Carrying chemical fertiliser statistical association between these groups Applying chemical fertiliser were found, indicating that this approach may be a rapid and effective way of classifying which allows comparisons of The majority of tasks are shared between households households beyond the level. men, women and children, but the degree of village involvement varies according to the nature of the work. If the relative importance of A complex problem management practices is taken into account, women play the primary role as they contribute most of the labour to the most There is are strong and widespread belief important activity of FYM preparation and among farmers that soil fertility is declining: application. Consideration of women's 61 % and 67% of farmers reported a decline on knowledge of FYM/compost preparation may khei and bari land respectively. Somewhat improve the relevance and impact of this surprisingly, responses of unchanged or widely researched topic. increasing soil fertility were significantly higher from the poorest households. This may be explained by the fact that they have smaller areas of land and thus fertilising resources are 1 spread less thinly. As expected, fewer poorer Tethered animals in temporary sheds which households apply chemical fertilisers. remain in the. field depending on feed availability and manuring requirement 39 PL4 Notes 28 February 199? The scale and extent of the problem, the nature Case 3: In between these two extremes, the of soil fertility decline and the underlying picture from other villages was mixed, although reasons for change differed significantly across there was a general pattern of low nutrient the surveyed area. Three broad pictures status and declining soil fertility. emerged: This brief summary of our findings illustrates Case 1: In a few villages in low altitude the complexity of the problem of soil fertility. accessible areas, the majority of farmers It is characterised by considerable differences reported unchanged or increasing soil fertility. in the nutrient status of soil, perceived changes However, soil analysis in these villages in soil fertility and variations in the highlighted critically low levels of organic management practices and strategies adopted matter, as well as nitrogen and acidification by farmers in response to increasing pressures. problems. Management of soil fertility increasingly relies on chemical fertilisers and many traditional practices have disappeared. Reflections on our approach (see Box 4) The approach adopted by the team ensured that Case 2: In higher altitude/inaccessible areas, different aspects of soil fertility were the dominant opinion was that soil fertility is systematically explored and enabled direct declining. Yet, measured soil nutrient levels comparisons of results from different villages. are higher than for villages in Case 1. From This was an important consideration for Lunle group discussions, several key factors were Agricultural Research Centre with a research identified that may account for the perceived mandate that covers 8 hill districts. The use of decline in soil fertility. These include the complementary approaches combined the deterioration in forest resources and a decline in qualitative strengths of PRA with the livestock numbers. These villages do not have quantitative benefits of conventional surveys. access to alternative nutrient sources. Information from the questionnaires on farmers' BOX 4 perceptions of fertility change can be easily incorporated into research planning processes. Soil fertility in Hyanja Although we anticipated at the outset that PRA would contribute qualitative strengths, this was Hyanja is a low altitude village located close not exclusively the case. For example, the to the large town of Pokhara, which provides a market for its agricultural produce.-The soils management diagrams constructed by farmers in Hyanja are highly acidic and have lower provided quantitative information on the levels of organic matter than other surveyed relative importance of different practices. villages. This has been related to high crop intensities, low FYM/compost applications and A key challenge for the future lies in identifying a decline in in-situ manuring. It was and developing complementary methods and somewhat surprising, therefore, to find that approaches, that enable an balance 45% and 62% of farmers reported that soil optimum fertility was unchanged or increasing on khet between qualitative considerations (the extent, and barn land respectively. Several reasons depth and nature of farmer participation) and may account for the apparent contradiction, quantitative concerns (breadth of coverage) to the most likely being that the use of chemical be achieved. For example, wealth ranking fertilisers, which has resulted in increased helped to improve the degree of representation yields, has disguised an underlying of quantitative information. deterioration in soil physical and chemical properties. This was understood by farmers who commented that soils have become hard An important benefit of the diagrams was that and dry, and yields fall dramatically without farmers participated in the analysis process. the use of fertiliser. The diagrams showing soil fertility management now and in the past, enabled farmers to identify their constraints and 40 NLA Notes 2' lehrua ), 199 opportunities and revealed the strategies they This study represented the first phase of a have adopted as a result of changes in the project to improve the prospects for sustained external environment. The nature of farmers' agricultural productivity in the hills. As such, responses varies widely, from the use of PRA approaches were used in conjunction with chemical fertilisers to increasing the proportion other tools in a mainly diagnostic fashion, to of leaf litter in FYM. The key point is that enable researchers to gain a clearer responses are highly location specific. The understanding of the issue. Lumle Agricultural diagrams also enabled researchers to appreciate Research Centre is currently in the process of soil fertility management from the farmers' preparing a research strategy based around perspective i.e. a continuously evolving system, integrated nutrient management. This aims to which is the outcome of a complex decision support farmers in their constant efforts to making process dictated by wider socio- adjust to changes in the resource base. The economic and bio-physical circumstances. maps and diagrams form an output which, in conjunction with other tools, such as resource The use of local soil classification systems flow models, can be used in the next phase to proved to be an effective and rapid way of assist farmers to further analyse their practices, planning the soil survey. It helped distinguish plan improvements and identify opportunities soils that are important to the farmer and the for research. use of local terms enabled us to communicate clearly and easily with rural people. The major Cate Turton, Overseas Development limitation of the indigenous systems is that they Institute (ODI), UK, Ashok Vaidya, are location specific. Soils are classified on the Junoo Tuladhar and Krishna Joshi: basis of farmers' experiences and consequently. Lumle Agricultural Research Centre, PO Box 1, Pokhara, Kaski District, Nepal a chimtay raato maato (red clay soil) in one village may have quite different properties to that in another. Soil analysis results were valuable in enabling a more objective understanding of different soil types. 41 PLA Notes 30 October 1997 9 Customary marine tenure in the South Pacific: the uses and challenges of mapping Philip Townsley, James Anderson and Chris Mees management', which combine some of the Introduction methods of fisheries researchers with the knowledge and skills of local resource-users, have been investigated and introduced with The current world-wide crisis facing fisheries, some success in Fiji, Vanuatu and other and the apparent inability of centralised countries in the region. agencies responsible for fisheries management to deal with the crisis, have encouraged an increasing interest in alternative forms of Customary marine tenure managing fisheries resources. Among the forms of management that have attracted the attention of researchers are the numerous Customary forms of tenure over marine areas is customary mechanisms found in the Southern one set of mechanisms frequently encountered and Western Pacific. On the reefs and lagoons in the region which is widely interpreted as a of the Melanesian islands, a wide range of form of management of marine resources. measures are still widely used. These appear to Recent research has investigated both the ensure some level of sustainability in the impact of customary tenure and the social and harvesting of fish and shellfish which form a cultural features of marine tenure systems in key element in the livelihoods of local people. Fiji and Vanuatu. It aims to determine how appropriate it is to incorporate customary These customary arrangements have persisted tenure systems, which control resource-use, in spite of increasing commercialisation of into more formal systems of fisheries fisheries and appear to adapt to changing management. A range of marine tenure areas circumstances. This has provoked interest in Fiji and Vanuatu are being monitored and the among fisheries policy makers and planners as conditions of resources under different forms of the incorporation of such mechanisms into tenure arrangement and different forms of wider fisheries management strategies offers control have been compared. many advantages. By definition these arrangements should be locally acceptable, they In order to make sense of observed differences are generally 'self-policing' and they encourage in resources, an understanding of the social and the decentralisation of decision-making. cultural features of the tenure systems, as well as the economic forces affecting levels of In contrast, the costs of centrally-imposed fisheries activity in different areas, was crucial. regulation of coastal fisheries is high and they As the first step in the work, PRA was planned are often not effective in the management of in each area involving both the biologists tropical, multi-species fisheries with large concerned with the monitoring of resources and numbers of small, opportunistic fishing a social scientist. activities. In this context, there is interest in making use of existing, well-established arrangements. Various forms of 'co- 36 of The resource local ranking interviews, and PRA influence recognised including by Disclaimer: Fig. semi-structured a PRA people groups 1. tools range tools Claims fl use resource techniques all - various to and claim extraction of of All were analyse borders, local a the to Q details exploitation. respondents. Uninburbula interviews to used. employed marine ways mapping, Reef any people and - Hamanguru _ are and shown in of - discuss 4* These tenure - which the with included approximate intervention - and 4H I? timelines ' - on - - - areas - During encouraged bonier patterns individuals disputed border name reef tenure shown g g areas this - LEGEND the of between between shown dan border and map can use the dairning of PLA October on I for village clan and ill i Notes are Uliveo areas illustrative tenure areas 1997 do based 30 rights different that The discussions claims first would tribal The of Figure clarified not, Island, exclusive frequency sight, the mapping or on claim purposes 1). for in clan from notion that unofficial to any Maskelyne potentially over be different groups control with the of there simply way, of sketch marine western only. which `tenure' with was of spoken boundaries valuable indicate a Islands, clearly maps question tenure The adjacent members more notion is accounts of details in resources. defined at areas any of Vanuatu of tenure appeared, tenure most of stake some competing different officially showed shown, areas. areas cases given areas kind (see But at 37 PLA Notes 30 October 1997 The land and sea areas associated with different act of drawing a sketch map could become clans and tribes are an integral and inseparable charged with political overtones and part of that group's identity and the identity of interpretations. In one specific case, tenure all its members. But it is also clear that the was explained to the team in terms of rival identity generated by tenure over a particular ancestral claims going back ten generations. area comes less from controlling it and protecting it from others, but from sharing it. Our understanding of the concepts of tenure The notion of customary tenure emphasises the and property which were generated by these importance of an area as an instrument of mapping exercises, and subsequent discussion exchange in dealing with other tribes and clans of them, underpinned one of the principal and in defining different degrees of relationship findings of the research to date. This is that with those other groups. customary marine tenure, at least until very recently, has had little to do with the The intrinsic value of an area's resources conservation of marine resources, at least in the appears only of secondary importance. The minds of local resource-users. This does not exclusive right to use them probably had little necessarily mean that customary marine tenure meaning until the recent advent of is not a valid instrument for fisheries commercialised fisheries and the possibility of management. But it is an important factor to generating income through the sale of fishing be considered when customary mechanisms are rights in customary tenure areas. This has being used as a means to implement fisheries implications for the notion of protecting the management with a view to resource resources within tenure areas for the future. In conservation. a quite profound sense those resources seem to acquire meaning by being shared with others. The study encountered numerous cases where traditional measures that were adapted to It is notable that, in Fiji, the process of exploitation control for the purpose of mapping customary tenure areas, both on land `conserving resources' (e.g. taboos) were and sea, during the course of the British systematically ignored by resource-users. In colonial period seems to have had a seriously contrast, equivalent measures imposed for disruptive impact on the whole notion of `customary' purposes, such as to mark the `property'. Boundaries which had always been death of chief or to demonstrate the relative mobile and subject to dispute and negotiation status of one resource owner over another, were became fixed. This removed an important more frequently observed. The exercise of element in the interactions between the various customary marine tenure rights makes sense in tribes and clans which exercised tenure. The its own cultural context for customary reasons, drawing of boundaries by the authorities but does not necessarily make sense when a inevitably seems to have involved a decision to new rationale, such as marine resource believe one version of `who owns what' rather conservation, is added. than the opinions of many others. Needless to say, as these boundaries begin to acquire a different, economic meaning (e.g. with the Issues - research and intervention penetration of tourism and commercial concerns), the disputes over boundaries and Mapping techniques proved useful during the `ownership' are becoming increasingly research but they also highlighted some of the acrimonious. problems associated with participative research. It is clear that, while assisting in The research team itself risked becoming part stimulating a discussion of the issues with of a similar process in Vanuatu. In some which the research was concerned, the activity communities, the arrival of an outside team itself constituted an intervention in the situation asking questions about tenure over marine being researched. Awareness among local areas seemed to escalate into claims to different people that the lines which they drew on the areas. This was indicative of how flexible are sand were being noted down in a notebook by the tenure systems. In such circumstances the the researchers significantly influenced the 38 PLA Notes 30 October 1997 responses being given. This was so, even if the as it can significantly alter that outcome. Alien researcher was at pains to record what was and inappropriate concepts of organisation and being said after the interview, rather than action may be exhibited, and acted upon. Local during it. The presence of interested outsiders people, and particularly local leaders, may feel appeared to be a powerful symbol of official this is expected of them and that it represents ratification. modernity and association with the `progressive' outside world. Similarly, questions about resources and their management would stimulate responses that In the context of participatory research for tended to exaggerate the environmental development, the opportunity exists for motivations behind certain interventions. compensating for this through a more Awareness of the environment, and the need to systematic and thorough participatory analysis preserve natural resources, was generally of the issues involved. This could encourage associated with being advanced, modern, and local people to identify more firmly those progressive. This had apparently been induced actions which they regard as of prime by recent government campaigns to raise importance. But without this, and an environmental awareness through posters, radio awareness on the part of the PRA team of the and television. This could lead to discussions possible effects of their presence, there is a risk of environmental issues with community that decisions reached by local people are leaders becoming stimuli for action. aimed more at the outsiders and their assumed objectives, than at the real needs and priorities In one case, this led to the placing of taboo on of local people. fishing grounds. This was not necessarily based on real needs or priorities, but on a desire + Philip Townsley Via',, Anno':'',','12+;ttint to be seen as active and ready to accept new 01100 Viterbo, Italy, James-, Ander' T°" ideas brought in by `researchers'. and Chns Mees, Custom Tenure Project;, MRAG U,,- Gate, London SW7 2QA;° Conclusion ACKNOWLEDGEMENT In different circumstances, this sort of process, where learning and analysis led directly to The authors would like ' tb"than and staff the 'fisheries -`de'p; action to address identified issues, might be of dana and Vanuatu, roe ct:ileld', the ' exactly what was hoped for - Participatory p 1 'rie'ii4 the Director=an'd' staff of Al e''IMariin` e Learning and Action. But in the context of a Prog,ramme```at the Universi tyl;;of;f" y"' research initiative, it highlights certain dangers. Pacific for making'this research ep"o's also wish to' thank ,the Outsiders carrying out a PRA `intervene' in people of all the villages wehi've' is ' local reality, even if they may do so in a way theirgenerosit'y and co-operation. v eµlctk which they regard as being informal and forwar'd'to continuing our collaboration participatory. This can foster the belief that This research, was, funded by the British whatever comes out of the process is the result Overseas Development, Adminrstration CODA) of deliberations by those directly concerned and under, their,,;;-Fish'e'ries " Management Scienc is therefore locally appropriate. However, the P,rogramm(FMSP) a nd '' Implemented b t impact which the presence of outsiders can Marine Resources Assessment! Gro w have, no matter how 'low-profile' they try to be, always needs to be taken into consideration 39 PLA Notes 30 October 1997 13 Getting fisherfolk off the hook: an exploratory PRA in Southern India R. Ramesh, N. Narayanasamy and M.P.Boraian to elicit the views of fishers on ways to Introduction ameliorate their working and living conditions. Fishers in India are largely unorganised. livelihoods, Where they are grouped together, it is usually To study the a number of PRA exercises in small numbers and their associations are were completed, including: a trade inventory, rarely strong enough to ensure their voices are preference ranking, key problem heard. Yet fishers live with many challenges: analysis, seasonal, case and time use analysis, occupational, seasonal, geographic, social and semi-structured interviewing, focal group economic and have not used collective discussions and causal diagram. The findings bargaining to ameliorate their conditions. from some of these exercises are discussed Many claim that they live with the hope that below. there are as many good fish remaining in the sea as ever came out of it. PRA findings Fishing can be lucrative, yet many fishers are poor because of the exploitation which has Trade inventory and risk ranking become so institutionalised that the fishers often do not realise it for themselves. During preliminary discussion with Trade According to a survey of Indian small fisheries, Union Officials and the fishers, it became clear for every hundred rupees worth of fish bought that there are many trades in the fisheries sector by consumers, only one-third reaches the and that each has its own problems. Thus, the traditional fishers, the remainder goes to PRA team decided to start by taking stock of merchant intermediaries. the various trades in which fishers are involved. A trade inventory, an adapted form of a The Tri-Sea Fishermen Union at Nagercoil resource inventory, was used. works for the welfare of fishers in Kanyakumari district, Tamil Nadu, India. The The 25 fishers were divided into two groups to union approached the Gandhigram Rural develop inventories of fishing trades. Each Institute's PRA Unit to assist it conduct a group was given cards and pens and was asked three-day workshop to study the fishing to list the various trades in which fishing livelihoods in Kanyakumari District. This communities are involved. When both groups paper reports the outcome of the PRA had finished their lists, they were presented in a workshop which was attended by 25 men and plenary session. Comparison of the lists women engaged in different fishing trades. showed the nineteen sea-related trades in which the fishing community are engaged. The objectives of the workshop were: to study the socio-economic and Split into two groups again, the participants occupational problems of the fishers; ranked the trades according to the severity of to analyse the factors that underpin these problems faced by each. High risk trades are problems; and those that face the most challenges with regard 54 PLA Notes 30 October 1997 to the labour involved and threats to the BOX 2 survival of fishers. RISK ANALYSIS OF FISHING TRADES: DEEP SEA DIVING There was heated debate at the beginning of this exercise as everyone present argued that When we plunge into the sea, we have to go his/her trade was in the high risk category. very deep. We dive with two flat plates tied to Finally, however, the groups completed their the soles of our feet. We wear goggles but do ranking and presented them in a plenary. Their not have an oxygen cylinder or fins that would lists were similar, with only two trades in enable us to swim faster. The maximum time varying positions. In the plenary session, we can normally be under to harvest lobsters, oysters, scallops and clams is two minutes. consensus was reached and the final ranking of Timing is very important. Any disturbance or in the plenary session is trades prepared distraction might cost our life. We get back presented in Box 1. after spending nine to ten hours in the sea. We go to the private traders for selling the BOX 1 catch. The income is not stable. It is nothing but a gamble and depends on luck.' RISK RANKING OF FISHING TRADES BOX 3 Deep-sea divers: fishers who dive (down to 30 metres) to collect shells; RISK ANALYSIS OF FISHING TRADES: Trap fishing using locally made traps to HEAD LOAD VENDING catch expensive and deep dwelling fish; Hook fishers who catch fish on a Head load fish mongers buy fish from line/fishing rod travelling on a catamaran; auctioneers in the morning. The fish can be Country boat (Vallam) fishers who catch paid for immediately, or in the evening when fish using nets thrown from a country boat; the fish cost 5 per cent more. The auctioneers Shore trawling: fishers who catch fish with prefer instant payment, but most head load nets by standing on rocks in the sea; fish mongers buy fish on credit and accept the Mechanised fishing fleet employees: 5 per cent interest for the twelve hour loan. salaried workers who work off-shore; Whether the fish is sold or not during the day, Deep-sea trawler fishing employees; the price has to be paid in the same evening Loaders who load sand onto ships; or the monger will not be allowed to buy fish Hand net-makers; the next day. Carpenters (wood cutters) who cut the right size and quality wood for making The mongers carry the heavy fish on their catamarans; heads. The dirty water seeps from the fish Country boat carpenters basket and makes their bodies stink. The Carpenters who build boats; mongers become 'untouchables' in buses. When they wait for the bus with fish- Head load fish monger; their baskets, the buses pass through at, high speed Cycle load fish monger; without stopping. Lorry load fish monger; Ice-plant fish processing workers; BOX Fish processing workers (salting). 4 Fish processing workers (making fish RISK ANALYSIS OF FISHING TRADES: pickles); ICE-PLANT WORKERS Auctioneers. Girls are mostly employed for cleaning, cutting Boxes 2 - 4 highlight in more detail the risks and packaging fish in ice-plants. They work faced by three of the 19 trades. They show the every day in the month and have money real physical and economic hardships that are deducted from their salaries if they are absent. suffered in some trades, particularly in diving The working hours are long, 11 - 12 hours per which requires physical fitness, lots of luck and day. Ice plant workers are given special clothing to wear but many develop skin learned skills in reading the currents to find a diseases. They risk electrocution in the plant good harvest. and have to carry heavy fish (25 to 28 kg) through a cutting machine. Some workers get I hurt while cutting the fish in the machine. 55 PLA Notes 30 October 1997 The risk analysis enabled the fishers in each involved in occupations relating to fishing, trade to explore their key problems. In the Group 3 - Community involved in fish vending course of the discussion, one of the participants and Group 4 - Community involved in fish commented that he had never thought of his processing. work with so much seriousness in the past. A fisherwoman in the group stated that the Each group was asked to draw a seasonal discussions enabled fisherfolk to collectively calendar and identified the activities occurring share their experiences and the problems in each month. Extracts from the calendars involved in their trades. drawn by Groups I and 4 are shown in Tables 1 and 2. The exercise confirmed that fishing, and all the related occupations, are highly Seasonality analysis seasonal. Fishers have surplus money during the peak season. They borrow money during Fishing is subject to weather conditions and is the slack season but have to deal with the high highly seasonal. It was therefore decided to interest rates charged by local money lenders. study the season-wise activities and problems Many fishing trades are inter-related, a poor of the fishing trades. The participants were catch affects the fish processors who preserve divided into four groups of six members each, the fish (compare Tables I and 2). Much work based on their trades: Group 1 - Communities is intermittent, such as that of carpenters and involved in fishing, Group 2 - Community net makers. Table 1. An extract from a seasonal trade calendar as produced by fishers Month Diving Trap Hook Fishing Shore Mechanised Deep-sea Fishing Fishing on Trawling Boat Trawler Country Employees Employees Boat Jan Harvest Fishing Fishing Fishing Fishing Fishing Off-season; scallops, season, low season, season; season; season; fairly expenses shells catch, low fairly good savings income good income more income income, possible just to savings meet the possible expenses Mar Employ- Fishing recession almost no good moderate Off-season; ment is at season, low work catch catch, not expenses peak. catch, low possible. enough to more Earn income debt meet fairly well. redemp- expenses, No need tion plus borrowing to savings borrow, pay back debts. May the off-season, off-season, moderate off good catch, fishing advent of no no catch, season, good income, possible on mid-May - occupation occupation, expenses borrow savings all days - sea faring borrowing more possible good income stops and savings Nov start sea season good fishing moderate off-season, fishing faring begins - catch, possible, catch expenses possible on after 15th fairly good good problem more, borrow all days - income, income, free life good income investment pay back and savings required for debts, equipment savings 56 PLA Notes 30 October 1997 Table 2. An extract from a seasonal trade calendar as produced by fish processing Month Ice-plant fish Fish processing by salting Fish processing by processing making fish pickles Jan Employment available Fish available in plenty; fish fish-pickle making in full every day but fixed salting possible; work is swing; good income - equal salary there; poor income expenses Aug full employment, over- fish available in plenty, employment for a few days, time, savings possible salting possible, savings inadequate income, possible problems with money lenders Oct full employment, over- Fish salting possible, full employment, good time, savings possible sometimes loss occurs due income, high expenses, to rain redemption of debt Dec not very active business, no business, borrow no work, borrow fixed salary Fisherwomen Planning A focus group discussion employing semi- The workshop aimed to learn the views of the structured interviewing was conducted among participating fisherfolk on how to improve their fisherwomen to understand the specific working and living conditions. Given the problems they face. All the women wealth of information shared during the participated in the discussion. workshop, this was not completed. However, the participants made thirteen recommendations Women are mainly involved head load fish for improving their livelihoods. Examples of mongering and the fish processing industries. these are listed below: These are poorly paid positions and are usually temporary assignments. Women may also 1. Deep-sea divers have the highest risk discrimination in wage payments: even if the profession. The government may consider work done by male and female workers is of the supplying oxygen cylinders and other same quantity and quality, women will usually protective equipment for deep-sea divers at be paid less. Yet the income women generate is a subsidised rate. key in almost all families, ensuring that 2. The fishers who go deep-sea diving or trap children are fed and the luckier ones can attend fishing encounter many accidents and school. sometimes die at sea. With a view to helping the family of the diseased fishers, Women fish mongers who head load fish suffer the government has introduced an accident from the little income that this business insurance scheme, by which the premium is generates. If men also get a meagre wage when paid by the government. There is often catches are low, there can be much tension in much delay in the payment of these claims the household. To bring up the family, wives and this needs to be investigated and and husbands often have to borrow money, but rectified. not do usually tell each other about their credit 3. Head load fish mongers need to organise a arrangements. When money is short, young credit co-operative society exclusively for daughters start work processing fish in the ice- women. This would help them to negotiate plants. Workers in most of these factories are more successfully with money lenders. prone to occupational diseases and these affect 4. Boat owners only give 35 per cent of the their marriage prospects. catch to the workers who have toiled on their boats. The Tri-Sea Fishermen Union should try and negotiate better terms for the workers. 57 PLA Notes 30 October 1997 5. The Tri-Sea Fishermen Union needs to work more closely with fishers to impart greater financial skills in budgeting and calculating interest rates with money lenders. 6. The Tri-Sea Fishermen Union can play an important role in negotiating with the ice- plant owners to fix a fair wage and reasonable working hours for the girls working in ice-plants. The plant owners should arrange for regular medical check- ups for the ice-plant workers. 7. With a view to eradicating the merchant intermediaries' domination of fish markets and unfair price fixation for fish catches, there is need for government regulation of fish markets. Three years have passed since this workshop was conducted. Since then, a group of women have organised themselves into a self-help group. Some have started a fish pickling business, others have used their organisation to negotiate with ice plant workers for better wages and conditions. But there are severe local, political threats to improving the conditions of the fishers. They are not off the hook, but they are on the way to being released. ;K. Kamesn, N.' Narayanasamy ana m., P. 3oraian,, Participatory Rural= Appraisal MC,,, Ganadiaram Rural- Institute. (peemed''''Univ'ersity) Gandhigram -624 802; Tamil Nadu; India NOTES Th'e",PRA"Unit' acknowledges with gratitude the ,,unsparing,' support', offered by the'' Reverend Fatl er',Alexander Norbert,' "General Secretary bf`"W" Tri-S&,`Fishemien Union and the Co- ordibators'of`'ttie` Giiion M'r M: Joseph. and Ms Ns,'Nts"e'sfiiari in}successfully conducting the workshop=; "; 58 CL3NRA1 Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book C. Participatory Research Training Manuals This section provides a brief list of Participatory Research training manuals that may be of interest to CBNRM researchers. Annotated references are ordered alphabetically by author. 1. Bechstedt, H. 1997. Training Manual on Participatory Research and Technology Development for Sustainable Land Management. Bangkok: IBSRAM/ASIALAND Network. 200 pp. Abstract: This training manual is the product of an IBSRAM workshop held from 26 May to 3 June, 1997, in Chang Mai, Thailand. The first part of the manual describes the historical evolution, gives definitions and identifies the conditions for sustainable land management. Indigenous Technical Knowledge systems are described with respect to their importance for the development of improved technologies. Principles and procedures for participatory on-farm research are introduced and communication skills for a better dialogue between researchers/extensionists and farmers are examined. Finally, the necessary requirements for a sustainable land management are specified, such as the need for collective action (farmer institutions), committed and qualified external institutions (e.g. research centres) and a supportive policy framework. The second part of the manual develops the theoretical and conceptual base for a participatory approach to sustainable land management. In the third part a number of selected techniques for participatory learning, analysis and action (PRA) are explained referring mainly to examples from the workshop's field visits. Steps for organizing a training workshop are discussed and some basics on adult teaching and learning are presented. 2. Carter, J. 1996. Introductory Course on Integrated Coastal Zone Management. ESCDI Technical Manual Series. Dalhousie University, Environmental Studies Centres Development in Indonesia. Jakarta. 562 pp. Notes: This manual is very useful as a reference and source of material for PRA practitioners working in coastal regions. The manual is easily adapted to any country by doing some background research, and provides excellent coverage of the complex issues that affect coastal communities, resources and ecosystems. CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 3. Case, D.D. 1990. The Community's Toolbox: The Idea, Methods and Tools for Participatory Assessment, Monitoring and Evaluation In Community Forestry. Bangkok: FAO. 146 pp. Notes: This field manual provides a practical set of guidelines for various approaches considered essential for sustainable and successful community forestry. It reassesses many of the conventional monitoring and evaluation methods and tools, favoring a bottom-up approach which encourages, supports and strengthens communities' existing abilities to identify their own needs, set their own objectives, and monitor and evaluate them. This approach focuses on the relationship between the beneficiaries and field staff and the beneficiaries and the community. It builds on two-way communication, clear messages, and a joint commitment to what "works" for the community. The manual is organized into three sections. The first section introduces the idea of PAME (Participatory Assessment, Monitoring and Evaluation). The principles of PAME, where it will work, and where it can begin are discussed along with its benefits. This section also offers suggestions for dialogue among field staff. Section two provides the methods for determining the ways in which data can be analyzed and presented. Each of the chapters introduces the method, defines its benefits, and examines the steps which must be taken using the particular approach. The final chapter in the section looks closely at the importance of presenting results of the collected information. The third section of the manual introduces 23 different tools, ranging from group meetings to participatory video evaluation, and their uses. Guidelines for choosing the most appropriate tool are given and an overview of the main characteristics is provided. The author notes that while it may not always be possible to adopt the whole PAME approach in every project, it is possible to experiment with some activities to see if PAME works. 4. Cornwall, A. 1992. Look Who's Talking: A Report of a Training of Trainers Course in Participatory Rural Appraisal for Actionaid, Ethiopia. London: International Institute for Environment and Development. Notes: This report is an account of a 'Training of Trainers' course in participatory rural appraisal (PRA) held in Dalocha, Ethiopia, in 1992. One of the main objectives of the course was to equip trainers with communication skills, both for use in training and in their interactions with farmers in the field. PRA was presented as a methodology which can be used to facilitate a process of listening to and learning from rural people. Part I presents a detailed report of the training course in chronological progression. Part II looks at the experience of fieldwork, providing an account of PRA in context. The accounts of the two main working groups illustrate applications of PRA methods and include several diagrams and further information. C-2 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 5. Eckman, K. 1996. Training Manual for Training Workshop on Action-Oriented Village Assessment and Participatory Rural Appraisal. Washington, D.C. Pact Publications. 134 pp. Notes: This book is designed for the field staff of nongovernment organizations (NGOs) who undertake village assessments in developing countries. While the book is clearly not intended as a comprehensive guide to structured, formal academic social research and impact assessment, it does provide a good introduction and guide for field staff charged with assessment and planning tasks and is therefore helpful for researchers. The book begins with a brief introduction to assessment, discusses some basic differences between participatory and logframe approaches, and provides guidance for organizing tasks while in the field. Part 2 describes a variety of tools and techniques for rural assessment separated into eight chapters, entitled: Basic Demographics; Getting a Historical Perspective; Learning About Land Use; Interviewing and Discussion Techniques; Understanding Sociopolitical Systems; Understanding Who Does What in Rural Communities; Rural Markets; and Assessing Natural Resources. 6. Emery, Alan R. 1997. Prototype Guidelines for Environmental Assessment and Traditional Knowledge. Canadian International Development Agency, Ottawa, Canada. Available on-line at http://www.kivu.com/indexframe.html Abstract: Development practitioners have increasingly come to understand that it is important to involve indigenous and local peoples on proposed development projects. Considerable efforts are being made to develop ethical and legally binding guidelines concerning indigenous knowledge and the related issues of traditional resource rights and intellectual property rights. In 1997 CIDA, in a partnership with the Centre for Traditional Knowledge, the World Council of Indigenous Peoples and Environment Canada responded to this issue by preparing a discussion document called "Prototype Guidelines for Environmental Assessment and Traditional Knowledge". The draft guidelines include three main sections: (1) Indigenous Guidelines, which are intended to inform local communities about what their rights are and how to negotiate effectively with corporations and governments; (2) Corporate Guidelines, which are meant to suggest an ethical framework for corporations working in local communities; and (3) Government Guidelines, intended to assist government's in deciding how to manage the interrelationships between indigenous people, the resources that are contained within the lands they occupy, and the market forces driving projects to extract resources. C-3 CBNRMSocial Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 7. Freudenberger, K. 1994. Tree and Land Tenure: Rapid Appraisal Tools. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). Abstract: This is a field manual which presents the practical methodology of rapid appraisal for exploring tenure issues in forestry. The approach is premised on the division of resources into three broad categories-holdings, commons and reserves-and then understanding how villagers approach tree and forest resource management in each category. 8. Freudenberger, K. 1995. Tree and Land Tenure: Using Rapid Appraisal to Study Natural Resource Management. Rome, Italy: Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). Abstract: Case study which applies principles outlined in rapid appraisal field manual written by same author (1994) and presents not only what was learned by using RRA, but discusses the pragmatic aspects of conducting appraisals in an indigenous community. The study was done in the village of Anivorano in Madagascar, and focused on land use and tenure practices of local villagers, in order to contribute to policy debates over environmental degradation in the area. 9. IIRR (International Institute for Rural Reconstruction). 1998. Participatory Methods in Community Based Coastal Resource Management. Silang, Cavite, Philippines: International Institute for Rural Reconstruction. Notes: This three volume publication on participatory approaches to research and development methods is specifically adapted for coastal resource management issues and concerns. The first volume provides an introduction and contains summary papers on community-based coastal resource management, community organizing, participatory methods and a guide for applying participatory tools. The second volume comprises descriptions of over 30 participatory research/PRA tools adapted for the coastal resource management context. Each tool description includes a definition, purpose, material requirements, possible approach for application of the tool, its strengths and weaknesses and some ideas for adaptation and variation. The third volume provides guidance on assessment and monitoring tools, resource enhancement strategies, education and extension, advocacy, documentation and cross-cutting themes. CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 10. IIRR. 1996. Recording and Using Indigenous Knowledge: A Manual. Silang, Cavite, Philippines. International Institute for Rural Reconstruction (IIRR). Abstract: A how-to manual on indigenous knowledge research which is divided into five main parts. Part 1 Indigenous Knowledge and Development contains sections on defining IK, characteristics of local systems, why IK is useful, helping communities conserve IK, using IK in development, recording IK in communities, and intellectual property rights. Part 2 Recording and Assessment Methodologies contains sections on recording methods, sample selection, observation and interviewing, working with groups, using diagrams and audio-visual material. Part 3 Assessment of Indigenous Knowledge contains sections on assessing IK, criteria for assessing IK, tapping insiders' assessment, using western science methods to assess IK, and monitoring and evaluation. Part 4 Mini Case-studies contains examples to illustrate various points, and Part 5 Question Guides contains guides to construct questionnaires/interviews for various sustainable development topics. 11. Leith, J. 1996. Community Participation in Coastal Zone Planning and Management: a Training Course in Rapid Appraisal for Coastal Communities. ESCDI Technical Manual Series. Dalhousie University, Environmental Studies Centres Development in Indonesia. Jakarta. 119 pp. Notes: This manual is very useful as a reference and source of material for PRA practitioners working in coastal regions. Although written for Indonesian students, the manual is widely applicable to various audiences and countries, and provides excellent coverage of the complex issues that affect coastal communities, resources and ecosystems. 12. Maine, R.A., Cam, B., Davis-Case, D. 1996. Participatory Analysis, Monitoring and Evaluation for Fishing Communities: A Manual. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Abstract: While there are many manuals available on participatory rapid appraisal approaches to monitoring and evaluation, there were none easily used by field officers attempting to aid and encourage fishing community level participation in monitoring and evaluating activities of projects and programs in rural fishing communities. This manual is prepared in "cook-book" fashion with easily followed instructions for 26 participatory monitoring tools to allow use by both local field staff acting as facilitators and directly by community members engaged in the evaluation process. Notes: A Hands-on guide to doing participatory analysis. Easy to use with many diagrams and drawings. Very much an introductory manual that does not use overly technical language or jargon. Good introduction to participatory approaches but lacking C-5 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book in detailed discussion. Examples relate to a fishing community context but much of what is contained in the document could be adapted to other ecosystems/resource management systems. 13. Mindinao Training Resource Centre. 1996. Training Package on Community Organizing - Participatory Action Research. Davao, Philippines: Institute of Primary Health Care, Davao Medical School Foundation. 159 pp. 14. Narayan, D. 1996. Toward Participatory Research. World Bank Technical Paper No. 307. Washington D.C. World Bank. Abstract: This volume is a practical guide to the formulation and implementation of participatory research and inquiry. It contains material about the principles underlying participatory techniques, insights gained from the use of such techniques in the field, best practices for designing and implementing these methods, and actual participatory activities and checklists that have been used successfully. The findings, drawn from years of experience in the water and sanitation sector, are proving to be applicable in other sectors and settings as well. While this document is intended to be used by World Bank staff engaged in water and sanitation projects, the discussion of the participatory approach is valid for the CBNRM approach and the methods described are applicable across sectors. In addition to identifying the principles underlying participatory research - and how these differ from conventional research methodologies - this document provides guidance on defining the purpose of a study, organizing the participatory research process, choosing from available data collection methods, selecting and training field workers to carry out the research, dissemination and use of findings. This volume also offers a wide array of participatory research activities and checklists. 15. Pido, M., Pomeroy, R., Carlos, M., Garces, L. 1996. A Handbook for Rapid Appraisal of Fisheries Management Systems. ICLARM, Manila, Philippines. Abstract: The Rapid Appraisal of Fisheries Management Systems (RAFMS) is a semi- structured research tool designed to quickly document and evaluate the existing local- level fisheries management systems in a given fishing community. These fisheries management systems may be formal, informal/traditional or combinations. Undertaking a rapid appraisal approach is deemed useful to provide a general description of basic physical and fisher/community characteristics and institutional arrangements. RAFMS then gives the direction for undertaking more formal research or quantitative surveys. The village or a cluster of villages within a defined fishing area, such as a bay or a lake, is the RAFMS geographical focus. The handbook is divided into six parts: (1) introduction to rapid appraisal; (2) research/survey framework; (3) procedures and methodologies; (4) afterward; (5) references; and (6) an appendix of six matrices. C-6 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 16. Poffenberger, M.E. 1992. Field Methods Manual, Volume II. Community Forest Economy and Use Patterns: Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) Methods in South Gujarat, India. New Delhi: Society for Promotion of Wastelands Development. Notes: This report is the second of a two volume Field Methods Manual developed to support the implementation of a Joint Forest Management (JFM) program. Volume II summarizes the learning from a field training workshop held in Gujarat, India, in 1992. The primary objective of the workshop was to explore the usefulness of participatory rural appraisal (PRA) methods for assessing human-forest interaction patterns. The contents of the workshop report are organized into two main parts: experiences with PRA methods, and three case studies. This is followed by a summary discussion. 17. Selener, D. 1997. Participatory Action Research and Social Change. Ithaca, New York: The Cornell Participatory Action Research Network, Cornell University. Notes: The first half of the book takes the form of a detailed literature review outlining four key areas where participatory research has made significant inroads: participatory research in community development; action research in organizations, action research in schools; and farmer participatory research. For each topic, numerous examples of actual research projects are used to illustrate how participatory methodologies may be used in the field. In addition, each chapter includes a detailed case study which demonstrates the successes, and pitfalls, of such approaches. These chapters provide a concise review of trends and issues within each sub-field. The second part is concerned with how these branches of participatory research are applied within the broader framework of social change. The different levels of participation which researchers may employ, and the implications of each, are explored using examples from the field, with particular reference to issues of power, democracy and control. In addition, these chapters examine the frequently-overlooked epistemological assumptions which underlie participatory research and social change more generally. The book presents a comprehensive and critical analysis of participatory research methodologies in both concept and application. With over 1000 citations, this book carries added value as a reference guide to a large and diverse body of literature. CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 18. Selener, D. 1996. A Participatory Systematization Workbook: Documenting, Evaluating and Learning from Our Development Projects. Silang Cavite, Philippines: International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR). Abstract: This workbook provides methods to plan for, follow-up, evaluate and improve processes and results of development projects. The authors call this process "systematization" which they define as "a methodology which facilitates the on-going description, analysis and documentation of the processes and results of a development project in a participatory way". The workbook includes questions and approaches to help guide planning, monitoring and evaluation in a project and offers some tools. Notes: This manual is a clearly written and laid out guide to help ensure continuity, reflection and learning from project processes and results. Like any manual this book should be used as a guide rather than an approach to adopt wholesale. The material is general enough that any particular project will be able to pick and choose some of the approaches and adapt them to their own situation. 19. Slocum R., Wichahrt L., Rocheleau D. et al. Eds. 1995. Power, Process and Participation: Tools for Change. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. 251 pp. Abstract: Powerlessness, marginality, and dispossession are found in all corners of the world. The aim of this book is to enable facilitators from inside, as well as outside, communities to empower those people who are frequently omitted from the decision-making process. Power, Process, and Participation explores participatory approaches to development and offers innovative, collaborative tools for working with local groups and communities. The tools described here are sensitive to cultural and social differences, and have been designed to increase the capacities of local communities, NGOs, and public sector agencies by integrating applied and analytical methods for consciousness-raising, data-gathering, community decision-making, advocacy, and development activities. The book focuses on participatory capacity-building in ways that address the practical needs and strategic interests of the disadvantaged and disempowered, and it pays particular attention to gender issues. Other issues include how differences in class, ethnicity, race, caste, religion, age and status may also lead to the 'politics of exclusion' that this book aims to avoid. CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 20. Srinivasan, L. 1990. Tools for Community Participation: A Manual for Training Trainers in Participatory Techniques. New York: PROWESS/UNDP. Notes: This manual focuses on one approach to participatory training which PROWESS has applied in numerous projects and workshops. Intended primarily for the training of trainers in participatory techniques, it describes these techniques in a "how to" step by step fashion. This manual is also intended to be a "discussion starter," and delves into some of the political issues underlying participation and the often conflicting priorities of communities and development practitioners. 21. Thomas-Slayter, B., Polestico, R., Esser, A.L., et al. 1995. A Manual for Socio-Economic and Gender Analysis: Responding to the Development Challenge. Worcester, MA: ECOGEN - Clark University. 278pp. Abstract: This manual for socio-economic and gender analysis provides development professionals working as planners, organizers, educators, project managers, or community catalysts with the concepts and tools to facilitate local empowerment and capacity-building and to make their work both more effective and more appropriate to the needs and interests of local people. It introduces a conceptual framework, offers 40 tools and strategies for socio-economic and gender analysis, provides ten examples of a broad range of development activities in different settings around the world, and suggests ways to clarify objectives and to measure outcomes. 22. Veldhuizen, L.V., Waters-Bayer, A., Zeeuw, H.D. 1997. Developing Technology with Farmers: A Trainer's Guide for Participatory Learning. London and New York: Zed Books. 230 pp. Notes: This manual is written for trainers in governmental and non-governmental development organizations who are preparing their staff to work together with farmers in developing technologies appropriate to ecological agriculture and using few external inputs. The training is designed to stimulate active learning by participants who draw on their own experience, an approach which mirrors the type of interaction between facilitator and farmers in Participatory Technology Development (PTD). PTD in agriculture is a process of interaction between local people and outside facilitators to develop more sustainable farming systems. It starts with a joint analysis of the situation, an activity commonly known as Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA). It continues by including participatory planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of local development activities. The heart of PTD is experimentation with new ideas designed and conducted by farmers with the encouragement of PTD practitioners. C-9 CBNRMSocial Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book Each of the four parts of the book contains learning units in which key concepts are explained and learning modules are presented, together with sample overheads, cases, games, role-plays etc. The book grew out of an international workshop of PTD trainers working in developing countries, and has been field-tested by trainers over the past five years. 23. World Bank. 1996. The World Bank Participation Sourcebook. Washington, D.C. The World Bank. Notes: Although written for World Bank Task Managers, this sourcebook is a useful reference for anyone interested in participatory processes in economic and social development. The sourcebook is not a policy document on participation; nor is it meant to be read from cover to cover. It also does not seek to persuade anyone to use participatory approaches. The assumption is that readers have already decided to use participatory approaches in their professional work. Chapters include (1) Reflections on Participation; (2) Shared Experiences; (3) Practice Pointers in Participatory Planning and Decision-making; and (4) Practice Pointers in Enabling the Poor to Participate. Appendices include (I) Methods and Tools; and (II) Working Paper Summaries. C-10 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book D. Bibliography This section provides a list of annotated/abstracted references related to participatory research that might be of interest to CBNRM researchers. The source of the annotations is in most cases the author or the publisher; however, some have been written or adapted for the CBNRM researcher audience. 1. Ashby, J.A. 1995. Institutionalizing a Rapid Appraisal Approach to Participatory, Client-Driven Research and Technology Development in Agriculture. Development and Change 26(4):753-770. Abstract: This article identifies key characteristics of participatory research and development (R&D) in the agricultural sector: it is client-driven, requires decentralized technology development, devolves to farmers the major responsibility for adaptive testing, and requires institutions and individuals to become accountable for the relevance and quality of technology on offer. Through case study material drawn from Latin America, Asia and Africa, the article then reviews ways by which institutions have responded to these characteristics and raises issues for further elaboration. Steps need to be taken, in particular, to safeguard equity, both between the more and less vocal groups of farmers, and between the requirements of present and future generations (the latter referring particularly to environmental concerns). It is argued that participatory R&D alone is insufficient to deliver innovations relevant to diverse client groups: policy mechanisms are required to define which clients are to participate, whose agendas are to drive the process, and what organizational innovations are needed to move agricultural R&D in these directions. 2. Ashby, J.A. 1997. What Do We Mean by Participatory Research in Agriculture? Cali, Colombia: Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical. 3. Ashby, J.A. 1998. Improving the Acceptability to Farmers of Soil Conservation Practices. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 51(4):309-312. Abstract: Non-adoption of soil conservation practices by farmers in low-income countries is a major obstacle to reversing soil degradation. Farmer involvement in designing these practices is required to improve adoption. This study tested participatory research methods which dramatically increased adoption among 115 farmers over the first year, and stimulated farmer-to-farmer recommendations leading to adoption by an even larger number of farmers. Farmers' evaluations were shown to predict future acceptability of optional practices. When participatory research methods are wed to elicit farmers' input into the design of recommendations, these can help to realize the potential of many hitherto unadopted conservation practices. D-1 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 4. Ashby, J.A. 1990. Evaluating Technology with Farmers: a Handbook. Cali, Columbia: CIAT Publications. Notes: The author evaluates three approaches to farmer participation in Colombia by differentiating the extent to which farmers participate in defining project criteria for on-farm fertilizer trials. The study finds "increased scope of farmers participation produced significant changes in the design of on-farm trails due to important insights into how farmers themselves would evaluate fertilizers." Ashby sees farmer participation as a necessary part of testing technology and calls for wider application of participatory methodology in basic agricultural research. 5. Awa, N.E. 1989. Participation and indigenous knowledge in rural development. Knowledge 10(4):304-316. Notes: A review of the literature on the role of participation in rural development shows that some writers have focused on program design, others on program planning and implementation, and still others on evaluation; but all acknowledge the value of a broadly participatory development strategy in intervention programs. However, there is disagreement on what constitutes participation in the development enterprise. Most practitioners believe that indigenous knowledge is crucial to the success of such enterprise. Examined here are the relationship between participation and indigenous knowledge and the role of the latter in rural development. 6. Barnsley, J., Ellis, D. 1992. Research for Change: Participatory Action Research for Community Groups. Victoria, BC: Women's Research Centre. Notes: A guide prepared for community groups involved in social change which outlines a method of participatory action research. It begins with an overview of the thinking behind action research, and provides a process for making the decision of whether to undertake research, and if so how to incorporate this into the overall work of the community group. It also explains how to design and carry out research, with a focus on practical information: how to identify the questions, and how to collect and analyze the information. A "Tool Kit" section is included, giving examples of participatory tools and techniques which can be used in the research process. 7. Barton, T., Borini-Feyerabend, G., de Sherbinin, A. et al. 1997. Basic Methods and Tools for PAR on Population Dynamics and the Local Environment. In Our People, Our Resources: Supporting Rural Communities in Participatory Action Research on Population Dynamics and the Local Environment. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. p. 217-233. D-2 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 8. Bartunek, J.M. 1993. Scholarly dialogues and participatory action research. Human Relations 46(10):1221-1233. Notes: This paper addresses two issues that are pertinent to the papers in the special issue on Participatory Action Research (Human Relations, Vol. 46, No. 2). The first is the conceptual contributions of the papers. The more explicit these contributions, the more dialogue they encourage which moves beyond the action research tradition. The second is the extent to which participants have a say in the final presentation of the research findings. The greater the scholarly dialogue between action researchers and participants, the more complete the description of the interventions. 9. Bay of Bengal Programme for Fisheries Development. 1990. Helping Fisherfolk to Help Themselves: A Study in People's Participation. Madras, India: Affiliated East-West Press (P) Ltd. Abstract: This book discusses the meaning and the logic of people's participation in fisheries development. It documents a year's study of people's participation encompassing a variety of activities - a bibliography, desk studies, project case studies and analyses. 10. Beck, T. 1994. The Experience of Poverty. Intermediate Technology Publications, Oxford, U.K. Notes: A useful, detailed study of rural West Bengal demonstrating applications of village-level participatory methods, including methodological pitfalls, gender issues and marginalization, ethical procedures and protecting identities. Demonstrates the systematic structural change in patterns of common property resource access and use, and how to go about identifying these. 11. Bergdall, T. 1993. Methods for Active Participation: Experiences in Rural Development from East and Central Africa. Nairobi: Oxford University Press. Notes: This is a practical, down to earth account of the processes of rural development pioneered by the Method for Active Participation Research and Development Fund (MAP). The core of the book consists of detailed accounts of development programmes which have taken place in Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia. Problems and difficulties in effecting change are fully described and discussed. There are further sections on the monitoring and evaluation of programmes and on the crucial area of training facilitators. The final part of the book is a handbook for facilitators on primary techniques. CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 12. Biggs, S. 1998. Beyond Methodologies - Coalition-building For Participatory Technology Development. World Development 26(3):239-248. Abstract: Participatory and other approaches to technology development have shared a recent preoccupation with specific methods and doubts about just how much can be expected of the methods themselves, as opposed to how they are applied, by whom, and in what circumstances. Detailed analysis of historical cases suggests that the development of both technologies and methodologies is highly dependent on local context. Such processes are characterized by conflicts over the direction of change and affected by the activities of a particular type of grouping, the development coalition. These coalitions are examined and implications are considered for training, education and Participatory technology development. 13. Blackburn, J., Holland, J. 1997. Who Changes? Institutionalizing Participation in Development. London: Intermediate Technologies. 208pp. Abstract: Draws together lessons and experiences from key development agencies around the globe on the institutional change needed to make participation a reality. The book explores the main issues and concerns of development professionals involved in PRA (Participatory Rural Appraisal) practices: adapting PRA methods from micro to macro organizations and the type of changes required by an organization to implement PRA effectively. In addition, the reader is provided with a checklist of practical considerations to guide them through this complex field: training programmes and training needs for all those involved in the participation programme, implementing projects from piloting stages to gradual scaling up, institutional change and the changing cultures and procedures of hierarchical organizations, and participatory monitoring and evaluation. 14. Brown, L.D. 1993. Social change through collective reflection with Asian nongovernmental development organizations. Human Relations 46(2):249-273. Abstract: "Participatory Action Research" has been acclaimed for producing new knowledge as well as solutions to organization and social problems. But the term has quite different meanings to different audiences: the "Southern" tradition is committed to community transformation through empowering disenfranchised groups; the "Northern" tradition is concerned with reforming organizations through problem- solving. This paper describes a series of collective reflections that brought together leaders of development agencies from Southern and Northern settings to consider the roles of nongovernment development organizations (NGOs) in promoting sustainable development. The results of these reflections, in terms of new knowledge and new action strategies, are illustrated. Critical processes for such collective reflection, including the management of D-4 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book value and ideological differences, the definition of participation, and the organization of joint inquiry are discussed. The paper also discusses the implications of such reflections for re-defining the social realities of key actors in the development drama, and so catalyzing major changes in development theory and action through relatively small interventions. 15. Burbidge, J. ed. 1988. Approaches that Work in Rural Development: Emerging Trends, Participatory Methods and Local Initiatives. Munchen: Brussels Institute of Cultural Affairs International. Notes: This three volume series makes up the largest evaluation of small projects one is likely to find anywhere, some 400 grassroots programs worldwide. The series provides strong evidence for participation's effectiveness in promoting equitable, self-reliant development. This last volume is the best introduction to the scope and character of ICAI programs. There is a thorough discussion here and in volume 2 on preparation and training for participatory approaches to small-project development. 16. Burkey, S. 1993. People First: A Guide to Self-Reliant Participatory Rural Development. London: Zed Books Ltd. 238pp. 17. Cashman, K. 1991. Systems of knowledge as systems of domination: the limitations of established meaning. Agriculture and Human Values 8(1/2):49-58. Notes: The hegemony of Western science, inherent in international development projects, often increases the poverty and oppression of Southern women by pre-empting alternative realities. In African and Asian agrarian societies women grow from 60 to 90% of the food; they hold incredible potential to increase food production. Research from a feminist standpoint is used to challenge the objectivity and reliability of EuroAmerican development science. This paper emphasizes research pursued in order to act, closely linking knowing to doing to promote the emancipation of oppressed groups. A feminist standpoint is used to privilege the perspective of rural women in developing countries and ask what the implications of the standard Euro-American approach to science for maximizing the potential contributions of rural women to agricultural development. Some of these implications are illustrated with examples from on-farm research in Nigeria. To some extent, implications can be addressed by constructing meanings to structure a symbolic framework that includes female farmers and other disadvantages groups. CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 18. Chambers, R. 1992. Rural Appraisal: Rapid, Relaxed and Participatory. Sussex: IDS, University of Sussex. Notes: The term participatory rural appraisal (PRA) describes a growing family of approaches and methods to enable local people to share, enhance and analyze their knowledge of life and conditions, to plan and to act. PRA flows from and owes much to activist participatory research, agroecosystem analysis, applied anthropology, field research on farming systems, and rapid rural appraisal (RRA). In RRA information is elicited and extracted by outsiders, in PRA it is shared and owned by local people. Evidence to date shows high validity and reliability in information shared by rural people through PRA. Dangers include faddism, rushing, formalism, ruts and rejection. Potentials include farmers' own farming systems research, substituting for surveys, spread by villagers and support for the paradigm shift towards decentralization, local diversity and empowerment of the poor. 19. Chambers, R. 1994. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Challenges, Potential and Paradigm. World Development 22(10):1437-1454. Abstract: Much of the spread of participatory rural appraisal (PRA) as an emerging family of approaches and methods has been lateral, South-South, through experiential learning and changes in behavior, with different local applications. Rapid spread has made quality assurance a concern, with dangers from "instant fashion", rushing, formalism and ruts. Promising potentials include farmers' own farming systems research, alternatives to questionnaire surveys, monitoring, evaluation and lateral spread by local people, empowerment of-the poorer and weaker, and policy review. Changes in personal behavior and attitudes, and in organizational cultures, are implied. PRA parallels and resonates with paradigm shifts in the social and natural sciences, business management, and development thinking, supporting decentralization, local diversity, and personal responsibility. 20. Chambers, R. 1994. The Origins and Practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA). World Development 22(7):953-968. Abstract., Participatory Rural Appraisal describes a growing family of approaches and methods to enable local people to share, enhance and analyze their knowledge of life and conditions, to plan and to act. PRA has sources in activist participatory research, agroecosystems analysis, applied anthropology, field research on farming systems, and rapid rural appraisal (RRA). In RRA information is more elicited and extracted by outsiders; in PRA it is more shared and owned by local people. Participatory methods include mapping and modeling, transect walks, matrix scoring, seasonal calendars, trend and change analysis, well-being and wealth ranking and grouping, and analytical diagraming. PRA applications include natural resources management, agriculture, D-6 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book poverty and social programs, and health and food security. Dominant behavior by outsiders may explain why it has taken until the 1990's for the analytical capabilities of local people to be better recognized and for PRA to emerge, grow and spread. 21. Chambers R., Pacey A., and Thrupp, L.A. eds. 1989. Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Notes: Contains a strong collection of essays by contributors from the agricultural and social sciences, ecology, economics and geography. The common theme is that much of the problem of African and Southern underdevelopment stems from inappropriate technology introduced into complex, diverse and risk-prone small-farmer systems. The authors argue that much of the solution lies in farmers' innovative capacity and their participation in the research process. Contents include: "The role of farmers in the creation of agricultural technology" (Robert Rhoades); "Farmers' knowledge, innovations and relation to science" (IDS Workshop); "Encouraging farmers' experiments" (Roland Bunch); Virgilio's theorem: a method for adaptive agricultural research" (Louk Box); "Appraisal by group trek" (S.B. Mathema and D.L. Galt); "Diagrams for farmers" (Gordon Conway); "Farmers, on-farm research, and new technology" (J. Sumberg and C. Okali); "Farmer participation in technology development: work with crop varieties" (Jacqueline Ashby et al.); "Farmer groups for technology development: experience in Botswana" (D. Norman et al.); "Final reflections about on-farm research methods" (IDS Workshop); "Context and change" (IDS Workshop); "Scientists' training and interactions with farmers in India" (K. Raman); and "Reversals, institutions and change" (Robert Chambers). 22. Chataway, C.J. 1997. An Examination of the Constraints on Mutual Inquiry in a Participatory Action Research Project. Journal of Social Issues 53(4):747-765. Abstract: Participatory Action Research (PAR) is designed to promote active involvement in every stage of the research process by those who are conventionally the focus of research. PAR thereby replaces the traditional hierarchical approach to research with a commitment to mutual inquiry and local ownership. The ideals of PAR have been much written about, but very little PAR literature actually describes how the research unfolded in any particular context, so this article examines the way that mutual inquiry manifested itself in a deeply divided Native community. In this setting, Native participants wanted to learn more about internal community problems and were interested in taking advantage of non-Native time, research skills, and resources for that purpose. However, a history of oppression had left this community distrustful of outsiders (inhibiting mutual inquiry) and internally divided (inhibiting self-inquiry). The use of PAR allowed a tenuous alliance to develop between myself as an English D-7 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book Canadian and the members of this Native community. Our particular modifications to the theoretical PAR model facilitated the coordinated participation of community groups that were resistant to working together in a research process that revealed barriers to change in the community and clarified directions for action. To achieve our goals, the PAR principles of mutuality and public responsibility were altered considerably from the prescriptions found in the PAR literature. 23. Chisholm, R., Elden, M. 1993. Features of emerging action research. Human Relations 46(2):275-298. Notes: Widely divergent forms of action research are emerging to meet requirements of new organizational and social environments. This article identifies key dimensions of action research that cut through the cases and allow for comparison and contrast. These dimensions include: (1) the system level of the charge target; (2) the degree of organization of the research setting; (3) the degree of openness of the action research process; (4) the goals and purpose of the research effort; and (5) the role of the researcher(s). These dimensions are used to locate cases and to support discussion of qualitative aspects that are crucial to understanding. Several general lessons derived from the dimensional analysis and discussion are described. 24. Clark University. 1991. Participatory Rural Appraisal Handbook: Conducting PRA's in Kenya. Worcester, MA. Clark University, Program for International Development. Notes: This handbook is an introduction to the rationale and methodology of participatory rural appraisal (PRA), and offers 8 steps in PRA (site selection, preliminary visits, data collection, data synthesis and analysis, ranking problems, ranking opportunities, adopting a village resource management plan, implementation) and provides several examples of PRA methods. The method outlined here has been criticized by some as being presented as an unproblematic "cook-book" approach to PRA that leaves it open to misuse. Keeping this in mind, it can serve as a useful reference for doing PRA. 25. Cornwall, A., Guijt, I., Welbourn, A. 1993. Acknowledging Process: Challenges for Agricultural Research and Extension Methodology. Sussex: Institute of Development Studies. Abstract: This work focuses on social processes, experiential, practical and political elements which are often overlooked in the literature on agricultural research and extension. Methodological issues raised by a shift in theoretical perspectives from a structured to diverse approach are explored. A broader view of the 'farmer' is called for: an approach that locates farmers, researchers and extensionists as social actors within D-8 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book the process of agricultural production and extension. Methodology in agricultural research and extension is clarified at the outset, with challenges to mainstream thinking in agricultural development reviewed. The paper finally explores ways to enrich current agricultural research and extension through new forms of practice. This paper clarifies "the role of methodology in agricultural research and extension", reviews "challenges to mainstream thinking in agricultural development" and recent participatory methodologies and explores ways to enrich current agricultural research. It does not consider PRA itself except as one of a range of methods. The paper seeks to contextualise PRA within other participatory methods, and within historical developments that have led to the development of these methods. 26. Dugan, S. 1993. Reflections on helping: a perspective on participatory action research. International Journal Of Public Administration 16(11):1715-1733. Notes: Participatory Action Research (PAR) is a common approach to development interventions, and this essay focuses on the approach as a major way of 'helping.' The discussion circumscribes PAR, outlines a 6-phase cycle useful for structuring it, and ends with guiding questions for PAR researcher who wish to work with a community in a collaborative rather than condescending mode. 27. Elden, M., Chisholm, R. 1993. Emerging varieties of action research: Introduction to the special issue. Human Relations 46(2):121-142. Notes: In contrast to conventional research, the basic classical model of action research applied to social problems has five elements: a change of orientation toward democratic, humanistic values; context-bound, real-world inquiry; systematic data collection over time; collaboration with participants in the research process; and diffusion of knowledge. New developments in action research extend these elements far enough to constitute new methods in conducting research. The presentations of action research in this special issue develop, transform, or combine these classical elements in significant ways. The new action research also adds new types of problems and goals to the field that constitute a rethinking of the relationship between science, knowledge, learning, and action. 28. Elden, M., Chisholm, R. 1993. Special action research issue. Human Relations 46(2) Notes: Special issue dedicated to recent writings on action research. Contents include: "Emerging varieties of action research" (Max Elden and Rupert Chisholm); "Participatory action research as a process and as a goal" (Davydd Greenwood, William Whyte, and Ira Harkavy); "Social change through collective reflection with Asian D-9 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book non-governmental organizations" (L. David Brown); and "Features of emerging action research" (Rupert Chisholm and Max Elden). 29. Engel, P., Salomon, M. 1995. RAAKS: A Participatory Action-Research Approach to Facilitating Social Learning for Sustainable Development. Systems Oriented Research in Agriculture and Rural Development: 206-211. 30. Fals-Borda, 0., Rahman, M.A. 1991. Action and Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly With Participatory Action Research. New York: Apex Press. Notes: A collection of recent articles detailing the authors' experiences with participatory research. The book is divided into three main sections; an introduction which incorporates papers presenting an overview of general participatory research theory; a series of case studies from the South (with one from North America), and a concluding section on praxiology. Contents include: "Some basic ingredients" (Orlando Fals- Borda); "The theoretical standpoint of PAR" (Muhammad Anisur Rahman); "A self-review of PAR" (Muhammad Anisur Rahman and Orlando Fals-Borda); "Action and participatory research: a case of peasant organizations" (Vera Gianotten and Ton de Witt); "Glimpses of the other Africa" (Muhammad Anisur Rahman); "People's power in Zimbabwe" (Sithembiso Nyoni); "Toward a knowledge democracy: viewpoints on participatory research in North America" (John Gaventa); "Stimulation of self-reliant initiatives by sensitized agents: some lessons from practice" (S. Tilakaratna); and "Remaking knowledge" (Orlando Fals-Borda). 31. Ferrer, E., Polotan-de la Cruz, L., Agoncillo-Domingo, M. (Eds). 1996. Seeds of Hope: A Collection of Case Studies on Community-Based Coastal Resources Management in the Philippines. University of the Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines. 223pp. Notes: This book is a collection of 9 case-studies from different regions of the Philippines, written by project implementors themselves. The case studies are a reflection of their work, and the strengths, weaknesses and lessons learned from the application of community-based coastal resource management. Each case study shows how community empowerment has made positive changes in its members. 32. Ferrer, E., Polotan-de la Cruz, L., Agoncillo-Domingo, M. (Eds). 1996. Tagaporo: The Island Dwellers Coastal Resource Profile of Barangay Dewey Bolinao, Pangasinan University of the Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines. 223pp. Notes: This book shares the results of PRA conducted on the island. It describes the physical characteristics of the island, its history, its organizations, its resources, the D-10 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book fishery and other livelihood activities. The final chapter synthesizes all the information to identify patterns in the status and utilization of resources and seeks to explore possible areas of intervention in Resource Management. 33. Feuerstein, M.-T. 1988. Finding the methods to fit the people: training for participatory evaluation. Community Development Journal 23(1):16-25. Notes: Although people's participation has been strongly advocated for some time in the planning, implementation and monitoring of a wide range of development activities, this emphasis on participation has seldom extended into the realm of evaluation. This article outlines various characteristics of participatory evaluation strategies and discusses the strengths and weaknesses of this method. 34. Freedman, J. 1994. Participatory Evaluations: Making Projects Work. Calgary: University of Calgary International Centre. Notes: This guide introduces the rationale for participatory evaluations and presents some broad based guidelines for facilitating them. Participatory evaluation recognizes recipients, project staff, and beneficiaries as the key custodians of knowledge about what projects do and do not do. Once these groups become engaged in project successes and failures, they have taken the first step toward assuming some responsibility for implementing changes. This guide describes why and how participatory evaluations are done. The first section provides some justification for using participatory evaluations. The second section gives practical advice on how to carry out these evaluations. 35. Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury Press. Notes: Building the potential for popular political action goes hand in hand with literacy training. Illiteracy is a condition of disempowerment not only for want of a skill useful for analysis and communication, but more fundamentally for want of words which describe real experience. Literacy is learned with unexpected rapidity when it is combined with learning the words which allow the learners to grasp more fully the reality of their oppression. Freire does not fully explore the political dilemma which his pedagogy poses: the strategic path from pedagogy to power, a dilemma his own educative efforts encountered in Brazil and otherwise. CBNRMSocial Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 36. Frideres, J.S. ed. 1992. A World of Communities: Participatory Research Perspectives. Toronto: Captus University Publications. Notes: A collection of recent articles focusing on participatory research in the Canadian context, notable for the editor's introduction discrediting participatory research methodology rather than supporting it. The rest of the contributors favor participatory methods over traditional research methodologies. Contents include: "Participatory research: an illusory perspective" (James Frideres); "Evolution and convergence in participatory action research" (0. Fals-Borda); "Does development education in the more developed world make a difference in the less developed world?" (A. T. Ariyaratne); "Regional community development in northern Morelos" (A. Ornelas); "Community health development project: Mahlkuna, Nepal" (J. Garsonin and P. Lal Devkota); "People's participation in the study of their own situation: the Davao (Philippines) Experience" (S. Chin et al.); and "Institutional impediments to cross-cultural research" (R. McTaggarty). 37. Gill, G. 1998. Using PRA for Agricultural Policy Analysis in Nepal: the Tarai Research Network Foodgrain Study. In Whose Voice? Particpatory Research and Policy Change. Holland J. and Blackburn J. eds. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. p. 11-27. 38. Goebel, A. 1998. Process, Perception and Power - Notes From Participatory Research in a Zimbabwean Resettlement Area. Development and Change 29(2):277-305. Abstract: The increased popularity of 'participatory' methods in research, development projects, and rural extension in developing countries, has not consistently been accompanied by a critical evaluation of the quality and reliability of knowledge created and extracted in the process. In this article, the author employs her own research using Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) in a Zimbabwean Resettlement Area, to examine how knowledge is created through this type of research act, and how later research may be used to turn back and 'make sense' of PRA data. The article explores how power relations among participants are both revealed and concealed in PRA, focusing specifically on the implications for gendered perspectives. The paper also highlights the dynamic, contested and often contradictory nature of 'local knowledge' itself. Apparently transparent chunks of 'local reality' gleaned through PRA can turn out to be part of complex webs of multiple ideologies and practices. The author argues that while participatory methodologies may offer effective ways of beginning a research project, adoption of short PRA workshops in academic or project related research could lead to dangerously faulty representations of complex social worlds. D-12 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 39. Goyder, H., Davies, R., and Williamson, W. 1998. Participatory Impact Assessment: A report on a DFID-funded ActionAid research project on methods and indicators for measuring the impact of poverty reduction. Somerset, UK: ActionAld. 57pp. 40. Greenwood, D.J., Whyte, W.F., Harkavy, I. 1993. Participatory action research as a process and as a goal. Human Relations 46(2):175-192. Notes: The utility of participatory action research (PAR) as a social research method and process is assessed. PAR's role in promoting social change through organizational learning is analyzed in three very different kinds of organizations (Xerox Corp, Mondragon cooperatives in Spain, and West Philadelphia schools). PAR is always an emergent process that can often be intensified and that works effectively to link participation, social action, and knowledge generation. 41. Guijt, I. 1991. Perspectives on Participation: Views From Africa. An Inventory of Rural Development Institutions and Their Uses of Participatory Methods. London: TIED. Notes: To develop more appropriate support for the use of participatory methods in rural research and development in Africa, TIED and FTPP sent more than 1000 questionnaires in three languages to institutions in 50 countries. More than 230 respondents provided valuable information about how local people are involved in their work. Of the participatory methods used, group discussions and community meetings are most often used, with games and stories at the bottom of the range of given options. However, answers indicate that such methods are not always used in a participatory context. Research results are presented here, with several appendices providing further details about specific institutions, to facilitate the exchange of experiences re: the use of participatory methods in rural development research. 42. Gupta, Anil K. 1992. Saga of a star fish: participative design of sustainable institutions for natural resource management. Ahmedabad, India: Indian Institute of Management 56 pp. Working Paper No. 1077. Abstract: Management of natural resources requires reconciliation in the conflicting world views of different stake holders. The conflicts emerge because of the variation in (a) the perception of nature, (b) associated socio-ecological interactions and (c) the ethical values generating respect for non-voting members of our society. It is not easy to design institutions for collective action such that resources are managed not only for the current generation but also in a manner that options of future generations are not compromised. An organization becomes an institution when its members use internal commands (i.e. the directions for action emanating from within one self) instead of external demands (i.e. external regulation or direction for individual action). The cultural D-13 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book conditions in both the cases are very different. The paper provides discussion on the issues which affect "our" participation in "people's" organizations and institutions in part one. Much of the literature on participation deals with the opposite, i.e. how people participate in the organizations designed by us. The eco-sociological perspective for survival of households over space, season and sector is given in part two. The nature of risks and the strategies for coping with the same are described. The relationship between culture and ecology is discussed in the light of eco-specificity of social interactions in part three. The problem of collective action, the role of risk and redundancy, and resource diversification are discussed in part four. The Eco-Institutional model dealing with interactions between access, assurances, ability and attitudes of the households with ecological resources, institutions, technology and culture are described in part five. How local creativity and innovative potential can become the building block of future development is discussed in part six. How institutions designed on the basis of alternative eco-ethics generate accountability to people and encourage people-to-people learning is illustrated with the help of the case of Honey Bee network. This global network of innovators at grassroots level builds upon local excellence and the urge to experiment and evolve technology and institutions for sustainable resource use. The role played by the process of monitoring the collective action by different stake-holders is given in part seven. In part eight, the linkages for lateral learning with particular reference to biodiversity are outlined. In part nine, the lessons and issues for becoming accountable to people are summarized. The ethical issues in farmer participatory research and implications of scaling up the peoples' organization are brought out in part ten. In the annexure, a discussion on the philosophy of sustainability is presented. 43. Gupta, A. Rewarding Creativity for Conserving Diversity in Third World : Can IPR Regime Serve the Needs of Contemporary and Traditional Knowledge Experts and Communities in the Third World ? Available on-line from the SRISTI website at http://csf.colorado.edu/sristi/papers/cottier.html Notes: The debate on the relevance and appropriateness of the conventional IPR regime for plant varieties, products based on knowledge of local communities and individual informal experts and use of local biodiversity even without use of associated knowledge systems has become very emotive in recent years. Many NGOs and activists see no merit in the IPRs regime for providing incentives to local communities and creative individuals. They term the attempts of the large corporations (generally MNCs) to access biodiversity without sharing any benefits with local communities as 'Biopiracy'. Many others oppose the IPRs because these are supposed to commoditize knowledge which reportedly was always in the common domain for universal/local benefit. High costs of hiring patent attorneys is supposed to make the present patent system out of reach of grassroots innovators. The absence of any institutional set-up in D-14 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book most developing countries to (a) provide information about IPRs; (b) extend help to obtain patents for individuals or communities; and (c) oppose the patents by others on the knowledge traditionally known to local communities, have further alienated the moderates and hardened the attitudes of the conventional opponents. There are many arguments on ethical and efficiency grounds against the patenting of life forms and also against the products derived from common knowledge without any reciprocity towards knowledge generators or providers in one or more countries in the region. I propose to dispel many of these myths, acknowledge where there is a genuine case for reforms of patent regime and finally suggest an alternative framework which may be needed to help achieve the goals of IPRs i.e rewarding inventive and creative activities in society. It is acknowledged that encouragement to creative and innovative spirit at the grassroots level will not be possible only through IPR regimes. Notes: Society for Research and Initiatives for Sustainable Technology and Institutions (SRISTI) is on-line at http://csf.colorado.edu/sristi/ 44. Gupta, A. People's Knowledge for Survival: Grassroots Innovations for Sustainable Natural Resource Management. Available on-line from the SRISTI website at http://csf.colorado.edu/sristi/papers/fad.html Abstract: Report outlines SRISTI's approach to indigenous knowledge and innovations, and describes how Honeybee Network is used to disseminate findings of research to local communities. There is an excellent discussion of the theoretical approach to IK research and the methods used to identify and record the contributions of local innovators. Notes: Society for Research and Initiatives for Sustainable Technology and Institutions (SRISTI) is on-line at http://csf.colorado.edu/sristi/ 45. Hall, B. 1992. From margins to centre: the development and purpose of participatory research. American Sociologist: 15-28. Notes: This article documents the development of the libratory stream of participatory research as experienced through the activities and connections of one of the key figures in the early development and dissemination of these ideas. It traces the developments in Tanzania in the early 1970s, through the establishment of the original Participatory Research Network, to the elaboration of theoretical and political debates. It highlights the formulation and elaboration of participatory research as a contribution to social change in a variety of settings. It includes discussions of power to knowledge in transformative practice. It contains an extensive and historically-valuable bibliography. D-15 CBNRMSocial Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 46. Havercort, B., van der Kamp, J., Waters-Bayer, A. 1991. Joining Farmers' Experiments. Experiences In Participatory Technology Development. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Notes: This book is intended for persons who work together with farmers in technology development and for the supervisors and trainers of these fieldworkers, and is a compilation of experiences and case studies in which the farmers are the main actors in the process of technology development with outsiders playing a supportive role. The articles have been selected to give an overview of experiences of NGOs and individual projects as well as universities and farmer research and development projects of national and international agencies. Case studies have been chosen from Latin America, Africa and Asia, with different farming systems and institutional contexts being represented. 47. Heller, F. 1993. Another look at action research. Human Relations 46(10):1235-1242. Notes: Comments on articles by M. Elden and R. Chisholm; G. E. Ledford and S. A. Mohrman; D. J. Greenwood et al.; M. Levin, P. H. Englestad and B. Gustavsen; and L. D. Brown in the special Human Relations issue [Vol. 46, No. 2(1993)] on participatory action research. Methodological issues raised in these articles are discussed. It is concluded that future scholarly discussion about action research will have to come to grips with the need to separate intervention methods that use appropriate rigor from those that do not. 48. Holden, S.J., Joseph, L.O. 1991. Farmer participation, in research and agroforestry development: a case study from Zambia. Agricultural Systems 36(2):173-189. Notes: Finding methods to reach resource-poor farmers with suitable agricultural technologies has recently come into focus and involvement of the resource-poor farmers themselves in a participatory research approach has increasingly been emphasized. This article presents experience from employing such an approach in agroforestry research for small farmers in Northern Zambia, where the objective is to develop improved sustainable farming systems for the target group. The experience demonstrates that many small farmers are willing to experiment and actively search for improved technologies. It is crucial that small farmers involved in technology development research are motivated and innovative and at the same time representative for the target group in terms of the available key resources of land, capital (cash), and human capital (labour, skills, etc.). D-16 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 49. Holland, J. and Blackburn, J. eds. 1998. Whose Voice? Participatory Research and Policy Change. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. 250pp. Abstract: The book incorporates the findings of the international workshop on Institutionalization of Participatory Approaches held at the Institute of Development Studies in 1996 and is presented in an easily digestible three part structure: Part 1 explores case studies in which participatory methods and approaches have been used to influence policy; Part 2 concentrates on PPA (Participatory Poverty Analysis), an innovative approach designed to bring local poverty and policy analysis into the policy process; and Part 3 discusses key issues arising during the IDS workshop, and includes chapters by several participants. Containing detailed case studies from around the world and analyses of key development agencies, NGOs and organizations across the sector over the past decade, Whose Voice? will be of interest to CBNRM researchers grappling with how to influence policy through participatory research. 50. International Seminar on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development. 1997. New Frontiers in Participatory Research and Gender Analysis. Cali, Colombia: Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical. 51. Jacobs, S. 1996. Social Assessment and Participation: Methods and Tools. Washington, D.C. The World Bank. Notes: Designed as "a reference guide to answer the practical, common questions about social assessment and participation: Where do we start? and How do we proceed?" This is the World Bank Social Assessment (SA) framework - "an integrated framework for taking social factors into account" in the work of the Bank. Describes the benefits of doing social assessment, how to do it and what information it can elicit. Provides a two to three page summary of a variety of assessment methods (PRA, ZOPP, SARAR) as well as a practical description of a number of data collection tools and action planning tools. This is a good introductory guide which provides broad coverage of the subject of participatory research. A short reference list is also included. 52. Jinapala, K., Brewer, D,, Sakthivadivel, R. 1997. Multilevel Participatory Rural Appraisal: An Experience from Sri Lanka. In People and Participation in Sustainable Development. Shivakoti, G. et al. (eds). Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal: Tribhuvan University. p. 251-272. D-17 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 53. Kirby, S., McKenna, K. 1989. Experience, Research and Social Change: Methods from the Margins. Toronto: Garamond Press. Notes: The authors set out to demystify the research process in this very accessible "how-to" research guide for community groups. They argue that the process of investigating the world (and the act of creating knowledge based on everyday experience) should not remain a specialized and professionalized activity. Knowledge can as easily be created by those on the margins as by those in the centre. The authors outline the research process step-by-step, and include chapters on getting ready; getting focused; gearing up for data gathering; planning for data gathering; data gathering; data analysis; and data presentation. 54. de Koning, K. and Martin, M. eds. 1995. Participatory Research in Health : Issues and Experiences. London: Zed Books. Abstract: While this collection of essays has an explicit focus on health, there are many contributions that deal with issues of participatory research that are relevant across sectors. Part 1 offers historical-theoretical perspectives to participatory research (PR); Part II covers Training in PR; Part III is PR Process and Empowerment; Part 4 is PR Methods; Part V is Different Methods for Planning and Evaluation PR; Part VI is Using Participatory Methods to Establish Community Based Information Systems; Part VII is Participatory research in the Workplace; and Part VIII is The roles of Universities and Government Health Systems in PR. 55. Lelo, F., Ford, R., Monyadzwe, C. et al. 1993. Managing Resources with PRA Partnerships: A Case Study of Lesoma, Botswana. Worcester, MA, USA and Nairobi, Kenya: Clark University and Egerton University. 47pp. Abstract: The village of Lesoma is struggling with the problems of persistent encroachment by large game, male out-migration, ethnic tension, and fragmented community institutions. This case study illustrates PRA to open negotiations between park officers and communities such as Lesoma. The goal of the Community Action Plan is to develop partnerships between the villagers and two outside entities: an NGO and the government extension officers. This case study provides a summary and reflection of a PRA process that was undertaken in a village in Botswana. It is useful in that it provides not only the results of the PRA's (maps, transect diagrams, seasonal calendars, time lines, trend lines, institutional information) but also analyzes the data and provides some lessons learned from the process. 56. Lightfoot, C., Noble, R. 1993. A Participatory Experiment In Sustainable Agriculture. Journal of Farming Systems Research and Extension 4(1) D-18 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 57. Little, P.D. 1994. The Link Between Participation and Improved Conservation: A Review of Issues and Experience. In Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community Based Conservation. Western D., Wright R.M., and Strum S.C. eds. Washington D.C. Island Press. p. 347-371. 58. Maclure, R. 1990. The challenge of participatory research and its implications for funding agencies. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 10(3):1-21. Notes: Oriented toward the democratization of science, participatory research (PR) is distinguishable from more conventional social science research by several iterative methodological phases and by three common objectives: shared ownership; learning; and action. Because the nature of participation is often ambiguous and is inevitably affected by cultural and sociopolitical dynamics, key issues for professional researchers intending to conduct PR include: the capacity to cope with sociocultural distances and to share initiative and decision-making with community groups; the ample allotment of time and flexibility necessary for participatory processes; and sensitivity to the demands and possible hazards of local participation. In assessing PR projects, funding agencies must be as attuned to the principles of shared ownership, learning, and action as they are to customary exigencies of scientific rigor. To achieve this, many will need to substantially modify their standard procedures of project selection, monitoring, and evaluation so that the needs and capacities of community participants are given the same consideration as the qualifications of professional researchers and the scientific merits of sponsored projects. Such alterations of policy and procedure that allow for genuine participation of communities in applied research are in many cases essential if research is to contribute to the sustainable improvement of social conditions. 59. Mangham, I.L. 1993. Conspiracies of silence? Some critical comments on the action research special issue, February 1993. Human Relations 46(10):1243-1251. Notes: Comments on articles by M. Elden and R. Chisholm, G. E. Ledford and S. A. Mohrman, D. J. Greenwood et al., M. Levin, P. H. Englestad and B. Gustavsen, and L. D. Brown on participatory action research. It is concluded that these papers are, on the whole, disappointing. There is little or no sense of engagement on the part of these researchers or of issues being defined and redefined. 60. Manikutty, S. Community participation: So what? Two rural water projects in India. Development Policy Review 1997. 15(2) D-19 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 61. Martin, A. 1997. Participatory Research Methods - Implementation, Effectiveness and Institutional Context. Agricultural Systems 55(2):195-216. Abstract: This paper outlines some of the main issues and debates in participatory research and participatory technology development, concentrating on implementation. Arguments in favor of farmer participatory research (FPR) are examined as are a number of difficulties. An important question is the extent to which the findings generated by location-specific, participatory research are applicable and transferable to similar systems elsewhere. Issues of data analysis and use of statistics in participatory research are discussed. Modern statistical methods have a useful role in participatory research, but knowledge of these is limited due to the lack of suitable texts and, until recently, the lack of easily accessible computer software. Assessing the effectiveness of participatory 'methods' is difficult as they are context-sensitive. The resources needed for collaborative participatory work are often underestimated and methodologies for monitoring and evaluation have been particularly weak. The development of linkages between participatory research projects and national research organizations is not straightforward and does not always lead to the Institutionalization of participatory approaches. Integration of participatory methods into differing institutional contexts requires management innovation, skill development and new working procedures. Critical areas are building institutional linkages, maintaining communication, co-ordination, management and monitoring of participatory research. Significant increases in devolved participatory research approaches are unlikely in the absence of strong farmers' organizations and intermediary organizations. A number of suggestions for further research are made. 62. Mascarenhas, J.E. 1991. Participatory Rural Appraisal: Proceedings of the February 1991 Bangalore PRA Trainers Workshop. London: TIED. Notes: In February of 1991, MYRADA, a Bangalore (India)-based NGO convened a three-day workshop to enable participatory rural appraisal (PRA) practitioners to come together and share their experiences. The PRA Trainers Workshop was attended by 35 PRA trainers representing 18 different institutions. The objectives of the workshop were: to share the experiences of training; to share details of experiences of the process of participatory planning, analysis, implementation and evaluation; to take stock of common constraints and problems, learning from each other where some have been solved; and to produce an inventory of what has worked. The objective of this issue of RRA notes is to share some of the thoughts and findings of the participants of the workshop. There are two main sections of this report. The first is an overview of the major issues arising during group discussions and presentations. The second contains thirteen different papers representing overview and case studies of PRA, particularly detailing innovations in both methods and process. D-20 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 63. Mascarenhas, J. 1997. Participatory approaches to management of local resources in south India. In Cultivating Knowledge. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. 135 pp. 64. McCay, B.J., Jentoft, S. 1996. From the Bottom Up - Participatory Issues in Fisheries Management. Society and Natural Resources 9(3):237-250. Abstract: "Co-management" is among several slogans used to indicate a dissatisfaction with present systems and a movement to more decentralized systems of marine resource management. The authors note the necessary distinction between decentralization and participatory management and use comparative analyses of case studies of fisheries management systems in Scandinavian and North American countries and New Zealand to explore potentials for both decentralization and delegation of authority in fisheries management. The article focuses on issues of representation, domain, and communication in the design of fisheries management systems. It notes the value of the concept of subsidiarity, recently adopted in the process of European integration, and raises the question of sources of more "communicative rationality" in the social and political processes surrounding fisheries management. 65. McCracken, J.A., Pretty, J.N. 1988. An Introduction to Rapid Rural Appraisal for Agricultural Development. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (TIED). Abstract: This book is intended to supply sufficient information so that development workers can judge the likely usefulness of a Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) approach in their projects and programmes, and select the techniques most appropriate to their needs and resources. The emphasis is on a methodology which is rigorous, cost-effective and multidisciplinary. RRA aims to work with farmers and local community leaders to analyze local problems. An extensive annotated bibliography of RRA literature is included. 66. McTaggert, R. 1991. Principles for participatory action research. Adult Education Quarterly 41(3):168-187. Notes: Outlines principles of participatory action research (PAR) in Australia that have been derived from theory and practice in both Western and cross-cultural contexts. These principles include identification of the individual and collective project; changing and studying discourse, practice, and social organization; and changing the culture of working groups, institutions, and society. PAR is identified with critical social theory, and two perspectives from PAR research in Northern Australian Aboriginal communities are presented. D-21 CBNRMSocial Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 67. Moser, C., Sollis, P. 1991. A methodological framework for analyzing the social costs of adjustment at the micro-level: the case for Guyaquil, Ecuador. IDS Bulletin-Institute of Development Studies 22:23-30. Notes: This article describes the methodology used to examine the social dimensions of debt, recession, and structural adjustment policies in terms of their impact on low income urban households in Guyaquil, Ecuador. It argues that rapid appraisal is appropriate to urban areas, and that, with prior preparation, questionnaire surveys and life history techniques are feasible tools. It highlights the importance of previous knowledge of the community and participation of local people in data collection. It shows immediate field-based analysis of questionnaire data can identify unclear, often sensitive, issues and that in-depth follow-up interviews are possible. All of these techniques contribute to a feasible research methodology which may provide a useful compliment or alternative to the more costly and lengthy household survey methodologies currently being utilized to monitor the social dimensions of adjustment. 68. Mosse, D. 1994. Authority, Gender And Knowledge - Theoretical Reflections on the Practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal. Development and Change 25 (3): 497-526. Abstract: Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) methods are increasingly taken up by public sector organizations as well as NGOs among whom they have been pioneered. While PRA methods are successfully employed in a variety of project planning situations, and with increasing sophistication, in some contexts the practice of PRA faces constraints. This article examines the constraints as experienced in the early stages of one project, and suggests some more general issues to which these point. In particular, it is suggested that, as participatory exercises, PRAs involve 'public' social events which construct'local knowledge' in ways that are strongly influenced by existing social relationships. It suggests that information for planning is shaped by relations of power and gender, and by the investigators themselves, and that certain kinds of knowledge are often excluded. Finally, the paper suggests that as a method for articulating existing local knowledge, PRA needs to be complemented by other methods of 'participation' which generate the changed awareness and new ways of knowing which are necessary to locally-controlled innovation and change. 69. Mosse, D. 1995. Social Analysis in Participatory Rural Development. PLA Notes 24(October):27-33. Notes: This article focuses on the generation of knowledge about social relationships within participatory rural development projects. In the Kribhco Indo-British Rainfed Farming Project (KRIBP) in India significant constraints were experienced in using PRA techniques for social analysis. Although they were successful at generating D-22 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book agro-ecological information, they were less helpful in revealing the structures of power and influence within a village or in helping project workers identify the social relations which shaped 'public' opinion. It is unlikely that public participatory research methods will prove good instruments for the analysis of local power relations since they are shaped by the very social relations which are being investigated. In fact, an understanding of local social networks is a necessary prerequisite for the organization of effective PRA-based work. In KRIBP understanding of these relations came from participant observation and critical review of the PRA activity itself rather than from the use of PRA methods. 70. Neefjes, K.E. 1993. Participatory Environmental Assessment: Report on a Workshop. London: Oxfam UK/I. Notes: This report details some aspects of a 2 '/2 week workshop in participatory environmental assessment held by Oxfam U.K./I in 1992. This field-based workshop used environmental impact assessment (EIA) and participatory rural appraisal (PRA) as its core methodologies. The report summarizes the events of the workshop, starting with the theoretical discussions of the first week, and goes on to present the fieldwork process and results. It concludes with an evaluation of the workshop by participants and trainers, and provides some follow-up recommendations. 71. Nelson, N. and Wright, S. eds. 1995. Power and Participatory Development: Theory and Practice. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. 208pp. Abstract: This book explores the power dimensions of participatory development and research, and examines what shifts in power within communities and institutions are needed for participatory ideas to be effective. 72. Nyden, P., Wiewel, W. 1992. Collaborative research: harnessing the tensions between researcher and practitioner. The American Sociologist: 43-55. Notes: Although research can be a powerful resource in guiding and fueling grassroots social change, the community-based research enterprise has often been as tumultuous as the change it seeks to encourage. In some cases the collaboration between researchers and community activists has been very successful. In other cases, however, what starts out as a warm researcher-practitioner relationship has deteriorated into bitter conflict. This article discusses ways in which the tensions between the two often conflicting traditions of research and activism can be mediated in order for these partnerships to be successful. D-23 CBNRMSocial Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 73. Oakley, P. 1988. Strengthening People's Participation in Rural Development. Occasional Paper Series No.1. New Delhi: Society for Participatory Research in Asia. 74. Oltheten, T.M.P. 1995. Participatory Approaches to Planning for Community Forestry: Results and Lessons from Case Studies Conducted in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Working Paper No.2. Forests, Trees and People Programme. 125pp. 75. Pagaduan, M. 1988. From our correspondent Mindanao peasant women: a participatory research investigation of their realities and potentials. Community Development Journal 23(3):195-204. Notes: Technological advance and infusion of financial resources for agricultural development in the South has failed to arrest the continuing struggle of people for survival. Men, women, and children, especially in the countryside, are mired deeper into poverty and powerlessness, particularly so the rural women who have to bear their unrecognized and unvalued role in production and, at the same time, their traditional and more significant roles in reproduction and sustenance of their families. It is in this context that the Women's Studies and Resource Centre (WSRC) and the Network for Participatory Development (NPD) in the Philippines has initiated a consultation- training on peasant women that aims to tackle both their realities and potentials. This is an inquiry into their conditions and is a concomitant consciousness-raising discussion by and among women through the means of participatory research. 76. Park, P. 1992. The discovery of participatory research as a new scientific paradigm: personal and intellectual accounts. The American Sociologist :29-42. Notes: This article presents considerations for the placing of participatory research in the practice of sociology. The changing conditions in contemporary society have compelled social scientists to rethink the way social theory has been conceptualized and has been practiced in relation to social change. Modernist social theory, of which sociology is a prime example, has been imbued with the biases of the Enlightenment that privilege the essentialized male rational actor set above the ordinary people. As a consequence, it has produced narratives and practices that are not in the interest of the people, especially those who have been dominated and oppressed. In order to live up to the potential of sociology as a vehicle for the improvement of social conditions, it must include the interest and the wisdom of the people in its researching and theorizing activities. It is argued that participatory research provides an opportunity to follow this course in sociology. Participatory research, it is contended, will lead to a paradigm shift in the social sciences because it is based on an expanded conception of knowledge D-24 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book and because it changes the relationship between the researcher and the researched and between theory and practice. Arguments are drawn from the history of science, critical theory, and postmodernist and feminist critiques. 77. Park, P. 1993. What is participatory research? A theoretical and methodological perspective. In Voices Of Change: Participatory Research In The United States And Canada. Hall, B.E., Park, P., Brydon-Miller, M. et al. Eds. Toronto: OISE. p. 1-20. 78. Pimbert, M., Satheesh, P.V. 1992. Participatory Research with Women Farmers (Video). Hyderabad, India: Development Perspectives. Notes: This video deals with ways of involving farming communities in the production of pest-resistant cultivars for the complex, risk-prone agriculture of the semi-arid tropics. Through its focus on participatory research with women farmers, the video implicitly or explicitly invites reflection and public debate on the following topics: the choice of research styles that best support diversity as a means to sustainability and food security in risk-prone, complex environments; the need to acknowledge and formally reward women farmers for their contributions to the creation, conservation, and use of genetic diversity as part of their food-provisioning activities; how to integrate formal plant breeding and local seed selection in ways that will ensure the survival of biological diversity at the farm level and democratic control over the information built into seeds-the first link in the food chain; and the changes in institutions, attitudes and behavior that allow people to learn and create knowledge through a process of mutual dialogue and collective enquiry in the context of Noeleen Heyzer's statement: "The issue of concern is who makes the choice of technology. Normally, those least affected by the choice are the ones responsible for determining that choice, while those who are forced to live with the technology have the least say in the matter." 79. Pomeroy, R.S.,et al. 1997. A Rapid Appraisal Approach to Evaluation of Community-Level Fisheries Management Systems: Framework and Field Application at Selected Coastal Fishing Villages in the Philippines and Indonesia. Coastal Management 25(2):183-204. Abstract: Among the recent attempts to use Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) techniques traditionally employed in agriculture and other terrestrial resource systems is in the evaluation of the coastal and marine fisheries environments. One of these approaches is called Rapid Appraisal of Fisheries Management Systems (RAFMS), which was developed at the International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM). The RAFMS is a diagnostic tool designed to quickly document and evaluate the operating fisheries management systems, both formally and informally, at the community level. As a critical first step in diagnosing the existing types of D-25 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book community-level fisheries management systems, the RAFMS shall provide general information on their essential features, operations, and impacts. Given limited funds, time, and research personnel, it is not always possible to conduct in-depth studies of community-based fisheries resource management systems at a specific site or across a country. While the RAFMS is no substitute for move detailed studies, it can provide cost-effective information, and a research or policy direction for further study. This paper first describes the framework of the RAFMS. It then provides examples of output from RAFMS generated through field applications in the fishing villages of Ulugan Bay and Binunsalian Bay at Palawan Island, the Philippines, and Nolloth Village at Saparua Island, Indonesia. The RAFMS was found useful in generating information for outside experts, local researchers, and residents of the fishing communities. The outputs from the field applications in the Philippines and Indonesia are now being used for various planning, project development, and research purposes. 80. Pratt, B., Loizos, P. 1992. Choosing Research Methods: Data Collection for Development Workers. Oxford: Oxfam. Notes: This guide focuses on research which is action-linked and tied to some form of practical intervention, and is intended as an introduction to the research process for small-scale development programmes. It includes a discussion of basic issues involved in research start-up, strategic issues in planning sound research, the range of research methods available, and general issues affecting research methods. A small section on Rapid Rural Appraisal methods is included. 81. Pretty, J. 1991. Principles of Participatory Learning and Action. In Participatory Rapid Appraisal for Community Development. London: IIED. 82. Pretty, J. and Chambers, R. 1993. Towards a Learning Paradigm: New Professionalism and Institutions for Agriculture. Discussion Paper 334. Brighton, UK: IDS - Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex. Abstract: Considers the changes that are afoot with regard to learning, research and extension within agriculture in developing countries. Decentralization, participatory approaches and such methods are gradually becoming less marginalized, with the professional rewards of their adoption rising compared with the risks. For change to be rapid and sustainable requires the mutual reinforcement of participatory methods, new learning environments, and institutional support. The paper contains sections on the following: changing phases in agricultural research, extension and development; a vision for the future; the role of governments and state institutions; non governmental organizations; international agricultural research and the CGIAR; local institutions; education and learning organizations; and institutional and policy implications for the new professionalism. It is concluded that a sound strategy is steady lateral spread D-26 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book through alliances, mutual support, networking, training and sharing, stressing not only methods and learning environments, but also personal behavior and attitudes. This paper begins with the perspective that "the dominant positivist and modernist frameworks have singularly failed to help poor people and reduce inequity." It proceeds to consider the options and alternatives to the dominant paradigm considering common uniting themes. Some of these themes are: the affirmation of individuals and their perspectives; the importance of context and therefore limitations on the whole notion of transferability and replicability; and the importance of participation. 83. Quiros, C.A., Gracia, T., Ashby, J.A. 1990. Farmer Evaluations of Technology: Methodology for Open- Ended Evaluation (Instructional Unit No. 1) . Cali, Columbia: CIAT. Notes: Open-ended evaluation of technology with farmers is a method which facilitates their participation in agricultural research. This technique makes it possible to identify the different concepts or criteria farmers use in assessing the usefulness of new technology components. Information about farmers' criteria is valuable for researchers doing applied agricultural research and can help them to reorient the design of technology, so that farmers are more likely to adopt it. The general goal of this Instructional Unit is to prepare those who complete it to conduct open-ended evaluations of technology with farmers on an individual basis, identifying farmers' criteria for the acceptability of new technology. 84. Rahnema, M. 1990. Participatory action research: the "last temptation of saint" development. Alternatives 15(2):199-226. Notes: Participatory action research was conceived in the 1970s, by motivated and well-intentioned grass-roots activists and theorists, as a methodology designed to define and bring about social change by the populations concerned. As the latter started gaining a deeper awareness of development discourse and practices, they also realized that many field workers were surreptitiously using the methodology with a view to promoting new forms of manipulated change; the possibilities and limits of this reality are explored. Examination of the different dimensions of change, power, knowledge, relationship, and action reveals the pitfalls of methodological approaches that tend to replace or diminish the importance of such human qualities as attention, compassion, and the arts of listening and relating. These virtues, although impossible to quantify or to formulate in scientific terms, can, by themselves, help the various actors to define right action and, consequently, to avoid violence and illusions. 85. Ramirez, R. 1997. Understanding Farmers' Communication Networks: Combining PRA with Agricultural Knowledge Systems Analysis. TIED Gatekeeper Series No. SA66. London: TIED. D-27 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 86. Ramphele, M. 1990. Participatory research: the myths and realities. Social Dynamics 16(2):1-15. Notes: It is suggested that participatory research is a cooperative inquiry by both the researcher and the people who constitute the object of study. Central features of participatory research include joint identification of the problem studied, analysis of the best way to study the problem, and incorporation of results in future problem solution. Application of these methods to a study undertaken at the request of the Western Cape (South Africa) Hostel Dwellers Association to document conditions of life in migrant labour hostels is described. Results suggest that there is little need for rigidity in research methodology and that each situation mandates individual assessment in order to optimize research tools. 87. Reijntjes, C., Haverkort, B., Waters-Bayer, A. 1992. Farming for the Future: an Introduction to Low-External Input and Sustainable Agriculture. London: Macmillan. Notes: The central concern of this book is how development workers can assist smallholders in their constant endeavors to adapt their agriculture to changing conditions. Although such activities as basic agroecological research and establishing equitable international trade relations have important roles to play in creating the conditions for sustainable agriculture, strengthening farmers' capacity to develop and manage technology is of paramount importance for the actual creation of sustainable farming systems. Section III is particularly relevant, drawing on field experiences in developing smallholder agriculture to show how the process of technology development by farmers can be linked with the insights of agroecological science in a participatory approach to development which strengthens farmers' innovative capacity and strengthens and complements other methods of technology development. Useful appendices listing techniques and practices (Appendix A) and contacts and sources of further information (Appendix C) are included. 88. Ribot, J. 1997. Participation Without Representation: Chiefs, Councils and Forestry Law in The West African Sahel. [Unpublished] Author: Facsimile: (1 908) 9328683; E-mail: [email protected]. Abstract: Participatory development aims to redress the failures and inequities of top-down centralized development strategies. But what is community participation without representation? Does it redress central control? Does it include community in decision-making, resource control or benefits? Can there even be community participation without some form of locally-accountable representation? Community or popular participation is about communities having decision-making powers or control over resources that affect the community as a whole, such as forests and grazing D-28 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book commons or community development. But, for such decisions to internalize social and ecological costs or to assure equitable decision-making and use, they must be devolved to a body representing and accountable to the community. Notes: Paper presented at the XI WORLD FORESTRY CONGRESS, Antalya, Turkey, 13 to 22 October, 1997. 89. Rocheleau, D., Slocum, R. 1995. Participation in Context: Key Questions. In Power, Process and Participation. Slocum R. and et al. eds. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. p. 17-30. 90. Rocheleau, D.E. 1991. Gender, ecology, and the science of survival: stories and lessons from Kenya. Agriculture and Human Values 8(1/2):156-165. Notes: Sustainable development and biodiversity initiatives increasingly include ethnoscience, yet the gendered nature of rural people's knowledge goes largely unrecognized. The paper notes the current resurgence of ethnoscience research and states the case for including gendered knowledge and skills, supported by a brief review of relevant cultural ecology and ecofeminist field studies. The author argues the case from the point of view of better, more complete science as well as from the ethical imperative to serve women's interests as the "daily managers of the living environment". In the interests of both objectives, the paper advocates an ethnoscience research approach based on empowerment of rural people, rather than simple extraction of their knowledge. The Kenyan case study of women's agroforestry work follows their response to the drought and famine of 1985 and chronicles the unfolding discovery of women's ecological, political and social science gendered survival skills. The case is re-counted as a story, in keeping with an explicit choice to learn through participation and to report through storytelling. The experience of rural women and researchers during the drought provides several lessons for both groups about their respective knowledge systems, their agroforestry work and the relationship of both to local and national political economy. 91. Scherr, S.J. 1991. Methods for Participatory On-farm Agroforestry Research: Summary Proceedings of an International Workshop . Nairobi: International Centre for Research in Agroforestry. Notes: This document summarizes the presentations and discussions which took place at an international workshop held in Nairobi in 1990 to examine recent experience in on-farm agroforestry research. In total, 28 agroforestry research and development projects from 16 countries were represented. Content includes summaries of seven plenary sessions (and presented papers) and six working-group discussions. D-29 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 92. Scoones, I. and Thompson, J. eds. 1994. Beyond Farmer First: Rural people's knowledge, agricultural research and extension practice. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. 301 pp. Abstract: The purpose of this book is to reveal how agricultural research and extension, far from being discrete, rational acts, are in fact part of a process of coming to terms with conflicting interests and viewpoints, a process in which choices are made, alliances formed, exclusions effected, and worldviews imposed. By going beyond Farmer First (see bibliographic entry), this theoretically-informed perspective describes agricultural development as a highly ideological and political process. As Robert Chambers notes in his foreword, the concerns of the Farmer First publication with performance and Beyond Farmer First with process, indicate that a radical rethinking of knowledge, power and agricultural science is well under way. Notes: This book is a collection of more than 35 papers from some of the most respected thinkers involved in agricultural research and extension in developing countries. The book takes as a starting point that much of the problem with conventional agricultural research and extension has been in the processes of generating and transferring technology, and recognizes that much of the solution lies in farmers' own capacities and priorities. Part I, entitled Theoretical Reflections on Knowledge, Power and Practice provides insights into the factors influencing the process of agricultural research. Part 2 entitled Methodological Innovations, Applications and Challenges provides a critical assessment of participatory research approaches with a focus on quality and ethics. Part 3 entitled Transforming Institutions and Changing Policies offers appraisal of changes in institutions engaged in agricultural research and development. This book is highly recommended for CBNRM researchers. 93. Scoones, I., McCracken, J.A. 1990. Participatory Rapid Rural Appraisal in Wollo: Peasant Association Planning for Natural Resource Management. International Institute for Environment and Development (TIED) and Ethiopian Red Cross Society (ERCS). Notes: This report is the result of a Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) exercise carried out in Wollo Province in Ethiopia in 1989. This exercise was the follow-up to an earlier ERCS/IIED (Ethiopian Red Cross Society/ International Institute for Environment and Development) training activity held in 1988. The report provides background to the workshop itself, an examination of RRA methodologies, and the results of the RRA with two peasant associations in Ethiopia. Within nine days of field and workshop work the RRA teams, in consultation with a range of groups within the community, came up with a serious of practical options for future action. The final section of the report presents a list of recommendations for immediate follow-up, and a review and evaluation of the training workshop by participants. D-30 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 94. Shivakoti, G., Varughese, G., Ostrom, E. et al. Eds. 1997. People and Participation in Sustainable Development: Understanding the Dynamics of Natural Resource Systems. Bloomington, Indiana, USA: Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. 317pp. Notes: Proceedings of an International Conference held at the Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science, Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal, 17-21 March, 1996. 95. Singh, N.C., Rennie, J.K. 1996. Participatory research for sustainable livelihoods : a guidebook for field projects. Winnipeg, MB: IISD. Abstract: This publication is a guidebook for performing field projects on adaptive strategies. The reader is taken through six stages of project execution. There is a review of the research problematic and the underlying concepts, key theorems and hypothesis. The author provides principles for the selection of countries and NGOs or consultants for field research, and initial preparations for the country projects. The author presents a number of participatory field work methods and techniques, with examples from actual project experiences built into a generic field investigation. Policy analysis is performed as part of project execution, specifically considering socio-economic conditions and the total external environment impinging on the community's livelihood system. The last part of this guidebook discusses the various outputs that are expected from the project and the use of these outputs at local, national, and international levels. 96. Smith, S.E., Willms, D.G., and Johnson, N.A. eds. 1997. Nurtured by Knowledge: Learning to do Participatory Action Research. Ottawa: IDRC. 97. Stiefel, M., Wolfe, M. 1994. A Voice for the Excluded: Popular Participation in Development: Utopia or Necessity? London and Geneva: Zed Books and UNRISD. 98. Swantz, M-L. 1992. Participatory research and the evaluation of the effects of aid for women. In Evaluating Development Assistance: Approaches and Methods. Berlage L. and Stokke O. eds. London: Frank Cass. p. 104-120. CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 99. Theis, J., Grady, H. 1991. Participatory Rapid Appraisal for Community Development: A Training Manual Based On Experiences in the Middle East and North Africa. London: TIED. Notes: In the last five years the use of research techniques variously known as Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), Participatory Rapid Rural Appraisal (PRRA), Rapid Assessment Procedures (RAP), Participatory Learning Method (PALM), or Participatory Rural Appraisal has increased greatly. With the growing popularity of these methods many articles, pamphlets, and handbooks have appeared on rapid and participatory research techniques. The purpose of this manual is not to duplicate what has already been done, but to provide guidelines on how to train community development workers and community members in participatory appraisal methods. It is intended to serve as a tool for community development activities. This manual is divided into two sections. The first section gives some guidelines on how to organize and prepare a training course in participatory appraisal. The second section describes in detail individual training sessions, including guidelines on how to help a PRA team put the tools they have learned into use. Each section includes examples and numerous practice exercises. 100. Thomas-Slayter, B., Esser, A.L., Shields, M.D. 1993. Tools of Gender Analysis: A Guide to Field Methods for Bringing Gender into Sustainable Resource Management. Worcester, MS: International Development Program, Clark University. Notes: This guide focuses on ways to use gender analysis to increase the effectiveness of development programs and projects for sustainable resources management. It presents and overview of gender considerations in development and suggests analytical tools for development professionals in government, bilateral, international organizations and NGOs to increase the effectiveness and sustainability of project activities. The primary goal is to make policy, program, and project specialists aware of simple and inexpensive tools to incorporate gender concerns directly into development action. 101. Thompson, J.L. 1991. Exploring gender and culture with Khmer refugee women: reflections on participatory feminist research. Advances in Nursing Science 13(3):30-48. Notes: This article discusses the process and findings from a study based on the paradigm of feminist participatory research. The research is first discusses in relation to contemporary feminist scholarship. The project combined elements of community health nursing practice and feminist research in a support group with Khmer refugee women. The research explored psychosocial adjustment and the construction of gender D-32 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book among Khmer women. Methods of data collection included life history and trauma history interviews, discussion of dream narratives and Cambodian myths, and participant observation. Findings included four recurring themes in the women's stories. The research process is discusses in terms of its implications for nursing praxis. 102. Thrupp, L.A. Participation and Empowerment in Sustainable Rural Development. Agriculture and Human Values 1991. 11(2 and 3):184pp. 103. Thrupp, L.A., Cabarle, B., Zazueta, A. 1994. Participatory methods in planning and political processes: linking the grassroots and policies for sustainable development. Agriculture and Human Values 11(2 and 3):77-84. Abstract: The use of participatory methods has become increasingly popular in agricultural research and development and natural resource management. The development of these approaches is summarized. The range of approaches being used at the grass roots level in order to involve local citizens and groups in projects is outlined, along with their advantages. Many of these activities remain peripheral and isolated from conventional development agencies and policies. However, recent efforts are evolving to link participatory approaches into wider planning and policy-making processes and to increase the influence of such methods in resource management initiatives. The main lessons from these innovative participatory experiences in addressing policy issues for sustainable development are summarized, including the process changes, the roles of the actors involved and the strengthening of capacity. 104. Van Veldhuizen, L.V., Waters-Bayer A., Ramirez, R. et at. Eds. 1997. Farmers' Research in Practice: Lessons from the Field. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. 285pp. Notes: This book offers documentation of farmers' involvement in participatory technology development through 17 case studies from around the world-eight from Africa, three from South East Asia, four from Central America, and three from Europe. The accounts are presented in five broad categories. The first part tries to understand how farmers do research, the second looks at how technical options are added to farmers' experiments, the third deals with ways to improve the experimental design, and the last discusses how to sustain the process. In the concluding chapter, the editors bring -together the lessons learned, and set out the future issues and challenges for governmental and non-governmental organizations involved in agricultural development. The contributions to this book give evidence of how farmers adopt, adapt and formulate new ideas and innovations, try them out in different settings, evaluate and assess the results, and make decisions about their potential value for improving the way they farm. D-33 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 105. Vivian, J.M. 1991. Greening at the Grassroots: People's Participation in Sustainable Development. Discussion Paper No.22. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. 19pp. 106. Waters-Bayer, A., Bayer, W. 1994. Planning with pastoralists: PRA and more. A review of methods focused on Africa. Eschborn, Germany: German Agency for Technical Cooperation. Abstract: A comprehensive description and review of participatory research in an African context. The authors first present a review of concepts and experiences in participatory planning, then offer a description of a number of participatory data collection techniques, closing with annotated bibliographies on participatory rural appraisal and using PRA with pastoralists in Africa. 107. Westwood, S. 1991. Power/knowledge: the politics of transformative research. Convergence 42(3):79-85. Notes: This paper seeks ways to develop our knowledge and understanding of the nature of transformative research. The major concerns of the discussion relate both to epistemological questions and substantive issues for research. These concerns are joined by the understanding advanced in the text that epistemological questions about the nature of knowledge and substantive questions about research agendas and methods are political questions. The discussion begins with the politics of research, then moves to a discussion of postmodern critiques as a way of situating transformative research epistemologically and substantively. This paper concludes with a discussion of a specific research project highlighting the relationship between power and knowledge. 108. White, S.C. 1996. Depoliticising development: the uses and abuses of participation. Development in Practice 6(1):6-15. 109. Whyte, W.F. ed. 1991. Participatory Action Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Notes: A collection of 15 articles plus the introduction and summary remarks of the editor, divided along two specific topics: PAR in industry and PAR in agriculture. The focus of this collection is primarily PAR in the Northern context, but a few articles are included on experiences in the South as well, particularly in the agricultural section. Contents include: "Participatory strategies in agricultural research and development" (William F. Whyte); "The role of the social scientist in participatory action research" (Sergio Ruano); and "Social scientists in international agricultural research: ensuring relevance and contributing to the knowledge base" (Douglas Horton). D-34 CBNRMSocial Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 110. Wickham, T.W. 1993. Farmers Ain't No Fools: Exploring the Role of Participatory Rural Appraisal to Access Indigenous Knowledge and Enhance Sustainable Development Research and Planning. A Case Study of Dusun Pausan, Bali, Indonesia [M.A. Thesis]. University of Waterloo. Abstract: In 1989-90, as part of the Bali Sustainable Development Project (BSDP) village research team, the author was involved in research using traditional research methodologies (key informant interviews, questionnaires, surveys, systematic field observations) to investigate the stress and capabilities influencing the sustainability of nine Balinese villages. Upon reflection, it was felt that the research's methodological design overlooked some of the indigenous capacities already contributing to village sustainability. A research strategy was designed to use participatory rural appraisal (PRA) techniques to access villagers' indigenous knowledge (IK) and enhance sustainable development research and planning in Bali. The author concludes that to access IK, PRA is a better methodological choice than conventional development planning research techniques. Moreover, increasing the adaptation of PRA and the incorporation of IK into the Indonesian Planning System could aid the success of future sustainable development planning initiatives in Bali. 111. Yeich, S.L., Ralph. 1992. Participatory research's contribution to a conceptualization of empowerment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 22(24):1894-1908. Notes: Examines participatory research's (PR's) contribution to a conceptualization of empowerment on both a theoretical and applied level. First, PR literature and its conceptualization of empowerment are described. Following this, PR is proposed as an intervention approach for applied researchers interested in studying empowerment. A case study involving the formation of a homeless persons union is provided as an example of applied PR. D-35 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book E. Obtaining Documents Listed in the Bibliographies IDRC Document Delivery Service The IDRC library offers a document delivery service to all Centre-funded projects. Any project staff member may request, from the IDRC library, copies of journal articles or excerpts from books free of charge. The IDRC library will send these documents to the project via regular mail. Please note that whole books cannot be copied or loaned and only one copy of any journal article can be provided per project. Procedure Send a request via e-mail, fax or regular mail (address below) to Madeleine Audet. The request must include a minimum of information in order to be processed. For a Journal Article please include: Author, Title, Date, Journal Name, Volume, Issue and Pages. For a Book Chapter, please include: Author, Title, Date, Publisher and Pages As well, you will need to identify the name and number of your IDRC project and your institution. In order to simplify this process an order form has been attached below. You may wish to print this off and use it when ordering by fax or regular mail or complete it in electronic format and attach it to an e-mail message. Please note that as an IDRC project recipient you are entitled to this service for any journal article or book chapter that you wish-not just those listed in the resource kit. Using the form provided on the following page, please direct reference requests to: Madeleine Audet Research Information Management Service (RIMS) IDRC PO Box 8500 Ottawa, ON Canada K1 G 3H9 Telephone: (613) 236-6163 ext 2257 Fax: (613) 238-7230 e-mail: [email protected] (cc your message to [email protected]) CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book CBNRM Journal Article Request Form Please use this form to indicate those journal articles and book chapters you would like to have IDRC copy and deliver to you. It may take up to 4 - 6 weeks for delivery from the date we receive your request. Your Name: Project Title/Number: Institution: Project Leader: Mailing Address: No. I Journal Article or Book Chapter (please include author, title, date, journal name, volume, issue and pages) CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book F. Websites and Electronic Information This section presents selected websites and mailing-lists related to participatory research that offer useful resources for CBNRM researchers. Websites 1. Participation Guide- Electronic Development and Environment Information System (ELDIS) http://ntl.ids.ac.uk/eldis/pra/pra.htm ELDIS is a helpful guide to the internet on development and environmental subjects. The "participation" guide offers a structured overview of the subject of PRA. Major sources (which include descriptions of organisations, databases and discussion lists) are arranged into useful groups. To save time, the creators of this site have also prepared searches using a set of appropriate search terms to find online materials (including sections of VWVW sites) and bibliographical references to printed publications (books, journal articles, working papers, etc) held in the British Library for Development Studies. 2. Coastal Resources Research Network (CoRR) http://www.dal.ca/corr/index.html The Coastal Resources Research Network (CoRR) supports researchers in developing countries in their efforts to research and promote Community Based Coastal Resources Management (CBCRM). The Network is based at Dalhousie University, is funded by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC, Canada) and is primarily working with partners in South East Asia. The WWW site includes CoRR's newsletter Out of the Shell, which covers a number of key topics including participatory rural appraisal. For past issues, table of contents are posted with article titles and authors' names. Starting with Volume 6 number 2 (1998), all articles are posted in full. CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 3. Forests, Trees and People Programme & Network http://www-trees.slu.se/ Network aiming to share information about improving community forestry activities. Managed by the FAO Community Forestry Unit and the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU). WWW site has information on network activities, full text of FTPP Newsletter, directory of national/regional contact points for the Network, section on special issues/cases (currently two case studies), publications and distributor's list (publications are distributed by regional centres with different pricing structures). Site also has information on courses at the Regional Community Forestry Training Center (RECOFTC), Thailand and full-text of two newsletters from the Forestry Action Network (FAN) in Kenya (Forest Action News and Regional Energy News). The FAO Forestry Department WWW site contains some of the same information, plus full text versions of a few FTPP reports. 4. Society for Research and Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies and Institutions (SRISTI) http://csf.colorado.edu/sristi SRISTI is a non-governmental organisation set up to strengthen the creativity of grassroots inventors, innovators and ecopreneurs engaged in conserving biodiversity and developing eco-friendly solutions to local problems. It publishes the Honey Bee Newsletter, dedicated to the theme of biodiversity conservation through documentation, experimentation and value addition and dissemination of local innovations by farmers, pastoralists, artisans and horticulturalists. Here, on the official web site of SRISTI, you can read about its activities and participate in them, download its newsletter and research papers from the on-line database and link to other relevant web sites. 5. Prototype Guidelines for Environmental Assessment and Traditional Knowledge http://www.kivu.com/indexframe.html The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) is developing a manual to help guide its officers and partners by offering information, guidance, and suggested methodology on how to apply Indigenous Traditional Knowledge Systems and involve traditional knowledge and indigenous peoples in CIDA project or programme planning implementation. A prototype of the guidelines is available on the website, and includes three main sections: (1) Indigenous Guidelines, which are intended to inform local F-2 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book communities about what their rights are and how to negotiate effectively with corporations and governments; (2) Corporate Guidelines, which are meant to suggest an ethical and methodological framework for corporations working in local communities; and (3) Government Guidelines, intended to assist governments in deciding how to manage the interrelationships between indigenous people, the resources that are contained within the lands they occupy, and the market forces driving projects to extract resources. 6. Participatory Action Research Network (PARnet) http://www.parnet.org Parnet is based at Cornell University, USA. Its website offers a calendar of PAR events (conferences and meetings), electronic documents for downloading, a bibliographic database and a bookstore with over 380 action research books to order. It also provides links to over 30 relevant websites and a description of on-line discussion lists with subscription details. 7. International Institute for Environment and Development (TIED) http://www. iied.org/ IIED's principal aim is to improve the management of natural resources so that communities and countries of the South can improve living standards without jeopardising their resource base. Its work is undertaken with, or on behalf of governments and international agencies, the academic community, foundations and groups and the people they represent. The website provides information on IIED's seven programmes and associated research activities: Environmental Planning and Management; Human Settlements; Sustainable Agriculture; Forestry and Land Use; Drylands; Environmental Economics; and a European Programme. From the website users can link to the TIED Resource Centre, a unique service for those seeking practical information and support on all aspects of research on participatory methodologies, community wildlife management, environmental planning, profiles and strategies with a particular focus on their application and integration into institutional structures. Focuses include: (a) PLA (Participatory Learning and Action) - this collection includes around 1,500 documents on Participatory Approaches (such as: Participatory Rural Appraisal, Rapid Rural Appraisal, etc.) from around the world; and (b) Interaise (International Environmental and Natural Resource Assessment Information Service) collection. The website also has a list of TIED publications and, especially interesting, an updated page on 'grey' literature which can be downloaded. IIED publishes the journal PLA Notes (Participatory Learning and Action), formerly RRA Notes, which is free to people from developing countries. F-3 CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 8. Participation Group, IDS http://www.ids.susx.ac.uk/ids/particip/ The Participation Group works in support of participatory approaches to development and is an active part of an informal network of people and groups working on participatory questions around the globe. Based at the Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK, the site includes: a list of information packs available on a range of participatory topics; a directory of worldwide participation networks; a bibliography (with abstracts) of documents held in the Group's document collection; and listing of training events. 9. People's Participation http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/sustdev/PPdirect/PPhomepg.htm This site is maintained by the FAO's Sustainable Development Department. Presents news, summary and full text materials on FAO programs/policies related to participation. 10. The World Bank Participation Sourcebook http://www.worldbank.org/html/edi/sourcebook/sbhome.htm On-line version of the World Bank Participation Sourcebook. Although written for World Bank Task Managers, this sourcebook is a useful reference for anyone interested in participatory processes in economic and social development. The sourcebook is not a policy document on participation; nor is it meant to be read from cover to cover. It also does not seek to persuade anyone to use participatory approaches. The assumption is that readers have already decided to use participatory approaches in their professional work. On-line version includes the following: Foreword by Mr. Wolfensohn; Table of Contents; What is the Participation Sourcebook? (1) Reflections on Participation; (2) Shared Experiences; (3) Practice Pointers in Participatory Planning and Decision- making; and (4) Practice Pointers in Enabling the Poor to Participate. Appendices include (I) Methods and Tools; and (II) Working Paper Summaries. Also includes an index and an Adobe Acrobat PDF Version to download. CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 11. Participation Abstracts and Document Collection, IDS http://www.ids.susx.ac.uk:80/ids/particip/readrm.html Collection of about 3000 documents of mainly unpublished practical information on participation derived from donations and exchanges with practitioners and networks. Collection located at the Institute of Development Studies, Sussex, UK. The bibliographical database of the collection, with abstracts, is also available on-line. The site also includes a list of publishers' addresses and details of how to access the documents themselves. 12. Participatory Initiatives WWW http://www.oac.uoguelph.ca/-pi/ A good centre for PRA materials, based at University of Guelph. A collection of full text resources, bibliographies, methodologies which includes: (a) archive of the PRA Discussion List (see description under mailing lists, below); (b) Listing of organisations; (c) Facilitator's toolbox: compilation of techniques to foster participatory initiatives and development and a collection of methods for work with both groups and individuals, with associated practical materials, exercises/workbooks; (d) Short bibliographies on participation, facilitation, participatory learning and analysis; (e) Information on the Canadian PRA/MARP network for participatory research/action, plus the Community Soundings programme (community regeneration in Ontario); and (f) Links to other WWVV sites and documents held elsewhere. 13. Civil Society Organisations and Participation Programme, UNDP http://www.undp.org/undp/csopp/ A program aiming to (1) strengthen UNDP's policy and operational methods to collaborate effectively with civil society organizations (CSOs); and (2) act as a resource centre for participatory development. Site includes on-line version of UNDP's Guidebook on Participation. CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book Mailing Lists 14. SRISTI Discussion Board http://csf.colorado.edu/sristi/discuss.html The discussion board allows you to hold online discussions through the SRISTI web site (see above description). The site creators have divided the discussion board into groups on the basis of their intended subject of discussion. Users are free to go to any discussion group to post messages, reply to or read messages already posted by other visitors to the web site. None of the discussion groups are moderated at present. The discussion boards available at present are: Agro-Biodiversity; Innovation, Enterprise and Investment; Institutions; Herbal/Green Technologies; Survival; and Grandma's solutions. There is a facility on the discussion board by which you will be sent an automatic e-mail notifying you that someone has replied to a message that you posted on the board. You can also choose to be notified of other additions to the board by subscribing to the discussion board. 15. PRA Discussion List e-mail: [email protected] An e-mail discussion list devoted to the topic of participatory community development. It is not limited to devotees of the PRA approach specifically, but embraces dialogue about any form of intentional change initiated and owned by community members. Initiated in the summer of 1993 (see old discussion logs), at the University of Guelph, by a group of graduate students interested in discussing the practise of participatory development techniques in their communities, at home and abroad. Specific purposes vary with members' changing interests and involvements, reflecting a multiplicity of perspectives and experiences. Dialogue can take the form of conference announcements, book and journal reviews, accounts of field experiences, considered opinion, or philosophizing, postulating and prophesizing. To subscribe to "PRA" send the following message to the above e-mail address: sub pra [Your Name] (without parentheses). CBNRM Social Science Resource Kit Participatory Research Resource Book 16. Discussion Lists at Participatory Action Research Network (PARnet) http://www.parnet.org/discussionlists.cfm Parnet will soon host the following discussion lists, which users will be able to subscribe to from the WWW site: (1) arlist-L: the international forum for discussing action research issues, with over 1000 subscribers; and (2) PAR-announce-L: limited to general announcements (no dialog) of interest to PAR community. Cohosted by artist-L. Keep informed of new books, papers, conferences and events. 17. CFM-JFM Community Forest Management and Joint Forest Management e-mail: [email protected] The Forests, Trees and People Programme (FTPP) network administers the CFM-JFM list, which has been set up to discuss issues related to forest management and ownership. The first case for discussion is the proposed Joint Venture project in Bara forest Nepal. Background information and initial discussion can be viewed here. To subscribe to this list, send an e-mail message to the address above. Leave subject line blank and write: 'subscribe CFM-JFM [Your e-mail address]' (without quotes or square parentheses) in your message. 18. DEVEL-L Technology Transfer in International Development e-mail: [email protected] Administered by Volunteers in Technical Assistance (VITA), this list covers a wide range of issues and topics related to technology transfer in international development. Relevant topics include: specific technologies, computers and communications in development, sustainable agriculture, women in development, the environment, small enterprise development, meeting announcements, book reviews, development questions and answers, personal experiences, and observations. Subscribers will also receive VITA's monthly electronic newsletter, DevelopNet News. DevelopNet News provides news and views on technology transfer for international development. Subscription to DevelopNet News is available separate from the discussion list (see DNN-L). To subscribe to this list, send an e-mail message to the address above. Leave subject line blank and write: 'subscribe DEVEL-L [Your Name]' (without quotes or square parentheses) in your message. F-7 NOTES