Participatory Research - Library Home

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


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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]

Pergamon

World Development, Vol. 22, No. 9, pp. 1253-1268, 1994

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 analytical abilities of local people when catalyzed by relaxed rapport, and expressed through sequences of participatory and especially visual methods. Evidence to date shows high validity and reliability of information 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

Participation is now widely advocated and documented as philosophy and mode in development (e.g., Cernea, 1985), but the gap remains wide between fashionable rhetoric and field reality. One practical set

of approaches which has coalesced, evolved and spread in the early 1990s bears the label Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA). This has been described as a

growing family of approaches and methods to enable local (rural or urban) people to express, enhance, share and analyze their knowledge of life and conditions, to plan and to act.

PRA has many sources. The most direct is rapid rural appraisal (RRA) from which it has evolved. RRA itself began as a response in the late 1970s and early 1980s to the biased perceptions derived from rural development tourism (the brief rural visit by the urban-based professional) and the many defects and high costs of large-scale questionnaire surveys (Chambers, 1980; Carruthers and Chambers, 1981; Longhurst, 1981). PRA has much in common with RRA but differs basically in the ownership of information, and the nature of the process: in RRA information is more elicited and extracted by outsiders as

part of a process of data gathering; in PRA it is more generated, analyzed, owned and shared by local people as part of a process of their empowerment.

PRA also flows from and shares much with other approaches and traditions. These commonalities and debts include the idea that local people can and should conduct their own appraisal and analysis, found in activist participatory research (e.g., Freire, 1968);

many forms of diagramming, derived from agroecosystem analysis (Gypmantasiri et al., 1980; Conway, 1985, 1986, 1987); the importance of rapport and of the emic-etic distinction, from applied social anthropology; and an understanding of the complexity, diversity and riskiness of farming systems and poor people's livelihoods, from farming systems research (e.g., Gilbert, Norman and Winch, 1980; Shaner, Philipp and Schmehl, 1982). PRA draws on these traditions and shares much with them.

The more developed and tested methods of PRA include participatory mapping and modeling, transect walks, matrix scoring, well-being grouping and ranking, seasonal calendars, institutional diagramming, trend and change analysis, and analytical diagramming, all undertaken by local people. Among many applications, PRA has been used in natural resources management (soil and water conservation, forestry, fisheries, wildlife, village planning, etc.), agriculture, health, nutrition, food security and programs for the poor (RRA Notes, 1988-; IDS, 1993).

By early 1994 activities labeled as PRA have, in various forms, evolved in or spread to at least 40 countries in the South, including Bangladesh, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, the Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kenya, Mali,

*This paper is the second in a three-part series examining participatory rural appraisal. The first paper appeared in the July 1994 issue of World Development (Vol. 22, No. 7). tFinal revision accepted: February 23, 1994.

1253

1254 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

Mauritania, Mexico, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Vietnam, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. PRA has also been spreading from the South to Australia, Canada, Germany, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Much of the innovation has been in the nongovernment organization (NGO) sector, especially in India and Kenya, but increasingly government agencies have been adopting and adapting PRA approaches and methods. Increasingly, too, graduate students are conducting their research in a PRA mode, and university faculty have shown interest in over 20 countries.

Empirically, much PRA has proved powerful and popular. This article sets out to present and analyze the principles, insights, validity, reliability, and modes of PRA, and to understand the nature of its power and popularity.2

2. THE PRINCIPLES OF PRA

Effective RRA and PRA have been found to require practitioners and facilitators to follow basic principles. Some are shared by RRA and PRA, and some have been additionally evolved and emphasized in PRA.

The principles of RRA and PRA have been induced rather than deduced: they have been elicited by trying out practices, finding what works and what does not, and then asking why. Although different practitioners would list different principles underlying RRA and PRA (see e.g., Grandstaff, Grandstaff and Lovelace, 1987, pp. 9-13; Grandstaff and Grandstaff, 1987a; McCracken, Pretty and Conway, 1988, pp. 12-13; Gueye and Freudenberger, 1990, pp. 10-19) and these have been evolving over time, most might include and accept the following:

(a) Principles shared by RRA and PRA

- A reversal of learning, to learn from local people, directly, on the site, and face-to-face, gaining insight from their local physical, technical and social knowledge. - Learning rapidly and progressively, with conscious exploration, flexible use of methods, oppor- tunism, improvisation, iteration and crosschecking, not following a blueprint program but being adaptable in a learning process. - Offsetting biases, especially those of rural development tourism, by being relaxed and not rushing, listening not lecturing, probing instead of passing on to the next topic, being unimposing instead of important, and seeking out the poorer people and women, and learning their concerns and priorities.

- Optimising tradeoffs, relating the costs of learning to the usefulness of information, with tradeoffs between quantity, relevance, accuracy and timeliness. This includes the principles of optimal ignorance - knowing what it is not worth knowing, and then not trying to find it out, and of appropriate imprecision - not measuring what need not be measured, or more accurately than needed, following the dictum attributed to Keynes that it is better to be approximately right than precisely wrong. - Triangulating (Grandstaff, Grandstaff and Lovelace, 1987, pp. 9-10; Gueye and Freudenberger, 1991, pp. 14-16) meaning crosschecking and progressive learning and approxima- tion through plural investigation. This variously involves assessing and comparing findings from several, often three: - methods - types of item or sets of conditions - points in a range or distribution - individuals or groups of analysts - places - times - disciplines - investigators or inquirers and combinations of these. - Seeking diversity, meaning looking for and learning from exceptions, oddities, dissenters, and outliers in any distribution. This has been expressed in terms of seeking variability rather than averages (Beebe, 1987, pp. 53-54), and has been described in Australia as the principle of maximum diversity, or "maximising the diversity and richness of information" (Dunn and McMillan, 1991, pp. 5, 8). This can involve purposive sampling in a nonstatistical sense. It goes beyond triangulation; for it deliber- ately looks for, notices and investigates contradic- tions, anomalies, and differences, and includes negative case analysis.

(b) Principles additionally stressed in PRA

Of these shared principles, PRA puts special stress

on offsetting biases, and the associated changes in outsiders' behavior. In addition, PRA in practice mani- fests four further principles: - They do it: facilitating investigation, analysis,

presentation and learning by local people themselves, so that they generate and own the outcomes, and also learn. This has been expressed as "handing over the stick" (or pen or chalk). It requires confidence that "they can do it." Often the facilitator initiates a process of participatory analysis and then sits back or walks away, taking care not to interview or interrupt. - Self-critical awareness: meaning that facilitators continuously and critically examine their own

PARTICIPATORY RURAL APPRAISAL 1255

behavior. This includes embracing error - wel- coming error as an opportunity to learn; facing failure positively - "failing forwards"; and correcting dominant behavior. - Personal responsibility: PRA practitioners tend to take personal responsibility for what is done rather than relying on the authority of manuals or of a rigid set of rules. This is in the spirit of the words of the one-sentence manual (Peters, 1989, p. 378; KGVK, 1991) "Use your own best judgement at all times". - Sharing: of information and ideas between local people, between them and outsider facilitators, and between different practitioners (encouraging photo- copying and non-attribution), and sharing field camps, training and experiences between different organizations, regions and countries. Interestingly, the principles shared by RRA and

PRA are mainly epistemological, to do with obtaining information and gaining knowledge, while those special to PRA are mainly personal, to do with outsiders' behavior and attitudes. This contrast indicates the emphasis in PRA on how outsiders interact with local people.

3. "DISCOVERIES" OF PRA

Practitioners of PRA have a sense that they have 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- eries (as pointed out in Rhoades, 1992). What is not disputed, however, is that PRA practitioners are often surprised at first by what happens, and experience a sense of personal discovery of the unexpected. To understand this requires a closer look at the contrast between traditional research and RRA on the one hand, and PRA on the other.

Major differences between the more extractive data gathering of traditional research and RRA and the more participatory data sharing, presentation and analysis of PRA, are found in behavior, attitudes and roles. In data gathering the outsiders dominate. They determine the agenda, obtain and take possession of information, remove it, organize and analyze it, and plan and write papers and reports. Outsiders appropriate and come to own the information. They hunt, gather, amass, compile, and process, and produce outputs. In PRA, in contrast, these are largely reversed. Outsiders encourage and allow local people to dominate, to determine much of the agenda, to gather, express and analyze information, and to plan. Outsiders are facilitators, learners and consultants. Their activities are to establish rapport, to convene and catalyze, to enquire, to help in the use of methods, and to encourage local people to choose and improvise methods for themselves. Outsiders watch, listen

and learn. Metaphorically, and sometimes actually, they "hand over the stick" of authority.

Local people then do many of the things outsiders formerly did '(and believed, often enough, that only they could do). Local people make maps and models; they walk transects and observe; they investigate and interview; they diagram and analyze; they present information; they plan. In consequence, they are more in command of the investigation, they own and retain more of the information, and they are strongly placed to identify their priorities for action, and then to determine and control that action.

The participatory orientation of PRA has given new impetus to the development of methods. Some of the more gifted facilitators of PRA have delighted in the lack of blueprint. Participation then generates diversity; local people play a part in interpreting, applying, and sometimes inventing methods themselves. Local people and outsiders alike are encouraged to improvise in a spirit of play. What is done is different each time, the outcome of a creative interaction. In consequence, the four years 1990-1993 have witnessed inventions and generated insights, at first especially in India. Reviewing the participatory innovation of these years, four salient findings stand out which explain some of what appears different and new about PRA; local people's capabilities; the value of relaxed rapport; diagramming and visual sharing; and the power of sequences of methods.

(a) Local people's capabilities

The first discovery has been that villagers have a

greater capacity to map, model, observe, quantify, estimate, compare, rank, score and diagram than outsiders have generally supposed them capable of.

Participatory mapping and modeling (Mascarenhas and Kumar, 1991) has been a striking finding. An earlier work on mental maps (Gould and White, 1974) did not fully reveal the richness of detail and discrimination expressed recently by villagers in India and elsewhere through participatory mapping, and which has been known at least since the early 1980s (Kenyon, 1983). A working hypothesis is that in general rural people in the South have more extensive and detailed mental maps than the urban people in the North who earlier were the main source of insight; and that given the right conditions and materials, they can express this visibly on the ground or on paper, either as maps or as three-dimensional models (for example, of watersheds). These have shown the huts, houses and people in a village (social, census and health maps), the surrounding village area (resource maps and models), or specialized information (theme or topic maps). By early 1994, thousands of such maps and models had been created in over 30 countries.

As with mapping, so with quantification, estimat-


ing, comparing, ranking, scoring and diagramming, local people have shown themselves capable of generating and analyzing information far beyond normal professional expectations. For example, when facilitators have provided local people with the occasion and methods to reflect on and rank problems and opportunities as they perceive them, they have analyzed and presented their preferences - for improving their farming systems, for managing and using common property resources, for better livelihoods, for health interventions, for species mixes in tree nurseries, for the qualities of new varieties of crop, for amenities and their location, for development actions in their communities, and so on. To enable these capabilities to be expressed, the practical principle has been to assume that people can do something until proved otherwise. Participatory mapping and modeling, Venn diagramming, matrix ranking and scoring, and other methods have then turned out to be not one-off exceptions but near-universals and largely independent of culture or literacy.

A further discovery has been that local people who are already familiar with a PRA approach and methods are themselves good facilitators (Shah, Bharadwaj and Ambastha, 1991), and often better than outsiders. The Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (AKRSP) (India) has found its trained village volunteers being invited by other villages to come as facilitator/consultants to help them (personal communication, Parmesh Shah). It has even been known for a village volunteer to write to AKRSP staff and state that they are going to carry out a PRA but that "you do not need to come" (personal communication, Apoorva Oza).

In all this, both the participatory methods and familiar local materials have helped in enabling local people to express and analyze their knowledge and preferences.

(b) l3ehariorancl rapport

The second discovery is the importance of outsiders' behavior and establishing relaxed rapport early in the process.

Rapport is a key to facilitating participation. Relaxed rapport between outsider and villager, and some measure of trust, are minimum predisposing conditions for PRA. In the past, two extreme types of interaction between outsiders and rural people have missed major opportunities: the rushed and unself- critical rural development tourist has had neither the time and nor the sensitivity to get far beyond formal mutual misunderstanding; and some fastidious social anthropologists have allowed so much time and shown such sensitivity that they have come to believe that only through prolonged residence can good rapport and good insights be gained. The two contrast- ing "cultures" - of rushed visitor, and of resident par-

ticipant-observer - have concealed the potential for gaining rapport early and well, and early enough and well enough for the honest and accurate sharing of detailed knowledge and values. To a hardened "old hand" at rural development tourism (the senior official: "I was born and brought up in a village," "I am a

farmer myself," "You can't pull the wool over my eyes") this might seem unnecessary: he (most are men) or she knows it all and assumes he has an automatic good rapport with all rural people. To a sea-

soned social anthropologist (the university professor: "It took a year before they would tell me that. . .") this might seem an affront: it would be unfair if others in a

short time could achieve what had taken her (relatively more are women) or him so long. For anyone who has endured and struggled through months of residence and part icipant-observation to achieve rapport and insight, learning a new language and living a new life, it could seem unlikely and even unwelcome, that other outsiders should find ways to establish rapport and gain good insights more quickly and with pleasure, participation and fun.

Empirically, though, the finding again and again with PRA has been that if the initial behavior and attitudes of outsiders are relaxed and right, and if the process can start, the methods of PRA themselves foster further rapport. Early actions by outsiders can include transparent honesty about who they are and what they are doing; and participation in local activities, especially being taught and performing local tasks. Personal demeanor counts, showing humility, respect, patience, and interest in what people have to say and show; wandering around and not rushing; and paying attention, listening, watching and not interrupting. Then local people quickly lose themselves in activities such as participatory mapping and modeling and matrix scoring. In contrast with questionnaires, they are not simply providing information to be handed over and taken away. The information is theirs. They own it, but share it. They often enjoy the creativity of what they are doing, and what they themselves see and learn through their presentation and analysis. The pleasure, fun and utility of what they have been helped to start doing express themselves in rapport. By reinforcing rapport, PRA methods thus sustain and strengthen the participatory process of which they are a part.

(c) Diagramming and visual sharing

The third discovery is the popularity and power of participatory diagramming and visual sharing.

Diagramming and visual sharing are common elements in much PRA. With a questionnaire survey, information is appropriated by the outsider. It is transferred from the words of the person interviewed to the paper of the questionnaire schedule. The learning is


one-off. The information becomes personal and private, unverified, and owned by the interviewer. In contrast, with visual sharing of a map, model, diagram, or units (stones, seeds, small fruits, etc.) used for ranking, scoring, counting or quantification, all who are present can see, point to, discuss, manipulate and alter physical objects or representations. Triangulation takes place with people crosschecking and correcting each other. The learning is progressive. The information is visible, semi-permanent, and public, and is checked, verified, amended, added to, and owned, by the participants.

For example, in participatory mapping and modeling, villagers draw and model their villages and resources, deciding what to include, and debating, adding and modifying detail. Everyone can see what is being "said" because it is being "shown." In shared diagramming, information is diagrammed to represent, for example, seasonal changes in dimensions such as rainfall, agricultural labor, income, indebted- ness, food supply and migration. Paper can be used for diagrams, but the ground and other local materials have the advantage of being "theirs," media which villagers, whether literate or nonliterate, can command and alter with confidence. The diagram also presents a visible checklist or agenda which is theirs.

(d) Sequences

The fourth discovery is the power and popularity of sequences of participatory methods.

Some of the participatory methods have been known and used in the past (Rhoades, 1992). There are now some new ones, but perhaps more striking is the power which has been revealed of combinations and sequences (Shah, 1991). To take some examples: - with participatory mapping, villagers draw not

one, but several maps, which become successively more detailed and useful, or which present new and complementary information. The map is then used as a reference for other planning, and is retained by villagers for their own monitoring and evaluation; - social mapping provides a basis for household listings, and for indicating population, social group, health and other household characteristics. This can lead to identification of key informants, and then to discussions with them; - a participatory resource map leads to planning transect walks in which villagers who made the map act as guides for outsiders. The transects in turn lead to the identification and discussion of problems and opportunities, which then lead to listing and ranking options or "best bets"; - a participatory resource map of an area of degraded forest, and a rootstock census of quadrats in the forest carried out by villagers, leads to a cal- culation of numbers of trees to be planted; and

debate and analysis lead to people's decisions about the proportions of different species to be planted, and the numbers of each required in tree nurseries (Meera Shah, personal communication); - a village social map provides an up-to-date household listing which is then used for well-being or wealth ranking of households which leads in turn to focus groups with different categories of people who then express their different preferences, leading to discussion, negotiation and reconciliation of priorities (Swift and Umar, 1991; Mukherjee, 1992); - matrix scoring or ranking elicits villagers' criteria of value of a class of items (trees, vegetables, fodder grasses, varieties of a crop or animal, sources of credit, market outlets, fuel types . . . )

which leads into discussion of preferences and actions. Longer sequences have been devised and used in

full PRAs. In Kenya these have been part of a stepwise sequence (PID and NES, 1989). In India, for example with the AKRSP, the sequences have been less codi- fied and more in a style of systematic improvisation, though with specialized sequences, for example for appraisal, planning and action with degraded forests, or with identifying and working with the poorest.

The power of such sequences is fourfold. First, the commitment of participants increases, making further action more likely, more spontaneous, and more sustainable. Second, sequences triangulate, and reveal errors or omissions in earlier presentations (see e.g., Pretty et al., 1992). Third, the different activities interact cumulatively, each activity adding a dimension and details which qualify and enrich others, so that taken together the whole becomes more than the sum of the parts. Fourth, all concerned learn through the process, through local people sharing what they know, through observation and through analysis. In such ways as these, participatory methods fit well with a flexible learning process approach which is even more open-ended and adaptable than much of the earlier RRA; and they have the advantage that they usually enable local people to use their own categories and criteria, to generate their own agenda, and to assess and indicate their own priorities.

4. VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

Some facilitators of PRA have been exhilarated by a sense of liberation and discovery. The presentation and analysis of detailed knowledge in maps, models, matrices, diagrams and the like by local people has impressed them deeply in a personal way which has challenged preconceptions, and affected beliefs and behavior. See Table 1 for remarks of NGO staff.

The experience behind these and similar statements is a fact. For those who make them, the evidence of personal experience convinces.


Table 1. NGO staff remarks

After participatory "I have been working for eight years social mapping in this village, but I never saw it

like this before" After PRA "I shall never go back to experience questionnaires" After PRA training "I have been trying to get this

information in this village for six months, and now we have it in two afternoons"

Validity and reliability can also be assessed in more conventional ways. Validity here refers to the

closeness of a finding to the reality, and reliability refers to the constancy of findings. Highly valid findings are also highly reliable, but where there is a systematic bias, reliability can be high but validity low. Validity and reliability are not absolute values. There can be tradeoffs, through optimal ignorance and appropriate imprecision, where lower validity and reliability can be more cost-effective, and can enhance utility through less cost or greater relevance or timeliness.

Most large questionnaire surveys present any assessment of RRA and PRA with low standards of comparison. (Certain routinized and repeated surveys like the National Sample Survey in India, and some national census surveys, may be at least partial exceptions.) Critiques of rural questionnaire surveys have found them often badly designed, badly implemented, and badly analyzed (see, e.g., Moris, 1970; Campbell, Shrestha and Stone, 1979; Daane, 1987; Gill, 1993). Even so, it is rare for a survey to be subjected to full critical scrutiny, for results to be tested for investigator or enumerator bias, treating the questioner as an

independent variable, or for methodological problems to be discussed in reports of survey findings.

This is, however, no reason for anything less than critical rigor in assessing the validity and reliability of RRA and PRA approaches and methods. The conventional tests most readily applied concern measurements and numbers. Let us therefore examine the four main areas where RRA and PRA have generated numerical data or insights which can be compared with those from questionnaire surveys or other standard sources. These are farm and household surveys; wealth and well-being ranking; village censuses; and rainfall data.

(a) Farm and household surveys

In five cases comparisons have been made between the findings of an RRA approach and a conventional questionnaire survey.

Collinson's (1981) Exploratory Survey of a farming system, involving some 20 professional person- days, was never contradicted in any major way by the

subsequent longer, drawn out and more expensive Verification Survey which represented the major commitment of professional time and funds.

Franzel and Crawford (1987) systematically compared a quick and light survey with a longer and heavier conventional survey in Kenya and found no significant differences attributable to the methods.

Rocheleau and her team (Rocheleau et al., 1989) working on agroforestry in Kenya used a chain of 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 "the formal survey took three times as long and reproduced the same main results as the group interviews and chain of interviews, with less detail and coher- ence" (Rocheleau et al., 1989, p. 21).

Inglis (1990, 1991) led a team which used a repertoire of RRA techniques to gather local forestry knowledge in Sierra Leone in an area where a lengthy questionnaire with 278 questions had already been applied. The RRA results were presented four days after the last location was surveyed, but the questionnaire report was still not available six months after the completion of fieldwork. Comparisons of the questionnaire survey and RRA data showed sharp discrepancies in two localities where the questionnaire survey's findings were implausible and its validity suspect. As Inglis points out:

... if information is wrong to begin with, no amount of statistical manipulation will enable it to help the project staff make good decisions ... In contrast, the RRA survey was completed in a much shorter time, the results have been produced in specific locational reports that can be individually used as discussion papers in the field in follow up surveys. As research biases, mistakes and omissions are admitted and not lost in a mass of questionnaire codes, the decision maker can see how the information was generated, how important factors were revealed, and how the best bets were arrived at (Inglis, 1990, p. 107).

Bernadas (1991) reports that in Eastern Visayas in the Philippines, highly structured questionnaire interviews identified declining soil fertility as the most pressing problem of farmers. Bernadas explains that "The staff themselves had formulated the questions on the basis of what they felt to be priorities. The problem areas considered were predetermined based on the outsiders' point of view." Two years of research based on the questionnaire survey findings did not match farmers needs and circumstances, and the developed technologies were not adopted by them. An RRA approach was then used, with informal discussions and dialogues and open-ended interviews with guide topics. This led to the discovery that the most pressing problem facing farmers was the long fallow due to the growth of a weed cogon (Imperata cylindrica). Relevant research could then begin.


In these five cases, then, the outcomes of the RRA approach, compared with the more formal questionnaire, were variously more valid, less costly, more timely, and more useful.

A cautionary counterexample is a case of the worst of both worlds. Pottier (1992) has analyzed a one- week survey through interviews of 30 farmers conducted by a researcher in Northern Zambia, and described as an RRA. Pottier argues that in such hurried interviews an insensitivity to the context, to who is being met, to what is being said, and why, can lead to misleading conclusions, in this case that food security had been enhanced by growing maize. The investigation was, it seems, rushed and wrong. The lessons are many; and include that hurried one-off individual interviews are liable to mislead whatever the label attached to them, and that respondents can react by giving responses which, for reasons such as prudence, politeness and favorable presentation of the self, are reliable but invalid, and thereby convincingly generate and sustain erroneous myths.

(b) Ranking

Ranking and scoring have long been part of the repertoire of social anthropologists. People in communities rank other individuals or households for characteristics as varied as aggressiveness, drunken- ness, industriousness, or more commonly some concept of respect, honor, wealth or well-being (Pelto and Pelto, 1978, pp. 82-87; RRA Notes, No. 15, 1992).

The most common method is sorting cards into piles, carried out either by local individuals in private, or by groups. Different informants often use different numbers of piles for the same community, but evidence is consistent in finding close correlations in rank orders between different informants. Silverman 1966, p. 905) found that "there was high agreement in the relative rank of most persons" when three informants in an Italian community card-sorted households according to their criterion of rispetto (approximately prestige). Hill (1986, pp. 41, 75) suggests that to villagers, relative household living standards can be a matter of passionate concern. On the basis of fieldwork in West Africa and India, she concluded that rural people (unless themselves too poor and disabled) are able to assess the relative wealth or well-being of members of their community far more accurately than are townspeople. This has been borne out by much subsequent wealth or well-being ranking. Grandin (1988) found that correlations (Speannan's Rho) across informants in 12 instances of wealth ranking (using a total of 41 informants) averaged 0.77 (range 0.59-0.96). The correlations of each informant with the final score averaged 0.91 (range 0.84-0.98).

Silverman, Hill and Grandin are all social anthropologists and so might be expected to have developed

good rapport before the exercise. The test is whether without a social anthropological training and relationship, the method can also be reliable and valid. Those who have facilitated such ranking exercises have usually found them easier than expected (see RRA Notes, No. 15) and usually report high correlations between the rankings given by different informants or groups.

Some triangulate rankings through discussion. Hill's three informants in Nigeria thrashed out discrepancies between themselves (Hill, 1972, p. 59). In a PRA mode, on similar lines, MYRADA in South India has evolved a method of successive approxima- tion in which separate groups rank households, and then meet to reconcile differences (personal communication, Vidya Ramachandran), a procedure which is used in selecting households for anti-poverty programs.

A comparison of a formal survey with wealth ranking for identifying the rural poor was conducted in 1992 by the RUHSA Department of the Christian Medical College, Vellore, South India. A survey with a pretested structured schedule was administered to 412 households by five very experienced investigators, collecting data on type of house, caste, education, occupation, ownership of assets, number of dresses per person, and yearly income. A "professionals' classification" was then compiled, based on a composite index calculated for each household. A separate community classification through wealth ranking was facilitated, and conducted by groups of knowledgeable local women and men. In making their classifications, those local analysts took into account a wider and more nuanced range of considerations, such as types of ownership of land and of livestock, types and amounts of debt and repaying capacity, types of job, whether permanent or temporary, bad habits, and capacity to give children education. The two classifications coincided for 62% of households. About half of the 38% which were discrepancies were investigated by senior researchers in careful detail, including home visits. They found the community classification correct in 92% of the discrepancies they examined. This confirms that community classification by wealth ranking is accurate. Also it highlights the limitation of the professional classification specially when it deals with economic level (RUHSA, 1993, p. 20, and personal communication Rajaratnam Abel).

Health and physical condition are a complicating factor. Again and again, analysts who rank for some concept of well-being include health as well as economic condition. A study in Bangladesh which sought to separate wealth and health into two exercises, found a remarkable degree of consistency between male and female groups' rankings for wealth but classifications for health which were similar in only about 40% of cases (Adams, Roy and Mahbub, 1993), a discrepancy important to investigate.

Another example is the ranking of the value of 30


browse plants as feed to their cattle by pastoralists in Nigeria (Bayer, 1987, 1988). Rankings for the most important plants were found to correspond closely between different groups of pastoralists.

Ranking exercises have limitations. In a group, one person may dominate and overrule others. With well- being ranking some analysts have been reluctant or unreliable in ranking themselves, their near relatives or their close friends. Shared concepts are needed for consistent rankings. In general though, as the examples cited suggest, there tend to be close correlations between the rankings given by different local analysts. This appears to be where four conditions obtain: where information is common knowledge; where criteria are commonly held and well understood; where what is ranked is a matter of intense interest; and where analysts do not perceive advantages in giving false or misleading judgements. These conditions have, to date, quite commonly prevailed.

(c) Participatory village censuses

In participatory social mapping, villagers show the location of households. In India in 1991 this was extended by Sheelu Francis and others into participatory censuses. Census maps have shown social details, representing people and household characteristics with local materials such as different seeds, stones and vegetables, or markers such as bindis (the small spots Indian women place on their foreheads). A practice developed by Anusuda and Perumal Naicker of Kethanayakanpatty village near Madurai in Tamil Nadu, is to have a card for each household and mark details with symbols on the card. These have been placed on cards or on the ground on the maps or models to indicate for each household the numbers of men, women, and children, assets owned, wealth/poverty, the handicapped, immunisation status, education, and other information. With an informed group or person, a participatory census of a small village has been conducted in less than an hour, and then other information added by "interviewing the map."

Four examples can illustrate: - In May 1991, in Ramasamypatti village, near Tiruchuli, in Tamil Nadu, a triangulation of censuses took place. In a PRA training organized by SPEECH, an NGO, four groups of between approximately five and 15 villagers used different methods of analysis and presentation: two did social mapping direct onto paper; one made a ground model of the village with a card for each household; and one did a seed census onto a map drawn on a floor. Each group independently generated a figure for the total population of the village. All four processes generated the same figure - 355. The few discrepancies concerning occupations were quickly resolved in a village meeting.

- In February 1992, in Kabripathar village, Bharuch District, Gujarat, Raiben, a woman from a

neighboring village, and who was not literate, facilitated census mapping by women onto cards, leading to a full village census of 87 families, giving numbers of women, men, girls, boys, bullocks, cows, buffaloes, goats, donkeys and other information, completed and checked in about four hours. - Also in 1992, the National Council for Applied Economic Research undertook research to compare the costs, accuracy and reliability of a sample survey using questionnaires and RRA/PRA methods. In an evaluation of the national improved chulah (stove) program in Maharashtra State, an

NCAER team compared results from a sample survey covering 120 villages in 15 districts, with RRA/PRA methods in 10 villages in five districts, carefully chosen after stratifying the state in homogeneous regions. In these 10 villages participatory mapping and other methods were used. The demographic data derived from the participatory mapping were much closer to the recent 1991 census than that derived from the normal survey methods. The study (NCAER, 1993, p. 91) reported: "The overall conclusion . . . supports the claim of RRA/PRA adherents that it provides a highly reliable village level data base on quantitative as well as qualitative variables." - In August 1993, in the village of San Mauricio, Samar Island, the Philippines, about 20 villagers took part in census mapping (including information on education, land size and tenurial status of land as well as people) for their village of over 60 households. The Barangay Captain and Secretary said this was unnecessary as they had data on numbers of males and females and their ages from their own 1992 census and partially completed 1993 census. But as the participatory mapping pro- ceeded, they noticed discrepancies and corrected what they found to be errors in their own data, in the end taking all their census data from the participatory process (personal communication, Ditdit Pelegrina, 1993).

(d) Rainfall data

It has been found that farmers will often readily estimate days and amount of rainfall by month. In 1988 two farmers in Wollo in Ethiopia estimated numbers of days of rainfall by month for the previous five years, and also indicated the pattern they remembered from their childhood (Conway, 1988; ERCS, 1988, pp. 50-52). A common method now is for local analysts to arrange a line of 12 stones for the months of the local calendar and then estimate rainfall using either seeds for numbers of days of rain by month or


broken sticks for relative volume, or both. Some farmers in India have preferred to indicate depth of soil moisture by month as being more relevant for agricultural purposes (personal communication, J. Mascarenhas for Karnataka and Sam Joseph for Rajasthan). A refinement, invented by women in Galkada village, Badulla District, Sri Lanka in January 1992, is to space the seeds to indicate the distribution of days of rain within each month.

The question is how valid such data are. Farmers' data on rainfall have several times been found to differ from those of nearby rainfall stations. At Nugu Dam in H. D. Kote, Karnataka, in August 1990, a discrepancy was found but not further analyzed. In rapid catchment analysis in Kenya (Pretty, 1990) when farmers' patterns of rainfall differed in six different catchments and also differed from the "real" data from a nearby rainfall station, this was judged to reflect spatial het- erogeneity, without ruling out the possibility that the farmers were wrong (personal communication, J. Pretty). The only detailed analysis of comparisons to date comes from Nepal. It was there in May 1990 near Lumle that farmers for the first time indicated volume and numbers of days of rainfall per month using seeds for days and sticks for volume. In 45 minutes, they presented first a normal year and then a pattern which they said occurred one year in five. Gill's (1991) painstaking analysis of their perceptions compared with 20 years of daily rainfall data at the nearby rainfall station shows that what initially appeared as discrepancies where the farmers were "wrong" turned out on closer examination to show respects in which the farmers' judgements were superior to the averaged met station data. Gill's title "But how does it compare with the real data?" captures the irony of the assumption that scientifically measured data are necessarily superior. More balanced conclusions are that there are different realities, that farmers' realities are likely to be linked to agricultural utility and weighted by recent experience, and that the issue is whose reality counts, in what contexts, and for what purposes.

(e) A rigor of trustworthiness

This may be because rigor always requires some reduc- tionism, since certain aspects of phenomena are neces-

sarily excluded by any classification and measurement. Moreover, their changing nature tends to be ignored because taking this into account greatly complicates analysis (Uphoff, 1992, p. 295).

The purpose of rigor is trustworthiness (Pretty, 1993). Reductionist rigor is an attempt to minimize the element of personal judgement in establishing trustworthiness. That it does not work well in the social sciences is only too evident from the widespread mistrust of the findings of questionnaire surveys. If such forms of reductionist rigor do not carry conviction, the challenge is to find ways of enhancing both relevance and

trustworthiness at the same time. The experience with RRA and PRA contributes

here. Relevance is enhanced through local specificity: local people define relevance and present, analyze and enhance their local knowledge. Trustworthiness is

sought through the principles which have been induced from effective practice (see section 2 above). In pursuit of a rigor of trustworthiness, these can be applied by outsiders in a combination of three ways: through active intervention; through management and observation of process; and through the exercise of critical judgement.

The active intervention of outsiders can be illustrated from Nepal. Two groups of outsiders found discrepancies in the information on seasonality and

trends in agriculture which villagers had shared with them:

The response was for both groups to back to their village the next day and reconcile the information, with their respective groups of informants forming one combined group, and with the statement "We got the information from you yesterday and there seems to be some difference. Can you help us?" And of course they did. Information flowed, arguments and discussions took place among the villagers, among the outsiders and

between both villagers and outsiders.... Explanations 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 Mascarenhas).

Much rigor in the social and natural sciences is linked with measurements, statistical tests, and replicability. These are reductionist, since most realities, other than discrete units (such as people) which can be counted, have to be separated into or examined as parts if they are to be measured. The simplifications which result, even if the measurements are accurate, miss or misrepresent much of the complexity and diversity of system interrelationships. This leads to a condition in which:

Unfortunately, there appears to bean inverse relationship between rigor and relevance in most social science work.

Discrepancies were thus recognized by the outsiders and taken as opportunities to get closer to a consensus reality.

Second, there is the rigor of observed process. Outsiders initiate, facilitate and then critically observe the process of analysis, especially with visual (mapping, diagramming, etc.) analysis by groups. In contrast with most questionnaire surveys, this group- visual analysis gives the observer time and freedom to watch interactions, to see how much crosschecking and correction take place, to assess the commitment of analysts, and to judge whether information is being distorted or withheld. A group-visual synergy often


develops (Figure 1) with cumulative group enthusiasm, adding and amending detail in order to create a complete and accurate picture.

Third, there is the rigor of personal and peer judgement informed by self-critical scepticism and awareness applied throughout. Two of the cases described above provide a salutary caveat. When the four groups at Ramasamypatti all came up with 355 as the population of the village, I was excited. I collected the reporting maps and diagrams, and labeled, arranged and photographed them. This positive evidence has since been disseminated through copies of the slides. Only later did I think to ask whether there had been any exchanges of information or of figures between the groups. In fact I believe there was none. But had the groups come up with figures which differed, the question is whether my reaction too would have differed, whether I would have collected and photographed the maps and diagrams. The danger is selective recording and dissemination of the positive. Similarly with rainfall, the Nepal case has been meticulously analyzed by Gill and published. But this was not done in the Kenya and Karnataka cases. Had those discrepancies been investigated further, they might, as in the Nepal case, have revealed a validity in the farmers' judgements; or they might not. We do not know. Rigor requires consistency 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 safeguard.

These foundations of rigor merit further exploration, analysis and application. Pretty (1993) has proposed complementary foundations for analysis of trustworthiness which include prolonged and/or intense engagement, persistent and parallel observation, triangulation of sources, methods and investigators, peer debriefing, negative case analysis, and checking by participants. Of these, checking and correcting by participants stands out as a strong test, in practice often carried out through presentations by local analysts to a larger local group. Rigor through new tests of trustworthiness presents a frontier for

Keep quiet Observe

Assess

FACILITATORS

Figure I. Group-visual synergy in PRA.

PRA, and can be expected to have applications for much other inquiry and research.

5. REVERSALS AND REALITY

Most of those who have innovated in developing PRA have been practitioners, concerned with what works, and what will work better, not academic theorists concerned with why it works. They have been searching not for new theories or principles but for new and better ways of learning and doing. For them, the power and utility of RRA and PRA, undertaken with rapport and self-critical rigor, are empirical facts of common experience: they know that they work, and that done well they can lead to better local development. But the why? Questions remain, leaving further issues of explanation. There is now enough experience to suggest some answers.

Elaborating and crosscutting some of the principles of RRA and PRA (see section 2 above), further explanations can be posited under the rubric of "reversals," meaning directions away from normal professional practices and toward their opposites. Four clusters of reversal intertwine, and are mutually reinforcing: reversals of frames; reversals of modes; reversals of relations; and reversals of power.

(a) Reversals of frames: From etic to emic

An overarching reversal is from etic to ernic, from the knowledge, categories and values of outsider professionals to those of insider local people.

Conventional investigations are preset. Almost all questionnaire surveys are designed by outsiders with outsiders' concerns and categories. They seek to elicit responses to fill fixed boxes. Whatever the intentions that investigators shall probe under the category "other" which lies at the end of the list of precoded responses on the sheet, they rarely do; and where they do it presents problems later in coding and analysis. To be convenient, 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 pursuing leads, on serendipity. In conversations, there can be greater freedom and equality. In PRA methods such as participatory mapping and modeling, matrix ranking and scoring, Venn or chapati diagramming and well-being ranking, insiders can be even more in charge of the agenda and detail, not only free to


express their knowledge and values, but encouraged

and enabled to do so. The shift is from preset and

closed to participatory and open.

(b) Reversals of modes

Modes of interaction and analysis are reversed from their normal directions in three ways: from individual to group; from verbal to visual; and from measuring to comparing.

(i) From individual to group Normal investigations stress individual interviews.

Professionals need numbers. Questionnaire surveys with individuals or households generate commensurable numbers convenient for statistical analysis. In RRA, semi-structured interviewing can be with an

individual or group, but still with somewhat more emphasis on the individual "interviewee" (see e.g.,

Grandstaff and Grandstaff, 1987b, pp. 135-137). In PRA, discussions with individuals can and do take place, but there is more attention to groups and participatory analysis by groups.

Groups can have disadvantages, such as domi- nance by one person or a vocal minority. But their advantages have been undervalued. Typically, they have an overlapping spread of knowledge which covers a wider field than that of any one member. Paradoxically, and contrary to common belief, sensitive subjects are sometimes more freely discussed in groups, when individuals would not wish to discuss them alone with a stranger. Groups can also generate numbers with observable mutual checking through self-surveys, whether verbal or visual. With visual modes, such as mapping and modeling, experience in PRA has been that groups often build up collective and creative enthusiasm, fill in gaps left by others, and add, crosscheck and correct detail. Triangulation is then both instant and observable.

(ii) From verbal to visual With traditional questionnaire surveys and semi-

structured interviewing, most of the transfer or exchange of information is verbal. This contrasts with the visual mode of participatory diagramming. This includes social and census mapping, resource mapping and modeling, seasonal analysis, Venn and chapati diagramming, trend diagramming, matrix ranking and scoring, and time use analysis, and is often a

group activity. With visual analysis, relationships change. The

topic may be determined, or at least suggested, by the outsider, but the role is not to extract through questions but to initiate a process of presentations and analysis. The outsiders are convenors and facilitators, the insiders actors and analysts. The outsiders hand over control, and insiders determine the agenda, cate-

gories and details. The media and materials are often those of insiders - the ground, stones, sand, seeds as

counters, sticks as measures, and so on. Eye contact, and insider's awareness of the outsider, are low. Information is built up cumulatively, and crosschecking is automatic. Often, several or many people are involved. Knowledge overlaps. If half a dozen women diagram a census map of their village, showing women, men, children, handicapped persons, and so on, not everything may be known by each; but two or more may know each item. Debate can be lively because everyone can see what is being said. It can then be the diagrams rather than the people who are interviewed.

Visual methods can also empower the weak and disadvantaged. Visual literacy (Bradley, 1992) is independent of alphabetical literacy, and appears to be near- universal. Visual diagramming is thus an equalizer, especially when it is done using the accessible and familiar medium of the ground. On paper, too, the nonliterate can diagram. In Kiteto District in Tanzania, in June 1992, a nonliterate Maasai young man, though mocked as incapable by his literate colleagues, took a sheet of paper, and went off and quietly drew a detailed map of a large village area and its settlements. In Pakistan, in March 1992, several nonliterate women drew complex systems diagrams of their farms and households with internal and external flows and linkages (personal communication, Jules Pretty). Describing the experience of the Neighbourhood Initiatives Foundation (NIF) in the UK, Gibson (1991) has pointed out that "the talkers nearly always win." But with a physical model of their neighbourhood to play with, timid people can physically put down their ideas. Often "people who put down an idea wait for others to talk first about it, and then say themselves: Ì agree with you... (Gibson, 1991). Similarly participatory mapping and matrices can enable marginalized women to express their preferences and priorities in a

physical form which does not entail personal confronta- tion with otherwise dominating men.

Some contrasts between verbal and visual modes are presented in Table 2.

The shift from verbal to visual is one of emphasis in PRA. Diagrams are part of the repertoire. They can be facilitated on their own early in interactions. They can also be part of semistructured interviews or conversations. Diagrams then present an agenda for discussion. "Interviewing the map," "interviewing the matrix," and "interviewing the diagram" have proved often the most fruitful, but also the most neglected, stages of a discussion and diagramming process. With the visual, "a whole new set of questions and discussion arises which does not in the verbal" (personal communication, James Mascarenhas). The verbal, as

shown for example with oral histories (Slim and Thompson, 1993), will always remain important. But combinations of visual and verbal are stronger than either on its own.


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 Normal professional training is to make absolute

measurements. So if trends or changes are to be identified, or conditions compared between households or between places, this is through measurements made either at different times, or of different things, or in different places. Our preoccupation with numbers drives us to ask "how much?" For sensitive subjects such as income, such questions can sow suspicion, wreck rapport, and generate misleading data.

For practical purposes, comparisons without measurements are often enough. They have advantages. Involving reflection and judgement, they are easier and quicker to express than measurements. They can be elicited for trends and changes without formal baseline data. They are less sensitive, as has been shown by wealth and well-being ranking, and by seasonal analysis: asking how income compares between months is easier to estimate and less threatening to reveal than are absolute figures. In addition, comparisons, as with matrix ranking and scoring, can in a short time elicit complex and detailed information and judgements of value inaccessible by other methods unless with great labor. Moreover, trends, comparisons and weightings lend themselves to visual sharing, with all its potential gains in participation, triangulation, progressive approx- imation, and learning. Comparing can be quicker and cheaper, and often more credible, than measuring.

(c) Reversals of relations: From reserve to rapport, front frustration to fun

These reversals of frame and mode follow from, generate and reinforce a reversal of relations, from suspicion and reserve to confidence and rapport.

With outsider-insider interactions, there is a scale of formality-informality, from the structured interview with questionnaire, through the semi-structured interview with checklist of subtopics to the conversation. With interviews, and sometimes also conversations, outsiders ask questions and probe. The outsider usually maintains control and largely determines the agenda and the categories. Eye contact is common. The interviewee responds, conscious of an interaction with a person who is seeking information.

An initial reserve of local people toward outsiders is a commonplace. Their responses are often prudent to avoid loss and hopeful to gain benefits. RRA and more so PRA stress the process of gaining rapport. Some social anthropologists have expressed scepticism about the relative speed with which rapport can be established. For their deeper and more fully emic understanding, there is a case for more lengthy immersion. But the experience with both RRA and PRA is that when outsiders behave well and methods are participatory, good rapport usually comes quickly. This is through outsiders being unhurried, showing respect, explaining who they are, answering questions, being honest, and being interested; and asking to be taught, being taught, and learning.

In the classical view, much good fieldwork is painful. It entails long hours of collecting and checking 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, pp. 194-195) cite the case of an anthropologist, Kobben, who had to make "a great sacrifice of time, during a year of field work, to collect ... quantified data on a mere 176 persons" and even then he felt rather unsure of the validity of some of his data. The same authors go on to consider how extensive survey


data from questionnaires needs to be checked and qualified by other methods, and conclude:

Clearly, the quantified data of survey research or other standardized interviewing require close support from participant observation and general informal interviewing. But the converse is equally true. The lesson in all this, as Kobben made clear, is that field research entails a great amount of tedious, time-consuming work - both qualitative and numerical (Pelto and Pelto, 1978, pp. 194-195).

Some earlier participatory research also suffered from being long and drawn out. The pilot project in appropriate technology for grain storage in Bwakira 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 application of the dialogical methodology was "time consuming and tiresome" (Mduma, 1982, pp. 203, 213).

This contrasts with RRA. Professional conversations are mutually stimulating and interesting. Of cattlekeepers in Nigeria who ranked browse plants. Bayer (1988, p. 8) wrote that "Pastoralists were very willing to share their knowledge about browse plants with us and appeared to enjoy the interviews as much as we did." Reflecting on the comparison between it

topic RRA and a questionnaire survey on forestry and fuelwood in Sierra Leone, Inglis (1991, p. 40) wrote that the RRA approach enabled respondents "to enjoy a professional chat about their livelihood or kitchen habits, instead of being subjected to an intrusive 278 question questionnaire by bored enumerators."

With PRA the contrast has usually been even stronger. Data are not collected by outsiders, but expressed and analyzed by insiders. A common experience is group-visual synergy as illustrated in Figure 1. Outsiders convene, provide an occasion, and initiate. Local people as analysts become engaged in tangible, visual diagramming, a cumulative process of presenting, sharing, adding and correcting information which generates interest and takes off with its own momentum. The role of outsiders then is to keep quiet, observe, assess, and support, and often not to interrupt (see Figure 1).

For outsiders, in Devavaram's words (RRA Notes, No. 13, p. 10), "One doesn't get bored repeating field work. It is always interesting." What is shared is often unexpected and at times fascinating. For insiders, the creative act of presentation and analysis is usually a pleasure, and also a process of thinking through, learning and expressing what they know and want. In matrix scoring for trees or crop varieties, using the ground and seeds, it is a common experience for the outsider to become redundant as the process takes off, as villagers debate and score on their own. After village participants had made and analyzed models ("maqucttes") of their environment in Burkina Faso,

all the participants expressed a strong desire to continue the work and to go into it more deeply (Hahn, 1991, p. 3). Quite often dissatisfied with their first attempt at a map, villagers scrub it out and start again with concentrated enthusiasm. Again and again, villagers in India have lost themselves in mapping and modeling, and outsiders have had to learn not to interview, not to interrupt, not to disturb their creativity. There is pride in what has been made, and pleasure in presenting it to others. In the words of a postcard from Pakistan, received as this is written "When PRA works well it seems to be a good experience for everyone" (personal communication, J. Pointing). The experience of PRA is often fun.

(d) Reversals of poster: From extracting to empowering

Reversals of frames, modes and relations contribute to reversals of power. In the forms which have spread, PRA has stressed abdication of power and passing much of the initiative and control to local people, using the metaphor (and sometimes reality) of "handing over the stick" (or chalk, or pen). From the perspective of power, PRA contrasts with the more extractive data-collecting nature of traditional methods of inquiry.

In questionnaire interviewing, power and initiative lie with the interviewer. The questionnaire is "administered to" the person interviewed. The interviewee is

a "respondent," a person who replies or reacts. The Latin respondere means to return like with like. The questions and categories are those of the interviewer, who also records the "response." The professional concern is less with people - the respondents, and more with what they provide - the responses. In their textbook Survey Methods in Social Investigation (1971) Moser and Kalton have only two index entries for "respondent," but 32 for "response." The responses matter more, for they are the raw material to be mined, packaged, transported and processed, the commensurable output to be collected, categorized, coded, counted and correlated.

In classical social anthropological investigation, too, the ultimate aim has been to obtain data which are then analyzed and written up away from the field. Participant observation demands and creates sharply different relationships to questionnaire surveys but the

basic objective remains similar. Development anthropologists aim to be useful through their work in it more direct manner; and many anthropologists intervene in

their field for ethical reasons. But the basic objective often remains that of a researcher, leading to the crowning consummation of data and insights processed into a Ph.D. thesis, articles or a book.

In contrast, the thrust of PRA is to reverse domi- nance, to empower more than extract. The objective


sought by many practitioners is less to gather data, and more to start a process. Approaches and methods tend to be what Scoones and Thompson (1993, p. 22) call "performative" (as also with folk theater, stories, proverbs, songs and the like) through visualizations which break down the distinction between data and analysis. The initiative is passed to "them." The stick is handed over. The prime actors are the people. The outsider is less extractor, and more convenor, facilitator and catalyst. Even so, two practical and ethical issues stand out.

The first issue is who is empowered. The easy, normal tendency is for those who participate and who are empowered to be those who are already more powerful or less weak - the better-off, elites, officials, local leaders, men, adults and the healthy, rather than the worse-off, the underclasses, the vulnerable, lay people, women, children and the sick. When this occurs, the weak and poor may end up even worse off. With women, the problem is compounded by their many tasks which make it hard for them to find blocks of undisturbed time enough for some of the participatory modes of analysis. Deliberate steps have been repeatedly needed to offset such biases, identifying different groups in a community, and encouraging and enabling women to conduct their own analysis and express their own priorities (Welbourn, 1991).

The second practical and ethical issue is what the shared information is used for. The unselfconscious sharing of information by local people through participatory methods is open to abuse by outsiders. PRA methods could be used as a trick to lure unsuspecting people into parting with their knowledge. Examples are not yet known but can be expected.

A legitimate and sensitive PRA process can seek to enable outsiders to learn, but through the sharing of information in a manner which enhances people's

1. An illustrative, but certainly incomplete listing is Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Eire, Germany, India, Kenya, Nepal, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, the Philippines, South Africa, Sweden, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, the United Kingdom, the United States,

analysis and knowledge and leaves them owning it. The actual and the ideal, here as elsewhere, will rarely correspond exactly. But an ideal sought by some PRA practitioners is a process in which people, and especially the weaker and poorer, are enabled to collate, present and analyze information, making explicit and adding to what they already know. This happens, for example, through participatory mapping of a watershed where the map is used by villagers to plot current conditions and plan actions, and is retained by them for monitoring action taken and changes; or through mapping and surveying degraded forest, deciding how to protect it and what to plant, and then managing the resource; or through matrix scoring for varieties of a

crop which enables them to specify the characteristics of a "wish" variety they would like. The aim is to

enable people to present, share, analyze and augment their knowledge as the start of a process. The ultimate output is enhanced knowledge and competence, an

ability to make demands, and to sustain action. Instead of imposing and extracting, PRA is then designed to empower.

The popularity and power of PRA are linked. PRA is not always well done. But when it is well done, local people, and especially the poorer, enjoy the creative learning that comes from presenting their knowledge and their reality. They say that they see things differently. It is not just that they share knowledge with outsiders. They themselves learn more of what they know, and together present and build up more than any one knew alone. The process is then empowering, enabling them to analyze their world and can lead into their planning and action. It is not the reality of the

outsider which is transferred and imposed, but theirs which is expressed, shared, and strengthened. In this final reversal, it is more the reality of local people than that of outsider professionals that counts.

NOTES

Vietnam, Zambia and Zimbabwe. 2. This article is based on the work of many people, too numerous to name, but I thank them all. For comments on earlier versions I am grateful to Tony Dunn, James Mascarenhas, Jules Pretty and two anonymous referees. Responsibility for errors, omissions and opinions is mine alone.

REFERENCES

Adams, Alayne, Rita Das Roy and Amina Mahbub, "Participatory methods to assess change in health and women's lives: An exploratory study for the BRAC- ICDDR, B joint project in Matlab" (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, September 1993).

Bayer, W., "Ranking of browse species by cattlekeepers in Nigeria," RRA Notes, No. 3 (December 1988), pp. 4-10.

Bayer, W., Browse Quality and Availability in a Farming

Area and a Grazing Reserve in the Nigerian Subhuntid Zone, Report to the ILCA Subhumid Zone Programme (Kaduna, Nigeria and Gottingen: May 1987).

Beebe, J., "Rapid appraisal: The evolution of the concept and the definition of issues," in KKU, Proceedings of the 1985 international Conference on Rapid Rural Appraisal, Systems Research and Farming Systems Research Projects (Khon Kaen, Thailand: University of Khon Kaen, 1987), pp. 47-68.


Bernadas, C. N., Jr., "Lesson in upland farmer participation: The case of enriched fallow technology in Jaro, Leyte, Philippines," Forests, Trees and People Newsletter, No. 14 (October 1991), pp. 10-11.

Bradley, Sarah Murray, "Visual literacy: A review with an annotated bibliography," Mimeo (London: IIED, 1992).

Campbell, G. J., R. Shrestha and L. Stone, The Use and Misuse of Social Science Research in Nepal (Kirtipur, Kathmandu: Research Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies, Tribhuvan University, 1979).

Carruthers, Ian and Robert Chambers, "Rapid appraisal for rural development," Agricultural Administration, Vol. 8, No. 6 (1981), pp. 407-422.

Cernea, Michael, (ed.) Putting People First: Sociological Variables in Rural Development, Second Edition, revised and expanded (New York: Oxford University Press for the World Bank, 1991).

Chambers, Robert, Challenging the Professions: Frontiers for Rural Development (London: Intermediate Technology Publications, 1993).

Chambers, Robert, "Rapid rural appraisal: Rationale and repertoire," IDS Discussion Paper, No. 155 Brighton: IDS, University of Sussex, September 1980).

Chambers, Robert, Arnold Pacey and Lori Ann Thrupp (Ed.), Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research (London: Intermediate Technology Publications, 1989).

Collinson, M., "A low cost approach to understanding small farmers," Agricultural Administration, Vol. 8, No. 6 (1981), pp. 433--450.

Conway, G., "Rainbow over Wollo," New Scientist (May 5, 1988).

Conway, G., "Rapid rural appraisal and agroecosystem analysis: A case study from Northern Pakistan," in KKU, Proceedings of the 1985 International Conference on Rapid Rural Appraisal, Systems Research and Farming Systems Research Projects (Khon Kaen, Thailand: University of Khon Kaen, 1987), pp. 228-254.

Conway, G., Agroecosystem Analysis for Research and Development (India: Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development 1986).

Conway, G., "Agroecosystem analysis," Agricultural Administration, Vol. 20 (1985), pp. 31-55.

Daane, J. R. V., Quelle methode pour l'analyse de systemes de production en zone rurale tropicale: Le dilemme entre demarche quantitative peu liable et demarche qualitative peu gdneralisable, contribution all 8eme Seminaire d'Economie Rurale (France: CIRAD, Montpellier, 1987).

Dunn, Tony, and Allan McMillan, "Action research: The application of rapid rural appraisal to learn about issues of concern in landcare areas near Wagga Wagga," NSW, Paper presented to a Conference on Agriculture, Education and Information Transfer, Murrumbigee College of Agriculture (New South Wales: September 30 to October 2, 1991).

ERCS, Rapid Rural Appraisal: A Closer Look at Rural Life in Wollo (Addis Ababa: Ethiopian Red Cross Society and London: IIED, 1988).

Franzel, Steven, and Eric Crawford, "Comparing formal and informal survey techniques for farming systems research: A case study from Kenya," Agricultural Administration, Vol. 27 (1987), pp. 13-33.

Freire, Paulo, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York: The Seabury Press, 1968).

Gibson, Tony, "Planning for real: The approach of the Neighbourhood Initiatives Foundation in the UK," RRA Notes, No. 11 (1991), pp. 29-30.

Gilbert, E. H., D. W. Norman and F. E. Winch, Farming Systems Research: A Critical Appraisal, MSU Rural Development Paper No. 6 (East Lansing: Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, 1980).

Gill, Gerard J., OK, the Data's Lousy, But It's All We've Got (Being a Critique of Conventional Methods), Gatekeeper Series No. 38 (London: IIED, 1993).

Gill, Gerard, J., "But how does it compare with the real data?," RRA Notes, No. 14 (1991), pp. 5-14.

Gould, P., and R. White, Mental Maps (Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1974).

Grandin, Barbara, Wealth Ranking in Sinallholder Com uunities: A Field Manual (London: Intermediate Technology Publications, 1988).

Grandstaff, Terry B., and Somluckrat W. Grandstaff, "A conceptual basis for methodological development in rapid rural appraisal," in KKU, Proceedings of the 1985 International Conference on Rapid Rural Appraisal, Systems Research and Farming Systems Research Projects (Khon Kaen, Thailand: University of Khon Kaen, 1987), pp. 69-88.

Grandstaff, Somluckrat W., and Terry B. Grandstaff, "Semi- structured interviewing by multidisciplinary teams in RRA," in KKU, Proceedings of the 1985 International Conference on Rapid Rural Appraisal, Systems Research and Farming Systems Research Projects (Khon Kaen, Thailand: University of Khon Kaen, 1987), pp. 69-88.

Grandstaff, Somluckrat W., Terry B. Grandstaff and George W. Lovelace, "Summary report," in KKU, Proceedings of the /985 International Conference on Rapid Rural Appraisal, Systems Research and Farming Systems Research Projects (Khon Kaen, Thailand: University of Khon Kaen, 1987), pp. 3-30.

Gueye, Bara, and Karen Schoonmaker Freudenberger, Methode Acceleree de Recherche Participative (London: IIED, August 1991).

Gueye, Bara, and Karen Schoonmaker Freudenberger, Introduction a la Methode Acceleree de Recherche Participative (MARP) (Senegal, Dhaka: Centre de Recherches pour Ie Developpement International, October 1990).

Gypmantasiri et al., and Gordon Conway, An Interdisciplinary Perspective of Cropping Systems in the Chiang Mai Valley: Key Questions for Research (Thailand: Multiple-Cropping Project, Faculty of Agri- culture, University of Chiang Mai, June 1980).

Hahn, H., Apprendre avec les yeux, s'exprinner avec les mains: ties paysans se fornnent a la gestion du terroir (Switzerland: AGRECOL, Oekozentrum, Langenbruck, 1991).

Hill, Polly, Development Economics on Trial: The

Anthropological Case for a Prosecution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).

Hill, Polly, Rural Hausa: A Village and a Setting (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972).

IDS, "Some sources on participatory rural appraisal" (Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, various issues).

Inglis, Andrew Stewart, "Harvesting local forestry knowledge: A comparison of RRA and conventional surveys," RRA Notes, No. 12 (1991), pp. 32-40.


Inglis, Andrew Stewart, "Harvesting local forestry knowledge: A field test and evaluation of rapid rural appraisal techniques for social forestry project analysis," Dissertation presented for the degree of Master of Science (Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, 1990).

Kenyon, John, "When a community describes itself," Together (October-December 1983), pp. 21-26.

KGVK, Management Training Manual (Bihar, India: Krishi Gram Vikas Kendra, Ranchi, Bihar, 1991).

KKU, Proceedings of the 1985 International Conference on

Rapid Rural Appraisal, Rural Systems Research and Farming Systems Research Projects (Thailand: University of Khon Kaen, 1987).

Longhurst, R. (Ed.), Rapid Rural Appraisal, IDS Bulletin, Vol. 12, No. 4 (1981).

McCracken, J.A., Jules N. Pretty and Gordon R. Conway, An

Introduction to Rapid Rural Appraisal for Agricultural Development (London: LIED, 1988).

Mascarenhas, J., and P. D. Prem Kumar, "Participatory mapping and modelling: User's notes," RRA Notes, No. 12

(1991), pp. 9-20. Mduma, E. K., "Appropriate technology for grain storage in

Bwakira Chini village," in Y. Kassam and K. Mustafa, Participator-c Research (New Delhi: Society for Participatory Research in Asia, 1982), pp. 198-213.

Moris, Jon R., "Multi-subject farm surveys reconsidered: Some methodological lessons," Paper for the East African Agricultural Economics Society Conference (Dar es Salaam: March 31 to April 4, 1970).

Moser, C. A., and G. Kalton, Survey Methods in Social Investigation, Second Edition (London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd, 1971).

Mukherjee, Neela, "Villagers' perceptions of rural poverty through the mapping methods of PRA," RRA Notes, No. 15 (1992), pp. 21-26.

NCAER, Comparative Study of Sample Survey and Participatory Rural Appraisal Methodologies (New Delhi: National Council for Applied Economic Research, I I Indraprastha Estate, November 1993).

Pelto, Pertti J., and Gretel H. Pelto, Anthropological Research: The Structure of Inquiry, Second Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978).

Peters, Toni, Thriving on Chaos: Handbook for a Management Revolution (London: Pan Books, 1989).

PID and NES, An Introduction to Participatory Rural Appraisal for Rural Resources Management, Program for International Development, Clark University, Worcester, Mass and National Environment Secretariat (Nairobi: Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, November 1989).

Pottier, Johan, "Agrarian change at the household level: A note on investigative styles in research on Mambwe Agriculture (Northern Zambia)," in Preben Kaarsholm (Ed.), Institutions, Culture and Change at Local Community Level, International Development Studies Occasional Paper (Roskilds, Denmark), No. 3, (1992), pp. 61-74.

Pretty, Jules N., "Participatory inquiry and agricultural research" (London: LIED, 1993).

Pretty, Jules N., Rapid Catclunent Analysis for Extension Agents: Notes on the 1990 Kericho Training Workshop for the Ministry ofAgriculture. Kenya, Sustainable Agriculture Programme (London, LIED, November 1990).

Pretty, Jules, S. Subramanian, D. Ananthakrishnan, C. Jayanthi, S. Muralikrishnasamy and K. Renganayaki,

"Finding the poorest in a Tamil Nadu village: A sequence of mapping and wealth ranking," RRA Notes, No. 15

(1992), pp. 39-42. Rajaratnam, Jolly, C. Gatnesan, Helen Thasian, Navamoni

Babu and Abel Rajaratnam, Validating the Wealth Ranking of PRA and Formal Survey in Identifying the Rural Poor (Tamil Nadu: RUHSA Department, Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore, 1993).

Rocheleau, Diane, Kamoji Wachira, Luis Malaret and Bernard Muchiri Wanjohi, "Local knowledge for agroforestry and native plants," in Robert Chambers, Arnold Pacey and Lori Ann Thrupp (Eds.), Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research (London: Intermediate Technology Publications, 1989), pp. 14-24.

Rhoades, Robert, "The coming revolution in methods for rural development research," in Nevin S. Scrimshaw and Gary R. Gleason (Eds.), RAP Rapid Assessment Procedures: Qualitative Methodologies for Planning and Evaluation of Health Related Programmes (Boston: International Nutrition Foundation for Developing Countries, 1992).

RRA Notes 1-18 and continuing, Sustainable Agriculture Programme, International Institute for Environment and Development, London.

Scrimshaw, Nevin S., and Gary R. Gleason (Ed.), RAP Rapid Assessment Procedures: Qualitative Methodologies for Planning and Evaluation of Health Related Programmes (Boston MA: International Nutrition Foundation for Developing Countries, 1992).

Scrimshaw, S., and E. Hurtado, Rapid Assessment Procedures for Nutrition and Primary Health Care: Anthropological Approaches for Improving Programme Effectiveness (Tokyo: United Nations University; Los Angeles: UNICEF/UN Children's Fund and UCLA Latin American Center, 1987).

Scoones, Ian, and John Thompson, "Challenging the Populist Perspective: Rural People's Knowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension Practice, " Discussion Paper 332 (Brighton: IDS, University of Sussex, December 1993).

Shah, Parmesh, Girish Bharadwaj and Ranjit Ambastha, "Farmers as analysts and facilitators in participatory rural appraisal and planning," RRA Notes, No. 13 (1991), pp. 84-94.

Shaner, W. W., P. F. Philipp and W. R. Schmehl, Fanning Systems Research and Development: Guidelines for Developing Countries (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1982).

Silverman, Sydel F., "An ethnographic approach to social stratification: Prestige in a central Italian community," American Anthropologist, Vol. 68, No. 4 (1966), pp. 899-921 (cited in Pelto and Pelto, 1978, pp. 82-84).

Slim, Hugo, and Paul Thompson, Listening for a Change: Oral Testimony and Development (London: Patios Publications, 1993).

Swift, Jeremy, and Abdi Noor Umar, Participatory Pastoral Development in Isiolo District: Socio-economic Research in the Isiolo Livestock Development Project (Isiolo, Kenya: Isiolo Livestock Development Project, EMI ASALProgramme, 1991).

Uphoff, Norman, Learning from Gal OYa: Possibilities for Participatory Development and Post-Newtonian Social Science (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992).

Welbourn, Alice, "RRA and the analysis of difference," RRA Notes, No. 14 (December 1991), pp. 14-23.

Conventional research is characteriled by "experts" - outsid those external to a situation --- who gather quantitative and qualitative 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 <and children int cotnnaunitiees, especially from marginalized groups, but also agency staff, policymakers, and all those affected by decisions made through the participatory resean It process. A central goal of the process is to involve people as actie e creators of information and knowledge. `['his is done not only because It results an the inclusion of different

needs and perspectives, butbec'aause it also indings being put to use

lpatory 1 ' to ra capacity by equipping them with new skill problems. This is achieved by involving people in the development of every step of the research process, rather than by having them follow predetermined research methods imposed from the outside, As a result, the distinction between the roles of the external research-

r, ers .n'l tCi,. ", lii;ii,i i

less pronounced External experts and professional interact with community members or a project agency primarily as facilitators

aine would 1 , approaches

Depending on the number of the commit earcher might approach the inappii

fottoi

How conventional and participatory it'tivarch/data collection differ 4:'hardii teristic s of pal ticipatory

C_ ollabco atioit

* Credibility Trustworthiness Relevance

* Feasibility Advantages anti disadvantap+c of participatory research

0 Creative technician # Human iesearch instrument

Tat ilitaioi ^ 1 I ainci f enableI' 0 C ornrnunicator e Adt"ocati' of activist

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 community, 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;

Conventional and Participatory Approaches to Data Collection

When to use the conventional approach

1) When data needed are mostly quantitative.

2) When follow up action, in terms of program and project training, is uncertain.

3) When issues addressed are not sensitive.

4) When the purpose of the study does not include setting tl stage for staff or community in oh k a program.

5) When time an+- r 24 re not serious constraint'

When to use the participatory approach

1) To establish rapport and a commitment to use study results.

2) When staff or community interest and involvement is central to achieving p o am goals.

3) t' f '-formation is complex or

4) Wh i n or issues are unknown or r, latix,ly undefined.

5) When -upporting local capacity is I

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 ward or community and mark all water sources;

® During a group meeting, a facilitator might initiate discussion and involve people in the process of developing a map of their community using paper or crayons;

Satellite maps can be taken to the community for interpretation and used for planning multi-community activities such as watershed management.

These participatory approaches serve three different purposes:

By being more involved in the process of mapping, people become more aware of their environment;

Researchers learn about people's "cognitive maps" and what features of the community are considered most important by the people who live there; and

Information is elicited that can be used for further planning both by the participants and the external facilitators.

All research is concerned with the reliability ante vii`y of information. In conventional research, guidelines h 1u-ic developed and documented for use with each specific techn ; elt e. These rules and guidelines are available on how to get reliable and valid 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 ìii (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 philosophy 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

. t ,isc.s. mechanistic process '-' -'- ' :!ar ,n.gnewt- The process is characterized by flexib l nhv ize , :, i p to Lion and inventiveness. 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 preference 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 participate 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, researchers 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

collection and planning in housing and village con tru following devastation' onstrates the

ake. Ini f participatory data

designs for new ". This involved villages were developed by urban architects and play c dre determined tot _ild v_ "b 2tter thai

e r 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

a me,;13 to problem solving. This to -

that r: c ,rch yields data that are rele ht c ve a greater likelihood o' b

Knowledge ge,

Generating infc..i.ation in the age of c difficult to transform information people's actual situation and needs.

When t mrm1r,rnity members and agc._~tcy `. re involved in the research pact: - - from identifying the issues to be studied to interpreting 1;id disseminating results -- the process of engagement results in learning. This learning, in tur-, , lead to -' people's "cognitive maps", and consequently to new a i t 'ider- standing a situation and how to effectively act - c tpo i i

The methodology of participator

All r' ,t ircl ,or- ran concerned with the vali fi- da Ft ; 'h-participatory researcher, wl ecleci'c and ' l-,yinvolve creating or experimenting w<

-l°'y of their are

,v tech- piques, methodological rigor has a new meaning. Reliability is achieved by using multiple methods and validity confirmed through consensus, discussion and dialogue.

ticipatory research approach, there can k olute £ect" study or "best" methods, Rather, what the

on is the issue of "appropriateness," identifying c ,miate methodology for a specific situation and

participatory studies are those that are utilized ddress the needs of th ar context

arai ; seta rt liable and valid information.

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

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

s

hen he ac- test par-

e load ilized and computers. od monitoring

For example, instead of a socio- a household survey, the managerob-

d, and th 1, game of "open-ended snake,, and ladd <aluatechildren's knowledge of l nitation principles

ucation pro-

Le open-

hi r.enya, discussions with senior ecor c'- mists, planners and statisticians of the % , 1,:-

istry of Planning and Centa 1 r :7, St:.- tistics not only piqued thci rrr 5 hit se- sultcd in their joining tier , r , am in the field for different lengtt 'I' ! zte ' i,bse

tools.

In Pakistan, the attendance of senior eng veers, together with social scienti :ts participatory training workchop.re' '`<

a changed orientation of several n,raI programs.

larlv at changing attituue ,+ui behavior The work includes trying out tools such as mapping, transacts, and matrix ranking While IAS officers will probably never conduct such activities themseh es in villages, the experience makes them proponents of planning with local

°,ome of t' p..t-tt;o .. i.,, , e so

I cnntinl in

d by gu . i,r.anent agency plan-

a national sanita-

_q , tional

The most important criteria for designing a participatory study ark -acting the methods to be employed are credibility, trustwor- thn ; i 'evance and feasibility.

Participatory Research Emphasizes:

Problem solving ® Expertise of the nonexpert

Short cut methods Validity confirmed by consensus

® Reliability achieved by multiple methods Collaboration and shared decisionmaking Utilization of results Capacity building

ill

Credibility

Both the study design and the methods used must have credibility in the c-'. tis of stakeholders and decisionmakers; results which are not belie allle will not be used. Decisionmakers are not all the same: some prefer in-depth,' :listic descriptions; some value a few telling statistics; others like large numbers manipulated through statistit_I i __' Jf computers. Credibility of design and methods is r:ablishc I' y involving stakeholders at the outset in deci f ns about which methods to use and by di :covering their

ions of the worth of different method ; T'_ cry suggestion of nev, iriwination to be collected should be scratir!i red to determine how ii ie information is directly relevant to solvin6 the problem. 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.

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

Participatory research has a number of important adv, aver conventional social science research.

The emphasis on involving stakeho' ' k ^s

nurtures and builds commitment to the research process and its results. This increases the likelihood that the results will be utilized in a variety of ways at different' an impact and will bring about change.

'11 have

When p of i °e involved in decisionmaking, -r ecome emoti; r dl v engaged. This releases much creative energy and supput is the research process in being lively and even fun, This, In turn, reinforces involvement.

It results in capacity building, both within agencies and local communitie. It enable, participants to understand and utilize the n, i-irch pr E to solve other problems in other contexts. Mhii.iger<, iA ai e better able to understand and interpret re;;;,arch rc- better users of research in other programs. At the corr.mil ly level, people w'l ' , °I he tools to generate knob l , in one context power to organize and i :date change in a.t,;

Participatory research results in learning, new knowledge and changes in people's "cognitive maps".

It gains strength from the pooling together of cli

perspectives, insights, knowledge and experti problem holistically.

It en",,.res that research,"" the tr;,,ls of their tradt, t. tl 5. and 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 technique. It can bore-- - techniques from various disciplines, either quantitative or qualitative, When existing 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

Field Insight: Ambivalence About Participatory Approaches

Many e\perts, technical specialists, administrators and social :.cientists initially may resist the use of participatory techniques at the community level reasons for this include:

® Th +PmqP1vP.q_m.ayhavebeen trained in a stri rc.i information-loaded,

they feel uncom- fc t is flexible, un- predictable and invol, !s people in the making of decisions which may be challenged by peers;

T1 ! iay feel tr pr is ipatory pro- alid, e me ch time, and

that b and faster re: alts can be achieved b -)ple specific instructions or

co ---'r 1 ''r' . nity- b I dthe c; a nany of w' m 'lave

e ei sc evoling. T.,

I i and control to the n level is therefore considered u r a ,d a waste of time;

m They feel participatory °21 " °1 (-, con- ommunities, who l -r, `; - t,' be

at todobytt ,,,! d know, rathe

olving.

Thesrand similar, arehkeh' t( ,

people ark notexpi `toanexpnn,,, ing node or train

IV,), cs. a

Lyra S s;; 1992

, fivepartz-il%r!orystrat- vi_rs. A nun +;raph for

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 difficult, but can be extremely tiring.

Field Insight: Establishing Trust Between Villagers and Officials, Rajasthan, India

The Government of India and World Bank- financed watershed development projects in Rajasthan use participatory methods in the planning of micro-watershed development. Dramatic increases in the productivity of land have been measured within two years of the program's initiation.

At the outset of the program, villagers re- fused to meet with offich because of a history of mistrust. Of ̀ i; c_ ecided to hold meetings in the ev ,; td show films. The first movies she were, incred- ibly, on wetland farming in Fiji - de 'c>i tre

the fact that Rajasthan is an and ar"ci The program now has its own films and a stait of 2,000. Clear principles and phases of the participatory process have evolved from a trial and error process, although success in application is still mixed. Once some community openness and trust is established, government field maps are shown to villages, problems and the potential of land discussed. To verify, elaborate and analyze the information, local res d its walk with government officials tb-i 'ewatershed, verify boundaries, mark c land and eroded areas, and add add Tonal features to the map. The information jo...tly collected is marked on the map becomes the focal point to reach consensus on an action strategy.

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 researcher. Besides being a good technician, the researcher must have strong interpersonal communication skills and be adept in facilitation and negotiation.

6. Participatory research methods may not be understood by those not involved in the process and hence risk lacking credibility in their eyes.

Roles and characteristics of a participatory researcher

There are many important differences between the role of a conventional social science researcher and a participatory researcher.

Compared to engineers and technology specialists, social scientists have made a late entry into the field of water supply and sanitation. Only recently have they become involved in the front end of programs and projects on technical teams concerned with design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of water and sanitation programs.

At a basic level, social scientists (anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, community organizers, public hea'ith specialists) involved in pr9ject research are themselves rrrinva,,ily technicians. They formulate and complete the research and nt ke their findings available to those interested; they ensure that tlt:. method ( 'lcgy is technically sound and rigorous, data reliable and valid s[<ir,tical analysis robust and content analysis sound.

In contrast, participatory researchers must augment their technical skills with additional abilities that allow them to play roles essential to the participatory process. Among these roles are: creative technician, human research instrument, facilitator, trainer/ enabler, communicator and advocate or activist.

Source. Anirudh Krishna, nersonat communi ii 'i, 1994.

A participatory researcher searches for creative= synergistic solutions to problems. to do so requires inventing, adapting, borrowing, acrd changing a wide variety of methodologies: surveys, observations, cultural immersion, role plays, games, simulations, projective and emi-projective techniques and discussions This ability is critical

because the success of the participatory researcher depends on quickly processing and presenting the information that has been gathered. This must be done in ways that are credible and accepted by decisionrnakers, people in the community and other stakeholders

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 participating 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 observations, and for recording and interpreting data. The credibility of the results thus becomes intertwined with the credibility and trustworthiness 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<arg uch group discussions, creating a

congenial, supportiv, ;C ,,,phere, drawing out opinions and containing or redirecting conflict.

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 interpretation. This is morel r' >ly to happen in large programs where change can affect the importance, power and status of certain people.

Trainerienabler

The role of the i -

capacity building ,-earcher as trainer or = ,r 1 i:: ', is crucial for

!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 co ai 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°ànt roles in ensuring the utilization of results and increasing the probability 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 recommendations 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 making

6. MethodsiTechniques highly str" red focus, precision i Measurement; statistical as `yses

local people, with or without facilitator

open-ended, visual interactive, sorting, scoring, ranking drawing

of . 'searcher/ controller, manipulator, catalyst, facilitator, i...Jor expert, dominant, objective visible initially, later f

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 s, zi, 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 control systems, and new store designs... the socio-economists undertake their low-risk surveys and describe systems, but all leave the

actual solving of farmers' 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, irrigation, 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 technologies 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 political, 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 specificity, and decreasing soil fertility are among the problems requiring alternative research methods to improve the efficiency and sustainability of farming systems used by small farmers.

In order to surmount the limitation of traditional research philosophy 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 production problems of farmers.


ORIGINS OF FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH

151

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 technology packages developed at research stations led researchers to conclude 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 constraints occurring at the farm level. Farming Systems Research arose as

a response, emphasizing research at the farm level to diminish constraints 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 participatory 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 agricultural research circles, scientists based in research centers and experimental stations determine the agenda and develop the agricultural technology that is subsequently passed on to extension services for dissemination 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 technology 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 experimental 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 available technology but to deficiencies in existing extension services. The solution, therefore, was to create a better extension service where farmers 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 farmers as well as reasons why technologies did not work.

However, after studying the T&V system in developing countries, 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 technology. 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 information. 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 success 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 participation, albeit in a limited fashion, and this subsequently became the basis of a movement among researchers to encourage this type of participation. Specifically, scientists began to promote regular meetings between farmers on the one hand, and researchers and extension agents


on the other, so that the latter might begin to understand the circumstances 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 incorporated 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 understand 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-technology 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 traditional research methodologies transferred from the experimental station. Consequently, the farmer does not become an active partner in the research process (Lightfoot, 1986).

Transferring this on-station research methodology to farmers' 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).


Other authors also criticize the approach on the basis of its failure 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 stations, 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 contributions. The theory inherent in this approach includes important components 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 recognizing farmers' knowledge and experience. FSR has also involved researchers in the implementation of on-farm trials. Kotschi (1989)


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 identify 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 considered 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 sustainable agricultural production that will benefit the resource-poor farmer.


DEFINITION AND MAIN FOCUS OF FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH

What is farmer participatory research?

157

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), farmerfirst-and-last research (Chambers and Ghildyal, 1985), and participatory 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, measures, 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 scientific 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 emphasize the participation of farmers in the process of technology generation. They concentrate on the identification, development or adaptation, 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),


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 farmers' needs. Scientists learn from farmers and support their ideas and innovations. They also cooperate in the implementation and evaluation of agronomic experiments in the farmers' fields.

Supporters of farmer participatory research maintain that technologies 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 technologies according to the farmers' criteria.

The indigenous technical knowledge of farmers and their capacity for experimentation are key aspects of the process. Both the researcher's and the farmer's knowledge will be crucial for the generation 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 available resources and strengthening the farmer's experimental capacity. These features aim at sustainable and environmentally sound development.

The ultimate goal of farmer participatory research is to increase

productivity by generating technologies that will solve farmers' production problems.


MAIN COMPONENTS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH

159

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, extensionists, 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 principles, 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.


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 practice 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.


[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 themselves who hold the keys for developing, evaluating, and validating [technologies] (Sumberg and Okali, 1988:336).

Farmers become the researchers, experimenters, and evaluators in this process. They actively participate in the identification of problems, needs, opportunities, and priorities, in the design and implementation 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 development 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 appropriate 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).


The farm is the place where farmer participatory research is conducted 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 providing 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 informal 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 biological 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.


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 multidisciplinary approach in research on improved technology.

6. Farmer participatory research requires interdisciplinary collaboration 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 collaborative mode, focusing on farmers' real needs. Dialogue between scientists and farmers is essential.

What farmers can bring to the dialogue is a wealth of knowledge and skills to deal with the environment's harsh constraints: 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 specific discipline, emerge from a holistic analysis by farmers and researchers.


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 procedures, monitor trials, and respond to unexpected changes along the way. Because initial assumptions, hypotheses, needs, and local conditions may change over time, flexibility facilitates adaptation to new circumstances.

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 biological 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, husbandry, and harvesting are determined not only by physical and biological constraints but also by economic, socio-political, infrastructur- al, and policy factors that make up the larger milieu within which farmers 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.


Farmers' indigenous knowledge system

165

Traditionally, the technical knowledge of farmers has been regarded as "backward and irrational" by researchers who rely on science-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 conducted 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 knowledge and in imposing a sense of dependence on the part of their rural clients.

Consequently, scientists often do not allow farmers to participate in the process of generating new technical knowledge and agricultural practices. The task of scientists involved in farmer participatory research is to engage farmers in research so that they will gain confidence and knowledge (Howes and Chambers, 1979).

In the last decade, a growing body of literature has demonstrated the importance and validity of indigenous knowledge and its crucial 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.


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 sustainable (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 practices 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 farming practices. In addition to agricultural knowledge, the adaptations farmers have evolved lead to knowledge about health, education, housing, 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


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).


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 development 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 particular 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 technology 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 production in the Amazon basin, and Biggs (1980) points to rice production 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 formal research and development systems might start to work on, and 3) methods for conducting cost-effective research and classifying knowledge, 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 technology 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-oriented technology design.


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 managed

2) consultative 3) collaborative 4) farmer 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 decision-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 presented 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-


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 findings obtained in the research station. However, farmers do not participate 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 experimental designs used in this approach are similar to those used in research stations.

Thus, the relationship between the researcher and farmer is hierarchical. 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 minimal. They often rent their land to researchers conducting experiments, or are paid for their labor. But farmers do not define the research agenda or participate in decision-making. Because scientists bring technology'from the experimental station to the farm for testing and validation, farmers are not involved in technology generation. Ultimately, farmers become the passive recipients of researchers' recommendations.

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.


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 assuming 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 incorporate 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


process and develop technology. The farmer's minimal involvement does not include decisions regarding the research agenda, trial implementation, or evaluation criteria.

The power of choice in practice mostly remains with scientists: 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 presented above as "lip service" to genuine farmers participation in technology 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 performance 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 farmers discuss potential areas for collaborative research and choose decision-making and evaluation criteria. By combining informal research

by farmers with formal on-farm testing procedures, indigenous know-


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 problem 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 validation phase, farmers further test the technology developed prior to dissemination (Ashby, 1991).

The experimental capacity and indigenous knowledge of farmers are used to the maximum in this approach. The scientist's role is

to assure that the community's local experimental capacity is fully utilized 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.


EPISTEMOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS OF FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH:

COMBINING SCIENCE-BASED AND INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS

175

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 knowledge 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 conventional scientific research and conventional scientific research cannot 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.


[N]either òn 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 strengthening 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 scientists 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-converts," the scientific value behind traditional practices by using scientific language, thus legitimizing indigenous knowledge. But Thrupp (1989:19) warns that scientists risk "scientizing" indigenous knowledge in an irresponsible manner:


[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 methodologies 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 knowledge 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 subjected to this kind of scrutiny, the `scientization' of tradition- based practices by foreign researchers is a farce.

177

In summary, farmer participatory research attempts to synthesize farmers' indigenous knowledge and experience and researchers' science-based knowledge to complement each other:

...[Indigenous knowledge systems is important for its] capacity 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 technology, the new role is that of a convener, catalyst, colleague, and consultant. The outsider sets up discussions and analy-


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 implementing 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 environment, 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 organizing field days during which farmers consult with one another, identifying common technical problems they might solve with the knowledge 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-


gies which may be available and already in use by other farmers in different regions or countries. As the technology's potential and limitations 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' experiences (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,


and how and why. The researchers should assess problems and potential 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, methods 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 simultaneously 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).


Problem identification

Before researchers begin working with farmers to define a problem, 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 participation, 2) increased efficiency and use of research resources, 3) opportunities 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 technological 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 perceived by farmers to be the most significant, thus assuring, as far as possible, 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 discover 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


systems and limitations they encounter in the process of developing or adapting technologies. Both social and bio-physical elements are equally 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 community or other farming communities. The researcher's role is to broaden the range of options available, but farmers always choose technologies to be tested.

A special effort is made to search for solutions in similar farming 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 activities, 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 characteristics 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


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 likely to meet farmers' needs. Thus, the next step involves on-farm trials so

that farmers can appraise the appropriateness of the technology, variety, 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 development, 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' decision-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 sustained manner.


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 understand the complex bio-physical and socio-economic constraints to sus-

tainable production, and that they identify potential agricultural problems 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 technical 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.


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 outcomes of this approach.

Farmer participatory research has the potential to generate user-demand for technology which historically has sharpened 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, implementation, 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 traditionally focused on improving cropping patterns. However, poor upland farmers did not adopt technologies generated in research stations 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 decided to involve farmers in all stages of the process. Participating


researchers and farmers used systems logic in order to conduct a holistic 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, scientists 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 diagram.

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) designing an experiment, 3) conducting the experiment in on-farm trials, and 4) analyzing and evaluating the experiment.


STAGE I: Researchers help farmers identify and analyze a problem

Step 1. Problem identification by farmers

Group meetings

187

Scientists met with approximately twenty farmers, self-selected, who attended because they were simply interested and/or had participated in other cropping pattern trials. Researchers found that they were able to stimulate more discussion by asking farmers what they generally 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 further. 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


yields to diminish significantly. In the third year, farmers grew root crops. During this time, cogon grass began to invade fields, making cultivation 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 animals.

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 prepare a list of key issues for further study. They discussed these topics with four "key informants" and developed a guide of topics to be elicited 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-


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 dissemination.

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 conversations with interviewees. Topics in the guide were not necessarily discussed 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 cultivate 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 respondents confirmed that the diagram accurately represented their perspective 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


decades while they regained fertility. But because they did not, have sufficient 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 solutions 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


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 following 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 further 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 create 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 measurement based on what they wanted to determine. Researchers relied on farmers' assessments, together with standard biological measurements.

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 accidental 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


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, interest 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 interested 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 definition 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


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 fallow technology in less than a month after their first knowledge 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 problems 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 conventional 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.


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 contribution 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 of facile 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 "Sustainability" and "participation" have become the development watchwords of the decade, and with good reason, since both concepts were sorely lacking in development practice from the early 1960s well into the 1980s. To assail either of these trends in international development at this juncture is to risk feeding the new "green backlash" (New York Times, July 29, 1993), or worse, the resurgence of top down development and calls for a new custodial colonialism, as

expressed by Johnston (New York Times Magazine, April 18, 1993). Yet a critique of these recent waves of development theory and practice might rest on the premise that such reforms only help to foster a kinder, gentler image of development-as-usual, which has been somewhat less than kind and gentle with many of

the world's people over the past thirty years, as noted by Susan George (1992), Vandana Shiva (1988), Wolfgang Sachs (1992) and many others (Escobar, 1992; Esteva, 1992; Hancock, 1989; Marglin and Marglin, 1990; Mies, 1988; Wisner, 1989/1990; Wisner and Yapa, 1992).

Beyond the concerns over more-of-the-same, participation and sustainability might even serve as Tro- jan horses to bring a new level of global economic and environmental restructuring processes directly to rural communities, bypassing national institutional buffers and preempting critical review. These might include such diverse efforts as the negotiation of resource management plans for parks and reserves, the planning of "alternative" development strategies for people dependent 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 more productive, environmentally sound agriculture, forestry, and water management. All of these stand to be affected by community-based planning, research, and extension efforts linked to environmental interests as well as to agents of "economic development". Rural communities may find themselves negotiating with banks, international NGOs, multinational corporations, church based organizations, bilateral aid agencies, and United Nations agencies. Moreover, they may be set upon by a combination of such agencies, sometimes working in concert or at cross-purposes, depending on the issues and the context.

Questions and critique of participatory approaches to sustainable development seem more than justified, since the consequences of "maldevelopment" (even in participatory clothing) are both real and serious (Mies and Shiva, 1993; Shiva, 1988). A careful critique, however, need not lead to rejection of either local participation or ecologically-based planning processes in rapidly changing landscapes and shifting economic contexts. An outright rejection of sustainability and participation from a critical perspective assumes that both concepts have been totally assimilated and already belong to the world of development-as -usual or "normal professionalism" (Chambers, 1993).

There is, however, the possibility for an alternative practice that seeks to promote broader social and ecological options, combining livelihoods and life support in local landscapes that are at once home, habitat, and workplace to those who live there. There is also ample opportunity for locally based initiatives to join together and to reach out across national boundaries (Perlman, 1990), taking advantage of the same flexibility and globalization (if not the financing) that facilitates direct access to local spaces worldwide by corporate interests and international bodies. There is

scope to share a broad range of experience and expertise from the past, a wide array of evolving ecological and production sciences and a multiplicity of visions of the future, across the permeable boundaries defined by gender, class, race, culture, and nationality.

The discussion that follows is presented in the interest of furthering such a science and practice. It proceeds from a belief that for every assimilation there is a counter-assimilative opportunity, that is, a new

space for exercising our social and ecological imaginations and our practical skills in the interest of a better world. Neither participation nor environmental criteria automatically guarantee just, equitable, and ecologically viable futures, but both constitute essential ingredients of a common future worth sharing.

Learning from Experience As we, consider new initiatives in "sustainable development" we can learn much from both the successes and failures of local participation in the past thirty

years of technology development and resource management as well as from socially focused rural development programs. In particular, the recent history of research and development in agriculture, forestry, and conservation illustrates the distinct approaches and converging experience of technical and social development programs in pursuit of broader participation and environmental objectives. The 1980s brought a profusion of research and extension programs in farming systems, sustainable agriculture, agroforestry, and social forestry. Over the last decade many of these programs have reached beyond the confines of professional scientific traditions. They have experimented with more direct collaboration with rural people and/or with rural development, social service, and relief agencies already well-established in rural communities. In turn, community development agencies of many types have also expanded their efforts to test and develop agricultural, forestry, and conservation technologies or have sought to collaborate with research organizations in the field.

The converging experience of participatory research initiatives in research and development institutions can provide a more advanced point of departure for the sustainable development initiatives of the 1990s and beyond. A decade of intensive documentation, research, and development in agriculture, agroforestry, social forestry, and conservation has taught us to look beyond our traditional research models. Experience suggests that the scientific establishment is too small and too specialized to generate fixed "packages" of production and resource management technologies for the multiplicity of diverse environments in the world. Fortunately, there is no need to do so, since farmers, pastoralists, and forest dwellers already have substantial knowledge as well as the ability to conduct both collaborative and independent research. Rural people often possess an inherent advantage over research institutions when dealing with trials of complex land use systems, as systems, in situ (Chambers, 1989). We have also found that there is no single best, fixed land use "package" for any given region or group of people, but rather a vast array of principles and components that can be constantly recombined, tested, and modified to suit changing social, economic, and ecological conditions for individuals, households, communities, and nation-states (Rocheleau, 1989a).

Participatory research represents one way to expand sustainable development research capabilities in the complex conditions faced by rural people (Uphoff, 1992). For some professional scientists, "participatory research" implies that "we" allow "them" (rural people) to participate in "our" research. For community organizers or rural communities it may mean that "they" allow outsiders (us) to take part in local land use experiments and their interpretation. What we all imply, but seldom discuss, is that we propose to join

5

AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES - SPRING-SUMMER 1994

together people and institutions with very distinct traditions of acquiring and testing knowledge, in order to develop sustainable land use practices of interest to both.

We cannot expect to achieve this through simple addition of conventional research methods and a new interest in local participation. Many participatory research "recipes" suggest that we take one standard research trial, one part good will, one plot of land, add local participants, and stir. The results rarely meet the expectations of either outside researchers or participating communities, despite considerable effort on both sides. A truly honest joint effort will require everyone involved to stretch their imaginations, their skills, and their definitions of science. Although the question has many facets, this paper will focus on: (1) broadening the definition of research; (2) widening the scope for who participates, where, and on what terms; and (3) an expanded repertoire of practical research methods and flexible institutional arrangements.

Formal Research Models Most agriculture and forestry research for the last

decade has followed a linear model that tests species, interactions, and prototypes for new technologies first on-station, and then later evaluates and refines the "winners" on-farm or in-the-forest (Figure 1). We often ask the "basic" questions on-station and the "practical" questions on-site, though it might make more sense to address both types of questions in each

Figure 1.

Unilinear Research Process

species 1.On Station Interaction

1 1 screen prototype 1.2 design 1 3 test 1 4 select

2. On - farm 2.1 evaluate l prototype, 2.2'retihe

Parallel Research Processes

Iterative Process

why? what? Regional where? how?

place. Within this approach, we tend to assign "participa-

tion" to discrete steps within the research process, and we have defined the terms of participation and the participants rather narrowly. Farming systems approaches often relegate participation entirely to the first and final phases in the technology testing process, as "problem diagnosis" and "adaptive research", respectively. For example, researchers consult selected farmers about their production problems in a particular crop or livestock system. The research team designs a

technology to address the problem(s) and on-station trials to test their ideas, as illustrated in the first part of Figure 1. Later, in "adaptive" on-farm research, participating farmers (usually male heads of household) contribute a plot, their own and family labor, and perhaps their opinions as to the performance of a particular tree species, or an entire agroforestry package. The research is deemed to be participatory by virtue of its response to farmer problems, its location in a farmer's field (off-station), the farmer's presence, or the farmer's judgment of the technology. This view of "participatory research" limits formally recognized scientific research and land users' knowledge to fixed times and places and diminishes their joint capacity as innovators and experimenters.

However, there is also some experience beyond the traditional linear research model (Hildebrand and Poey, 1985), with parallel lines of research on-station and on-farm (Figure 1). While researchers may pursue parallel, independent, non-participatory projects on- station and on-farm, they can also tie the activities at both sites into an interactive process. Farmers and researchers may exchange information, planting material, and evaluation of experiments at both sites. A farmer's exploratory trial on-farm may inspire an experiment on-station to monitor tree-pest-crop interactions, while a researcher's idea from a species screening trial on-station may lead to the introduction of an exotic tree into traditional home gardens on several farms. In such a case participation permeates all research activities and joins research station and on-farm endeavors (Biggs, 1988).

Likewise in cases of parks, reserves, and wildlife management, 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 definition, 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 destruction, and other threats to wildlife. The research in such cases may serve more to inform national and international environmental organizations about the "perceptions" of local people, their "receptivity" to

6


conservation initiatives, and their potential as allies and collaborators in a preset agenda than to incorporate local interests and priorities into conservation plans.

For example, in a "people-friendly" wildlife initiative, outside researchers might choose to establish a "buffer zone" of regulated land use around the periphery of a park, based on carefully documented needs assessments of wildlife populations. They might then involve local people in trials of various new land use practices to reduce stress on the park. A more fully participatory approach would require: 1) joint consideration of problems and opportunities in the status quo; 2) sharing of knowledge about economic, ecological, and social processes; 3) open negotiation of new land use options that address conflicts as well as shared objectives between distinct groups at the local level and between local, national, and international interests; and 4) joint development of technologies, management plans, and the performance criteria that research would seek to test. However, to develop a dynamic research program of this type we first need to broaden our definitions of research and participation.

The Broader Potentials of Research "Scientific" research need not be synonymous

with a randomized block design field trial or S multiple transect survey of plants and wildlife; nor must it imply a statistically analyzed survey questionnaire administered to a "random sample" of a population. While all of these research types are valid and obviously useful, none of them possesses an inherent advantage for all research questions and circumstances. In sustainable agriculture and forestry we can identify several categories of research topics and activities, as well as place, scale, timing, and methods of research (Chambers et al., 1989; Muller and Scherr, 1990; Rocheleau, 1991b) that are also valid for the broader concerns of sustainable development.

In fact, the range of choices is far wider than formal research publications suggest. Land use research on production and conservation technologies can include observation, measurement, description (qualitative or quantitative), data and sample collection, design, testing, analysis, and evaluation. Our mandate may be prediction, explanation, or technology development. Our analyses may be static or dynamic with respect to time, and they may focus on problems at varying scales, from nutrient uptake by plants to production processes in whole landscapes to the division of labor, land, and authority at the household and community levels. We may conduct controlled, semi-controlled, or uncontrolled experiments, or even transform a structured observation of existing processes into an "insinuated experiment".

Moreover, sustainable land use research should transcend our convenient dichotomy between on-station and

on-site research; it may also take place in the laboratory, on a "model" farm, in a park, on open rangeland, in-the-forest, or at a combination of these sites. We can also refrain entirely from experimentation and conduct survey research, as in ecological sampling of tree species in a forest, a sociological questionnaire to determine community structure, or an ethnographic 'survey to explore and document local botanical science (both popular and specialized). In short, research not only extends beyond the research station; it encompasses substantially more than can be held within the confines of controlled experimental plots on any property.

The Varieties of Participation Participation is likewise subject to a broad range

of interpretation. It has been variously construed to catalyze, facilitate, assimilate, and suppress the initiative of rural people, depending upon the context and the players (Langley, 1986; Oakley, 1987). For the sake of simplicity Oakley (1987) reduces the varieties of participation to two basic forms: mobilization and empowerment. Where research is concerned we can also distinguish between extractive and interactive approaches.

Agricultural and environmental research programs often equate participation with mobilization and extract contributions of work, knowledge, and other resources from participants. Many scientists rely on rural people mainly to provide land and "authentic" labor for experiments and to indicate "consumer preferences". In fact, rural people are often well-placed to identify problems, formulate solutions, and devise tests of complex innovations in situ. They may participate in land use research in roles ranging from free labor on-farm to board members of research stations. We can identify several distinct roles of land users in the research process:

1) Labor (free, paid); 2) Hosts (to guests, to parasites); 3) Informants (representative, specialized); 4) Evaluators (of technology, of research process); 5) Collaborators (occasional, regular); 6) Partners (senior, equal, junior); 7) Advisors (informants with authority); 8) Board members (participants with power). There is ample precedent for these roles and for

interactive approaches in health, literacy, and agriculture (Bunch, 1985; Feuerstein, 1986; Jiggins, 1988).

Who Participates? The quality of participation, by itself, does not guarantee that local participants represent all the diverse groups that have a stake in the results. For example, agricultural projects often limit participation to farm owners, managers, or heads of household. Yet, these actors are embedded in a social web of family and

7


community members, many of whom have a stake in the use and management of farm lands, although they do not own or manage a farm (Rocheleau, 1987b). Sustainable development ought, at least, to refrain from harming their livelihoods; at best, it should improve their lot, regardless of land rights, gender, or occupation.

A land user focus can accommodate all of the groupings that define privilege, power, and poverty in a given time and place. We may distinguish between land user groups based on activity, tenure (terms of access, use, and ownership), and social unit of organization (Table 1). For example we can determine which

Table 1. Subdivision of Land User Groups Land Users...by activity

A. Producers Gatherers Hunters Herders Farmers

Large Small

Farmworkers B. Processors C. Market Vendors D. Consumers

Land Users...by rights of access and ownership (applies to trees, water, wildlife, and/or land)

A. Owner (State, Group, Individual; dejure or de facto) B. Tenant (Rent paid) C. User by permission or exchange agreement

Continuous Regular Occasional

D. Squatters, "Poachers" (illegal users) Land Users...by management unit/unit of analysis

A. Individuals or household subgroups Men, women, children; age group

B. Households Managed by men, women; small/large; young/old; rich/poor

C. Communities and community groups Families, clans, self-help groups

D. Companies or Cooperatives E. Administrative Units

States, districts, villages, etc. Excerpted from Rocheleau, 1987b.

groups use specific land areas, plants, products, or services in a given place, and the importance of the resources to them, as an indicator of their stake in land use change. This, in turn, can help us to identify convergent, complementary, and conflicting interests of affected groups in the process and the eventual results of sustainable land use research and development. The

diverse qualities, scales, and interests of user groups named in the table imply a flexible repertoire of methods for local participation.

Participatory Research Expertise: Non-Existent or Just Invisible?

Most participatory field research in agriculture, forestry, and conservation has, to date, focused on rapid appraisals for research or development planning, or on surveys (quantitative, qualitative, and combined). We have much less collective experience with the design and management of on-site experiments or sampling and monitoring programs in partnership with rural people. Of the technology trials conducted on-farm most of the documented cases have involved farmers in controlled experiments designed by outside researchers. The more collaborative trials have often been ad hoc or have not been reported in the literature.

Similarly, little has been reported in the way of detailed documentation and analysis of locally initiated trials and experiments, with a few notable exceptions (Gumbo et al., 1988; Juma, 1989; P. Richards, 1985; Scoones, 1988; Wilson, 1987, 1989). The combination of any sort of trial or experiment with historical documentation and analysis is even less common. Most reporting of rural people's production and conservation science has been limited to descriptions of existing and/or traditional practice as an accomplished fact. Within forest and wildlife management, rural people's knowledge has been increasingly recognized by outsiders, only to be cast as "timeless and uncon- scious ecological wisdom" or as remnants of "traditional" practice. There is, however, an emerging body of literature that treats local science and practice as the latest expression of a continuing process of learning and discovery (Anderson, 1990; Anderson et al.,1991; Brokensha et al., 1980; Chambers and Jiggins, 1986; Colfer et al., 1989; Denevan et al., 1985; Dewees, 1989; Flores Pait$n, 1987; Roe and Fortmann, 1981; Gupta, 1989; Oldfield and Alcorn, 1991; Owusu- Bempah, 1988; Posey, 1985; Pretty, 1991; P. Richards, 1985,1989; Rocheleau, 1991a; Scherr, 1990; Scoones and McCracken, 1989; Turnbull, 1992; Warren and Cashman, 1991; Warren et al., 1994).

Does this mean that only a few researchers have addressed any of these points that seem so simple and based on "common sense"? A multitude of field workers continue to conduct isolated, undocumented research within forestry, agriculture, and conservation programs. Likewise, researchers often participate in community organization and institutional innovation to improve their research and attune it to local conditions. However, they are unlikely to report even the fact itself, let alone the process. This is particularly crucial in the rapidly growing number of wildlife management projects that address complex relationships between people and wildlife through separate

8


programs of biological research and public relations (local and international). Social research and management programs in this context are often couched in terms of social engineering to achieve conservation objectives. The ecology embedded in local society and the cultural threads that run through the surrounding ecosystems are seldom addressed formally and almost never documented.

Beyond the research and participation dichotomy we face a braided institutional divide along social- biological, production-conservation, and government- NGO lines that constitutes a substantial barrier to shared knowledge. The existing institutional structure encourages silence on work at the boundaries between research, development, and participation by those who actually know the territory best. As long as the more integrative work is submerged, it remains inaccessible to review, constructive criticism, and progressive improvement through collective learning and innovation.

Alternatively, we can make the most of opportunities to link these non-reinforcing cycles of research and development, social process, and technology innovation, to stop spinning our wheels and get somewhere. Some of our best data and insights are transmit- ted through stories, a professional oral tradition, and through the skills of our trades. The challenge will be to distinguish significant stories from mere anecdotes (Rocheleau, 1991a) and to combine them with classification and description of possible field methods. From these we need to build a coherent, larger body of shared knowledge and practice accessible (at least in part) to our various domains of science, practice, and critique, including those of rural people.

Expanding Our Repertoire We can improve our capabilities for participatory research if we abandon fixed packages of research methodology and broaden our horizons to include a wide variety of principles, methods, and other people's field experience. The broad principles presented above, the "stories" of colleagues from the field, and the partial list of specific methods summarized below represent tools and raw materials. From these, individuals and institutions can develop appropriate participatory research programs for sustainable production and conservation within a multiplicity of local and national conditions.

Most of the methods or techniques listed below can be used in an interactive or extractive way and most of them could in fact help to describe, plan, test, monitor, or evaluate a technology, to document an existing system of resource use and management, or to facilitate the development of a new one. Some of the methods listed are actually labeled packages of methods, but need not be kept intact. The list is meant to convey a sense of the wide range of possibilities, a history of development and application for each, and

an invitation to modify and combine these tools to suit the problem, the participants, and the institutional opportunities in a given case. Each entry carries abrief descriptive note and a selected list of references to facilitate access to the relevant literature.

Appraisal Methods Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) consists of short,

intensive, informal field surveys that focus on consultation between teams of outside "experts" and rural people to define research and development problems and solutions. Researchers, planners, administrators, or technical advisors travel to rural communities for a

few days to a few weeks to meet individuals, households, and community groups. They discuss local views of social, economic, and technological problems and determine priorities for research, development, or policy intervention. The early versions of RRA were developed and widely used to identify household level problems and research priorities in farming systems (Collinson, 1981; Hildebrand, 1981) and agricultural development research (Chambers, 1981,1983; Cham- bers and Ghildyal, 1985; Chambers and Jiggins, 1986). Several recent publications summarize the methods now commonly used in farming systems research and agroforestry research and extension (Chambers et al., 1989; Feldstein and Jiggins, forthcoming; Khon Kaen University, 1987; MUller and Scherr, 1990; Rocheleau et al., 1988).

While many people automatically equate RRA with popular participation, research and development workers may use it in an extractive or interactive spirit. Rural people definitely participate, but they may or may not ever see any concrete results. Moreover, where outside experts do take action, the results may or may not serve the interests of any (or all) of the land users in the community. Seeing is not necessarily believing, and hearing is not necessarily understanding. Even when outsiders do comprehend the problem, they may not translate that into appropriate solutions. If rural peoples' participation begins and ends with a

single appraisal to identify problems, the larger effort will still bear the marks of a top-down approach. Fortunately, the tools and the practice of RRA have expanded to better meet the needs of researchers, development workers, and rural people (Chambers et

al., 1989; ILEIA, 1988a, 1988b; RRA Notes Newslet- ter, 1988 et seq.).

The spin-offs from this approach include research on farmers' prior knowledge and experience, as well as

farmers' innovations and their modification of researcher-designed "packages" in agriculture (Fernandez, forthcoming; Jiggins, 1986a, 1986b; Rhoades, 1982,1984, 1987, 1989; Rhoades and Booth, 1982), agroforestry (Rocheleau, 1987b; Rocheleau et

al., 1988; Scherr, 1990; Scoones, 1989; Wilson, 1987,

1989), pest ecology and control (Malaret and Ngoru,

9


1989) soil and water conservation (Jama et al., 1992; Kiriro and Juma, 1991), and national park management (Abel and Blaikie, 1986; Berger, 1993; Dhyani Berger, personal communication, 1993; Drijver and Croll, 1992; Murphree, 1993; Parkipuny, 1991; Wells et al., 1992). Field practice 'has extended the process within and beyond "the household", including specific techniques for gender analysis (Ashby, 1987; Feldstein and Jiggins, forthcoming; Poats et al., 1988, 1989; Polestaco, 1993; Rocheleau, 1987a, 1989b; Thomas- Slayter et al., 1993), and for group and community level interviews and workshops (Bruce, 1989; Fernandez and Salvatierra, 1989; Gupta and IDS Work- shop, 1989; Jiggins, 1986a, 1986b, 1988; Kean, 1988; Lightfoot et al., 1988, 1989; Norman et al., 1988, 1989; Rocheleau et al., 1988; Sutherland, 1987).

Field research and development workers have further stretched and reshaped this robust set of techniques to address issues of sustainability and the larger landscape beyond the farm boundaries. Agroecosystems Analysis (Conway, 1985, 1987) focuses on villages, communities, or watershed units and deals explicitly with long term ecological concerns and environmental management in rural farming systems. Researchers and local representatives walk along transects through the landscape and conduct interviews with individuals, households, and groups. The team maps whole communities, ecosystems, and specific plots with residents and key informants. This approach has been developed and applied primarily in studies of watershed management and water use within agricultural systems, from hillslope farms to lowland rice paddies. Another example is Total Catchment Management, and the Land Care movement as documented by the University of Western Sydney at Hawkesbury in Australia (Martin, 1991; Woodhill, 1990; Woodhill et al., 1990). This approach begins with RRA, but then emphasizes action research and land user participation in resource management under complex, changing, and highly uncertain conditions, with constant readjustment and ongoing processes of information exchange, discussion, and conflict resolution/management.

Diagnosis and Design adapts farming systems approaches and RRA for agroforestry design and testing (Miiller and Scherr, 1990; Raintree, 1987a, 1987b). Reconnaissance surveys, informal household level interviews, and alternating cycles of survey and technology testing allow for design of agroforestry technologies that address local problems and fit within the larger farming system (Raintree, 1983a, 1983b). This approach can be expanded to include land user groups at the community level (Rocheleau, 1985, 1987b, 1991a) or research and development interests at the national level (Scherr, 1987). Some researchers have combined Diagnosis and Design, Agroecosystems Analysis, and related approaches to fit the needs of community-based agroforestry research and extension

programs (Abel et al., 1989; Buck, 1988, 1989; Davis- Case, 1989; Feldstein et al., 1989; Hoskins, 1982; Rocheleau et al., 1988, 1989; Scherr, 1988a, 1988b, 1990; Scoones, 1988).

Community-based ecological research focuses initial appraisal on local knowledge systems, particularly knowledge that links livelihood to ecology. These approaches have special relevance for sustainable agriculture, forestry, and water management as well as wildlife and biodiversity programs. The science of everyday life in rural landscapes often involves the integration of wildlife, water sources, crops, livestock, and woody plants, within forests, rangeland, crop- lands, and gardens. It also encompasses the invisible food, fodder, and wood production systems in the "spaces between": roadsides, fences, fallows, gullies, and streambanks (Rocheleau et al., 1988). Field researchers affiliated with ENDA Zimbabwe and the Zimbabwe Forestry Commission have developed participatory approaches to forestry and agricultural research that build on local science and practice (Clarke, 1990; Gumbo et al., 1988; Matose, 1993; Scoones, 1989; Seitz, 1993; Wilson, 1988). The process begins with a fairly lengthy exploration by a resident action research team. From the outset, researchers and local participants compile written records of local ecological history and science, as well as a set of action research proposals.

Similar methods have been elaborated by Grandin (1988) in veterinary research with pastoralists in Kenya, by Cashman (1988) with women alley-cropping farmers in Nigeria, and by Fernandez and Salvatierra (1989) in livestock management and veterinary research with women's groups in Peru. Several researchers (Davis- Case, 1989; Gupta et al., 1989; Rocheleau et al., 1988) have combined group discussions and mapping exercises based on local knowledge of ecosystems and livelihoods. Carney (1988) has combined participant observation and ethnographic survey with appraisal of class and gender division of knowledge and resource use in an irrigation project in the Gambia.

In a creative synthesis of rapid appraisal, ethno- botany, and sociological survey techniques Calestous Juma (1989) conducted community-based surveys using a combination of community meetings, key informant interviews, and survey questionnaires. Locally nominated participants developed and refined the formal questionnaires in a workshop setting. The workshop served as an extended two-way key informant "interview" that shaped both the content and format of the subsequent survey. Representatives of the research project and local residents learned about each other as well as about indigenous plants, their uses, and their habitats. This process made the survey effective as a learning tool both for researchers and for the participating communities.

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, to determine what is "common knowledge". They can then ask the groups to identify knowledgeable group members and other specialists in the community (Rocheleau et al., 1988, 1989; Maslaret and Ngoru, 1989). Eventually, researchers learn enough about the topics at hand and about the identity of specialists to allow them to record the knowledge of the eldest or the most skilled members of the community.2 They can also identify and record the emerging knowledge and practice of the rising generation or the distinct science and practice of particular groups, whether by gender, ethnicity, class, occupation, or locality.

If the work is applied within an action research approach, then this same understanding and information can be mobilized within the community's own research and development efforts (Bebbington, 1990; Thrupp, 1989). The involvement of local residents as researchers, recording their own community's knowledge, can also serve as a catalyst to organization and educational initiatives. When women, children, and the poor formally record their own experience the research effort can also strengthen their position within the larger community (Fortmann, 1993). This is argu- ably one of the most productive frontiers of research and action in sustainable development.

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) has grown out of a synthesis of RRA, Agroecosystems Analysis, Diagnosis and Design, and other appraisal methods with action research and community organization techniques. It has coalesced from a number of centers of innovation, including: The International Institute for Environment and Development (MacCracken, 1988; MacCracken et al., 1988; Mascarenhas et al., 1991; Pretty and Chambers, 1992; Scoones and Thompson, 1992); The Institute for Development Studies at the University of Sussex (Chambers et al., 1989); Clark University, World Resources Institute, the National Environment Secretariat of Kenya, and Egerton Uni- versity (Ford et al., 1993a, 1993b; Kabutha et al., 1991; NES et al., 1991; Thomas-Slayter et al., 1991, forthcoming; Thrupp, 1989; Veit, 1993; Zazueta et al., 1992); several NGO networks (Bunch, 1989; ILEIA, 1988a, 1988b); international agricultural centers (Feldstein and Jiggins, forthcoming; Lightfoot et al., 1991; Rocheleau et al., 1988); and United Nations organizations (Davis-Case, 1989; Project Reach, 1993). This approach, in its several versions, has enjoyed widespread application in resource management, conservation, and rural development programs.

Like other forms of rapid appraisal, PRA normally consists of a one- to three-week exercise based on collaboration between rural people from someplace and outside "experts" from somewhere else. The difference is in the structure and tone of interaction

researchers function mainly as facilitators of a community-run process, and increasingly, as trainers of facilitators from rural communities (Chambers, 1992, forthcoming; Chambers and Conway, 1992). Overall, PRA relies more heavily on the judgment and analytical capabilities of rural people, rather than simply "tapping" their knowledge in bits and pieces to fill-in- the-blanks in the analytical frameworks of outsiders. The methods of inquiry are more explicitly interactive and tend to be more visual in orientation than earlier RRA approaches (Chambers, 1992, forthcoming; Chambers and Conway, 1992). In addition, PRA includes, by definition, leadership and technical expertise from local residents and sometimes public ser- vants (Kabutha et al., 1991).

The "steps" have been recorded and described by some practitioners as a discreet package of activities, with a given order (NES et al., 1991). Others (Cornwall et al., 1992; Pretty and Chambers, 1992; Scoones and Thompson, 1992) eschew any attempt to regularize the process and prefer to discuss principles, document specific techniques, and report on particular case studies in an effort to inform further work in a variety of contexts. One element that characterizes many versions of PRA is greater attention to history and to the possible futures of rural people (Chambers, 1992, forthcoming; Chambers and Conway, 1992; Rocheleau et al., 1988, 1989). In general, PRA includes matrix ranking exercises, community histories, diagrams of organizations and institutions, maps of farms, landscapes or watersheds, and diagrams of production systems, ecosystems, and social processes. Often people will rank themselves and their neighbors with respect to wealth and well-being (Grandin, 1988), to clarify social structure and process and to situate their own knowledge and perspective for themselves and outsiders. They often also engage in several ranking exercises to clarify the use and relative importance of various water sources, soil types, land types, crops, livestock, trees, fodder sources, fuelwood, and other energy sources, insects, wild plants, and wild animals. They may discuss and rank these elements of livelihood and landscape as problems, as resources, or as desired characteristics of a possible future.

While PRA has often been used to mobilize community discussion, planning, and immediate action on resource management, it can also facilitate development of health, agricultural, or water supply programs, or longer term action research on a variety of topics from famine relief to migration and resettlement. In addition, there is ample scope for use of PRA in evaluation of ongoing projects and programs, whether large scale or local in nature. The emerging techniques of PRA could facilitate widespread adoption by national and international bodies of participatory methods

11


previously limited primarily to literacy, health, and community organization programs (See methodological works by Feuerstein, 1986; Freire, 1968, 1973; H. Richards, 1985).

All of these appraisal methods can help to describe a particular place and situation, and to direct research and development plans that fit rural people's realities and aspirations. There is some danger that single rapid appraisals or surveys may not be adequate for long term planning or may simply raise expectations and leave residents (as in many clinics) with a free "diagnosis" and a prescription for "medicine" that is not locally available. To be effective, appraisal must lead to action, with continuing participation by rural people. Several of these approaches, in fact, work best within a recurring cycle of surveys and trials of various types, including some of the experimental approaches listed below.

Field Experiments and Trials Much of the literature on on-farm agricultural

research discusses "how to" reconcile statistically valid experimental designs with field conditions (Collinson, 1981; Hildebrand, 1986; Shaner et al., 1982; Tripp, 1984). The most frequently used methods are those that allow for control plots, some variation in treatment, and statistical analysis of variable performance by different treatments within or between farms.

Farmer and researcher preferences for different research designs may differ substantially. While outside researchers can gain substantial information by varying treatment between farms, farmers may gain, and subsequently share, more insights by having controls and/or a range of treatments on their own farms to compare close-up (Robert Hart, personal communication, 1984). However, farmers may not appreciate the placement of these various treatments within a randomized block design. This is especially impractical for forestry, water management, wildlife management, and conservation practices, which are not divisible into small fractions of a single plot. Group-focused trials at multiple sites provide an alternative, by combining different real-scale treatments on various members' lands with regular group meetings to observe and compare all treatments in the multi-site experiment.

Herders and farmers of the Aramachay Women's Production Committee in Peru requested a similar research design in a collaborative livestock and cropping research project. In veterinary experiments based on local and outsiders' science, they separated blocks and treatments by family herds, rather than mix treatments across herds. Likewise, farmers took an active role in the design and evaluation of the cropping systems research process, as well as participating in technology evaluation. As a result, the project team developed a robust, statistically valid research design that was convenient for farmers and herders (Fernandez,

forthcoming). Researchers can also use informal trials to explore

technology design prior to more formal, elaborate trials (Attah-Krah and Francis, 1987; Sumberg and Okali, 1989; Rocheleau, 1985) or simply as a way to learn more about the detail of farming practice (Edwards, 1987a, 1987b, 1987c) before committing local residents and research institutions to a substantial research effort. It is also possible (though profes- sionally risky) to pursue formal but not controlled experiments on complex land use systems with farmers (Flores Paitdn, 1987). This applies particularly to technology innovations for home gardens and similarly complex systems both on-farm and in the larger landscape.. Robert Chambers and Janice Jiggins (1986) have explicitly challenged researchers to go beyond the confines of "normal professionalism" in order to address complex and changing rural realities. They document the limitations of disciplinary paradigms and call for a "new professionalism" supported by institutional reform. This is particularly crucial for both social and ecological innovations in complex rural ecosystems characterized by a high diversity of land cover, land use, and species.

A few sources also treat the issue of farmer participation and the quality of interaction between outside researchers and farmers, as well as research designs that fit the needs of both (Hildebrand and Poey, 1985; Scoones, 1989). The possible terms of collaboration on research trials range from researcher-designed trials on research stations and in parks to rural peoples' own experiments that are "discovered" and documented by research institutions (Rocheleau et al., 1989). The following typology (Poats et al., 1989; Rocheleau and Malaret, 1987) presents a spectrum of collaborative arrangements between local science and practice and "the scientific establishment":

(1) Researcher designed and managed trials, (usually on station or special plots). Land users are consulted and their problems are addressed, but their resources, management practices, and evaluation are not part of the research design.

(2) Researcher designed and managed trials, on site, in local peoples' work and production sites, whether individual or shared space. Land users are consulted, their problems are addressed and they evaluate the results. There is little involvement of land users' management, since all labor and material inputs are planned and paid for by the research institution.

(3) Researcher-designed and user-managed trials, on site. This is the same as case 2, above, with the difference that land users' resources and management are included in the trial, their evaluation and feedback are continuous, and land users' performance and judgment are part of the trial.

(4) Joint design and management of on-site

12


trials by researcher and land users. Local people and outside researcher(s) collaborate in the design of the trial and confer on management decisions. Land users' management and decision-making are explicitly treated as experimental variables, their feedback and evaluation are high priorities in the research endeavor, and they consciously evaluate their own and researchers' decisions.

(5) Trials designed and managed by land users, with outside researcher(s) consulting. Outside researcher(s) enter into on-going trials as occasional consultants or regular collaborators, and document results and/or process. Researchers may or may not alter trial design.

(6) Trials designed and managed by land users. Outside researchers observe and document existing trials, experiments, and ongoing innovation. Outsiders may also produce documents for local review, revision, and use. The choice of trial types will also depend on the

type of question, the variability of social, economic, and ecological conditions in the region, and the time, space, and precision required to produce useful answers to the questions. For example, farmers in southern Zimbabwe have participated in agroforestry projects that include species trials in community experimental plots, farm trials of tree establishment techniques, and resource management trials in shared and private lands. Trials have combined controlled experiments (types 2, 3, and 4) with more informal observation plots (types 5 and 6) and "perturbation experiments" (a kind of before and after comparison of a whole system with a particular treatment introduced). In trials on-farm, on- station, and in-the-commons, farmers have participated in roles ranging from advisor to employee (Clarke, 1990; Gumbo et al., 1988; Matose, 1993; Scoones, 1988; Seitz, 1993; Wilson, 1987). In such cases, the entire project can become an experiment, if researchers carefully document the process and the effects of "work in progress".

In contrast, some projects have emphasized farmer participation in formal research station experiments. Researchers in Rwanda have reported major advances in potato and bean varietal selection and breeding research through surveys of farmer knowledge (Haugerud, 1986) and involvement of farmer "experts" in on-station research (Sperling, forthcoming). This approach recognizes that farmers develop their knowledge and skills over long time periods and across a wide range of microenvironments. It couples the richness of farmer experience and judgment with the precision and control of research station experimental regimes.

If rural people are to use production and conservation research results under a wide range of conditions, then the experiments and the larger research program must be robust enough to accommodate the broad

spectrum of situations that they may encounter. They may well benefit over the long term from replicated experimental testing of agroforestry innovations. They may also contribute key questions and performance standards to narrowly focused species selection and plant interaction trials (types 1, 2, or 3), on station or on-site. However, non-replicable experience may also be extremely instructive. Farmers, herders, and forest dwellers may benefit substantially from a combination of historical analysis, consideration of possible futures, and qualitative comparison of existing practice (Hope and Timmel, 1984).

Experience as Experiment Beyond the terms of cooperation in specific ex-

perimental activities lies the question of how to reconcile our own experimental inclinations with the "science of survival". When we (outside researchers) recognize rural people as independent innovators and co- researchers we may reconstruct them in our own image. However, we need to recognize that they may be scientific without subscribing to the norms of industrial science. Their process of experimentation may be more like that of a concert pianist than an industrial chemist (Richards, 1989).

In his discussion of agriculture as a performance, Paul Richards (1989) notes that farmers must integrate all of their past experience at critical moments (such as

drought, flood, pest outbreak, or market fluctuations). They must make binding decisions that will affect the season's harvest or even their very survival as farmers (Richards, 1989; Watts, 1983). Long-term learning and innovation are likewise accelerated during times of rapid and dramatic change such as land tenure reform, large scale migration, an exodus of part of the work force, or the introduction of new technology (plows, tractors). Farmers react much as a concert violinist on stage might improvise on a piece of music to avoid a broken or out of tune string. The outcome influences future decisions of a similar nature, but the same situation (same song, same string, same audience) might never repeat itself. Like the violinist, farmers might not have the luxury of designing controlled experiments to solve pressing problems, nor would they gain much from highly precise results that would apply only to a repetition of the same conditions. Unlike the violinist, farmers might face more than a bad review if they fail at a crucial time. How- ever, their process of learning and innovation clearly has more in common with the acknowledged imme- diacy of the stage performance than with the purported control and replicability of the laboratory experiment.

Some types of research directly address the science of survival under uncertain conditions. Tech- niques from industrial psychology and marketing have proven useful to identify successful strategies for coping with change or stress or for reducing vulnerability

13


to economic and environmental stress (Jiggins, 1986a, 1986b, 1988). For example, aerospace industry researchers developed critical incident analysis to identify early indicators of trouble and to document the decisions taken by pilots who survived potentially fatal crashes. Janice Jiggins adapted this to learn from poor and "average" rural people who survived drought, famine, and public health crises in farming communities of Africa and Asia.3 The study of survivors and "success" stories (stratified by class, gender, age, ethnic group, and locality) can better inform people from the place about their own options in similar' future events. This technique consists of applying an experimental frame of mind to the documentation and interpretation of remembered events. It lends itself well to studies of wildlife management, watershed management, deforestation, reforestation, and agricultural in- tensification.

Rural people can also reverse the time sequence to conduct "what if" simulations, applying an experimental mindset to visions of the future as well as to memories of the past. Extrapolating from current trends, it is possible to imagine a range of possible futures (Davis-Case, 1989; Martin, 1991; Rocheleau et al., 1988; Woodhill, 1990) based on a combination of conscious choices and chance occurrences. Choices could include national wildlife, forest, and land tenure policy, community resource management strategies, landscape design, household migration decisions, and introduction of trees as cash crops. Externally determined events might include drought, plant and animal diseases, groundwater depletion, and price fluctuation or market collapse for particular commodities.

Sampling and Monitoring Although scientists often make controlled labora-

tory conditions conform to the demands of particular statistical analyses, it is also possible to fit multivari- ate and time series analyses to complex field conditions. Oceanographers, meteorologists, geologists, and field ecologists are all accustomed to working with "experiments" designed by "nature". This differs from survey research in that researchers may gather detailed data on complex systems over time, within an experimental framework that embraces variability. They can monitor and test relationships between specific practices, processes, species, site characteristics, land- holding types, and land user groups. They can sample and monitor land use systems or trees-in-the-landscape according to maps of existing variation in practice or in vegetation. Such "inferred" or "insinuated experiments" can explain the economic and ecological significance of these patterns in the landscape. Re- searchers may also use monitoring data to develop models that can simulate potential changes in land use systems. For example, researchers could use farmers' records and their own field observations to model an

existing land use system and to predict the likely outcome of a prolonged drought or a new settlement program.

In most cases, rural people can be part of the system as well as active observers, recorders, analysts, evaluators, and independent experimenters. They may monitor and evaluate projects and research process as well as specific technologies (Davis-Case, 1989). They can also conduct their own "perturbation experiments" with "real world" models to observe the response of local landscapes, livelihoods, and ecosystems to specific changes. The "control" is in their memory. This type of experiment may well prove more coherent from their point of view than a replicated experiment laid out according to a randomized block design.

Group Methods Applicable Throughout the Re- search Cycle

Farmer panels (Sperling, forthcoming), focus groups (Feldstein and Jiggins, forthcoming), group interviews (Buck, 1988; Rocheleau et al.,1988), group ranking exercises (Grandin, 1988; Scoones, 1989), and participant observation (Ashby, 1987; Ashby et al., 1989) can all provide information about the substance and the distribution of knowledge, practice, resources, opinions, and interests on a particular issue within a given community (Davis-Case, 1989). While individuals may provide detailed information in intensive interviews, their responses often represent one position on a larger spectrum that remains unknown or must be inferred by the researcher from a large random sample.

For any of these methods, researchers may choose a group at random, or select groups systematically to represent a range of characteristics present in the community. Alternatively, participant groups may be selected by the larger membership in a preexisting group, they may volunteer according to researcher criteria, or key informants may nominate groups. Both the origin and the composition of groups have strong implications for the substance, the style of interaction, and the locus of control within research activities. Researchers who collaborate with groups may work with: (1) preexisting groups that take on research tasks as a group, (2) preexisting groups that facilitate the participation of a subgroup of members as a special optional activity, or (3) groups created by and for researchers for the explicit purpose of research collaboration.

In the case of preexisting groups, there are several key questions: whether they are formal or informal (as in legally. registered vs. family and friends); whether membership and contributions are voluntary or co- erced; whether the group represents the community as a whole or specific segments thereof (by gender, class, ethnicity, religion, occupation, location); whether they are traditional or recently initiated; whether they are

14


internally or externally organized; and whether they are perennial, multipurpose organizations or were formed to accomplish a specific task. If researchers misunderstand the purpose or composition of a participating group it can bias the research results and distort the quality and distribution of participation within the community.

Preexisting groups can apply their own usual terms of leadership and participation to research activities (Fernandez and Salvatierra, 1989). These may not be egalitarian nor are they likely to reward research apti- tude and performance, but they have the advantages of familiarity, local control, and credibility. Special research groups formed from preexisting groups retain the advantage of group and community linkages and credibility, yet can provide freedom for group members and researchers to choose leaders and follow procedures that facilitate the research task. They can also remain accountable to the larger group and respect the spirit of its organization in research activities.

When researchers form new groups from the larger community, based on open enrollment, direct selection, or "conscription", then the control of group process and activities is far more likely to reside with the outside researchers. The form and substance of the research may differ substantially as a result. Such groups make convenient participants in quantitative research designs. They lend themselves readily to controlled experiments, test panels for prepackaged products, or as representative qualified informants (Norman, et al., 1988, 1989; Baker, forthcoming). However, they are less likely to promote continuing local innovation, research, or information exchange. Groups of this type may make significant contributions to formal research efforts (Sperling, forthcoming), but they should not be confused with self-sustain- ing groups that participate in research efforts as part of their own long-term agenda.

Individual, Household, or Group Data Collection and Record-Keeping

Record keeping, measurements, diaries, plant collections, oral histories, maps, and sketches may be limited to "just the facts" or may include a substantial dose of rural people's judgment, skill, and worldview. While all of these can be very labor intensive and are sometimes used in an exploitative fashion, these methods can allow for accurate data collection, analysis, and interpretation by and for rural people.

Records might include only qualitative observations such as time and labor allocation within the household, or simple quantitative notes on nursery operation, such as records of seeds planted, plants germinated, seedling survival, number distributed, to whom, number planted, damage, growth, and survival (Buck, 1989; Davis-Case, 1989). Records could also include measurements of tree growth, insect damage to

leaves or stems of seedlings, and volume and/or weight of fuelwood harvested. Records might also provide substantial insight into seasonal and periodic price fluctuations of local products and purchased items.

Individual, household, or group diaries provide scope for sharing judgments and reflections about changing conditions or new activities in a rural community. For example, a women's group might keep a long term narrative record of significant events and peoples' interpretations of these occurrences, including suggested solutions to land use and environmental problems. A diary could also focus on a specific technical topic such as tree seedling condition and survival. Entries could emphasize pest attacks on planted seedlings, with comments about when, where, and why pest attacks occur, as well as a description of the pests. A diary of tree use and management might also provide comments about which trees are harvested, whether there is adequate supply, about the quality of products, the potential uses and users, and the decisions about who will use what tree and what product. Alterna- tively, diaries could focus on sightings and observations of wildlife, including rare or endangered species sighted at home, at work sites, on regular trails, or on extended journeys.

Individual, household, or group plant or insect collections may serve several purposes, some a bit more "participatory" than others. A collection may be for the collector's own use, for outside researchers according to specific lists, or for shared use from jointly compiled lists of plant and insect types and sampling sites. The use may be as general as "basic research" or as practical as a reference guide to identify medicinal herbs for local preparation and use. Public participation in collecting work can also facilitate discussions of ecological history, ecosystem structure and function, and the future landscape. This, in turn, may affect planning, management, and improvement of land use systems, including domestication or protection of wild plants and forest or range ecosystems.

Oral history, while less tangible than some of the data collection methods described above may well prove crucial to subsequent planning efforts to shape the landscape and livelihood systems of the future. The objectives may range across a broad spectrum from: 1) the postmodern project of liberating (apparently) sub- jugated knowledges (Foucault, 1980; Stamp, 1989); to 2) empowerment of local communities and organizations (Fortmann, 1993; Rocheleau et al., 1994; Ross, 1994); to 3) supplementing written and photographic records of soil erosion, water supply development, deforestation, reforestation, technology adoption, or land use and land cover change (Malaret and Rocheleau, 1994; Rocheleau et al., forthcoming; Tiffen et al., 1994). Oral history has recently gained formal recognition as a tool of environmental and land use research

15


(Showers, 1989; Showers and Malahlela, 1992) and enjoys increasing use within research on environment, development, and agricultural technology generation. The applications include personal life histories, which are now widely used by feminist scholars to portray the diversity and depth of experience among women and to illuminate the political and the sublime embedded within the personal and the everyday. Life history approaches can be extrapolated to discussions of community and regional history, and can be specifically focused on landscape, land use, land degradation, biodiversity, and ecological processes (Rocheleau, 1983b). Likewise, researchers and local residents can construct matrices and diagrams describing inputs and outputs for a given area, or documenting energy flows and material cycles in a local ecosystem and its linkages to larger economic and ecological systems (Rocheleau, 1993a).

Mapping of past, present, and possible future landscapes is yet another way that research programs can collaborate with rural people to document, analyze, and predict ecological and land use changes. Maps and sketches facilitate discussions of topics ranging from biodiversity to food production to water management. The spatial configuration of landscapes is changing swiftly and dramatically in many agrarian, rangeland, and forest landscapes, and this method allows for an integrative and rapid portrayal of the range of microenvironments available to plants, animals, and people in rural communities. The approach is particularly useful for botanical research as well as land use planning and resource management programs that transcend single plots and landholdings (Chambers et al., 1989; Rocheleau et al., 1988).

Visual aids for discussion and graphic representation can include a wide range of media and approaches. Researchers have recorded a number of techniques in recent field exercises: landscape drawings with pens and ink markers drawn by researchers and local residents (Rocheleau et al., 1994); chalk sketches and maps on blackboards drawn by groups and individuals (McConnell, 1992); clay models, sand paintings, and stick-drawings on the ground (Chambers, 1993; Fortmann, 1993; MacCracken, 1988; MacCracken et al., 1988; Mascarenhas et al., 1991); felt board landscapes with plants, animals, people, landscape features, and infrastructure for iterative construction of alternative scenarios by groups and individuals (Rocheleau et al., 1994); flow diagrams and systems diagrams of various types (Lightfoot et al.,1991); and computer mapping simulations of farms, watersheds, and larger landscapes on portable computers. Most of these techniques have been employed in planning research and action on land use issues at the farm and community levels, with some larger scale applications.

Beyond the local scale, some programs based in

forest communities have also begun community-based mapping exercises to delineate established terrains of resource use and rights to particular places as territory, using survey maps (Chambers, 1992, forthcoming; Chambers and Conway, 1992; Colchester and Alcorn, 1993; Herlihy, 1993). Members of the Rubber Tappers Union and farmers' associations in the Brazilian Ama- zon have undertaken training to read and utilize aerial photographs and remotely sensed satellite imagery so as to locate their communities within larger regions and to conduct land use research in coordination with other communities. They have also mapped their lands at community and regional scales for use in surveys and legal proceedings against government and private sector encroachment on their resources (Anderson, 1993). The Land Care groups in Australia (Martin, 1991) also depend on mapping and mapped information at multiple scales to facilitate participatory planning for resource management. The Arusha Diocesan Development Office (ADDO) has assisted Maasai communities in Tanzania to map their customary grazing lands, water sources, and current settlements in response to increasing conflicts over land use and access (Fr. Ben Ole Nangore, personal communication, 1989). In Sri Lanka, researchers have joined rural communities in the use of geographic information systems (GIS) for collaborative planning approaches with government (Batuwitage, 1992) and NGOs (Yapa, 1991). This may well become a major tool of action research on natural resource allocation and management in communities throughout the world.

What Institutions Can and Will Do Participatory Research?

Most national and international agricultural research institutions already provide some scope for participatory survey research, adaptive technology trials, and land user evaluation of new technologies and land use plans. Enterprising field researchers, from anthropologists to ecologists, have seized upon or created opportunities to inform mainstream technology research from local science and practice. They have incorporated rural peoples' contributions to formal and "informal" surveys, trials, and research planning. Instances of such "injections" of local participation have been reported for several of the international agricultural research centers (see above) as well as in several international environment and development research institutions (Bruce, 1989; Kiriro and Juma, 1991; McCabe, 1990; Murphree, 1993; Thrupp, 1989; Veit, 1993; Zazueta et al., 1992). Rapid Rural Appraisal is now widely used to identify problems and to inform technology design and research planning. Several major international and national research programs have incorporated participant observation, ethnobotanical surveys, and "directed" participation, as in the case of farmer panels, focus groups, and key informants, both

16

Rocheleau: Participatory Research and the Race to Save the Planet group and individual.

During the last five years a parallel stream of reports has issued from the field through new channels

Fiyure 2.

explicitly created to give voice to participatory research experience in NGO and national government programs (Buck, 1989; Bond-Stewart, 1986; Bunch, 1985, 1989; ILEIA, 1988a, 1988b; Martin, 1991; Maundu Munyao, 1992; Ngugi and Buck, 1989). The case studies, methodological summaries, and field trial results include applications of Rapid Rural Ap- praisal, Agroecosystem Analysis, Participatory Rural Appraisal, and a host of untitled but no less valid approaches. They all include rural peoples' skills, concerns, and judgment in survey and monitoring activities.

The key message this conveys for sustainable development researchers and planners is simple. Sev- eral kinds of organizations, from the local to the'international in scale, and from basic research to local empowerment in mandate, have successfully entered into participatory research activities in forestry, agriculture, conservation, and related fields (Korten, 1990; Uphoff, 1992). While the mainstream research and policy communities have not yet incorporated these approaches as a whole into their explicit mandates, they have already (in some cases unwittingly) integrated many methods and principles of participatory research into daily field practice. Conversely, many development agencies and NGOs have integrated an increasing number of research activities into participatory development programs and have

sharpened their skills in participation. These programs have already accomplished much

independently. However, they constitute a potentially

more powerful mix of complementary skill, experience, and institutional strengths. The optimal combination in any one case might vary, but overall this approach would join organizations with different sectoral expertise and mandates (water, soil, crop production, forestry, wildlife, employment, education, and culture). At the same time, the mix of participating organizations would combine distinct types of institutions: popular NGOs, technical NGOs, universities, national extension agencies, national research agencies, and international research, development, relief, and environmental agencies.

The "spinning wheel" model of collaborating institutions (Figure 2) suggests that each institution could spin on its own internal axis, yet contribute to a broader, shared circulation of participatory research for sustainable development. Each institution would also continue to contribute to specialized networks of like organizations. The work within the wheel would take place at a single site or a series of shared sites.

Depending on local and national circumstances, the institutions and their activities would vary substantially. For example, in an agroforestry and rural livelihoods program the linked activities might include the following:

1) an ethnobotanical survey; 2) a series of formal trials to determine the best

17


placement of a favorite local tree within a new settlement pattern;

3) exploratory trials with different types and sizes of tree nurseries;

4) management and tenure experiments to test alternative rules of use and access on farm, along forest margins, and in the forest;

5) ecological and social baseline surveys using local criteria to stratify the sample by environments and social groups;

6) documentation of prior and ongoing experiments by farmers;

7) participant observation by researchers in group agricultural and conservation work;

8) a seed evaluation, selection, and collection program for favorite local and exotic plants;

9) a marketing study on existing and potential local tree products;

10) a local board to oversee all project work at the site; and

11) a farmer advisory group to collaborate on research station experiments of interest to the community. A different agency might carry out each task, and

the participants might include an international church- based NGO; a national forestry research agency; a

national agricultural extension program; local self- help groups; district officials; a national university research team of ecologists and social scientists; an association of local teachers; and an international conservation organization. Common interest in viable agroforestry systems and "livable landscapes" would drive the wheel, along with the cost savings of linking several activities in one place (a spatial economy of shared focus). The result could be one successful process, easy to multiply (not clone), rather than several specialized, incompatible environment and development successes that don't add up.

Throughout the world there are partial examples of the "spinning wheel" already turning. For example, the herbarium of the National Museums of Kenya has combined with Kenya Freedom From Hunger and Worldview International to conduct research and extension on indigenous wild food plants (Maundu Munyao, 1992). Their complementary skills have allowed them to link several distinct activities into a

single coherent effort. They have been able to survey the use and knowledge of edible wild plants, to prepare and disseminate planting and cooking information on the best known plants, to promote domestication in community fruit and vegetable gardens, and to establish seed multiplication plots. In other cases "working groups" (networks that emphasize "work") have coordinated national research and extension agencies, economic planning, energy research, grassroots tree planting efforts, and rural development agencies to promote social forestry within a single district, as in Indonesia

(Mark Poffenberger and Fran Korten, personal communication, 1988) and Kenya (Bradley, 1991; Buck, 1989; Kerkoff, 1990; Ngugi and Buck, 1989; Scherr, 1990). The Total Catchment Management and Land Care groups in the Hunter Valley of Australia represent yet another example of multi-institutional and interdisciplinary research and action on environment and development issues (Martin, 1991; Woodhill et al., 1990).

There is ample precedent within the international and grassroots NGO community4 for long-standing action research programs and collaboration with popular organizations in technology innovation and development (Korten, 1990; Uphoff, 1992). These experienced groups are well-placed to inform and mediate the convergence of environment and development institutions with both research and action mandates to play complementary roles in participatory land use research (Woods, 1983). We need not reinvent this particular wheel (Figure 2) from agriculture, forestry, and conservation, but merely need to balance it for easy and effective use in a variety of sustainable land use initiatives. Lest we become complacent about the ease of this task, we need only remind ourselves how a careless neglect of the relations of power can threaten such a carefully balanced process. This will surely prove to be another necessary focus of participatory research over the coming decade (Cohen, 1993; Cornwall et al., 1992; Fraser, 1989; Watts, 1993).

Conclusion The last decade of experience in forestry, agriculture, and conservation research has taught us what we can and cannot do alone as scientists and planners working within national and international institutions. Many of us have explored the soft edges of our own science and the regions of overlap with local science and practice in isolated rural communities throughout the world. We have also discovered a wealth of experience and information in the larger scientific and development community, often in institutions previously invisible to us, from our respective perches. We can use the decade ahead to employ our new-found collective skills in sustainable development and to demonstrate what is possible when we combine our efforts and our insights with those of rural people. Participatory methods cannot guarantee socially just sustainable development. They can facilitate democratic or self-determined programs to protect, create, and maintain sustainable livelihoods and living landscapes for a multiplicity of unfolding futures.

Notes * Portions of this article have previously appeared in

Rocheleau, 1991b and are reprinted with the permission of Agroforestry Systems.

1. "We" refers here primarily to fieldworkers and

18


researchers engaged in critical exploration, review, and revision of participatory methods for ecological, social, and economic research and action in "sustainable development". This does not seek to exclude the people directly affected or those who reject the possibility of any positive "development". The designation of "we" simply acknowledges the major audience as the group referred to above.

2. It is important to keep in mind that "tradition" also changes. The body of "traditional" knowledge and practice is constantly revised and redefined and may become a contested point between land user groups (Carney, 1988).

3. While there may be an ethical question raised about the advisability of outsiders reaping advantage from disas- ter, this type of study can be either extractive or interactive. It can help to prepare rural communities to avoid or survive future disasters of the same or similar type.

4. This includes such groups as Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG), Oxfam, Oxfam America, World Neighbors, Care International, SOS Sahel, Save the Children, Catholic Relief Services, Lutheran World Services, Mennonite Central Committee, QuakerPeace and Service; American Friends Service Committee, Carinas, CEBEMO, Gandhian development organizations, International Institute for Rural Reconstruction (IIRR), IRED, International Organization of Consumer Unions (1000), Environment Development Action (ENDA), and many other numerous relief and development organizations.

References Abel, N. O. J. and Piers Blaikie. 1986. "Elephants, People,

Parks and Development: The Case of the Luwanga Valley, Zambia," Environmental Management, 10

(6):735-751. Abel, N. O. J., M. Drinkwater, J. Ingram, J. Okafor, and R.

T. Prinsley. 1989. Guidelines for Training in Rapid Appraisal for Agroforestry Research and Extension. London and Harare, Commonwealth Science Council and Forestry Commission.

Anderson, Suely. 1993. "Participatory Research and Map- ping with Peasant Organizations and Forest Peoples." A paper presented at the Sixth International Forum of the Association for Women in Development, October 21-24, 1993, Washington, DC.

Anderson, Anthony, ed. 1990. Alternatives to Deforesta- tion: Steps toward Sustainable Use of the Amazon Rainforest. New York: Columbia University Press.

Anderson, Anthony, Peter May, and Michael Balick. 1991. Subsidy from Nature: Palm Forest Peasantry and Development on an Amazon Frontier. New York, Co- lumbia University Press.

Ashby, Jacqueline. 1987. "The Effects of Different Types of Farmer Participation on the Management of On-Farm Trials," Agricultural Administration and Extension, 24:235-252.

Ashby, Jacqueline, Carlos Cuiros, and Yolanda Rivers. 1989. "Farmer Participation in Technology Develop- ment: Work with Crop Varieties." In Farmer First: Farmer Innovation andAgricultural Research (Robert Chambers, Arnold Pacey, and Lori Ann Thrupp, eds.), London: Intermediate Technology Publications, pp. 115-122.

Atta-Krah, A. N. and P. A. Francis. 1987. "Me Role of On- Farm Trials in the Evaluation of Composite Technolo- gies: The Case of Alley Farming in Southern Nigeria," Agroforestry Systems, 23:133-152.

Baker, Doyle. Forthcoming. "Women and Trials Manage- ment in Botswana: Experience with Farmer Groups." In MethodologiesHandbook: Intra-householdDynam- ics and Farming Systems Research and Extension (Hilary Feldstein and Janice Jiggens, eds.), New York: Population Council.

Batuwitage, Gamini. 1992. Effectiveness of Collaborative Planning as a Strategy for Sustainable, Integrated Area Development. Ph.D. Dissertation Proposal. Worcester, MA, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University.

Bebbington, Anthony. 1990. "Farmer Knowledge, Institu- tional Resources and Sustainable Agricultural Strate- gies: A Case Study from the Eastern Slopes of the Peruvian Andes," Bulletin ofLatinAmericanResearch, 9(2).

Berger, Dhyani. 1993. Wildlife Extension: Participatory Conservation by the Maasai of Kenya. Nairobi: ACTS Press.

Biggs, Stephen. 1988. Resource-Poor Farmer Participa- tion in Research: A Synthesis ofExperiencesfrom Nine National Agricultural Research Systems. The Hague: ISNAR.

Bond-Stewart, Kathy. 1986. Land. Harare: Mambo Press. Bradley, Phillip. 1991. Woodfuel, Women, and Woodlots,

Vol. 1. London: MacMillan. Brokensha, David, D. Michael W arren, and Oswald W emer,

eds. 1980. Indigenous Knowledge Systems andDevel- opment. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Bruce, John. 1989. Community Forestry: Rapid Appraisal of Tree and Land Tenure. Rome: FAO.

Buck, Louise. 1989. "Planning Agroforestry Extension Projects: The CARE International Approaches in Kenya In Planning for Agroforestry (William Budd, ed.), Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 101-131.

Buck,Louise.1988.AgroforestryExtension Training Source Book. New York, CARE International.

Bunch,Roland. 1989."EncouragingFarmers' Experiments. " In Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research (Robert Chambers, Arnold Pacey, and Lori Ann Thnipp, eds.), London: Intermediate Technology Publications, pp. 55-61.

Bunch, Roland.1985. TwoEarsof Corn: A Guide toPeople- Centered Agricultural Improvement. Oklahoma City: World Neighbors.

Carney, Judith. 1988. "Struggles Over Land and Crops in an Irrigated Rice Scheme: The Gambia." In Agriculture,

19


Women, and Land: The African Experience (Jean

Davison, ed.), Boulder: Westview. Cashman, Kristin. 1988. "Promoting the Fertilizer Bush

Among Nigerian Farmers," VITA News, July/October. 7-10.

Chambers, Robert. Forthcoming. "Participatory Rural Ap- praisal: Analysis of Experience," World Development.

Chambers,Robert.1993. Challenging theProfessions:Fron- tiers for Rural Development. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Chambers, Robert. 1992. "Methods for Analysis by Farm- ers: The Professional Challenge." A paper presented at the 1991-1992 Symposium of the Association forFarm- ing Systems Research/Extension, September 11, 1991, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Chambers, Robert. 1989. "Farmer-First: A Practical Para- digm for the Third Agriculture. In Agroecology and Small Farm Development (Miguel Altieri and Susanna Hecht, eds.), Florida CRC Press.

Chambers, Robert. 1983. Rural Development: Putting the

Last First. London: Longman. Chambers,Robert. 1981. "RapidRural Appraisal: Rationale

and Repertoire," Public Administration and Develop- ment, 1(2).

Chambers, Robert and Gordon Conway. 1992. "Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century." IDS Discussion Paper No. 296. Brighton, Institute for Development Studies, University of Sus- sex.

Chambers, Robert and B. P. Ghildyal. 1985. "Agricultural Research for Resource-Poor Farmers: The Farmer- First-and-LastModel,"Agricultural Administration and Extension 20:1-30.

Chambers, Robert and Janice Jiggins. 1986. "Agricultural Re-

search for Resource-Poor Farmers: A Parsimonious Para- digm." IDS Discussion Paper No. 220, Brighton, Institute

for Development Studies, University of Sussex.

Chambers, Robert, Arnold Pacey, and Lori Ann Thrupp, eds. 1989. Farmer First: Farmer Innovation andAgri- cultural Research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Clarke, J. 1990. "On-Farm Agroforestry Research Lessons and Innovations from a Pilot Project in Zimbabwe." A paper presented at ICRAF workshop on participatory methods for on-farm agroforestry research, February 19-23, 1990, Nairobi.

Cohen, A. P. 1993. "Segmentary Knowledge: A Whalsay Sketch." In (Mark Hobart, ed.), London: Routledge.

Colchester, A. and Janis Alcorn. 1993. Indigenous Territo- ries and Resource Use Mapping Project: South East

Asia Region. Second draft of project proposal. Chadlington, England and Washington, DC: World Rainforest Movement and World Wildlife Fund.

Coffer, Carol J. Pierce with Fahmuddin Agus, Dan Gill, M.

Sudjadi, Gofo Ueharu, and M. K. Wade. 1989. "Two Complementary Approaches to Farmer Involvement: An Experience from Indonesia" In Farmer First: Farmer

Innovation andAgriculturalResearch (Robert Chambers, Arnold Pacey, and Lori Ann Thrupp, eds.), London: Inter- mediate Technology Publications, pp. 151-157.

Collinson, Michael. 1981. "A Low-Cost Approach to Un- derstanding Small Farmers," Agricultural Administra- tion and Extension, 8:433- 450.

Conway, Gordon. 1987. "The Properties of Agroecosys- tems," Agricultural Systems, 24: 95-117.

Conway, Gordon. 1985. "Agroecosystem Analysis," Agri- cultural Administration, 20:31-55.

Cornwall, Andrea, Irene Guijt, and Alice Welbourn. 1992. "Acknowledging Process: Challenges for Agricultural Research and Extension Methodology." Overview pa-

per No. 2 prepared for IIED/IDS Beyond Farmer First Workshop, October27-29,1992,Brighton,Institute for Development Studies, University of Sussex.

Davis-Case, D'Arcy. 1989. ComnutnityForestryParticipa- tory Assessment, Monitoring and Evaluation. Rome: FAO.

Denevan, William, John Treacy, Janis Alcorn, Christine Padoch, Julie Denslow, and Salvador Flores Paitdn. 1985. "Indigenous Agroforestry in the Peruvian Ama- zon: Boralndian Management of SwiddenFallows." In Change in theAmazonBasin, Volume 1: Man'slmpact on Forests andRivers (John Hemming, ed.), Manches- ter. Manchester University Press, pp. 137-155.

Dewees, Peter. 1989. "The Woodfuel Crisis Reconsidered Observations on the Dynamics of Abundance and Scarcity," World Development 17(8):1159-1172.

Drijver C. A. and Elizabeth Croll. 1992. "People's Partici- pation in Environmental Projects. In Bush Base, Forest Farm. Culture, Environment, andDevelopment (Eliza- beth Croll and DavidParkin, eds.),London: Routledge, pp. 131-145.

Edwards, R. J. A.1987a. "Farmers' Knowledge: Utilization of Farmers' Soil and Land Classification." A paper presented at the IDS Workshop on Farmers and Agri- cultural Research: Complementary Methods, July 26- 31, 1987, Brighton, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.

Edwards, R. J. A. 1987b. "Farmers' Groups and Panels." A paper presented at the IDS Workshop on Farmers and Agricultural Research: Complementary Methods, July 26-31, 1987, Brighton, Institute of Development Stud- ies, University of Sussex.

Edwar d s, R. J. A.1987 c. "Mapping and Informal Experimenta- tion by Farmers: Agronomic Monitoring of Farmers' Cropping Systems." A paper presented at the IDS Work- shop on Farmers and Agricultural Research: Complemen- tary Methods, July 26-31, 1987, Brighton, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.

Escobar, Arturo. 1992. "Culture, Economics and Politics in Latin American Social Movements Theory and Re- search." In The Making of Social Movements in Latin America (Arturo Escobar and Sonia Alvarez, eds.), Boulder. Westview Press, pp. 62-85.

Esteva, Gustavo. 1992. "Development." In The Development

20


Dietionary.AGuide to Knowledge asPower (Wolfgang Sachs, ed.), London, Zed Press, pp. 6-25.

Feldstein, Hilary and Janice Jiggins. Forthcoming. Method- ologies Handbook: Infra-household Dynamics and Farming SystemsResearch and Extension, New York: Population Council.

Feldstein, Hilary, Dianne Rocheleau, and Louise Buck. 1989. "The Siaya Agroforestry Project in Kenya." In Working Together: Gender Analysis in Agricultural Research, Vol. 1. (Hilary Feldstein and Susan Poats,

eds.), West Hartford: Kumarian Press.

Fernandez, Maria. Forthcoming. "The Influence of the Aranachay Women's Production Committee on Plan- ning the Research Agenda and Trial Design." In Meth-

odologies Handbook: Intra-household Dynamics and

Farming Systems Research and Extension (Hilary Feldstein and Janice Jiggens, eds.), New York: Popula- tion Council.

Fernandez, Maria and Hugo Salvatierra. 1989. "Participa- tory Technology Validation in Highland Communities in Peru. In Z(Robert Chambers, ArnoldPacey, andLori Ann Thrupp, eds.), London: Intermediate Technology Publications, pp. 146-150.

Feuerstein, Marie-Therese. 1986. Partners in Evaluation: Evaluating Development and CommunityProgrammes with Participants. London: MacMillan.

Flores Paitan, S. 1987. "Agroforestry Systems in Iquitos." ICRAF Working Paper, Nairobi: ICRAF.

Ford, Richard, Charity Kabutha, and Barbara Thomas- Slayter. 1993a. "Erosion Control in Machakos, Kenya." In Working with Farmers for Better Land Husbandry (Norman Hudson and Rodney Cheatle, eds.), London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Ford, Richard, Charity Kabutha, and Barbara Thomas- S layter.1993b. "Participatory Rural Appraisal: A Case Study from Kenya." In Rapid Appraisal Methods (Krishna Kumar, ed.), Washington, DC, The World Bank.

Fortmann, Louise. 1993. "Learning from People, Learning with People, Empowering People with Research." A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, August 9, 1993, Orlando, FL.

Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Inter- views and Other Writings, 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon Books.

Fraser, Nancy. 1989. Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse,

and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory. Minne- apolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Freire, Paulo.1973. "Research Methods." InStudies inAdult Education. Dares Salaam: Institute of Adult Education.

Freire, Paulo. 1968. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin Books.

George, Susan. 1992. The Debt Boomerang: How Third World Debt Harms Us All. Boulder: Westview Press.

Grandin, Barbara. 1988. WealthRanking. London, Interme- diate Technology Publications.

Gumbo, D., B. Mukamuri, M. Makondo, and I. Scoones.

1988. "Indigenous and Exotic Fruit Trees: Why Do People Want to Grow Them?" A paper presented at the Commonwealth Science Council Conference on Eco- nomics of Agroforestry, April 23-27, 1988, Mbabane, Swaziland.

Gupta, Anil. 1989. "Scientists' Views of Farmers' Practices in India Barriers to Effective Interaction." In Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research (Robert Chambers, Arnold Pacey, and Lori Ann Thrupp, eds.), London: IntennediateTechnologyPublications,pp.24-31.

Gupta, Anil and IDS Workshop. 1989. Maps Drawn by Farmers and Extensionists. In Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research (Robert Cham- bers, Arnold Pacey, and Lori Ann Thrupp, eds.), Lon- don: Intermediate Technology Publications, pp. 86-92.

Hancock, Graham. 1989. Lords of Poverty. New York, Atlantic Monthly Press.

Haugenrd, Angelique. 1986. "An Anthropologist in an African Research Institute: An Informal Essay," Bulletin of the Institute for Development Anthropology, 4: 2.

Herlihy, Peter. 1993. Indigenous Mapping of the Honduran Mosquitia: The Design and Methodology of a Partici- patory Project. Draft Document, Washington, DC: World Wildlife Fund.

Hildebrand, Peter, ed. 1986. Perspectives on Farming Sys- tems Research and Extension. Boulder, Lynne Reiner Publishers.

Hildebrand, Peter. 1981. "Combining Disciplines in Rapid Appraisal: The Sondeo Approach," Agricultural Ad- ministration 8:423-432.

Hildebrand, Peter and Federico Poey.1985.On-Farm Agro- nomic Trials in Farming SystemsResearch and Exten- sion. Boulder: Lynne Reiner Publishers.

Hope, Anne and Sally Timmel. 1984. Trainingfor Transfor- mation, Vols. 1-3, Harare: Mambo Press.

Hoskins, Marilyn. 1982. "Social Forestry in West Africa: Myths and Realities." A Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advance- ment of Science, Washington, DC.

ILEIA. 1988a. "Towards Sustainable Agriculture (Parts 1

and 2)," ILEIA Newsletter, 4 (1). ILEIA. 1988b. "Participative Technology Development,"

ILEIA Newsletter 4 (3).

Jama, M., L. Malaret, D. Rocheleau, and 1. 0. Jondiko with B. M. Wanjohi. 1992. Farmer/Researcher Collabora- tive Approach to Rural Development. A report to the IDRC. Nairobi: Institute for Development Studies, University of Nairobi.

Jiggins, Janice. 1988. "Farmer Participatory Research and Technology Development," Occasional Papers in Ru- ral Extension No. 5. Guelph, Canada, Department of Rural Extension Studies, University of Guelph.

Jiggins, Janice. 1986a. "Problems of Understanding and Communication at the Interface of Knowledge Sys- tems." In Gender Issues in Farming Systems Research

and Extension (Susan Poats, Marianne Schmink, and

Anita Spring, eds.), Boulder. Westview Press.

21


Jiggins, Janice. 1986b. "Women and Seasonality: Coping with Crisis and Calamity," IDS Bulletin, 17 (3): 9-18.

Juma, Calestous. 1989. Biological Diversity and Innova- tion: Conserving and Utilizing Genetic Resources in Kenya. Nairobi: African Centre for Technology Stud- ies.

Kabutha, Charity, Barbara Thomas-Slayter, and Richard Ford. 1991. Assessing Mbusyani: Using Participatory Rural Appraisal for Sustainable Resource Manage- ment. Worcester, MA: Clark University.

Kean,Stuart 1988."DevelopingaPaMershipbetweenFarmers and Scientists: The Example of Zambia's Adaptive Re- search Planning Team," Experimental Agriculture, 24

(3):289-299. Kerkoff, Paul. 1990. Agroforestry in Africa: A Survey of

Project Experience. London: Panos. Khon Kaen University. 1987. Proceedings of the 1985

International Conference on Rapid Rural Appraisal. Khon Kaen, Thailand, Faculty of Agriculture. Khon Kaen University.

Kiriro, Amos and Calestous Juma, eds. 1991. Gaining Ground: Institutional Innovations in Land Use Man- agement in Kenya. Nairobi: African Centre for Tech- nology Studies.

Korten, David.1990. Getting to the 21 st Century: Voluntary Action and the GlobalAgenda. West Hartford: Kumarian Press.

Langely, Phillip. 1986. "Popular Participation as a Cargo Cult?" ENDA African Environment Occasional Paper Series No. 95-86.

Lightfoot, Clive, Nancy Axinn, K. C. Joh, Robert Cham- bers, R. K. Singh, Dennis Garrity, V. P. Singh, P. Mishra, and Ahmad Salman. 1991. Training Resource BookforParticipatoryExperimental Design. India and Manila: NDUAT, ICLARM, and IRRI.

Lightfoot Clive, Olimpio de Guia, Jr, Aniceto Aliman, and Francisco Ocado. 1989. "Appraisal by Group Trek." In Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research (Robert Chambers, Arnold Pacey, and Lori Ann Thrupp, eds.), London: Intermediate Technology Publications, pp. 93-100.

Lightfoot, Clive, Olimpio de Guia, Jr., and Francisco Ocado. 1988. "A Participatory Method for Systems-Problem Research Rehabilitating Marginal Uplands in the Phil- ippines," Experimental Agriculture, 24 (3): 301-309.

MacCracken,Jennifer.1988. ParticipatoryRapidAppraisal in Gujarat: A Trial Model for the Aga Khan Rural Support Programme. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.

MacCracken Jennifer, Jules Pretty, and Gordon Conway. 1988. An Introduction to Rapid Rural Appraisal for Agricultural Development. London: International In- stitute for Environment and Development.

Malaret, Luis and Francis Ngonr.1989. "Ethnoecology as a Tool for Community Based Pest Management: Farmer Knowledge of Termites in Machakos District, Kenya," Sociobiology 15 (2): 197-211.

Malaret, Luis and Dianne Rocheleau. 1994. Landscape Pattern, Land Use Change and Biodiversity in Forest/ Farm Mosaics. A proposal submitted to the National Science Foundation. Worcester, MA: New England Science Center and Clark University.

Marglin,Frederique and Stephen Marglin, eds. 1990. Domi- nating Knowledge: Development Culture, Resistance.

Oxford: Clarendon Press. Martin, Peter. 1991. "Environmental Care in Agricultural

Catchments: Toward the Communicative Catchment," Environmental Management, 15(6):773-783.

Mascarenhas, James, Parmesh Shah, Sam Joseph, Ravi Jayakaran, John Devavaram, Vidya Ramachandran, Aloysius Femandez, Robert Chambers, and Jules Pretty. 1991. Participatory Rural Appraisal: Proceedings of the February 1991 Bangalore PRA Trainers Work- shop. RRA Notes Number 13. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.

Matose, Frank. 1993. "Gender and Local Knowledge of Trees and Crops in a Pilot Project in Zimbabwe." A paper presented at the Sixth International Forum of the Association for Women in Development, October 21- 24,1993, Washington, DC.

Maundu Munyao (1992) Biodiversity and Wild Foods. Manuscript. Nairobi, Indigenous Food Plants Programme, National Museum of Kenya.

McCabe, J. Terrence. 1990. "Turkana Pastoralism: A Case Against the Tragedy of the Commons," Human Ecol- ogy, 18 (1): 81-104.

McConnell, William. 1992. Local Ecological Knowledge and Environmental Management in the Republic of Mali, West Africa. M. A. thesis. Worcester, MA, Pro- gram in International Development and Social Change, Clark University.

Mies, Maria. 1988. Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale. London: Zed Press.

Mies, Maria and Vandana Shiva. 1993. Ecofeminism. Lon- don, Zed Press.

Muller, E. U. and S. K. Scherr. 1990. "Planning Technical Interventions in Agroforestry Projects," Agroforestry Systems, 12: 23-44.

Murphree, Marshall. 1993. "Decentralizing the Proprietor- ship of Wildlife Reserves in Zimbabwe's Communal Lands. In Voices from Africa: Local Perspectives on Conservation (DaleLewis and Nick Carter, eds.), Wash- ington, DC: World Wildlife Fund.

National Environment Secretariat,EgertonUniversity, Clark University and Center for International Development and Environment of World Resources Institute. (NES) 1991. Participatory Rural Appraisal Handbook: Con- ducting PRAs in Kenya. Washington, DC: World Re- sources Institute.

Ngugi,AandL. Buck. 1989.Proceedings of theAgroforesiry Monitoring and Evaluation Methodology Project Re- gional Workshop. Nairobi: CARE International.

Norman D, D. Baker, G. Heinrich, C. Jonas, S. Maskiara, andF. Worman.1989. "FarmerGroupsforTechnology

22


Development: Experiences from Botswana. In Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research (Robert Chambers, ArnoldPacey,andLori AnnTh upp, eds.), London: Intermediate Technology Publications, pp. 136-146.

Norman, D., D. Baker, G. Heinrich, and F. Worman. 1988. "Technology Development and Fanner Groups: Expe- riences from Botswana," Experimental Agriculture, 24 (3): 321-331.

Oakley, P. 1987. "State or Process, Means or End? The Concept of Participation in Rural Development Ideas," RRDC Bulletin, March.

Oldfield, Margery and Janis Alcom. 1991. "Conservation of Traditional Agroecosystems." In Biodiversity: Cul- ture, Conservation and Ecodevelopment (Margery Oldfield and Janis Alcorn, eds.), Boulder. Westview Press, pp. 37-58. Reprinted from Bioscience, 37 (3).

Owusu-Bempah, Kofi. 1988. "The Role of Women Farmers in Choosing Species for Agroforestry Farming Sys- tems in Rural Areas of Ghana." In Gender Issues in FarmingSystemsResearchandExtension (SusanPoats, Marianne Schmink, and Anita Spring, eds.), Boulder. Westview Press, pp. 427-443.

Parkipuny, M. S. 1991. "Pastoralism, Conservation and Development in the Greater Serengeti Region." LIED IssuesPaperNo. 26. London, International Institute for Environment and Development.

Perlman, Janice. 1990. "Introduction: A Dual Strategy for Deliberate Social Change in Cities," Cities, 1990 (Feb- ruary): 3-15.

Poats, Susan, Hilary Feldstein, and Dianne Rocheleau. 1989. "Gender and Intra-Household Analysis in On- Farm Research and Experimentation." In The House- hold Economy: Reconsidering the Domestic Mode of Production (Richard Wilk, ed.), Boulder. Westview Press.

Poats, Susan, Marianne Schmink, and Anita Spring, eds. 1988. Genderlssues in Farming Systems Research and Extension. Boulder. Westview Press.

Polestico, Rachel. 1993. "Participatory Research: Its Applica- tion to Development, Gender, Sexuality, andReproductive Health." In Gender, Sexuality, andReproductive Health in the Philippines (PilarRamos Jimenez and Patricia Monina P. Yadao, eds.), Manila: Social Development Research Center, De la Salle University, pp. 3-28.

Posey, Daryl. 1985. "Indigenous Management of Tropical Forest Ecosystems: The Case of the Kayapo Indians of the Brazilian Amazon," Agroforestry Systems, 3 (2): 139-158.

Pretty, Jules.1991. "Farmers' Extension Practice and Tech- nology Adaptation: Agricultural Revolution in 17-19th Century Britain," Agriculture and Human Values, 8 (1- 2):132-148.

Pretty, Jules and Robert Chambers. 1992. ̀ "Turning the New Leaf: New Professionalism, Institutions and Policies for Agriculture." Overview paper prepared for IIED/ IDS Beyond Farmer First Workshop, October 27-29,

1992, . Brighton, Institute for Development Studies, University of Sussex.

Project Reach. 1993. "Gender Concerns in Sustainable Development: The Case of Katheka, Kenya." Draft Paper. Nairobi, Project Reach.

Raintree, J. B., ed. 1987a. D&D User's Manual: An Intro- duction toAgroforestryDiagnosisandDesign.Nairobi: ICRAF.

Raintree J. B. 1987b. "The State of the Art of Agroforestry Diagnosis and Design," Agroforestry Systems, 5 (3): 219-250.

Raintree, J. B., ed. 1983a. "Resources for Agroforestry Diagnosis and Design." ICRAF Working Paper No. 7. Nairobi, ICRAF.

Raintree, J. B. 1983b. "Strategies for Enhancing the Adopt- ability of Agroforestry Innovations," AgroforestrySys- tems, 1 (3): 173-188.

Rhoades,Robert 1989. "TheRole of Farmers in the Creation of Agricultural Technology." In FarmerFirst: Farmerlnno- vationandAgriculturalResearch (RobertChambers,Amold Pacey, and Lori Ann Thn.rpp, eds.), London: Intermediate Technology Publications, pp. 3-9.

Rhoades, Robert. 1987. "Basic Field Techniques for Rapid Rural Appraisal." In Proceedings of the 1985 Interna- tional Conference on Rapid Rural Appraisal, Khon Kaen, Thailand, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University.

Rhoades, Robert 1984. Breaking New Ground: Agricul- turalAnthropology, Lima, International Potato Centre.

Rhoades, Robert. 1982. TheArt of thelnformal Agricultural Survey. Training Document. Lima: International Po- tato Centre.

Rhoades, R. E. and R. H. Booth. 1982. "Farmer-Back-to- Farmer: A Model for Generating Acceptable Agricul- tural Technology," Agricultural Administration, 11: 127-137.

Richards, Howard. 1985. The Eval uation of Cultural Action, Ottawa, International Development Research Centre.

Richards, Paul. 1989. "Agriculture as Performance." In Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research (Robert Chambers, Arnold Pacey, and Lori Ann Thrupp, eds.), London: Intermediate Technology Publications, pp. 39-43.

Richards, Paul. 1985. Indigenous Agricultural Revolution: Ecology and Food Production in West Africa. London: Hutchinson.

Rocheleau, Dianne. 1991a. "Gender, Ecology and the Sci- ence of Survival: Stories and Lessons from Kenya," Agriculture and Human Values, 8 (1): 156-165.

Rocheleau, Dianne. 1991b. "Participatory Research in Agroforestry: Learning from Experience and Expand- ing our Repertoire," Agroforestry Systems, 9 (1).

Rocheleau, Dianne. 1989a. "Agroforestry as Popular Sci- ence: A Land User Perspective for Research and De- sign in Rural Landscapes." A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, January 14-19, 1989, San

23


Francisco. Rocheleau, Dianne.1989b. "The Gender Division of Work,

Resources and Rewards in Agroforestry Systems." In Agroforestry Development in Kenya (A. E. Kilewe, K. M. Kealey, and K. K. Kebaara, eds.), Nairobi: ICRAF, pp. 228-245.

Rocheleau, Dianne. 1987a. "Gender, Resource Manage-

ment and the Rural Landscape: Implications for Agroforestry and Farming Systems Research. "InGen- derlssues inFarming SystemsReseareh and Extension

(Susan Poats, Marianne Schmink, and Anita Spring,

eds.), Boulder. Westview Press, pp. 149-169.

Rocheleau, Dianne.1987b. "The User Perspective and the

Agroforestry Research and Action Agenda." In Agroforestry: Realities, Possibilities and Potentials (Henry Gholz, ed.), Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, pp.

59-87. Rocheleau, Dianne. 1985. "Criteria for Re-Appraisal and Re-

Design: Intra-Household and Between-Household As- pects of FSRE in Three Kenyan Agroforestry Projects." ICRAF Working Paper No. 37. Nairobi, ICRAF.

Rocheleau, Dianne. 1983a. "Appendix A-5: Ecosystems

Analysis in D&D Applications." In Resources for Agroforestry Diagnosis and Design (ICRAF Working Paper No. 7), Nairobi, ICRAF, pp. 137-155.

Rocheleau, Dianne. 1983b. "Appendix A-8; Watershed

Evaluation Guidelines." InResourcesforAgroforestry Diagnosis and Design (ICRAF Working PaperNo. 7), Nairobi: ICRAF, pp. 165-17 1.

Rocheleau, Dianne, Patricia Benjamin, Alison Field-Juma, and PhilipSteinberg, with AnaNzisaandPeterOndiege. Forthcoming. History, Ecology and Environmental Change in EastAfrica: The Case of Ukambani. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

Rocheleau, Dianne and Luis Malaret. 1987. "Use of Ethnoecology in Agroforestry Systems Research." In How Systems Work. Selected proceedings of the Farm- ing Systems Research Symposium, Fayetteville: Uni- versity of Arkansas and Winrock International.

Rocheleau, D., L. Ross, J. Morrobel,R. Hernandez,C. Brito, and C. Amparo. 1994. "Farming the Forest, Gardening with Trees: Gendered Landscapes and Livelihood in Zambrana-Chacuey, Dominican Republic." Working paper. Worcester, MA, Clark University.

Rocheleau, Dianne, Kamoji Wachira, Luis Malaret, and

Bernard Muchiri Wanjohi. 1989. "Ethnoecological Methods toComplementLocal Knowledge and Farmer Innovations in Agroforestry. In Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research (Robert Cham- bers, Arnold Pacey, and Lori Ann Thrupp, eds.), Lon- don: Intermediate Technology Publications, pp. 14-24.

Rocheleau, Dianne, Fred Weber and Alison Field. 1988.

Agroforestry in Dryland Africa. Science and Practice

of Agroforestry Series, Vol. 3. Nairobi: ICRAF. Roe, Emery and Louise Fortmann. 1981. Season and Strat-

egy: The Changing Organization of the Rural Water Sector in Botswana. Ithaca, NY, Rural Development

Committee, Cornell University. Ross, Laurie. 1994. The Partnership Between Grassroots

Social Movements and Development Organizations: Identity Reinforcement and Reinvention in Zambrana- Chacuey, Dominican Republic. M. A. thesis. Worces- ter, MA, Program in International Development and

Social Change, Clark University. RRA Notes Newsletter. 1988 et seq. London, Sustainable

Agriculture Program. International Institute for Envi- ronment and Development.

Sachs,Wolfgang, ed. 1992. TheDevelopmentDietionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. London: Zed Press.

Scherr, Sara. 1990. "The Diagnosis and Design Approach to Agroforestry Project Planning and Implementation: Examples from Western Kenya." In Planning for Agroforestry (William B udd, ed.), Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 132-160.

Scherr, Sara. 1988a. Current Agroforestry Practices and ExtensionReeommendationsofthe CAREAgroforestry Extension Project. ICRAF-CAREProjectReportNo. 8.

Nairobi: ICRAF. Scherr, Sara. 1988b. Pilot Survey of Adopted Agroforestry

Practices in the CAREAgroforestry Extension Project. ICRAF-CARE Project Report No. 6. Nairobi: ICRAF.

Scherr, Sara. 1987. "Planning National Agroforestry Re- search: Guidelines for Land Use System Description." ICRAF Working Paper No. 48. Nairobi, ICRAF.

Scoones,Ian,ed. 1989.ParticipatoryResearchforRuralDevel- opmentinZimbabwe: AReportofaTrainingWorkshopfor ENDA-Zimbabwe Trees Project. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.

Scoones, Ian. 1988. Community Management of Indig- enous Woodland Project. A series of unpublished reports (Nos. 1-9). Harare, ENDA-Zimbabwe.

Scoones, Ian and Jennifer MacCracken, eds. 1989. Partici- patoryRapidRural Appraisal in Wollo: PeasantAsso- ciation Planning for Natural Resource Management. London: IIED and Ethiopian Red Cross Society.

Scoones, Ian and John Thompson. 1992. "Beyond Farmer First: Rural People's Knowledge, Agricultural Re- search and Extension Practice: Towards a Theoretical Framework." Overview paperNo. I prepared forlIED/ IDS Beyond Farmer First Workshop, October 27-29, 1992, Brighton, Institute for Development Studies, University of Sussex.

Seitz, Virginia. 1993. "Gender and Rural Organization in a Pilot Project in Zimbabwe." A paper presented at the SixthlntemationalForum of theAssociation for Women in Development, October 21-24,1993, Washington, DC.

Shaner, W. W., P. F. Philipp, and W. R. Schmehl. 1982. Farming Systems Research and Development: Guide- lines for Developing Countries. Boulder. Westview Press.

Shiva, Vandana. 1988. Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Survival. London: Zed Press.

Showers, Kate. 1989. "Soil Erosion in the Kingdom of Lesotho: Origins and ColonialResponse,1830s-1950s,"

24


Journal of Southern African Studies, 15 (2): 263-286. Showers, Kate and Gwendolyn Malahleha. 1992. "Oral Evi-

dence in Historical Environmental Impact Assessment:

Soil Conservation in Lesotho in the 1930s and 1940s,"

Journal of Southern African Studies, 18(2):276-296.

Sperling, L. Forthcoming. "Methods for Integrating Farmer Experts into On-Station Research." In Methodologies Handbook for Gender Analysis in Farming Systems

Research (Hilary Feldstein and Janice Jiggins, eds.), New York: Population Council.

Stamp, Patricia. 1989. Technology, Gender and Power in Africa. Ottawa and West Hartford: International Devel- opment Research Centre and Kumarian Press.

S umberg, J. and C. Okali.1989. "Farmers, On-Farm Research,

and New Technology." In Farmer First: Farmer Innova- tion andAgriculturalResearch (RobertChambers, Arnold Pacey, and Lori Ann Thrupp, eds.), London: Intermediate Technology Publications, pp. 109-114.

Sutherland, A. J. 1987. "The Benefits of Adopting a Com- munity Approach to Farmer Selection." A Paper presented at the Workshop on Household Issues in Farm- ing Systems Research. April 27-30, 1987. Lusaka, CIMMYT.

Thomas-Slayter,Barbara, AndreaEsser,andM. Dale Shields. 1993. Tools of GenderAnalysis. Worcester, MA: Clark University.

Thomas-Slayter, Barbara, Charity Kabutha, and Richard Ford. Forthcoming. "ParticipatoryRural Appraisal: An Innovative Methodology for Improved Community Development." In Participatory Methodologies in Development (K. Kumar, ed.).

Thomas-Slayter, Barbara, Charity Kabutha, and Richard Ford. 1991. Traditional Village Institutions in Environmental Management. From the Ground Up Case StudySeries,No.

1. Washington, DC and Nairobi, The Center for Interna- tional Development and Environment, World Resources Institute and the African Centre for Technology Studies.

Thrupp, Lori Anti. 1989. "Legitimizing Local Knowledge: From Displacement to Empowerment for Third World People," Agriculture and Human Values, 6 (3): 13-24.

Tiffen Mary, Michael Mortimore, and F. Gichuki. 1994. More People, Less Erosion: Environmental Recovery in Kenya. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

Tripp, Robert. 1984. "On-Farm Research and Applied Nu- trition: Some Suggestions for Collaboration Between National Institutes of Nutrition and Agricultural Re-

search," Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 6 (3). Turnbull, David. 1992. Local Knowledge and Comparative

Scientific Traditions. Manuscript. Victoria, Australia, School of Social Inquiry, Deakin University.

Uphoff,Norman.1992. "Local Organization for Supporting People-Based Agricultural Research and Extension." A paper presented at BED/IDS Beyond Farmer First Workshop, October 27-29,1992, Brighton, Institute for Development Studies, University of Sussex.

Veit, Peter. 1993. Local Level Natural Resource Manage- ment: Lessons from the Ground Up. Draft manuscript.

Washington, DC: World Resource Institute. Warren, D. Michael, L. Jan Slikkerveer, and. David

Brokensha, eds.1994.IndigenousKnowledgeSystems: The Cultural Dimension of Development. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Warren, D. Michael and Kristin Cashman. 199 1. Indigenous Knowledge for Agriculture and Rural Development: Some Practical Applications. London, International Institute for Environment and Development.

Watts, Michael. 1993. "Development I: Power, Knowledge, Discursive Practice," Progress in Human Geography, 17 (2): 257-272.

Watts, Michael. 1983. Silent Violence: Food, Famine, and Peasantry inNorthernNigeria. Berkeley: Universityof California Press.

Wells, Michael, Kai ina Brandon, and Lee Hannah. 1992.

People and Parks: Linking Protected Area Management with Local Communities. Washington, DC, World Bank.

Wilson, Ken. 1989. `Trees in Fields in Southern Zimbabwe," Journal of Southern African Studies, 15 (2): 369-383.

W ilson, Ken.1988. CommunityManagemen t oflndigenous WoodlandProject. Unpublished report Harare,ENDA.

Wilson, Ken. 1987.Research on Treesin theMazvihwa and Surro undingAreas. Unpublished report. Harare, ENDA.

Wisner, Ben. 1989/1990. Power and Need in Africa. London and Trenton, NJ: EaNrscati and Africa World Press.

Wisner, Ben and Lakshman Yapa. 1992. Building a Case Against Economic Development. Manuscript Hamp- shire College and Pennsylvania State University.

Woodhill,J.1990. "Landcare-Who Cares? Current Issues andFutureDirectionsforLandcare inNSW "Adiscus- sion paper from the 1990 review of Landcare in New South Wales. Hawkesbury, Australia, Landcare and Environment Program, Centre for Rural Development, University of Western Sydney.

Woodhill, J, J. McKenzie, and A. M. Wilson. 1990. "Post Course Report" A paper prepared following the Landcare and Total Catchment Management Coordi- nators Workshop, July 1990. Hawkesbury, Australia, Faculty of Agriculture and Rural Development, Uni- versity of Western Sydney.

Woods, B.1983. "Altering the Present Paradigm: A Differ- ent Path to Sustainable Development in the Rural Sector." Unpublished paper. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Yapa, Lakshman. 199 1. "Is GIS Appropriate Technology?" International Journal of Geographic Information Sys- tems, 5 (1):41-58.

Zazueta Aaron, Bruce Cabarle, and Lori Ann Thrupp. 1992. Linking Participatory Methods with Policy Dialogue andPlanningProcesses:Multi-InterestResourceMan- agement in Latin America. A paper presented at IIED/ IDS Beyond Farmer First Workshop, October 27-29, 1992, Brighton, Institute for Development Studies, University of Sussex.

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 of power involves addressing- and redressing-the nature of interactions 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, methodologies. 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 fundamental assumptions of conventional agricultural development. In this paper, we highlight some of the methodological issues posed by shifts in theoretical perspective from "a unique truth and a world fixed and found, to a diversity of right and even conflicting worlds in the making" (Goodman, 1978: x). We argue for a broadening of perspective, locating farmers, researchers, and extensionists as social actors within the social practice of agricultural production.

We begin by clarifying the role of methodology in agricultural research and extension. We review challenges to mainstream thinking in agricultural development, and several participatory methodologies that have developed mainly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Through a critical examination of existing alternatives, drawing on experiences from community development, we explore possibilities for new forms of practice to enrich current agricultural research and extension.

Methods and Methodologies Methods are the nuts and bolts of data collection

and information exchange, the "how-to-do-its"; methodologies shape and inform the processes of research and extension. Methodologies orient the user by providing a framework for selecting the means to find out about, analyze, order, and exchange information about a particular issue. They define what can be known or exchanged as well as how that should be represented, and by and for whom this is done.

The ways in which we conceptualize problems defines potential outcomes, as well how we choose to arrive at them. The process of research or extension is often seen only in terms of these outcomes: the production or transfer of "facts". Methodologies are seen as a means to that end, but involve more than simply selecting appropriate methods. Tools such as experiments, surveys, diagramming techniques, or interviews can be put to many uses by different actors, which may result in divergent and sometimes conflicting information. These differences arise only in part from the kinds of information the methods themselves generate. It is through the application of methodological strategies by particular actors in particular settings that these "facts" are produced. The choices that are made in this process stem from personal experiences, beliefs, and assumptions. These aspects often go unquestioned and unacknowledged, yet influence both the procedures and outcomes of research or extension.

The conventional natural and social sciences set certain parameters within which interpretation takes place and favor the use of particular methodologies for specific purposes. The choice of a methodology is, however, not determined solely by fit to the kind of information that is sought.1 It often involves less "scientific" concerns, such as time constraints, financial constraints,

or the conditions set by donors. Other, more personal, criteria also play a role, such as habit, fear of otherwise not being respected, level of enjoyment, and imposi- tion by superiors. The choice of a methodology is, as Hesse (1978) suggests, a decision that is both personal and political. Recognizing this enables us to look more closely at the consequences of certain choices.

Constraining Conventions Conventional approaches to agricultural research

and extension are based on assumptions that limit their ability to deal with complex and changing realities. Linear development sets boundaries of time and cost based on assumptions of stability (Korten, 1980), operating outside of historical time and neglecting people's experiences of intervention and change. Plans are often constructed according to priorities that have little to do with the contingencies of life as lived from day to day or season to season in changing social and ecological environments. Objectives, set outside the contexts in which they are to be realized, create the expectation of a predictable outcome. Progress is measured by outcome indicators that define what constitutes success or failure with little reference to local perceptions. Typically, farmers are viewed and treated as recipients rather than agents of change, even where their ideas are sought.

Conventional experimental design reduces the complex dynamics of farming, as practiced by diverse social actors in changing social, economic, and ecological environments, to technical procedures. Spe- cialists select desirable characteristics and determine appropriate benefits of varieties according to their own criteria. On-station research is complemented by costly, time-consuming surveys, which provide a cumber- some and often ineffective research tool (Chambers, 1983; Inglis, 1991). Questionnaires are designed by specialists, often with little experience of rural life, and used to extract answers to predetermined questions. Information is aggregated and analyzed according to variables that researchers regard as significant. Social complexity is masked by a focus on "the household" (Guyer and Peters, 1987; Kabeer and Joekes, 1991) and reduced to aggregate outcomes. Conflictual, cooperative, or organizational links between farmers, vital for the social organization of production and the spread of innovation, remain hidden.

The "embedded models" (Moris,1991) of conventional agricultural science define not only how re-

search or extension is carried out, but also the nature of relationships between the various actors involved. The entire apparatus of agricultural research and extension - from the structure and location of agricultural col- leges or institutes, to institutional and conceptual hierarchies, to the discourses of scientists, planners or

extension workers - confirms the "superiority" of

Western science and scientists; and the "privileged

39


solutions" (Moris, 1991) they offer. Areas of interest, expertise, or engagement are allocated to individuals on the basis of discipline and status. People's lived experiences of the interlinkages between the domains that disciplines separate are overlooked. Those in the higher ranks define what is worth knowing and deploy others to make this known to those who lack it. Exten- sion agents, as bearers of these "privileged solutions", are required to bridge the gaps between technical recommendations and local practices, yet their understandings are rarely considered.

While natural and social scientific research can make important contributions to agricultural development, even the most well-intentioned scientists, using the best conventional methods available, may still produce totally inappropriate recommendations (Moris, 1991). The limitations of these approaches stem from the ways in which agriculture is conventionally viewed: as a technical activity rather than as social praxis.

Challenges to the Mainstream Over the last decades, some of the fundamental

assumptions made by agricultural researchers and extension workers working in Africa, Asia, and Latin America have been shaken (cf. Scoones and Thomp- son, 1993). Farmers have been proven to be both knowledgeable about their farming systems, and capable of conducting trials and experiments. Research (cf. Amanor, 1990) has shown that:

Farmers continuously conduct their own trials, partially adopt and adapt technologies to their own particular circumstances, and spread innovations through their own networks;2

There are significant differences between the procedures of farmers' and research station experiments, and their criteria for assessment;3

The strategies of farmer experimentation are dynamic and adaptive; quicker and more able to accommodate changing circumstances and diversity than those of research scientists;4

Farmers' own analysis of farming systems offers important, and different, insights;5 Recognition of the variability and complexity of

local ecosystems has led to multi-location trials off the research station. Yet conventional methodologies do not extend to exploring the equally variable, complex, and diverse processes of knowing about and doing farming in these environments. Attempts to understand what farmers do has been based on the assumption that farming practice corresponds with scientific procedure. Yet, van der Ploeg argues, "local methods fall outside the scope of scientific design" (1989:157). Richards suggests that rather than "an attempt to implement a general theory", the results achieved by farmers represent "what happened to a specific farmer on a specific piece of land in a specific year: not a design but . . . a completed performance" (1989:40: our

emphasis). These observations suggest changes in the roles conventional research and researchers have to play in agricultural development.

Methodological Issues Conceptualizing agriculture as a purely technical

activity obscures the social, cultural, personal, and political dimensions both of rural farming practice and Western agricultural science. Environmental conditions and technological inputs do not provide the only constraints to agricultural development. Agricultural production possibilities are not only constrained by differential access to land, labor, and capital, but also by the opportunities available to different actors within and beyond the household (Leach, 1991; Cornwall and Scoones, 1993). In a single setting, these may be distinctly different for female and male farmers of different ages and vary with the different social groups of which they are a part.

A wide range of actors and agencies impinge in various ways on the processes taking place in farmers' fields. Each actor in agricultural development is located within relations of power that extend beyond the situations in which they work and have wider implications for the work they do. Long and van der Ploeg argue that: conceptualizing intervention as a discrete and clearly localized activity (i.e. as a "project") obscures the theoretically important point that intervention is never a'project' with sharp boundaries in space and time .... Interventions are always part of the chain or flow of events located within the broader framework of the activities of the state and the activities of different interest groups operative in civil society. (1989: 228) The research and extension process is closely

linked with expectations of what and whom it is for, considerations that affect both the choice of methodology and how knowledge is defined and used. Situating those who practice agriculture and those who attempt to inform or influence this process demands that we ask questions about ways of making known in research and extension: What counts as knowledge - and who decides? Whose knowledge counts? Knowledge for what? And knowledge for whom?

Methodologies provide the means to produce knowledge, not to discover it. Knowledge is often treated methodologically as if it could be amassed or distributed, built on or destroyed, found or lost. Yet knowledge is not something that can be revealed - it is produced through the interactions of people in particular situations. People actively interpret, rather than just describe, the outcomes of these interactions within their own frames of reference and according to their own assumptions and priorities (cf. Uphoff, 1992). Acts of interpretation that convert these processes into "data" or recommendations always involve changes in form - from observations into numbers or narratives, from dialogue into monologue, from terms lodged in

40

Cornwall et al.:Extending The Horizons Of Agricultural Research And Extension

one conceptual framework into another. These transla- tions carry the preconceptions of the interpreter from the process into the product.

The notion of objectivity within Western social and natural science implies, however, that the researcher or extension worker is an instrument for conveying information rather than an interpreter and actor. Attempting to control experiments for "un- wanted" variation, or to minimize the "outsider effect" denies the part people play in constructing versions of reality and the personal and experiential elements of this process. By reporting "findings" in the passive voice, they appear neutral and authoritative. Through tables, graphs, and descriptions, knowing is cut loose from contexts and interactions.

Conventional interviewing techniques require people to convey what, they know verbally to a questioner who has set the frame of reference for the answer. Statements are often translated literally, assuming equivalence between the concepts used and masking the use of metaphor (Pottier, 1992; van der Ploeg, 1989; Salas, 1992). Rendered as statements, farmers' observations may lack the specificity researchers and extension workers look for or make no sense at all (van der Ploeg, 1989),6 as they do not fit the world described by Western agricultural theory. Re- garded as statements of fact, the things people say are disconnected from how they know things or what they know things as (Cohen, 1993). Many things we know (and know how to do) simply cannot be stated: "they can be represented-and made present -only through action, enactment and performance" (Fabian, 1990:6).

If instead of abstract "facts", knowledge is regarded as a process that is constantly changing in the contexts of its production and use, then research and extension take on a different cast. And if knowers may themselves hold multiple and conflicting versions, finding out about rural people's knowledge becomes more complex than simply asking questions or observing what people do. Methodologies that offer changing frames of reference can provide a range of different perspectives. Those that allow people to express themselves in other ways, such as through visualization or performance, reveal the multidimensional and interactive nature of knowing. Different ways of representing what is known offer opportunities to explore other "ways of worldmaking" (Goodman, 1978). Becoming aware of our own use of metaphor (Salmond, 1985) and the assumptions that are often inherent in our choice of language allows us to explore the ways in which messages are conveyed and interpreted locally.

Those who ask questions and deliver recommendations at the "interface" (Long, 1989) with rural people influence what can be said, as well as how information is represented. Statements are not made in a vacuum, they are made to people. Responses depend not only on how questions are phrased, but how they

are asked and by whom. Sometimes rural people offer idealized versions or repeat things they have been told by extension workers. They may provide information that they feel is expected, reveal what is least damag- ing to their interests, or conform to what external organizations may have on offer. How rural people react and what they say are also products of "collective and individual memories" (Long and van der Ploeg, 1989:230) of interventions. Their "hidden transcripts" (Scott, 1990) may vary considerably from the "official" versions they communicate. Strategies of resistance are all too easily interpreted as conservatism or ignorance.

Locating exchanges of information within relations of power raises wider questions about methodological choice. Asking "whose knowledge counts?" reveals how certain kinds of knowledge turn others into ignorance (Vitebsky, 1993; Hobart, 1993). Con- ventional research and extension aims to produce and convey recommendations to remedy an absence of knowledge. The methods that are used work on an assumption that farmers are ignorant about certain elements of their practice and render their knowledge invisible.

Defining rural people's knowledge as "indigenous technical knowledge" obscures its social and cultural dimensions. The methods used to elicit ITK reflect the way it has been conceptualized as a "stockpile" of knowledge, to be `mined' or "tapped" (Farrington and Martin, 1988; see Scoones and Thompson, 1993). Assumed to be a shared body of knowledge, ITK is regarded as unequally distributed (Swift, 1979). This guides researchers to those who are presumed to know most, so-called "key informants", and entails choosing their versions over others.? The contributions of others - often women or children - are often not solicited. That they may have different rather than less knowledge is rarely acknowledged.

If local knowledge counts, what counts as "local"? In any place actors move and interact in many domains, as part of overlapping social networks, creating complex "knowledge chains" (Box, 1987) about issues and innovations. Many sources of rural people's knowledge stem from outside their immediate environment. Local actors include teachers, extension work, visitors from town, and relatives from elsewhere. Labelling them as "insiders" and "outsiders" simplifies a more complex relationship between them. People may be "outsiders" and/or "insiders" according to their activity or purpose. The difference between them may be one of degree, rather than kind, and may be based on quite different criteria in different settings. Defining "local knowledge" may preclude asking more interesting questions. Some of the most constructive possibilities for collegiate work lie precisely in understanding how people bridge different ways of knowing, adapt extension recommendations and tips from friends or

41


relatives from outside the area, and work elements of the "new" into "traditional" practices.

Asking "knowledge for what?" locates the production of knowledge within frameworks for action and raises questions about the kind of knowledge that is needed and by whom. Do researchers actually need to know all that they seek to find out? Why? And should only researchers be given the responsibility for producing knowledge or recommendations? As Korten (1980) notes, functional hierarchies in conventional agricultural development work on the assumption that knowledge can be generated independently of the organizational capacity needed for it to be put into practice. What counts as knowledge may be entirely inappropriate for action. Knowledge is not necessarily generated in line with the needs of the different con- stituencies of farmers. Organizations have their own agendas for development, which set the terms for interventions. Each actor in each layer of the hierarchy has a personal agenda that may include promotion or publishing papers. These personal, professional, and institutional interests cannot be separated from the choices of methodology that are made.

The question "knowledge for whom?" places the quest for understanding firmly in the political and personal arena. Conventional approaches generally regard local people as passive recipients, incapable of analyzing their own situations or producing their own solutions. Chambers contends:

Outsiders have been conditioned to believe and assume that villagers are ignorant and have either lectured at them, holding sticks and waving fingers, or have interviewed them, asking rapid questions, interrupting and not listening beyond immediate replies. "Outsider lecturing" and interviewing are much of the problem. The apparent ignorance of rural people is then an artificial product of "outsiders" ignorance of how to enable them to express, share and extend their knowledge. The attitudes and behavior needed for rapport are missing. (pers. comm.) Working with people or facilitating them to work

with each other requires a shift in perspective. The methodological challenge is not necessarily that of how to produce more or better information. Chambers argues:

The idea is not to improve our analysis, or even our learning, but their analysis and their learning . .

. it has been revealed again and again that they can

do what only we thought we could so, and often that they can do it better. (1992a: 14) The development of new and more appropriate

methodologies can only succeed if researchers and extension workers are brought into the process at a more personal and experiential level. To do so, the emphasis must shift from expanding the repertoire of methods to enriching the learning experience that those involved in agricultural research and extension un- dergo. "Participatory" approaches try, in different ways,

to overcome some of the limitations of mainstream agricultural research and extension, by addressing some of the concerns discussed here. What alternatives do they offer?

"Participation": Rhetoric or Revolution? "Participation", the banner under which the dissenters of the 1970s and early 1980s clustered, has become a familiar part of the rhetoric of institutions ranging from the smallest NGO to the World Bank. The adoption of participation as a guiding concept has been driven by both ideology and pragmatism (Farrington and Bebbington, 1993). Many institutions with explicit aims to reach the "poorest of the poor" focus on methodologies consistent with their ideology, involving intended beneficiaries in the process. Participation has also been recognized as contributing to a more effective and sustainable impact of the work done. As a result there has been an immense surge in the condi- tionality of participation attached to much agricultural research and extension. Appearances may deceive, as Cernea warns:

We hear sudden declaration of fashionable support for participatory approaches . . . social scientists should not confuse these statements with actual participatory planning, because under the cloud of cosmetic rhetoric, technocratic planning continues to rule. (1991:25) Operating under the guise of a professed intention

for "participatory" research, conventional approaches continue in many quarters to set the parameters for what is know-able and do-able. Although the style of interaction might change, the principles upon which research and extension are based remain unchanged. "Participation" is easily woven mechanistically into the process of linear development. Often the actors involved are neither convinced by the pragmatic arguments nor politically committed to devolving responsibility to local people.

The enthusiasm for the P word is matched by interpretations as wide ranging as those who use it. Participation has been differentiated according to distinct stages of agricultural research and extension (Farrington and Martin, 1988). Others have drawn distinctions based on the kind of interactions that take place. Biggs (1989) distinguishes four types of farmer participation: contractual, consultative, collaborative, and collegiate. Farrington and Bebbington (1993) expand Biggs's typology, drawing attention not only to the dimension they identify as "depth of interaction", which runs from shallow to deep, but to that of its scope, which ranges from narrow to wide. In doing so, they highlight organizational issues, arguing that, "deeper levels of participation tend to rely more on group than individual approaches" (1993: 105).

Whereas in "wide participation" there is room for agendas to be set by local people, in "shallow participation", scientists and planners often continue to control

42


decisions on the viability of options that arise. The available "choices" have often already been chosen according to the agendas of the development organization. Local people are often simply being invited to participate in a development process already structured by others.

Amidst the rhetoric, some participatory approaches have brought significant innovations and challenges to the mainstream. The methodologies listed in Box 1

contain the germs of a revolution in agricultural development. Celebrated as "new" directions, these approaches have a half-forgotten history in community

Box 1. Some participatory approaches of the 1980s- 1990s (in alphabetical order).

AEA BA DELTA

D&D DRP FPR FSR GRAAP

MARP

PALM

PAR PD PRA PRAP

PRM PTD RA RAAKS

RAP RAT RCA REA RFSA RMA ROA RRA SB

TFD TFT

Agroecosystems Analysis Beneficiary Assessment Development Education and Leadership Teams in Action Diagnosis and Design Diagnostico Rural Participativo Farmer Participatory Research Farming Systems Research Groupe de recherche et d'appui pour 1'autopromotion paysanne Methode Acceldre de Recherche Participative

Participatory Analysis and Learning Methods Partcipatory Action Research Process Documentation Participatory Rural Appraisal Participatory Rural Appraisal and Planning Participatory Research Methods Participatory Technology Development Rapid Appraisal Rapid Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Systems Rapid Assessment Procedures Rapid Assessment Techniques Rapid Catchment Analysis Rapid Ethnographic Assessment Rapid Food Security Assessment Rapid Multi-perspective Appraisal Rapid Organizational Assessment Rapid Rural Appraisal Samuhik Brahman (Joint trek) Theater for Development Training for Transformation

development initiatives spanning the last four decades (Holdcroft, 1978; cited in Korten, 1980). Many draw

on techniques developed in community development for empowerment, yet only a few acknowledge or respond to the political, personal and institutional challenges of a "deep and wide" participatory process.

In many of these approaches, rural people's participation is limited to providing information to researchers, whose analysis generates solutions to be

approved by farmers. In several of these methodologies (e.g., BA, FSR, D&D, AEA, RRA) the responsibility for representation, in terms of choosing the form information takes and in terms of speaking for people, lies with external agents. Others (e.g., PAR, PRA, DELTA, Theater for Development) aim to enable rural people to explore their own visions and solutions, through forms they themselves generate. These "new methodologies" have important contributions to make to agricultural research and extension, yet raise a

number of institutional challenges and dilemmas (Pretty and Chambers, 1993; Farrington and Bebbington, 1993).

We review six of these approaches: FSR, FPR, PRA, PAR, DELTA and Theater for Development. Developments in FSR and FPR, in particular, contributed to and drew on the "Farmer First" perspective. By examining them, we highlight areas germane to a

"Beyond Farmer First" focus. PRA bridges the interface between agriculture, health, and community development, broadening the scope of agricultural development to focus on livelihoods and well-being. We examine the innovations it offers and its shortcomings. Finally we draw on three community development approaches - PAR, DELTA, and Theater for Devel- opment - committed to empowerment, to consider several key issues that are often neglected in agricultural development. In reviewing these approaches we highlight the roles of extension workers and/or re-

searchers - it is from this, in particular, that much can

be learned. The challenge for the future is to draw from this array of innovations to create new syntheses.

Farming Systems Research and Extension Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSR/

E) emerged in the late 1970s in reaction to the prevailing transfer of technology model. The principal argu- ment for a new approach was that constraints at the farm level limited the adoption of new technologies coming from outside the system (Gartner, 1990). Ad- vocates of the FSR/E approach, initially mainly agricultural economists, argued that research should be

determined by explicitly identified farmers' needs, rather than according to the preconceptions of re-

searchers. Accordingly, applied agricultural research was relocated from the stations to the farm (Gilbert et

al., 1980; Shaner et al., 1982; Collinson, 1981). Re-

searchers and extensionists were encouraged to work with farmers to design, test, and modify improved agricultural technologies to suit local conditions.

Although FSR/E has developed in many different directions, making generalization difficult, there are

three common key principles: joint effort by researchers, extensionists,

43


and farmers to design, test, and modify improved agricultural technologies appropriate for local conditions;

agriculture seen an holistic system in which all important interactions that affect its performance should be considered;

a multi-disciplinary perspective to problem analysis, technology design, trial implementation, and evaluation. In practice, FSR/E activities stretch from basic

(laboratory) research, to research station trials, to on- farm trials, multi-location trials, extension programs, and production programs. Most work is done through on-farm and multi-location trials, for testing under farm conditions and learning about farmers' problems and constraints. The results are then communicated to experiment stations. It thus conforms to the linear model of conventional research, although sometimes initial diagnosis starts without specific reference to innovations of interest to researchers.

FSR/E's contribution is most obvious in a historical perspective. Its development signified a move away from crop-only fixation (although this remains a favorite focus of activities) and a negation of "the farmer" towards an appreciation of the complexity of agricultural systems and decision-making. FSR/E provided the means for making decisions about what may be more cost-effectively done on-farm and on-station. However, the assumptions on which it depends derive from a positivist approach to agricultural systems and their optimization through interventions by the "expert technologist" or "management consultant" (Bawden, 1992). Scientists continue to investigate on behalf of or sometimes even on their farmer "clients", rather than with them. Reliant on conventional natural and social scientific research methods, FSR/E remains largely insensitive to farmers' knowledge and the flow of knowledge is generally in the researcher-back-to- researcher mode.

Farmer Participatory Research Farmer Participatory Research (FPR) developed

in the 1980s to involve farmers more closely in on- farm research and to contextualize agricultural production in interactions between on- and off-farm resource management strategies. It signaled a move beyond simply contracting or consulting farmers. A growing recognition of what came to be termed "indigenous technical knowledge" (ITK) led to a focus on the farmer as innovator and as experimenter. This has led in recent years to increasing interest in "collaborative" and "collegiate" relations between researchers and farmers (Biggs, 1980; Richards, 1985; Farrington, 1988; Farrington and Martin, 1988; Amanor, 1990; Hiemstra et al., 1992).

Advocates of this shift called the new approach "Farmer First" (Chambers etal.,1989). They reappraised

the "ignorant" or recalcitrant farmer, pronouncing her/ him "rational" and "right" (cf. Gupta, 1989; Chambers et al., 1989). Researchers set about identifying the concepts and procedures used by farmers in their experiments, often by applying the positivist assumptions of technical science to "ITK" and disregarding its social and cultural aspects. A single rationality, mod- eled on that of Western logic, was presupposed and other "ways of reasoning" (Hacking, 1983) were not considered. Issues of diversity and difference among farmers were virtually disregarded.

Recent agricultural anthropological work on farmers' knowledge (van der Ploeg 1993; Fairhead, 1990; Salas, 1992) raises a number of challenges to the Farmer First approach. While there appears to be little prospect for productive collaboration unless each party develops an understanding and appreciation of the others' methodological approach (Millar, 1992; Salas, 1992), this may in itself preclude the possibility of certain kinds of collaboration.

The methodological issues at stake are threefold. Firstly, to what extent do farmers and research scientists share the same notion of what constitutes an experiment or an innovation? If, as Richards (1989) suggests, agricultural production resembles a "performance" of complex, situation-specific adjustments rather than a planned sequence of events, the boundary between "experiment" and "normal procedures" becomes blurred. This raises the question of whether farmers regard changes in practice as "innovations" at all (Fairhead, 1990). Where collegiate research and extension are aimed at facilitating the spread of innovations or encouraging farmer experimentation, these observations raise a number of challenges.

A second set of difficulties arises when we consider the basis on which such a partnership might take place. Fairhead anticipates the problems that might be faced in establishing a basis for collegiate dialogue either between researchers and farmers, or between farmers themselves:

The catch is that local knowledge is good precisely because it is hypothetical and relatively unformu- lated, and yet precisely for this reason it is almost impossible to access. (1993:194) If, as van der Ploeg (1989) contends, farmer's

understandings of these processes are a complex of personal, metaphorical, and contextual knowledge that becomes almost impenetrable when subjected to scientific scrutiny, reaching a common understanding may be extremely difficult. Both Fairhead and van der Ploeg draw attention to intimate linkages between cosmological beliefs and processes of agricultural experimentation and innovation (see also Salas, 1992). Such associations create difficulties not only for collegiate relationships with rationalist scientists, but also for extension.

A third and related stumbling block to research

44


and extension that is based on facilitating dialogue and mutual learning is the issue of power and control over knowledge. Fairhead (1990) describes four discrete "domains of discourse" for agricultural knowledge in Kivu, Zaire, noting that much discussion takes place within the private domain. He observes that it may be precisely those innovations that are most new and exciting that are least likely to be shared. Innovations do not stand apart from those who develop or have access to them. Farmers' knowledge cannot simply be aggregated as if it were the "property" of farmers in general: making it common property has social and political entailments (Pottier, 1992).

What, then, are the prospects for collaboration? Three kinds of approach can be identified. In the first, agricultural science retains a pivotal role. Collabora- tion involves either disseminating simple experimental techniques to farmers (Lightfoot et al., 1988; Bunch, 1985, 1987; Gubbels, 1990) or making cultivators' trials more amenable to statistical analysis, thus enhancing research station replicability (Box, 1987). The emphasis is on changing methods of work, rather than on a new methodological approach. "Knowledge" is treated as purely technical or instrumental, expressed literally and amenable to open sharing. Richards (1992) offers a pragmatic solution along lines that make explicit that which is implicit in much FPR work: to identify those farmers who work along positivist lines and to work with them to enhance their capacity. However, selecting research partners from those who conduct experiments in ways that are seen as compatible with Western science further narrows the constitu- ency of farmers involved. The tired old distinction between "progressive" and "conservative" farmers remains unchallenged and farmers' strategies remain invisible.

The second and third sets of approaches partially overlap. Both provide radical alternatives to conventional research and extension. One places farmers at the center of both activities, focusing on facilitating exchange between farmers and enhancing their organizational capacity to diagnose and solve problems themselves. Over the last few years, several strategies have developed that draw on this alternative. These include:

Farmer-back-to-farmer (Rhoades and Booth, 1982; Rhoades, 1983);

Village research groups (Drinkwater, 1992; Sikana, 1992);

Farmer experimenter networks (Box, 1987); Farmer groups (Norman et al., 1989; Ashby et

al., 1989). Questions remain about the clientele at whom this

approach may be aimed. Where existing social networks of actors are drawn upon, this process may complement the sharing processes that take place between them. However, assumptions that local interest groups are homogenous and harmonious can be misleading. Groups

that come together in one domain do not necessarily share other concerns; conflicts of interests and relations of power between actors affect the extent to which sharing can take place. Fairhead's (1990) and Pottier's (1992) observations about secrecy and power are important to consider. Creating groups requires a sensitivity to local political and social dynamics, and interface relations, which is often lacking.

Without the skills to facilitate communication, these attempts merely reinforce previous patterns of interaction. Sikana (1992) describes the experience of ARPT in Zambia, where the style of intervention effectively undermined their attempts to bring about sharing. "Participation" was limited to co-opting willing farmers into a project initiated, managed, and run by ARPT. Such an approach courts the danger of working only with those farmers who present themselves as suitable candidates: typically male farmers who are well versed in the discourse of "modern" agriculture (Sikana, 1992). Others may well be excluded from such initiatives, increasing rather than redressing the social distance between them and development workers (see Drinkwater, 1992; Sikana, 1992). Unless the personal and political dimensions of these encounters are recognized and addressed, through an explicit focus on empowering those who are otherwise marginalized, change will be limited.

The other approach aims to change the relationship between and the roles of researchers, extensionists, and farmers. Collaboration involves mutual learning as colleagues with different contributions to make (Chambers, 1993). Farmer and research station experimentation are seen as parallel, yet complementary, activities, with different roles to play. The shift is from a supply-led to a demand-led process, where farmers' priorities set the terms for collaboration. Giving farmers an array of choices, allowing them to suggest criteria for technological development and select elements of packages to adapt and adopt (Rhoades, 1983; Bunch, 1989) and facilitating processes through which they can analyze and implement their own solutions bypass some of the thornier questions of commensura- bility. However, similar concerns about the clientele for these interventions emerge and need to be addressed.

The challenges ahead for FPR lie in ways to channel institutional and scientific resources more effectively in directions the farmers themselves take part in determining (Pretty and Chambers, 1993). With- out an appreciation of contextual issues and a focus on empowerment, initiatives such as these may flounder. It is particularly important that issues of difference, power, and control in rural communities are better understood before research efforts are implemented. This can help to broaden the scope of agricultural research and extension to view the "farmer" as a social actor who works and interacts in many spheres rather

45


than someone whose life revolves around the single axis of agricultural production. A key area for methodological change is that of improving communication between the actors involved and addressing the personal and political issues that are too often disregarded in FPR.

Rapid and Participatory Rural Appraisal While FSR and FPR retained a focus on agricul-

tural aspects of rural people's lives, another methodological approach developed that quickly cast its net wider to locate agriculture as one among other elements of people's livelihoods. Growing dissatisfaction with two common approaches to development research, "rural development tourism" and "survey slavery" (Chambers, 1983), led to the emergence of Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) in the late 1970s (KKU, 1987; Carruthers and Chambers, 1981). RRA stressed cost-effective trade-offs between the quantity, accuracy, relevance, and timeliness of information. It combined a range of diagramming, observational, interview, and ranking techniques for rapid and reflexive data collection. Key features of this approach include: an emphasis on multi-disciplinarity, cumulative learning, a semi-structured and flexible research program that is regularly reviewed and refined, and an emphasis on exploring local categories, classifications, and perceptions. Initially, RRA teams gathered, represented, and analyzed the information. Farmers participated in generating data and in discussing the researchers' findings, but were excluded from the processes of analysis.

RRA developed further in the 1980s and gained a mantle of respectability. By the late 1980s, the emphasis changed, fueled by innovations from agroecosystems analysis (Gypmantasiri et al., 1980; Conway, 1985, 1987), applied anthropology (Brokensha et al., 1980; Rhoades, 1983, 1990), participatory action research (Rahman, 1984; Gaventa and Lewis, 1991) and FSR/ FPR (Ashby, 1990). The focus shifted from the rapid collection of data by researchers to facilitating farmers to generate, represent, and analyze their own data (Mascarenhas et al., 1991; Theis and Grady, 1991; IIED, 1988-1992). Innovative methods alone could not deal with the implied reversal of roles for farmers and development workers. Changing the behavior and attitudes of "outsiders" became a priority. A new label emerged: Participatory Rural Appraisal. Advocates of this approach argued that the production of knowledge and the generation of potential solutions should be devolved onto those whose livelihood strategies formed the subject for research.

The methods of R/PRA now comprise a rich menu of visualization, interviewing, and group work methods (Box 2). These techniques have proven valuable for understanding local perceptions of the functional value of resources, the processes of agricultural innovation, social

and institutional relations. PRA approaches, combining research and practice, also offer opportunities for mobilizing local people for joint action (Mascarenhas et al., 1991; Devavaram et al., 1991). Box 2. Methods used in Participatory Rural Ap- praisal

Visualized Analyses Participatory mapping and modeling Aerial photograph analyses Transect and group walks Seasonal calendars Daily and activity profiles Historical profiles and trend analyses Time lines and chronologies Matrix scoring and preference ranking Venn and network diagramming Flow diagrams on systems and impact Pie diagrams

Interviewing and Sampling Methods Semi-structured interviewing Direct observation Focus groups Key informants Ethnohistories Futures possible Well-being and wealth ranking Social maps

Group and Team Dynamics Methods Team contracts Team review sessions Interview guides Rapid report writing Work sharing (taking part in local

activities) Villager and shared presentations Process notes and diaries

One of the key strengths of PRA is the emphasis on visualization. In formal surveys, the interviewer ap- propriates verbal information and converts this into words on a page. Diagramming enables control over the creation and analysis of maps, models, or diagrams to be shared. Rather than answering a stream of questions directed by the values of the researcher, local people represent their ideas in a form they can discuss, modify, and extend. They become creative analysts and performers, rather than reactive respondents (Chambers, 1992a). Seasonal calendars offer a means of understanding the many dimensions to seasonal welfare beyond the narrowly agricultural (Chambers, 1993), and of exploring people's own perceptions of seasonality and change. Ranking and scoring exercises provide opportunities to understand some of the complexities involved in decision-making; aspects that are rarely accessible through formal surveys. Ranking generates locally appropriate criteria for selecting and evaluating particular varieties or technologies. This

46


enables agricultural researchers to appreciate farmers' requirements and preferences as well as to become aware of how these vary with personal circumstances. Methods such as crop biographies, network and path- way diagramming (FARM-Africa/IIED, 1991), and systems diagramming (Guijt andPretty,1992; Lightfoot et al., 1992) have added to the repertoire of methods in which researchers or extension workers can communicate with farmers.

Although visualizations reveal much that is hidden by approaches based on the verbal alone (Cham- bers, 1992a; Cornwall, 1992), they are not a neutral medium that bypasses all the problems of translation. Versions are presented to and interpreted by the viewer. Visualizations facilitate, rather than replace, discussion. Also, while these forms of representation encourage a wider participation from people, the presence of an audience influences what is drawn. Local people can be aware of the uses to which these media can be put and accordingly present not only their concerns, but also their expectations of what is on offer (Jonfa et al., 1992).

The primary emphasis in PRA has been on shifting the role of the external agent and changing her/his behavior. It tends to be assumed that if they behave appropriately and hand over control, then they will not bias the information. This is both unrealistic and naive. External agents, no matter how well they behave, are often (and rightly) assumed to have access to resources of some kind or even to represent threatening forces (Mosse, 1992). Their motivations behind the guise of open-minded curiosity may well continue to be ques- tioned.

The apparent ease with which information can be gathered using P/RRA methods belies the more complex political and social context in which such interactions take place. Farmers arc often regarded as all-too- willing participants without their own agendas. What they say is frequently regarded as a statement of fact, rather than as a product of an encounter that is always set within relations of power. Recent innovations have begun to address local power dynamics and conflict (Conway et al., 1989; Poffenberger, et al., 1992), but less attention has been paid to the impact these processes can have on what versions farmers offer. Meth- odological challenges include ways to facilitate a more acute awareness of the interactional dynamics that produce "data" and more sensitive tools to explore social processes.

PRA offers a creative approach to information sharing and a challenge to prevailing biases and preconceptions about rural people's knowledge. It recognizes that, besides producing knowledge, rural people should have control over its use. However, the tools of P/RRA are easily applied mechanistically within any framework and for any agenda. PRA is rapidly becoming a fashionable label for shortcut research. Adopting

the "P" of PRA is, as Chambers (1992a) urges, not only about facilitating "participation" but also about changing the approach of development agencies at their core. Yet the ideals of democracy embodied in the PRA approach may bear little relation to local level processes, let alone national or global institutional strategies (Fleming, pers. comm.).

Participatory Action Research (PAR) Participatory Action Research developed during

the 1970s and draws together the personal and the political. Recognizing the marginalizing effects of "universal science" and how it produces ignorance, PAR aims to challenge relations of inequality by re- storing people's self-respect and agency. PAR is explicitly political in its aims, and explores the experiences of poor, oppressed, and exploited groups. These versions of knowledge are recognized as "people's science" and are used to confront systems of domination. Local people are involved at all stages in research. Rather than being the objects of research, they become the producers and owners of their own information.

"Participation" in PAR involves breaking out of relations of dependency to restore to people the ability to act on and transform their worlds for themselves (cf. Freire, 1972). In theory, in this process the initial agents of change "become redundant ... that is, the transformation process continues without the physical presence of external agents, animators and cadres" (Fals-Borda, 1991:5). Practitioners of PAR place a particular emphasis on recovering people's own histories, as a vital part of the process of collective confidence-building and transformatory change. They seek to disrupt the hegemony of Western science and official histories in which the contribution of ordinary people plays no part. The techniques employed in PAR include:

collective research - meetings, socio-dra- mas, public assemblies; critical recovery of history - through collec-

tive memory, interviews and witness accounts, family coffers; valuing and applying "folk culture" - through

the arts, sports, and other forms of expression; the production and diffusion of new

knowledges through written, oral, and visual forms. The principles of PAR have influenced recent devel-

opments within PRA. As an approach, it has much from which to draw inspiration. Yet in its direct concern with the politics of inequality it is often perceived as deeply threatening to established interests: both those within communities and those of the agencies involved in development. Its goal of societal transformation is a long-term "project" for which the personal and political commitment of external agents is vital.

47


DELTA (Development Education and Leadership Teams in Action)

DELTA developed in the mid-1970s in Kenya and is much used in grass-roots community work in several East African countries. It offers dynamic, process- oriented ways of identifying and responding to local interests and concerns by emphasizing long-term commitment and building confidence and trust. The approach brings together Freire's (1972) work on critical awareness and conscientization, human relations training in group work (Hope et al., 1984), organizational development, social analysis, and ideas from Libera- tion Theology. These sources are depicted as flowing together into a river of DELTA training that, in turn, forms a delta of sectorally divided issues (literacy, agriculture, health, management, family and social problems). Facilitators conduct "listening surveys" in communities and prepare "codes", such as pictures or songs, which reflect local problems. Each code is then discussed in an open meeting and "processed". Fol- low-up is in the form of an "action plan", which aims to address the causes of the problem.

DELTA offers an approach that places people's experiences of their problems at the core of research and extension. Rather than prescribe or project solutions, DELTA agents facilitate local level reflection and action. By building confidence and giving a space and a voice to those who are so often marginalized, DELTA brings more people into the process of local self-development. However, the process initiated by DELTA agents is also determined by them as it is they who provide the codes for discussions. The facilitator becomes the lynch pin and their own agendas can frame the process. Resting, as it does, on a notion of "the community" and on reaching a consensus, this approach may fail to confront the relations of power that establish hierarchies of interests and agendas among members of a community. This is particularly problematic where the Christian message of DELTA may marginalize or exclude those who do not share these beliefs.

Theater for Development Performance arts, such as theater, song, dance,

and puppetry are used in extension in many parts of the world. In some places, performance provides a means to convey prescriptive messages as part of a strategy of top-down extension. Harding (1987) distinguishes theater in development from theaterfor development. The former is created and performed by external agents to offer their recommendations and solutions. The latter "aims to make the processes of drama-building accessible to people who can in turn use it as part of their access to development" (Harding, 1987:332). Augusto Boal, whose work forms one of the major influences on Theater for Development, contends: "Theater is a weapon and it is the people who should wield it"

(1979:22). By inviting people to intervene in drama- tized scenarios of their everyday lives, Boal's method encourages them to create their own solutions. Acting out becomes a rehearsal for action.

In common with DELTA agents, Theater for De- velopment practitioners use the "listening survey" and "codes", in the form of open-ended problem-posing sketches. They perform in places where people gather. Spectators are drawn into the performance, to act out their versions and experiment with possible solutions. In contrast with DELTA, creative conflict rather than consensus provides the framework for stimulating the process of action and reflection. Practitioners recognize the inherently conflictual nature of community relations. They seek to build the awareness to confront or expose the relations of power that sustain inequali- ties (Abah and Okwerri, pers. comm.).

Theater for Development techniques have been used in several development settings to raise awareness and mobilize, as well as to monitor and evaluate projects (Mavro, 1991; Cornwall et al., 1989). The principal strength of this technique lies in its emphasis on a performative approach to research and extension, and on the power of theater as a mobilizing and enabling force for change. As such, Theater for Develop- ment offers complementary methodological strategies.

New Directions for Agricultural Research and Extension

Due to its orientation towards technical and economic problem-solving, conventional agricultural research and extension often reduces the complexity of rural life, masking the many dimensions of agriculture as

social praxis. The participatory approaches reviewed here aim, in different ways, to restore some of these complexities. With the recognition that "participation" involves more than simply consulting rural people, there has been a shift towards treating those whose livelihoods form the focus for research and extension as actors rather than just as instruments in the development process.

To move toward acknowledging process and toward a "learning approach" (Korten, 1980), it is essential to remember the constraints we face and must accept. Communication, perhaps the most important constraint to effective agricultural research and extension, is also the area where the problems we draw attention to are most acute. Rather than despair at the seemingly insurmountable problems of achieving "real" communication, due to the strictures imposed by language and by our own particular ways of reasoning, recognizing some of the issues and potential problems involved in bridging different realities is already an important step forward. Realizing that communicating what is known and showing what is done involves interpreting others' intentions from the standpoint of our own enables us to pay greater attention to our own

48


prejudices and preconceptions. Using other methods, such as performances or visualizations, will not lay bare what people know, but it will offer important opportunities for reflection and, the possibilities for a range of different interpretations.

While exploring these multiple versions courts the danger of drowning in pluralities, it also draws our attention to the criteria for making choices. If many different versions can be produced through shifts in perspective, context, or scale (Strathern, 1991), no single version can provide the "right answer". If truths are relative, choosing a version becomes more a matter of appropriateness or applicability (Goodman, 1978; Vitebsky, 1993). The grounds for preferring one account over another are, therefore, less objective and neutral than conventional science would let us believe (Quine,1953). Choices are made on the basis of political and personal beliefs. Being explicit about the grounds for choice would already be an enormous step forward.

Extending the horizons of agricultural research and extension demands that closer attention is paid to contextual issues. Agricultural development needs to be set in biographical and historical time, as a longer- term process rather than a series of discrete projects (Long and van der Ploeg, 1989). Issues of diversity and difference, both within rural communities and among external agents need to be addressed with greater methodological clarity and sensitivity. Issues of power, control, and conflict are central to agriculture as a

social process and require greater consideration. Chang- ing the mold of conventional approaches involves addressing and redressing the nature of interactions between rural people, and researchers or extension workers. Training plays a key role in this shift towards recognizing the political and personal dimensions of agricultural development. Drawing on the methodologies reviewed here, we go on to take up these five themes in more depth, exploring some of their implications for changes in practice.

Time The only thing that one really knows about

human nature is that it changes ... The systems that fail are those that rely on the permanency of human nature, not on its growth and development. Oscar Wilde, in the early 1890s.

Locating agricultural processes in time requires an appreciation of local histories. All change is relative to previous experience: crop varieties, like people, have their own biographies, which are often intimately entwined with those who cultivate them (Box, 1989). "New" crops can be woven into "old" systems of practice, or stand alone uncelebrated as products of modernity with no intrinsic value beyond the market. Cropping patterns, land preparation techniques, ownership, innovation, and varietal selection are always

located within a complex of historical processes. Par- ticipatory approaches increasingly draw on oral history to explain the past, to make sense of the present, and to plan for the future. Both FSR and FPR are still weak in this respect. PAR offers important experiences for agricultural methodology, which PRA is increasingly incorporating in its approach.

As Cross and Barker (1991) show, accounts of history as told by local people also change over time. They are retold and reshaped to reflect current concerns and contingencies. Histories, like any form of knowledge, are neither singular nor necessarily con- sensual. Rather, they present particular reactions to and experiences of events. As such, they offer an important resource for locating innovations as well as

interventions as perceived by different actors (Box, 1987; Long and van der Ploeg, 1989). Without understanding these processes, agricultural research and extension may obstruct, rather than facilitate, positive change.

One implication of participatory work is the need to move away from quick-fix solutions, a fallacy which remains largely unchallenged. There is no such thing as a timeless, perfect variety that stands outside wider processes of change. Whilst dwindling financial resources make ever-increasing demands for short-term solutions to problems, experience has repeatedly shown that these interventions either do not work or are unsustainable. Cost-cutting does not equal cost-effectiveness, no matter how desirable this might be. Mak- ing long-term commitments is clearly crucial, yet depends on the willingness and capacity of those within agricultural institutions to make the appropriate decisions (Pretty and Chambers, 1993).

Change takes place over time: it takes time. Radi- cal changes to existing forms of practice may be desirable, but they too take time to germinate and take root. Slowly, within existing frameworks, practitioners are starting to change their approaches and seek alternatives to conventional practice. As they, through their networks and interventions, influence others, further changes come about. The history of "participation" in development work is a history of discontinu- ous attempts to find alternatives, rather than incremen- tal change. Often what appear to be "new" discoveries have emerged and been submerged decades before in other domains, only to resurface in a different form elsewhere. Recovering this history and drawing together the disparate threads to consolidate what has

been learned may increase the momentum, but the process of institutional change is a long-term project.

Location If we acknowledge. that each person has her/his

own valid version of events, methodological change will be needed to address issues of difference such as

gender, age, and ethnicity, more systematically

49


(Welbourn, 1991). Gender analysis has been partially incorporated into some methodologies, such as FSR and PRA, and differences in economic status guide most participatory approaches, albeit not always in a thorough manner. Yet all too often outsiders' notions of difference are imposed on rural people. There is no reason to assume that "our" notions of gender or wealth are shared by others. It is critical that locally perceived axes of difference form the basis for research and extension activities. The relational aspects of difference are often overlooked. Axes of difference are not rigid, universal categories that hold for all aspects of people's lives. Rather they are often fluid, crosscutting, and defined according to the situation. To take the example of gender, in certain activities it is women's age that matters, rather than their female- ness. In others it may be their wealth, ethnicity, or religion, or a combination of all of these differences. We need to ask: Which differences make a difference? To whom? And in which settings?8 These complexities present important methodological challenges.

Differences between the disciplines and approaches used in research and extension also need to be considered. Multi-disciplinary teams have been stressed especially in FSR and RRA. Rarely, however, are the methodological challenges of this kind of teamwork fully addressed. Specialists often continue to impose their own fragmented concerns, rather than explore the challenges of interdisciplinarity and break down the boundaries to create new areas for investigation (cf. Rhoades et al., 1987; Rhoades, 1990). Rather than creating a common focus for Western trained experts, we could benefit from looking at what rural people have to offer in their own analyses of the complex and interdependent systems in which they work (Cham- bers, 1992a). Methodologies are needed that focus more on both team-building and on exposing the linkages between disciplines and sectors, for which PRA has much to offer.

Locating intervention within the multilevel linkages of institutions and organizations of agricultural development extends our concern beyond facilitating communication between farmers and external agents. Inevitably, the idea of working at multiple levels is fraught with practical as well as conceptual difficulties. Yet for agricultural research and extension methodologies, it is important, at the very least, to consider the politics and implications of how these different levels interact, and how this might influence the process. Locating their intervention in the political arena is rarely considered in methodologies other than PAR.

Whose Knowledge Counts? Control and Conflict Participatory approaches for empowerment aim to

place control of the development process into the hands of rural people. This aim is explicit in the theory of PAR, DELTA, Theater for Development, and PRA.

In answer to the question of whose knowledge or solutions count, protagonists of such approaches may emphatically reply: those of the rural people. Yet if they are asked to think about their own roles, expectations, and influence, the reply might be more hesitant.

The "local community" who are urged to control their own research and solutions consists of many different people. Their relative positions of power offer differential access to the support or the labor of others, and to resources. Competing, contested, and changing versions of "community needs" emerge according to which interest groups or individuals are consulted. There are not only different interpretations, but also different agendas and means for enacting some solutions or blocking others.

These considerations raise several questions that need to be addressed. Can all the, potentially conflicting, versions and solutions be considered? If not, how are choices to be made and whose side will be taken? Who stands to benefit or lose in the long-term from interventions that might initially be aimed at marginal groups? These are political questions that are as relevant for crop breeding as for community development. Even if they are not explicitly addressed, implicit choices will always be made.

The main question is: who calls the shots? Insen- sitive intervention by development workers can under- mine the strategies used by marginalized people to resist domination, disarming them of their "weapons" -(Scott, 1985). Women, for example, may not wish to have their interests represented where it involves exposing their strategies for dealing with present constraints. The passing presence of resource-bearing agents may temporarily force concessions or gloss over deep-rooted conflicts, but may offer little scope for structural change. And if the focus is entirely on creating consensus and resolving conflict, marginal voices may be effectively silenced. By ignoring rather than exploring conflict, they may make matters worse. In general, existing methodologies are weak at recognizing and dealing with situations of conflict.

Not all conflict is negative, nor should it necessarily be stifled. Provoking creative conflict can have a positive impact. In situations where overt conflict is lacking, creative conflict may stimulate constructive change. Here the presence of external agents or facilitators is less as listener and learner than as catalyst. There are times when the power and agency of external agents can be used to positive ends. Rather than a limitation, the "outsider effect" can also have its advantages (Messerschmidt, 1991, 1992). One methodological area worth exploring is how to generate and deal with creative conflict, for which Theater for De- velopment offer interesting possibilities.

Part of the methodological challenge lies in enabling external agents to cope with creative conflict and conflict resolution. Equipping local people with

50


the tools, be they skills or increased awareness, with which to conduct their own struggles according to their own priorities, is an important step towards enabling them to realize their own visions, as the following example from India shows:

Some village women adopted the analytical process of map-drawing from a PRA exercise that had been carried out in their village by a local NGO. The women wanted to investigate for themselves the incidence of "elopement" in their own and surrounding villages. (Girls were being kidnapped by men and, after two days, had to become the men's brides, against their will.) The women used the mapping system to identify the households where this had happened. They then collected case-studies of what had happened and presented the information to the local authorities. (Sheelu Francis, pers. comm.) FSR and FPR neither recognize nor deal with

conflict or political choices. PRA has been used for conflict resolution (Conway et al., 1989), but it does not approach this systematically. DELTA tends to obscure conflict by dealing with "the community". Both PAR and Theater for Development are based on the assumption that conflict exists and must be dealt with. There is a great need to start addressing conflict more explicitly in agricultural research and extension.

Interaction Agricultural research and extension is based on

interactions between the external agents and farmers. Although starting points and strategies used by the approaches discussed here differ, all stress the importance of rapport between external agents and rural people. Yet the effect that external agents can have on the processes of knowledge production is only partially recognized, and little attention is given to communication skills.

PRA practitioners stress the importance of being aware of and suspending biases, although in practice this generally falls short of the ideal. PRA methods attempt to elicit rural people's knowledge without imposing Western notions, in concept or form. PRA, along with DELTA and Theater for Development, appears to offer a strategy where the initiator of a collective exercise plays no further part in determining what is represented. In practice, this often leads to the mistaken belief that they do not influence the production of information. Yet the identities and personalities of external agents clearly have an effect on how the interaction develops.

Important lessons can be learned from PAR that involve further reversals between Western science and rural people's knowledge. PAR situates research in a process of mutual learning between people with different experiences, knowledges, and skills. The conventional subject/object relations between researcher and researched, and the power relations this implies, are

confronted. PAR offers a model for collegiate relations in which external agents have an explicitly proactive role, yet this is only possible where common goals can be identified. This poses considerable methodological and institutional challenges.

The most important question for conventional agricultural scientists and extension workers is how to deal with the changes of roles this implies. Chambers (1993) describes how some of the conventional wis- doms of mainstream agricultural development will need to be dismantled. When farmers analyze and experiment, external agents will serve as advisers, catalysts, and convenors. When farmers choose specific changes, external agents will help to search for and supply them with it. Opening up research and extension institutions and enabling rural people to understand the workings of Western science in practice is as important as exhorting external agents to appreciate rural people's knowledge. Rather than teaching the farmers "basic science", it may be more constructive to allow them to ask their own questions about Western scientific experimentation and develop their own alternatives to conventional extension.

Toward Experiential Learning Establishing a basis for dialogue, through which

ideas are shared and developed through mutual understanding, requires a fundamentally different approach to research and extension. New approaches to learning, as a continuous activity, need to be extended both within and outside agricultural institutions. Such a learning process is quite different from the formal training setting "where the trainee becomes the object of training and a depository of knowledge delivered by a trainer" (Tilakaratna, 1991:138). Shifting from a teaching to a learning style has many implications, such as increasing the focus on how we learn rather than what we learn, and making personal exploration and experience central.

Bawden (1988, 1992) distinguishes three facets of the learning process, arguing that only two of these aspects - scientia (learning that) and techne (learning how) - form part of standard curricula for agricultural students. The third, which he calls praxis and concerns the experiential aspect, is too often ignored. Bawden urges a recognition of the central importance of personal development in learning. This involves not only addressing and affirming the experiences through which students develop their understanding of processes, but also acknowledging the limited role that technical training plays in becoming an agricultural worker.

Transforming agricultural research and extension to take up some of the challenges that we have drawn attention to here requires a concerted effort. In many respects this is quite a frightening prospect. To address the issues of time and of location requires a fundamentally different approach to the scope and dimensions of

51


research and extension. Diminishing resources force a review of existing strategies, particularly in the public sector. While some contend that the costs involved in change might be too high, the current channeling of resources into high input agriculture has offered few long-term benefits and bears high social, economic, and ecological costs (Clunies-Ross and Hildyard, 1992). Acknowledging the political dimensions to agriculture by addressing issues of interaction, control, and conflict reveals the wider implications of the choice of methodology and of the role that different actors play in the process. Incorporating experiential learning in developing new methodologies that embrace these challenges is a highly personal and political process.

For such changes to spread and be sustained will require the mutual reinforcement of participatory methods, new approaches to learning, and institutional support (Pretty and Chambers, 1993). Many methodological limitations are a result of insufficient attention to the institutional contexts in which they take place. As Farrington and Bebbington note:

While the literature on methods for promoting farmer participation has burgeoned over the last decade, we lag far behind in understanding how that participation can be institutionalized. (1993: xvii) This is where many of the challenges lie. Learning

to acknowledge the value and specificity of our own experience, while seeking ways to appreciate other perspectives will inevitably entail making "mistakes". These should be recognized as being valuable opportunities for reflection and change. Institutions will need to support self-critical awareness to benefit fully from these opportunities. Personal development is the step- ping stone from which methodological choice and institutional development can gradually grow.

Acknowledgments The writing of this paper was made possible by

financial support to the Sustainable Agriculture Programme of IIED from the Swedish International Development Authority (SIDA), the Swedish Agency for Research Cooperation with Developing Countries (SAREC), and the Overseas Development Adminis- tration of the UK. We would like to thank the following people for their contributions to this paper: Sam Musa and Sheelu Francis, who both kindly agreed to be interviewed at short notice; Koos Neefjes, Nigel Padfield, Jules Pretty, and Ian Scoones who made helpful comments on earlier drafts. We are grateful to the editors and anonymous reviewers for their comments. All responsibility for the end product remains ours.

Notes 1. Quine (1953) points out that no theory can exhaust the

possibilities offered by empirical data. The "truths" that are produced offer merely one interpretation,

which is preferred over others that equally "fit the facts". Regarding "truths"' as chosen or preferred explanations, rather than "reflections" of "reality" (Rorty, 1980) enables us to explore the effects of these choices.

2. See Box 1987; Winarto, 1992, Millar, 1992; Bunch, 1990; Maurya et al.,1988; McCorckle et al., 1988; Basant, 1988; FARM-Africa/IIED, 1991.

3. See Ashby et al., 1989; Gubbels, 1992; Haugerud and Collinson, 1991; Jodha and Partep, 1992; Maurya et al., 1988; Rhoades and Booth, 1982; Richards, 1989; Salas, 1992.

4. See, for example, Abedin and Haque, 1987; Hossein et al., 1987.

5. Lightfoot et al.,1991; Guijt and Pretty, 1992; Cham- bers, 1992a.

6. Van der Ploeg notes that it is in their very imprecision and vagueness that the value of these concepts lies, as they do not provide a blueprint but enable change through acts of interpretation.

7. This also reflects the ways in which the social relations of agricultural science are superimposed on rural communities: specialist scientists are presumed to know most and the versions of enumerators or extension agents are rarely sought or considered.

8. Discussions with Lori Ann Thrupp, Norman Long, and Ruth Alsop at the RPK workshop in October, 1992 helped develop these questions.

References Abah, S. and J. Owwerri. April, 1992. Abedin, Z. and Haque, F. 1987. "Learning from farmer

innovation and innovator workshops: examples from Bangladesh." Paper presented to IDS Work- shop Farmers andAgriculturalResearch: Comple- mentary Methods. University of Sussex.

Amanor, K. 1990. "Analytical abstracts on farmer participatory research." ODI Agricultural Admin- istration Unit Occasional Paper, 10. Overseas Development Institute, London.

Ashby, J. 1990. Evaluating Technology with Farmers: a Handbook. Colombia: IPRA, CIAT.

Ashby, J., C. Quiros, and Y. Rivers. 1989. "Farmer participation in technology development: work with crop varieties." Pp. 115-122. in Chambers, R., A. Pacey, and L. Thrupp (eds.). Farmer First. Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Basant, R. 1988. "The diffusion of agro-mechanical technology for Indian rainfed farming: an exploratory analysis." Agricultural Administration (Re- search and Extension) Network, 24. London: Over- seas Development Institute.

B awden, R. 1988. Experiential Learning and Strategic Change. Hawkesbury College, Australia. (Mimeo).

Bawden, R. 1992. "Of systemics and farming systems

52


research: a critique." In Raman, K. and T. Balaguru. Farming systemsResearch in India: Strategiesfor Implementation. Hyderabad: NAARM.

Biggs, S. 1980. "Informal R&D." Ceres. 13(4): 23-26. Biggs, S. 1989. Resource-poor farmer participation in

research: a synthesis of experience from nine national agricultural research systems. OFCOR Project Study No. 3. The Hague: ISNAR.

Boal, A. 1979. Theatre of the Oppressed. London: Pluto Press.

Box, L. 1987. "Experimenting cultivators: a methodology for adaptive agricultural research." ODI Agricultural Administration (Research and Ex- tension) Network Discussion Paper, 23. Overseas Development Institute: London.

Brokensha, D., D. M. Warren, and O. Werner. 1980. Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Development. Latham, MD: University Press of America.

Bunch, R. 1985. Two Ears of Corn: a Guide to People- centered Agricultural Improvement. Oklahoma: World Neighbors.

Bunch, R. 1987. "Small farmer research: the key element of permanent agricultural improvement." Paper presented to IDS Workshop Farmers and Agricultural Research: Complementary Methods. University of Sussex.

Bunch, R. 1989. "Encouraging farmer's experiments." In Chambers, R., A. Pacey, and L. Thrupp (eds.), Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricul- tural Research. 1989. London: Intermediate Tech- nology Publications.

Bunch, R. 1990. "Low Input soil restoration in Hondu- ras: the Cantarranas Farmer-to-Farmer Extension Programme."IIED Gatekeeper Series, SA 23. IIED: London.

Carruthers, I. and R. Chambers. 1981. "Rapid Rural Appraisal: rationale and repertoire." IDS Discus- sion Paper No. 155. Institute for Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK.

Cernea, M. (ed.) 1991. Putting People First. Socio- logical Variables in Rural Development (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: World Bank.

Chambers, R. 1983. Rural Development: Putting the Last First. London: Longmans.

Chambers, R. 1986. "Normal Professionalism, New Paradigms and Development." IDS Discussion PaperNo. 227. Institute for Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK.

Chambers, R. 1992a. "Rural Appraisal: Rapid, Re- laxed and Participatory." IDS Discussion Paper, 311. Institute of Development Studies, Sussex, UK.

Chambers, R. 1992b. "Methods for Analysis by Farm- ers: the Professional Challenge." MS.

Chambers, R. 1993. Challenging the Professions: Fron- tiers for rural development. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Chambers, R. personal communication, 1993. Chambers, R., A. Pacey, and L. Thrupp (eds.). 1989.

Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricul- tural Research. London: Intermediate Technol- ogy Publications.

Clunies-Ross, T. and N. Hildyard. 1992. The Politics of Industrial Agriculture. Earthscan.

Cohen, A. 1993. "Segmentary knowledge: a Whalsay sketch." In M. Hobart. (ed.) The Growth of Igno- rance: a Critique of Development. London: Routledge.

Collinson, M. 1981. "A low cost approach to understanding small farmers." Agricultural Adminis- tration, 8(6): 433-450.

Conway, G. 1985. "Agroecosystem analysis." Agri- cultural Administration, 20: 31-55.

Conway, G. 1987. "Rapid Rural Appraisal and agroecosystem analysis: a case from northern Pa- kistan." In KKU Proceedings: 228-254.

Conway, G. 1989. "Diagrams for Farmers." In Cham- bers, R., A. Pacey, and L. Thrupp (eds.). Farmer First. Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Re- search. London: Intermediate Technology Publi- cations..

Conway, G., P. Sajise, and W. Knowland. 1989. "Lake Buhi: resolving conflicts in a Philippines development project." Ambio, 18(2): 128-135.

Cornwall A., M. Chakavanda, S. Makumbirofa, G. Shumba, and A. Mawere. 1989. "The use of community theatre in project evaluation: an experimental example from Zimbabwe." Sustainable Agriculture Programme RRA Notes, 6: 30-37. IIED, London.

Cornwall, A. 1992. "Body mapping in health RRA/ PRA." Sustainable Agriculture Programme RRA Notes, 16: 27-30. IIED, London.

Cornwall, A. and I. Scoones. 1993. "Exploring Diver- sity and Difference in Food Systems under Stress." In J. Pottier (ed.) African Food Systems Under Stress: Issues, Perspectives and Methodologies. Brighton: SOAS/Desktop Display.

Cross, N. and R. Barker. (eds.) 1991. At the Desert's Edge: Oral Histories from the Sahel. London: Panos/SOS-Sahel.

Devavaram, J., Ms Nalini, J. Vimalnathan, A. Sukkar, A. P. Mayandi Krishnan, and Karunanidhi 1991. "PRA for rural resource management." Sustain- able Agriculture Programme RRA Notes 13: 102- 111. IIED, London.

Drinkwater, M. 1992. "Knowledge, consciousness and

prejudice: towards a methodology for achieving a

farmer-researcher dialogue in adaptive agricultural research in Zambia." Discussion paper pre-

sented at the IIED/IDS Beyond Farmer First: Rural People's Knowledge, Agri cultural R esearch

and Extension Practice Conference, 27-29 Octo-

ber, Institute of Development Studies, University

53


of Sussex, UK. IIED, London. Fabian, J.1990. Power and Performance: Ethnographic

Explorations Through Proverbial Wisdom and Theater in Shaba, Zaire. Madison: University of Wisconsin.

Fairhead, J. 1990. Fields of Struggle: Towards a

Social History of Farming Knowledge and Prac- tice in a Bwisha Community, Kivu, Zaire. Doctoral Dissertation, SOAS, University of London.

Fairhead, J. 1993. "Representing knowledge: the `new farmer' in research." In Practising Development: Social Science Perspectives. Ed. J. Pottier. Lon- don: Routledge.

Fals-Borda, O. and Rahman, A. (eds.). 1991. Action and Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly with Par- ticipatory Action Research. New York: Apex.

FARM-Africa/IIED. 1991. Farmer Participatory Re-

search in N. Omo, Ethiopia. London: IIED. Farrington, J. (ed). 1988. "Farmer Participatory Re-

search." Experimental Agriculture, 24(3). Farrington, J. and A. Martin. 1988. "Farmer participa-

tion in agricultural research: a review of concepts and practices." Agricultural Administration Oc- casional Paper No. 9. Overseas Development In- stitute, London.

Farrington, J., A. Bebbington, with K. Wellard and D. 1. Lewis. 1993. Reluctant Partners? Non-governmental organizations, the state and sustainable agricultural development. London: Routledge.

Fleming, Sue. personal communication, September, 1993.

Francis, Sheelu. personal communication, September, 1993.

Freire, P. 1972. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Gartner, J. 1990. "Extension education: top(s) down, bottom(s) up and other things." Pp. 325-350 in Jones, J. (ed). Systems Theory Applied to Agricul- ture and the Food Chain. New York: Elsevier.

Gaventa, J. and H. Lewis. 1991. "Participatory Educa- tion and Grassroots Development: the Case of Rural Appalachia." Sustainable Agriculture Programme Gatekeeper Series No. 25. IIED, Lon- don.

Gilbert, E., D. Norman, and F. Winch. 1980. "Farming Systems Research: a Critical Appraisal." MSU Occasional Paper No. 6, Michigan.

Goodman, N. 1978. Ways of Worldmaking. Hassocks: Harvester.

Gubbels, P. 1990. Peasant Farmer Agricultural Self- Development: The World Neighbors Experience in West Africa. Oklahoma: World Neighbors.

Gubbels, P. 1992. "Farmer First Research: populist pipe-dream or practical paradigm? A case study of the Projet Agroforestiere (PAF), Burkina Faso." Discussion paper presented at the IIED/IDS Be- yond Farmer First: Rural People's Knowledge,

Agricultural Research and Extension Practice Conference, 27-29 October, Institute of Develop- ment Studies, University of Sussex, UK. IIED, London.

Guijt I. and J. Pretty. 1992. Participatory Rural Ap- praisal for FPR in Rural Punjab, Pakistan. Lon- don: Sustainable Agriculture Programme, IIED.

Gupta, A. 1989. "Scientists' view of farmers' practices in India: barriers to effective interaction." Pp 24- 30 in Chambers, R., A. Pacey, and L. Thrupp, (eds.). Farmer First. Farmer Innovation and Ag- ricultural Research. London: Intermediate Tech- nology Publications Ltd.

Guyer, J. and P. Peters. 1987. "Introduction. In Conceptualising the Household: Issues of Theory and Policy in Africa." Special issue of Develop- ment and Change, 18 (2): 197-214.

Gypmantasiri, P., A. Wiboonpongse, B. Rerkasem, I. Craig, K. Rekasem, L. Ganjapan, M. Tityawan, M. Seotisarn, P. Thani, R. Jaisaard, S. Ongprasert, T. Radanachaless, and G. R. Conway. 1980. An In- terdisciplinary Perspective of Cropping Systems in the Chiang Mai Valley: Key Questions for Research. Multiple Cropping, Faculty of Agricul- ture, University of Chiang Mai, Thailand.

Hacking, I. 1983 Representing and Intervening: Intro- ductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Sci- ence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Harding, F. 1987. "Theatre for development." In Afri- can Futures: Proceedings of the 25th Conference of the Centre of African Studies, Edinburgh.

Haugerud, A. and M. Collinson. 1991. "Plants, genes and people: improving the relevance of plant breeding." Sustainable Agriculture Programme Gatekeeper Series, SA 30. IIED, London.

Hesse, M. 1978. "Theory and value in the social sciences." In C. Hookway and P. Pettit, (eds). Action and Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.

Hiemstra, W., C. Reintjes, and E van der Werf (eds). 1992. Let Farmers Judge: Experiences in Assess- ing the Sustainability of Agriculture. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Hobart, M. (ed.) 1993. An Anthropological Critique of Development: The Growth of Ignorance. London: Routlege.

Holdcroft, Lane C. 1978. "The Rise and Fall of Com- munity Development in Developing Countries, 1950-65: A critical analysis and an annotated bibliography." MSURural Development Paper 2, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Hope, A., S. Timmel, and C. Hodzi. 1984. Training for Transformation. Harare: Mambo Press.

Hossein S., M. Sattar, J. Ahmed, M. Salim, and M. Islam. 1987. "Cropping System research and farmers' innovations in a farming community in

54


Bangladesh." In Chambers, R., A. Pacey, and L. Thrupp (eds.). Farmer First. Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications..

IIED, 1988-present. RRA Notes. Sustainable Agricul- ture Programme, IIED, London.

Inglis, A. 1991. "Harvesting local forestry knowledge: a comparison of RRA and conventional surveys." Sustainable Agriculture Programme RRA Notes No. 12: 32-40. IIED, London.

Jodha, N. and T. Partep, 1992. "Folk Agronomy in the Himalayas: implications for agricultural research and extension." Case study presented at the 'Be- yond Farmer First: Rural People's Knowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension Practice Conference, 27-29 October, IDS, Sussex.

Johnson, A. 1972. "Individuality and experimentation in traditional agriculture." Human Ecology, 1(2): 149-160.

Jonfa, E., H. M. Tebeje, T. Dessalegn, H. Habla, and A. Cornwall. 1992. "Participatory Modelling in North Omo, Ethiopia: Investigating the Perceptions of Different Groups through Models." Sustainable Agriculture Programme RRA NotesNo. 14:24-26. IIED, London.

Kabeer, N. and S. Joekes (eds.). 1991. "Researching the Household: methodological and empirical issues." IDS Bulletin, 22:1

Korten, D. 1980. "Community organisation and rural development - a learning process approach." Public Administration Review, 40 (5): 480-511.

KKU. 1987. Proceedings of the 1985 International Conference on Rapid Rural Appraisal. Khon Kala, Thailand.

Leach, M. 1991. "Locating Gendered Experience: an anthropologist's view from a Sierra Leonian Vil- lage." In Kabeer, N. and S. Joekes (eds.). 1991. "Researching the Household: methodological and empirical issues." IDS Bulletin, 22: 1

Lightfoot C., O. de Guia, and F. Ocado. 1988. "A participatory method for system problem research: rehabilitating marginal uplands in the Philippines." Experimental Agriculture 24: 301-309.

Lightfoot, C., R. Noble, and R. Morales. 1991. Train- ing Resource Book on a Participatory Method for Modeling Bioresource Flows. Manila: ICLARM.

Lightfoot, C., P. Dalsgaard, M. Bimbao, and F. Fermin. 1992. "Farmer Participatory Procedures for Man- aging and Monitoring Sustainable Farming Sys- tems." Paper presented at the Second Asian Farm- ing Systems Symposium, BMICH, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Lincoln, Y. and E. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Long, N. (ed.). 1989. Encounters at the Interface: a Perspective on Social Discontinuities in Rural Development. Wageningen.

Long, N. and J. van der Ploeg. 1989. "Demythologiz- ing planned intervention: an actor perspective." Sociologica Ruralis XXIX (3/4): 227-49.

Mascarenhas, J., P. Shah, S. Joseph, R. Jayakaran, J. Devavaram, V. Ramachandran, A. Fernandez, R. Chambers, and J. Pretty (eds.). 1991. Participatory Rural Appraisal: proceedings of the February 1991 Bangalore Trainers Workshop. RRA Notes No. 13. Sustainable Agriculture Programme, IIED, Lon- don.

Maurya D., A. Botrell, and J. Farrington. 1988. "Im- proved livelihoods, genetic diversity and farmer participation: a strategy forrice-breeding in rainfed areas of India." Experimental Agriculture, 24: 311-320.

Mavro, A. 1991. Development Theater: A Way to Listen. Newbury Park, CA: SOS-Sahel.

McCorkle, C., R. Brandsletter, and D. McClure. 1988. A Case Study on Farmer Innovation and Commu- nication in Niger. Washington, DC: Communica- tion for Technology Transfer in Africa, Academy of Educational Development.

Messerschmidt, D. 1991a. "Some advantages of having an outsider on the team." Sustainable Agricul- ture Programme RRA Notes, 12: 4-7. IIED, Lon- don.

Messerschmidt, D. 1992b. Rapid Appraisal for Com- munityForestry. The RA Process and Rapid Diag- nostic Tools. Pokhara, Nepal: Institute of For- estry.

Millar, D. 1992. "The relevance of rural people's knowledge for reorienting extension, research and training: a case study from Northern Ghana." Case study presented at the IIED/IDS Beyond Farmer First: Rural People's Knowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension Practice Workshop, 27- 29 October, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK. IIED, London.

Moris, J. 1991. Extension Alternatives in Tropical Africa. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Mosse, D. 1992. "Authority, Gender and Knowledge: Theoretical Reflections on the Practice of PRA." "

[Unpublished paper] Norman, D., D. Baker, G. Heinrich, C. Jonas, S.

Maskiara, and F. Worman. 1989. "Farmer groups for technology development: experience in Botswana." Pp. 136-146 in Chambers, R., Pacey, A. and Thrupp, L. A. (eds.). Farmer First. Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Poffenberger, M., B. McGean, A. Khare, andJ. Campbell. (eds.). 1992. Community Forest Economy and Use

Patterns: ParticipatoryRuralAppraisal (PRA)Meth- ods in South' Gujarat, India, Volumes 1 and 2. New Delhi, India: Joint Forest Management Support Programme, Ford Foundation.

Pottier, J. 1992. "Harvesting Words? - No Thanks?:

55


thoughts on agricultural advice and extension work in urban Rwanda." Discussion paper presented at thelIED/IDSBeyond FarmerFirst: Rural People's Knowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension Practice Workshop, 27-29 October, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK. IIED, London.

Pretty, J. and R. Chambers. 1993. "Towards aLearning Paradigm: New Professionalism and Institutions for Agriculture." IDS Discussion Paper 334. IDS, Brighton.

Quine, W. V. O. 1953. "Two Dogmas of Empiricism." In From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rahman, M. (ed). 1984. Grass-Roots Participation and Self-Reliance. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publication Co.

Rhoades, R. 1983. "Technicista versus Campesinista: Praxis and Theory of Farmer Involvement in Ag- ricultural Research: a Post-Harvest Example from the Andes." Paper presented at ICRISAT/ SAFGRAD/IRAT Conference, Burkina Faso.

Rhoades, R. 1990. The Coming Revolution in Methods for Rural Development Research. Manila: Users' Perspective Network (UPWARD), International Potato Center (CIP).

Rhoades, R. and R. Booth. 1982. "Farmer-back-to- farmer: a model for generating acceptable agricultural technology." Agricultural Administration, 11, 127-137.

Rhoades, R., D. Horton, and R. Booth. 1987. Anthro- pologist, Biological Scientist and Economist: the Three Musketeers or the Three Stooges of Farm- ing Systems Research? Lima: CIP.

Richards, P. 1985. Indigenous Agricultural Revolu- tion: Ecology and Food Production in West Af- rica. London: Hutchinson.

Richards, P. 1987. "Experimenting Farmers and Agri- cultural Research". [Unpublished UCL paper].

Richards, P. 1989. "Agriculture as performance." Pp. 39-43 in Chambers, R., A. Pacey, and L. Thrupp (eds.). 1989. Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Richards, P. 1992. "Rural development and local knowledge: the case of rice in central Sierra Leone." Discussion paper presented at the IIED/IDS Be- yond Farmer First: Rural People's Knowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension Practice Workshop, 27-29 October, Institute of Develop- ment Studies, University of Sussex, UK. IIED, London.

Rorty, R. 1980. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Salas, M. 1992. "Extension, knowledge systems and potato production in the Peruvian Andes: challenging the transfer of technology model." Case

study presented at the LIED/IDS Beyond Farmer First: Rural People's Knowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension Practice Workshop, 27- 29 October, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK. IIED, London.

Salmond, Anne. 1985. "Theoretical Landscapes: On cross-cultural conceptions of knowledge." Pp. 65- 87 in David Parkin (ed), Semantic Anthropology, London: Academic Press.

Scoones, I. and J. Thompson. 1993. "Beyond Farmer First - Rural People's Knowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension Practice: Towards a Theo- retical Framework." IDS Discussion Paper 332, IDS. Brighton.

Scott, J. 1985. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Scott, J. 1990. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven, CT: Yale Uni- versity Press.

Shaner W., P. Philipp, and W. Schmehl. 1982. Farm- ing Systems Research and Development: Guide- lines for Developing Countries. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Sikana, P. 1992. "Indigenous soil characterisation and farmer participation in Northern Zambia: implications for research and extension delivery." Case study presented at the IIED/IDS Beyond Farmer First: Rural People's Knowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension Practice Workshop, 27- 29 October, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK. IIED, London.

Strathern, Marilyn. (1991). Partial Connections. Sav- age, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.

Sumberg, J. and C. Okali. 1988. "Farmers, on-farm research and the development of new technology." Experimental Agriculture, 24: 333-342.

Swift, J. 1979. "Notes on traditional knowledge, mod- em knowledge and rural development." IDS Bul- letin 10: 41-43.

Theis, J. and H. Grady. 1991. Participatory Rapid Appraisal for Community Development: a Train- ing Manual Based on Experience in the Middle East and North Africa. London: Save the Children Fund/lIED.

Tilakaratna, S. 1991. "Stimulation of Self-Reliant Ini- tiatives by Sensitized Agents: Some Lessons from Practice." In Fals-Borda, O. and A. Rahman, A. (eds.), Action and Knowledge: Breaking the Mo- nopoly with Participatory Action Research. New York: Apex.

Uphoff, N. 1992. Learningfrom Gal Oya: Possibilities for Participatory Development. and Post- Newtonian Social Science. Ithaca: Cornell Uni- versity Press.

Van der Ploeg, J. 1989. "Knowledge systems, metaphor and interface: the case of potatoes in the

56


Peruvian highlands." In N. Long (ed). Encounters at the Interface. a Perspective on Social Discontinuities in Rural Development. Wageningse Sociologische Studies, 27. Landbouwuniversisteit Wageningen.

van der Ploeg, J. 1993. "Potatoes and Knowledge." In M. Hobart (ed.), An anthropological Critique of Development. The Growth of Ignorance, London: Routledge.

Vitebsky, Piers. 1993. "'Shamanism' as Local Knowl- edge in a Cosmopolitan World." Unpublished paper presented to the Association of Social Anthro- pologists' Decennial Conference, Oxford, 26-31, July, 1993.

Welbourn, A. 1991. "RRA and the analysis of difference." Sustainable Agriculture Programme RRA Notes No. 14. IIED, London.

Wilde, O. 1978. "The soul of man under Socialism." In The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde. London.

Winarto, Y. 1992. "Farmers' agroecological knowledge and integrated pest management in North West Java." Case study presented at the IIED/IDS Beyond Farmer First: Rural People's Knowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension Practice Workshop, 27-29 October, Institute of Develop- ment Studies, University of Sussex, UK. IIED, London.

57

I I !''I 'i I III ICI II !' III III IGiili II " 1I1°;'I,!,;,d°IN!Ilhllalll(°1111

4ihllll! 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 analyze 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

!tql !' " .:Irl!'I I, Ir I'I VIII '.,IIII, 'I'. dill IIII ,,, r;,,,I IIII u;,' , I. .,1nI

Trmcr

I II 1 111 : .I I 11

II IIII III

IlII `

11

,IIIII I I'll tllli 11 lp

e I a

11 t :,

III 1111 ll

I. 1I III, IIIII IIIIIIIII ,

1 nd I

,. ,

1; 11111,1 III .,1,

,I

lr '

'IIII ', III 1I

(IIII i

IIIIIII 11111I11 III LI: }IIIIII. ` II

I'; I 11111

III III.

II

III 11:, 1

I. I

I

r'!Ilf'' III 1 .I In. 11111

111 III VI IrII, IIIIIII I'I.II

VI I. r !11;1 II

1I , li

I

LI

11 II

II ,1,111 I.

I

1' III ,II'I''. I.':i'f!4iIL r.r A'' r'LIY ...111.

I,,1 ,'.'IIIIIII .;11'11 1. 11111'1 rI I, :pj1;1 q1! .',I I'1 11'Ii ,:

1i1i11'I, 111 IIIIIIII I.I! IIII 11p 11,:11

11.. 11 111.,1 I.1 I,i1 .IIII

1!1'11111 III IIII'. I, I1I!r1.,1 IIII ,Il,ll IIIIII II'V:'lj

, ,I I'I IIII .

L. b , III i,1..iii

I I I I i

III 11'1' 1, III, 1

ii III I I ,'. III III II IIIIIIII III 1,1 L;,.I i II ''I'1

I I , IIIIIUI II"

I I I IIII' 1'111

,II iI ICI! I .r .111 111 .l l VIII , III :I I I I

II I 1111 I 1 1 I

I , . . 11, 111 III.I IIII'. !

. 1111 I: (':111111 IIIIIIII 1:x,1111 11

"IIII IIIIIII ,1.111 , 1.? 11,1 111

- 1 II

IIII 1

I I 1 (

( 1 I

I III I, 14,

I. IIIIIIIII I I II 1 I

I.

I

111 II (VI I

I{I

1 .III! I f I fl ,

I

II

ll

IIII 11 I'l I(I ( ( I I I1 III I I

l (

I 11 I

I

III 1 1

I : II'I (IIII{II

I I

I. I I:' , I,,

{I{II lnl

C , II 1.. 111 r I

I... I I.:..Ir 11 , II II I'I 111!11:1 IIII r.l II,Il I1Iri

1,1,1j1 yr. II I.1 , !11 '111 II'1 II.''i! 1' III ! IrI r, 111,1 111.11, 111 .IIII rl :;11:1.1 I, Ir.1l I.I .I ,111 111,.1,,{. !11,1x11 l,ll 11111 I,11,lill ,. (I,.. 11.1 ,.11

t1 'l.' x11 '.:1,111x1 III , IrI., I, 1 I I I I III 11I II! I 1.11.,1

111111 I 111 I (II I I 1 I

1

1 I .

I.I 1'.1,111111111. ,. . 1 ::1.1 II I

I allll'p:; yIJ IIII r;,;. L L!:IL;TaoI '' !. 'IJ III I11In,,:1,;,II x61 I!II'

I I I 1 '

1 II

I

1' I ,'

II LI !11 1 , ,1 r

II W, "ll I II III.

III (IIII I I III u

1 ' I I I llt. I ,111 1

I

(per S .Y 1

IIrn!II I llllll I Jl

I.! l:i

e' 1'111 l 1111 11

1 r I III' ,1i'I III ',

1 ,LII IIII IILI1

II 1 11 .

III 1

I lltl

,

1!

111 ll

I I III I' I ,I; III

IrII III ;I, I r

III 1. !Il L II II 16111 I!1

I I

I .; rl IIII

II V. r

i III I I V

, , I , . : r ,;. . , ' 11 .II I ,I.I ,IIIII !III 1111 II,11. I: ,I rII I!:III I,II, I: I 11 11111 I Lrll 1, .11111!111. L!Id,q..1

. 1'91'1111 r,l IIII III 1 tl II ...,,n d;l'11

Lrl , x1'1'1'1 I III I,I I (III I,I

'ill ' I, L ill Irllil .IIII it 111, l .11,11 l.,i!,i 1, 111 t l I' ;!I,i l 11 t ; 'I: I I. 1!

I III III IIIIII 1111,.11 1x!111!11 , III- III I ,IIyIV , 100 ;,:III

III lL r-I l1.l1,1!:-III III I'11,.11! III rf. .:"l 11;11 I, 11:1 I, ....;;:I !

I I I IIII 1 III '1 IIIIIIIII II L t Ildl ,l I I .

.4n1 , I I I

II1 :II1 'I ! nlllll!Ill,i'VII

!rII. I! I II ,: 1r, III I.

IJ'I r III I .I:, IuII.I I, ,I 11,1' II IIIIIII I I II 1

1 III If I I

II1 III II I

IrI

l i; 1

1

II III I ,I I

f I 11

1

I ,I:. l

sin ,

IIIII III ) . 1

, ,.

1h 1T

II

I a

'1';: 1I I'

{`

'

!: l

I

I

'11

I

I

, ;I ,

em as , I r,11,,,. III 1

it II' I III II I L 111

,. . r

I1,p I

I I I

I'll({ II,I ' I,

. x , ,.l. , L, 1 l , I: , ,. ,. u TRAM oa oval 11 andit

II y III', I IIII 1;1 Ui;lh III' '111111

: II', II. ,II! IIII I.,,, I,,IL I,I, .I I{ I, Illtl;l 1411111 I :III :VIII 111 r

I

, I

.I. IrI IIlIII11.j1 hII,,IIIII 111111 ,..'II(II11111,III I,I, 111111 ,IIII{, 1,1.1;1

11!''! I 111111 I

VIII III, VII 1111.. I11,'iaa 111 I, x11,11 I.'.,ll III II Itl II Jlliail

1111. I. I

L L1 1

1,1i I. I

I

I - I I 1 1 I 1 L 1 II I

I

. ,I x1 till IIJ I III I F

11111111 111 II IIII 111 1. III 1 III 1. Irlrl

, r1' . I,I . I . ,

1 :iil, IIII I. 11 IIIII,, I ooi- IIltl

.IIII 1"l 1 '1I 1

l l Ij11111

111111111

' I f

I

1

,l )

:

I111

1

I

1 ,1

I I

I 1ul

II., IITIrLm-

I

I III

I It en 1,1 IIIII

111 'tl 1

, I

11 i I ,

1 I ( III: II .I. 11111 $ e nl I.II

tif, j I I'',I' III ' Y NI 1, 1111

r

I

I II

.I' T rr 1:1

1 n 111'

I

II I

. 1

IIII I. !

r' II

llllII 11 1 '111,11

1 I:' I

,

1

I

1 111 Ir14

'a 111 "

I

e 11 1.

n 1111114

1

IL,

,

II I

r

, I

111 Iil I

n ul, ,ll 1. ,L

IIII, .IIIr:eII', ig]TI '.N;i11!i1' ,. i1,11a

' ,, II 1' III III ..

r

- III. r. !Ill. IIII

1 I

1, 11, 1I IIIII

C an I I 11.1' ;

I L I

,. 1 I IL 4 .. IIr III I. IIII I,,r rI 1e : ':r d '. 1611 ,Î I 1 111:11 ..i, 'I. 1,11,111,r., 111 I .1:....1

I III II .'I .I: III .. 1. IIL-, ,IIII ,111 1il! IrI II ,11!11 III I '1111,1'1' .I, III:: 11. I'. r IrII l I ,: IIIIIII I III .,r p, l'. I 'i1!II .:.IIIIIII I 111 111'11111 LII

I 11 1, I 1111 Ill' Ilrl 111. ,. 1.11'1 Ir' 11111 I.1 I .

111 1, :, II, I .I I I,r, I1 rII III , I I,I x11 lI11 1

11.11.1 I

. , IIuI1,

1'

:. '. '!. .IrII 1!

1

1111 II .. I IIII .I r I 'i1r I,IIIIIIII :1Y1 III

III ,IIII llil III'1I111111

111,11,1 _r:'i!'I

''' 111

11!:

II ,1

11111:.,,1

1111', ,ILIII ,III I , I,, I IIIL1, 111 ,1 I 104 r.. x111. , rp, 1 ILI . I 11,,,11

,11.,1 1 .11I.I,1 I .:rr II.., 111.,,1 11!:,1 II x:1,1.1. 1,1.,,,1,.

4' change °m' common tiles over time, "{ 1!j "I li:. I III$( 1' . j' 1x1111 I 41r', :. 11'IJ1 I

I..II1,Ij11

,11 1I11 1 I- I: I.! Will 1r 1111 .1. II ,,I 111'' 11.11!1. 4 ' ':I II! I II 1 I 1 1 i 1, I! I ir I

X111 ,111 I. I

III '1 ! ,11'11 '..:1, 1,. :.i

TQO!°1 11

I,

l'l,

i41

1

1 , 1

III l!1 !! ,I, r1 n

1 1

11

I l

IIII. 1 IIIIIIII III ACr II

1

II I .

I

I'1J t

.

III

I !I

a[a) ' 111,

III II

e

11111 I

I'IW

act

,1,,,!I1n .. 1,11.-

III, IIIIII Iiilllr III L,..i

ed f{1,.t 1 ''

1 Ill

. I ! , I

II I

, IIII 11.

rvit 1

III , III' I

.,I:1 l 11 11111 1 11.,1 .; d III IIII III ,i 1 L, r x 1 III 1 ,.:.III III .11111 I .11,11 11, 1,,,,11 !: IIII 1,1 II ' l' IIII

. i I I,ILI, 11 11.1 II IIIIII 1111 11,1 I III :

., ,, 1!1'11 I1L11 II,I III ..,IIII

1

II III.II,;: 1,1. L1,

III I, ,,;'. IL! ! 1

X1111 1111111 11111I y,,CaCenda 1111 lir'I'111i 1'

1111

107I

I;I' 111

1. 1 III; ,r I1!I IILd l r (IIII II 1ILIII 1

' 11 , II 1 1 ' ! I ' 'x 1 IIII. 1 ,III

111111 .111 1,,11

111

11 ,1111,1111 IIII IIIIII 111

1.1j11 III

LI, I,;i,11 11y!, 1.: II LI,I;, 11111:,11111, 111

1 1

1

LIt,

1(Id1111i

I1 :II i 111

Ir II IIII

, y I'll 1v. su

I III IIIIII11 11,1 LI ..

I an ,.i'',

r I II I

III III! 11I

altm 119i I' III :I,Ilrl!!11111111 Il

a d l r l

II

s lllul'ill

er

i°IIIIIIII', IIII IiI a n

11 II; ' II111' 1I I III

r

II

I111 !

aI 'If''ll

I

1111

II

Jill IIII

l

I

1

IIII

1,, , I'Ii1 h111i lld66a1

attern It I .,I

IIII,1, IPI IVi' 1.,11,h 1

I I:'1 11

I !111 u'11' Il 4:1:

III1:111!11,1 IIII III I 1

11 LII,

o p lI , dl 11

l i;'I ;

1111 11

, .., , , , , 1 1 1 11

: I I ,IL:Ir1 I ,;li 1.1 . I,I'11 I ', I,,L::r,l. ',1III111P .1.11..11,, Ir,ulll II . r,6Ir,11

rloduction andlIsu[ls%stence by,lage d I; ;I, .:1 ,,IIIIII 1 II

11 I ,'. 1, ,I,; ,,I 1 " rl.,,.:.. IIIL.Ir, 11,

I ;a, 1 II,I Illpllll 111;1:: 1111, ,IIII I I IJI v1:11 I!1! ua 1 ";r: 1 ! I"ll I h ,11.

111111 11111 III .!. ,..III I ,11;1x,1 L I'I I p I, I ',II, 11:! 1 1

u ' 1 11111 11

pl. I:I11111.,1 6''Ilyl pr11,1111111.,1 blp 111 n1 III 1!'1111

IIII III, 1111 yin 1111. r, .111,

QI 4,11,,111 111411 :1

I,, .L'. '1. 1 !1 IJ'II, d II I 1 ! 11 1

I III II 1

III 111!, 111111 !I 11

.1 111 '1jj1 11, 111

1 1

I

I I

'! I

1 I III !

I Irir 11 11

I r I

l I

II

111; ,1 111 II 1Gr1 L

I I I

11

1

1

,I1

II

I I, Lp11, 1 , I , I , :1.1 rll , 1;

', r.' 1

11, "I ! II, 1

I ! x111,' I L., 1 ji1.1 ::1.j IIII II 1, III 11 1 ;!1 .. ,: 11 11 yr:; 111 '1 IIII 1 l I I

I,.; .11 11111 ultl ! III ,:III llu 11,:11 X1;,1,

Iq 1'001; 1 I IIII

I Illf'1'' Ifili IU

II ii41111'II 1'111 P

., ,111,.,III IIIII II!II I N111 1 I1 1 I 1

I 1 1

1, 1

'1. I ,

P!' I'! 1,1

111 1

II x . I Ill. I'll '

II, IMo !II 'I'li'lll 'ASSe 1111".

41!! tl! !III

1 11 111.' I . .IIII,

'I I I

!1111111IIW

s"s' ,il llil I I III I II I

1

1 '' II

III. III I

r` II II

IIII III

I 111

aRI1I,1 11,1111 I

Qu(Im P11

u 1 III lll U1u

(

I I,

1111'1

o :I;

IIL

IIII

I (

11111

H6 IIVII !III

I I"611111 I I 1111,

a

'III Ilrl'111IIIul II

(11 1,,11,1 11111 I,1, a111 I 11. I II !

mite ,, ,I 111. ,

VIfhI!di Jll4d!1 111

I ,III. II !li

. ;111.1 IIIII I 1111

m {., 11 111 1 4

1. ,Ii;. ,1 1.r 11..1.111 l ll1 ,1:111:.! :p 1 ia. 1.. i

II 1'11 i'i11

1! ! . 111 11.:1x! , I Irrlll, , , , ,:,, N,rI ,, ,1111 11,,111111{ III -'II',1111 ! ' 9pf,t 1{ i,!cl;' I

111111 1, II,LI1111111 1111 1

11111n111 111 iI,1.',111 111, ';II'11

11111 1...,, l..I, I 1II1!11.,

II, , 11 IIi I''I,I II ,I 11, , I:!L' III Ir;ldh IIII h 11

, I

't culturakco structs.,time11111' ;.; ._I,I I'IiIIII IIIlil s 11.,1III:Ir,. 11Idf II. 1j11 1 11111II!'r''I 11 lfi l 1!1 1 I I iQl Ih I I 1 11 I 1 1 I l p l I

I l

,I ; 1 I ,1

IIII I1111I111111111'II'I!III L,r i':d:1II I ; 11

1 'I:Ii I1111IIIt!I11111

1

II1Vgh ,rI'I,I

111I

I ; !al ac lylpl11111Iq

l11 II IIIII

; ,' ,I I atw I, II1111

pII . I!i

i1il1

i , o

nd e 1,111.1 r) 111111

,,.I

s.q, 1

11

,;

ur i' I

111

l,

elacSe 1111!111.;, LII ;, n

1 111111111111111!IIi11

1

1 1 1

sllul v.'I,1

111111

I l , , 1, 11 , I ,I ! lr1 Ir, 1

I 1 Il s :1 1! 111 I I l I III Il ,1111II 11! IIIII;I,IIIjI,1 11 II. ' X11', Ii;,1 I,I;I;I1 l l LIllll III ..;1,11':1 11111111pi:

1 111111..'.' III.1.111,!1'r 11,.11 1

.1

1illllil:11111111 I:lillli lr'I 1111!11, '.Ii IIII11111:1 Ii IIII III III I'.. 1' 11'11;;111111111''1 1 x 11

78

(jNti

lllil liiillilllli Illli!III i!!IiVI ill 11 II II

ill :i : I

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 composition, 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.

I!E I 111111

Iliil ,.

1111 I .

411' 11 u

Interviews allow researchers to gather detailed information about how respondents frame their livelihoods, lifestyles, problems 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 community 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 purpose clear to the community or neighborhood as a whole. The residents of the community should be offered an opportunity 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

M6lduiillllilll!!if!IIllil !

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 positive exchange.

Paper and pencil Copies of the interview Tape recorder (optional)

80

Tool #6

.. 1;9ICIi,y1fJII,rh

a) lttQt1,: I,,I

_xam

Tape recorders may make respondents uneasy and hamper responses that are controversial or thought to be contrary to the interviewer's bias. Respondents should only be recorded 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 influenced 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 communities to analyze their own data.

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

If

IIIIII1II

plllillili.I,I,IIII I!!I,!161I

IIIIlililllll9lllllillllll'iilllillllllliilliluilil

'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.

roce, s;

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 organizations and trend lines for resource issues such as rainfall, crop production, population, deforestation and health.

1. Logistics: Establish time, place and topic for discussion a few days ahead of time.

2. Participants: Group members can be from the same neighbor- hoods, formal or informal community organizations and government 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.

' Mate ri

Notes to,,the Faci Iìtato'

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 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 track. The facilitator will need to foster interactions that explore the 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 conducted 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 opportunity 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

l illll! III llll!I t ! Iltllilli' iiiiiiilltl

VII iIIIIII Il t II ' I I II III I li' I t lll, I i

p ,II hIIf li

I a l f lilI1I1iIIVI11IIilllililii iii illlll!!II i llll;iiliII11111i1llliilllifllII II IIiiill IiI!llbl`PI hlil G

ii

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.

Purpo'I Ii I

'roces d; uIIG

Wealth ranking can assist the researcher to devise a sample of 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.

1. Obtain the names of all households or a random sample of 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 "household." 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 exploring 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, II III "L I I I :MII III

lull) (i !Piil Il iu

xamp' U

Cards, such as 3x5 index cards

Pen, pencil or magic marker

Wealth Ranking in Tubod on Siquijor Island in the Philippines*

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 working 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

R

Purpdsel ,.

ProcQss!

AAWX

lllfilil

(Venn Diagrams)

iglIr) it

There are many important actors and institutions in every community. It is critical to know which organizations are the most important and have the respect and confidence of the community. Institu- tional diagramming allows community members to gather information 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 relationships.

Institutional diagrams can help participants: 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.

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 relationship is to be examined (e.g., the relationship of outside organizations with the community, the alliance of organizations within the community, the relationship of village leaders and community 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 differently 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 organizations, 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 organization relating differently to different members of the community?

92

Tool #9

t erla r, m ,1....1 uVi 11 III!LIP .I II.64lIl n

o el 111 II' l i N t,i

Fad I l litatorll nl

III

d

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 Tape or stapler Circles of different sizes - large, medium, small

Indicate the participants' names on the diagram to give them credit.

Refer to Facilitation (Tool #1) and Focus Groups (Tool #7) for more 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

II , Ii li 11

'l tl IillllII IF'IIII II

I',

,aii 161 VIII

L il l: Figure 2.1. Gender Perceptions of Institutional Networks

i VIIII II''I Igllll i 111hii hlGil{I1111iViuh11 in El Zapote, Honduras*

Club

Youth lub

Church

Women's Perceptions

PRODESAI

ED

occer qTearn Council of Co'n"

Develo menc

,Association

School

Public Health

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

ii'IIhIIV!nlffilll

lll'i l V ' ! U. LJ

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 questions 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 differently 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.

ose

Process1,1;1 I

The demographic analysis activity allows communities to analyze 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, 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 demographic 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 volunteers 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

IIP "I: 'I'lll'll'il npl!!' "

TpC,Fals

he ote l j' !t s o , t i

` u l 'II 1' [I l I

Fac I Ii tato,r d. II IGIIIII I'I Ili I"I

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 problems 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.

Pebbles or other small objects of different sizes, shapes and colors Containers with labels or pictures Newsprint and markers or chalkboard (optional)

In some cultures, people may not like the idea of being counted. Field use in Asia has not encountered any resistance, but one trainer has encountered problems in Africa. Make sure to find out how 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

11

;

!'i! P ocs :1 r ' ;li iili,lln ..;I, I IJtll; Y

Ilil

{,'II!uf.41'1{i{illl{li IIIJIII

I'C"lily q°,'I" ui I' 111{1199'

n"la 1ill IIIIIII{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.

1. Divide participants into groups of ten or less members.

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

Note's to,th , 6

c .Itator

Exdty

Do not ask people to write their ideas if a high rate of illiteracy exists

or if particular segments of the community will not be able to participate. 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 participants 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 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 rehabilitation 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 fuelwood

' Adivasi Lack of Women fodder

Lack of fuelwood Poor topsoil Lack of fodder No crop ownership

More floods No land tenure Lower crop yields

Poor topsoil

99

12

I 1?I'iIl I'I',Iill Ilrtll i i,a.

PlUrpose'

VIII I

Process' IhI1191 I it

! 4 III''. lu"I°' 'Il 11 VIII

111 lijl' II PIIi'l 1111 'I, li I !'I'CI II II! VIII III ;Irp

I" !I III IIII I III 14III1,111 I I Illlllllll,llllilllll 'I!!I II'IIII, IIIIj i t Iiil1 u l l

LEI it

I Illlilil I lil I l i I I Ij

I

I

'II I Sketch II',I. I Iag Il .. II!I ! nll llilll' Ilill.Ii,d l ill Ill .a cle uu, I'I,unI IIIIII,iI IIIIiIi,liill 'I l.i!!L.;i. Ili l'I I',,, Ia.lll it

ii"IIIIIiIIIi

I I' I III I ! ''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, participatory 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.

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.

1. Ask participants who have gathered for the exercise to draw a 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 position.

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

arr i' liiVh'h 'il 11411'111 ihllll;lllilll

Not'eS to'Ìt

Fad I Itator 1.1 411!'11

Exam p',lelli,li

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.

paper and pens for facilitators video to record process and product (optional)

The sketch map is constructed on the ground to help ensure that all community members can participate, including those uncomfortable with paper and writing implements. This also allows a large crowd to 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.

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

$DF

19-f W

ACACIA FGREsr WOODLAND

GRAVEL PIT

ANY Mc UMMNr

COMMON C:EMETARY

UZ KS-%U KPt NT

19 OLD CEMETAWy

EM kULTN =ARM

T1 6AKERI uNr p Pmvpae Pipe

®Q IcTTIF, STORE

A Y+MAICFFICLr

-a vDc 6UILD1r1C5

STAND

®.RY a VIUAME WATER TTNK

SCHOOL

EE9 CLINIC_

m YILtME rP1gHoLF

wALS STANDQIPE

` - EPRJNE,

FARMS

-- -- - -OTPt AS

103

13

Pur ilk', i I "IVIhVaui ,i',

roc

Illill' iI

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 community 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 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 community to consider.

1. Organize one or more groups of manageable size, especially 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

ateria

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.

Large pieces of paper and markers; or Chalkboard and chalk

105

Time and Trend Lines

"'" 9'pqglll'I'I;dR1141111II'I'lll"I'"' Group discussions are preferred to interviews of key individuals be- ICJ Ot

Il,,l l,li; I I li dV'i IIII!'I Jill

ÌI,II' II II''l'l cause they encourage dialogue among older participants, helping them

F cOij1 at °111iilllill'1II'i remember events from the distant past. 1

ill li!II1{lN111illli;IIl fill! II+

Ip

Exarn iifniullllll I i ail ili'ullUl

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.

Figure 2.4. Trend Lines from Hog Harbour, Espiritu, 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

Charted by Men's Group

M

L

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 1990 1994

*Source: Bronson et al., Conducting PRA in the South Pacific, pp. 32-37.

Cost of Living Trend Charted by Women's Group

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 1990 1994

106

NII

idl'b,, plil I II

ill P l I roces$!; i Illllll'

IlII'll Mil 111

1

,Iiil o, i'.

1.

i

Illol,` VIII sIU41111iliiillliiiui11 illliii liiilll Illlllllluuuii

Calendar II I Illilili6i!IiIii lll1 Ilil Ili lililllli6ll! lillillil!illilo l! i l

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.

1. Calendars should be developed with both men and women's 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 calendars 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, continuous 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

II

A12;1

IIIIi';iiilJl 1

iif:i; 1111iiilltdidiI"!,iiilldlli iiiiiiiGlilNii:iiilii:

,: it Ì iI IIIi

' N ote Shiq1l:i:t ,i

l i I it 'a Fac

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?

Poster board, newsprint, or roll of brown paper Markers

The calendar is designed to elicit age and gender-disaggregated

information, but calendars will also vary along socio-economic lines. Facilitators can control for this by developing calendars with repre-

sentatives from high and low status groups. Or, if a project is focusing 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

am, 4

Figure 2.5. Gender- Disaggregated Activities Calendar Calansi, Camarines Sur, Philippines*

::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

òr Livelihoods c a " ° _ $F k^ g};,,: Mx A M Ma j 1 A S , 0 N D

Tiger grass M F - - - harvest planting Copra M - - - - - - - harvest eviry60-90 nonths Fishing Mm - - - - ------------

swordfish g ood catches Selling Fish F - - - - - - - depends 6n success of catchei - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Househol d Tasks J= F M A M J A -S O N 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 furtherdistance during dry season + - water

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

15

I°I'IIIIffillllll'Itl'glilp,u'd!i;,.:

l ' ' ' u rpbse i ,IilPlli1111ll,i III!'IIIIJli;6iiliVlfl61111i,.IPI!.

Proves

1111111

I

Ill

11

ii

1111111

iii

illli 11

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 societies 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.

A Mobility Map reveals the frequency, distance, and purpose of 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.

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

A.I ;i 'Il' I ,r.U Ul'ilil iillililllill III

ulillSil

different types of lines (e.g., dotted, straight, cross-hatched) as

shown in Figure 2.6. Note: some destinations may have multiple lines showing travel to the same place for different purposes.

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 complete 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?

Copies of sketch maps

Colored markers or other writing implements

112

Tool #14

'llI!ikL.III

- 4V

I; Ililllilliiliiil;illl

-acid IIIIIIIItoIl;;llli

lul'!!!iCIIIIIIIVI!IIIiVIII.! I?Ililll!

The Wealth Ranking exercise (Tool #8) is a good way to divide households into socio-economic groups. Wealth ranking can be

done before making mobility maps to ensure that a sample representation of all classes is obtained.

Figure 2.6. Women's Mobility Map Salimbalan, Bukidnon, Philippines*

Task

$ $ $. Y. x Education

- - - - Health -H N Church CDI*oC Washing

4-V-V11='K Meetings

o 0 0 0 0 Shopping

0- 0-O- Visiting Work

Meeting Center

Farm Plots

'Based on field testing on Mindanao, the Philippines, June, 1995.

Hours/Month

16

4 Cagayan De Oro City 8 00

11 d, 0

16 P p 80 0

80 PO 0

192 0 Elementary School

0 o r - J o

op O Y 0 0 dp o/O "o

o P .bX11-

P, k

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 researchers.

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 ultimately 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 attributes

Physical attributes U resource use Land use planner/ U climatic data forester U physiography U physical oceanography 7 Water quality U water quality analyst

Biological and habitat attributes U seaweed/seagrasses 0 mangroves U coral reefs

Technical attributes i gear/fishing technology species harvested level of exploitation

Group II. Market (supply-demand) attributes U supply of marine products U pricing scheme/system U market functions Li market rules _' stability of demand

market structure U market orientation

Marine biologist/ ecologist

Fisheries biologist

Economist

Group Ill. Characteristics of fisher, stakeholders and community

U demography 7 Sociologist/ U tenurial status anthropologist U economic status : Economist U culture 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 U institutional arrangements

Political scientist/ public policy analyst

Group V. External institutional and organizational arrangements

U individual organizations Political scientist/ U institutional arrangements public policy analyst

Group VI. Exogenous factors U natural calamities U macroeconomic/political/sociocultural I Resource planner

23

Minimum

Coastal habitat expert

Fisheries/marine biologist

Economist

Sociologist/ anthropologist

Political scientist/ public policy analyst

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 situation. He/she may be appointed beforehand or the team members may collectively 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 expertise

Institutional affiliation Administrative role

Biophysical group 1. Marine bioloolst RAFMS practitioner Group leader 2. Fisheries biologist 3. Resource economist

Socioeconomics group

Local research agency Local research agency

Treasurer

4. Resource economist 5. Sociologist 6. Agricultural economist

Institutional group

RAFMS practitioner Local research agency Local research agency

Group leader

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 research 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 organizations, 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 analysis 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 mapping 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 members to familiarize themselves with important field features, such as terrain, natural resources and concentration of fishing activities and human settlement, 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 indicators 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 system, 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 listing 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 conducting 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 respondents may be divided into groups, for example, according to income level, occupation, gear type. There is no rigid rule on the ideal number of respondents because the sample population is not subjected to a statistical analysis.

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 systems 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 survey procedures, guide questions and the matrix of attributes and their data collection techniques. Sample figures, tables and diagrams are also provided. The methodologies are classified according to six groups of attributes.

GENERAL TOOLS

A variety of techniques or tools can be used for collecting RAFMS primary data. Many of these are fairly standard tools for conducting rapid appraisal. 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, predetermined 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 discussing 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 researchers' 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 information.

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 marketing structure, problems and priorities. Table 7 provides useful hints on conducting FGDs as well as community dialogues and meetings.

Participatoly exercises

Among the popular modes of participatory exercise are: diagramming, ranking, and stories and portraits. Diagrams are simply models that convey information 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. descriptions 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 findings and review the methods and techniques used. Both reporting and brainstorming 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, infrastructure and water bodies. The spot map must corroborate the map prepared during the earlier secondary data analysis, and portray the top view or aerial perspective 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 particular 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 members.

29

Water tower

D p ODD

Colony ------ houses -'O O 0

0 Trees I I t f'3

t n n , 1 1 n n p?o

Sea

Fig. 6. Spot map of Chinnamedu Village, Tamil Nadu, South India, prepared 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.

Temple

Well Partly constructed colony houses

2° Channel Fields worst affected by salinization

nnn ^n ,n ' Traditional jn r /1 Ny f houses

30

1,000rn

500rrj..__J Marine/ coastal

Slope entle slope

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

Sandy, moody

Lowland

o-

Level to gently sloping (0.8%)

Sitidam to clay

Forest

rushland

IPT!ft

1Un Tuiird to roiiin^y ( .1 m)

.n loam to sin aay

atitiiti

Strongly rolling to mountain ('18%)

andy clay loam co clay

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.

n Calendar

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 fishing 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 interest. 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, decision trees also unearth reasons why users take up or give up particular technologies (McCracken et al. 1988). These trees analyze factors influencing the local people's important decisions, thus clarifying their priorities. For fishers, the trees are useful in illustrating their decisions on resource allocation 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 alternatives 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 information 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 aspects.

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 commercial 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 characteristics of the area but clear enough to be understood by the users.

Land use must be viewed from a historical perspective. The guide questions 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, seaweed/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 climatic map.

For the water quality attribute, water transparency and pollution level indicators can be evaluated qualitatively. For example, murky waters indicate 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 using 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 recommended 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 reconnaissance 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: Position: (i.e., village captain, elder, key informant) Address (i.e., village, town)

Age:

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 relative 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 composition 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 determine 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 information and orientation will be gathered mainly through these field data collection techniques: SSI, FGD, market visit, and temporal diagramming or combinations 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 respondents, 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 information 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

Tab

le 1

0. E

stim

ates

of

fishi

ng e

ffort

and

sea

son

in N

ollo

th V

illag

e, S

apar

ua I

slan

d, I

ndon

esia

, 19

95 (

And

amak

i et

al.

1995

).

Gea

r ty

pe

No.

of u

nits

S

peci

es c

augh

t S

easo

nalit

y (m

onth

s)

Vol

ume

of c

atch

(p

er d

ay t

rip)

No.

of f

ish

days

/mon

th

Dri

ft g

illne

t fo

r fl

ying

fis

h 35

0 Fl

ying

fis

h Y

ear-

roun

d 25

kg

20-2

5 H

alf-

beak

s Y

ear-

roun

d 15

kg

20-2

5 D

rift

gilln

et

75

Indi

an m

acke

rel

Sep

-Dec

35

kg

20-2

5 (1

50 i

nd.)

* S

quid

jigg

er

350

Yel

low

tai

l sq

uids

Ja

n-A

pr

25 k

g 20

-25

Oct

-Jan

(2

00 i

nd.)

20

-25

Han

dlin

e I

100

Tre

valli

es

Yea

r-ro

und

510

ind.

20

-25

cD

Han

dlin

e II

1.00

0 S

cads

Y

ear-

roun

d 10

0 in

d.

20

Han

dlin

e III

5-

10

Tun

a D

ec-A

pr

25 k

g 20

-25

Tro

ll lin

e 1,

000

Ski

pjac

ks

Sep

-Apr

(2

ind

. )

25 k

g 20

-25

Pol

e an

d lin

e 4

Ski

pjac

ks

Jun-

Aug

(1

0 in

d.)

500

ind.

15

-20

Min

i pu

rse

sein

e 4

Sar

dine

Ju

n-A

ug

250

kg

15-2

0 Scads

Jun-Aug

250 kg

15-20

Bea

ch s

eine

3

Anc

hovy

Y

ear-

roun

d 25

kg

20-2

5 C

ast n

et

7 A

ncho

vy

Yea

r-ro

und

20 k

g 20

-25

'Ind.

- n

umbe

r of

indi

vidu

als.

Tab

le 1

1. S

easo

nalit

y of

spe

cies

by

gear

type

in

Bin

unsa

lian

Bay

, P

alaw

an,

Phi

lippi

nes,

199

5 (S

ta.

Cru

z et

al.

1995

).

Gea

r ty

pe/s

peci

es

Kaw

il (H

ook

and

line)

B

isug

o (T

hrea

dfin

bre

am)

Sa/

imbu

rao

(Mac

kere

l) La

pula

pu (

Gro

uper

) S

alay

-sal

ay (

Cre

valla

)

J F

M

A

M

J

J A

S

0

N

D

Larn

bat

(Gill

net)

"">

B

isug

o (T

hrea

dfin

bre

am)

Isda

ng b

alo

(Par

rotfi

sh)

Dal

agan

g bu

kid

(Fus

ilier

) X

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

La

pula

pu (

Gro

uper

) B

anak

(M

ulle

t)

Sap

sap

(Slip

mou

th)

Sal

mon

ele

(Goa

tfish

) S

alim

bara

o (M

acke

rel)

Sal

ay-s

alay

(C

reva

lla)

Mat

ang

baka

(B

ig-e

yed

scad

) T

alak

itok

(Lon

g-fin

ned

cava

lla)

Dan

ggit.

Sam

aral

(R

abbi

tfish

)

Pan

a (S

pear

gun)

Is

dang

bat

o (P

arro

tfish

) La

pula

pu (

Gro

uper

) M

aya-

may

a (S

napp

er)

Gea

r op

erat

ion

Spe

cies

sea

sona

lity

Pea

k

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Lean

- -

- -

No

seas

onal

ity

XX

XX

X

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 temporal 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 community 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, migrant 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 combined 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

0 demography age - new settlers; more of young population

experience - experience carried over from in fishing previous place of residence length of - since 1987 residence family size - 4-5 members religion - Pentecostal, Oneness

with Christ

ethnicity - Leyte, Cebu, Masbate population - with first-generation settlers

U tenurial status land claim

fishery claim

squatters in the area but they are not threatened (with relocation) fish cages/corrals; areas based on unwritten agreement between operators they were not issued permits by the city government for the previous and current years

Tarunayan

more of old population

experience carried over from previous place of residence since 1957

7 members United Church of Christ in the Philippines, Evangelist, Roman Catholic Bohol, Cebu, Samar, Iloilo more dense (man-land ratio) compared with Manabore

- unwritten land claims

- fish cages/corrals do not exist in the area

- hook-and-line fishers can fish anywhere

Temporal diagramming for Group III attributes is best illustrated by Table 16, a timeline. A chronology of significant events in the history of a community, a timeline is constructed together or in consultation with the local folk. It

is ideally composed for specific events, such as migration patterns, population changes, livelihood changes, establishment of schools, social infrastructure, 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 complement other activities of field data gathering. Going around the village and the relevant fishing areas presents a broader perspective of the developments in the community, e.g., the social infrastructure present; the sociocultural, 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 necessarily 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 bodies, (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

Tab

le 1

9. L

ivel

ihoo

d as

soci

atio

ns a

roun

d U

luga

n B

ay,

Pal

awan

, P

hilip

pine

s (S

ibal

et

at.

1995

b).

Nam

e of

ass

ocia

tion

Project

No.

of

mem

bers

B

aran

gay/

villa

ge

1. U

mul

agan

Com

mun

ity D

evel

opm

ent A

ssoc

iatio

n P

eanu

t pr

oduc

tion

15

Bah

ile

2. B

ahile

Cen

tral

Mul

ti-pu

rpos

e A

ssoc

iatio

n P

eanu

t pr

oduc

tion

13

Bah

ile

3. D

edic

ated

Far

mer

s A

ssoc

iatio

n P

eanu

t pr

oduc

tion

10

Bah

ile

4. P

ag-a

sa W

omen

's A

ssoc

iatio

n R

ice

trad

ing

14

Bah

ile

5. C

EP

Sup

port

ers'

Ass

ocia

tion*

D

rugs

tore

and

fis

hing

sup

ply

23

Bah

ile

6. S

amah

ang

Kab

abai

han

ng M

anab

ore

Com

mun

ity s

tore

6

Bah

ile

7. M

asay

a R

ice

Tra

ding

Ass

ocia

tion

Ric

e tr

adin

g 22

Mac

aras

cas

8. S

amah

ang

Pan

gkab

uhay

an a

t K

aunl

aran

ng

Bag

ong

Sik

at

Com

mun

ity s

tore

21

Mac

aras

cas

9. B

arua

ng L

ivel

ihoo

d A

ssoc

iatio

n C

omm

unity

sto

re

8 M

acar

asca

s 10

. S

amah

ang

Kap

atira

n ng

Dac

olan

ay

Goa

t-ra

isin

g an

d ric

e tr

adin

g 12

Bue

navi

sta

11.

Mad

ahon

Sar

i-sar

i S

tore

Ass

ocia

tion

Com

mun

ity s

tore

17

Bue

navi

sta

12.

Bue

navi

sla

Cen

tro

Live

lihoo

d A

ssoc

iatio

n R

ice

trad

ing

18

Bue

navi

sla

13.

Tag

abin

et V

alle

y A

ssoc

iatio

n S

ugar

cane

mill

ing

23

Tag

abin

et

14.

Nas

udua

n F

ishe

rmen

's A

ssoc

iatio

n F

ish

corr

al

11

Tag

abin

et

15.

Mak

iraw

a F

ishe

rmen

's A

ssoc

iatio

n Snack bar

12

Tag

abin

et

16.

Nag

-iisa

ng S

amah

an s

a T

agni

pa

Agr

icul

tura

l su

pply

11

Cabayugan

With

bea

ring

on f

ishe

ries

and

CR

M.

3. Classify the relevant organizations into clusters. For Group IV, these are village-level government agencies; NGOs primarily involved in the delivery 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 organizations.

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 organizations' 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 organizational 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 systems 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

Tab

le 2

0. N

este

d or

gani

zatio

nal/i

nstit

utio

nal

arra

ngem

ents

for

Bin

unsa

lian

Bay

, P

hilip

pine

s (C

abre

stan

te e

t at

. 19

95).

Adm

inis

trat

ive

leve

l

NG

As

LGU

s N

GO

s P

Os

Nat

iona

l o

DE

NR

o

DE

CS

o

DA

R

o D

OJ

(BO

C)

o N

atio

nal

gove

rnm

ent

- -

Pro

vinc

ial

o P

EN

RO

o

Div

isio

n o

PA

RO

o

IPP

F

o P

rovi

ncia

l go

vern

men

t -

Mun

icip

al

o C

EN

RO

o

Dis

tric

t o

MA

RO

o

Sta

. Lu

cia

o C

ity g

over

nmen

t -

-

subc

olon

y (B

anta

y P

uert

o)

Vill

age

o E

lem

enta

ry/

o M

angi

ngis

da

o Li

gaya

ng

o C

hris

tian

high

sch

ool

Bar

anga

y C

ounc

il B

uhay

M

ultip

urpo

se

o B

inun

salia

n B

ay

Coo

pera

tive

Fou

ndat

ion,

Inc

. o

Bar

anga

y M

angi

ngis

da

Sen

ior

Citi

zens

' A

ssoc

iatio

n o

Cha

rity

Wom

en's

A

ssoc

iatio

n o

SA

MA

MU

CO

o

LUZ

MA

P

urok

-

- -

- o

Sub

villa

ge (

puro

k)

- -

coun

cil

(7)

Put

ing

Buh

angi

n R

ollin

g H

ills

Pan

tala

ng B

ato

Mag

sasa

ka

Bag

ong

Sila

ng

Pag

laun

M

agtu

lung

an

BO

P

Bur

eau

of P

rison

s LU

ZM

A

Luzv

imin

da M

angi

ngis

da M

inis

teria

l F

ello

wsh

ip

CE

NR

O

Com

mun

ity E

nviro

nmen

t an

d N

atur

al R

esou

rces

Offi

ce

MA

RO

M

unic

ipal

Agr

aria

n R

efor

m O

ffice

D

AR

D

epar

tmen

t of

Agr

aria

n R

efor

m

PA

RO

P

rovi

ncia

l A

grar

ian

Ref

orm

Offi

ce

DE

CS

D

epar

tmen

t of

Edu

catio

n. C

ultu

re a

nd S

port

s P

EN

RO

P

rovi

ncia

l E

nviro

nmen

t an

d N

atur

al R

esou

rces

Offi

ce

DO

J D

epar

tmen

t of

Jus

tice

SA

MA

MU

CO

S

amah

an n

g M

angi

ngis

da a

t M

agsa

saka

Mul

tipur

pose

P

PF

Iw

ahig

Pris

on a

nd P

enal

Far

m

Coo

pera

tive

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

Subvillage (purok) president

L

/ /

\ Village council

member or other respected

person

Elder

Individual

O.- = formal

-------- I'' = informal

.11

.11

Fig. 10. Conflict- resolution mechanisms in Tarunayan, Palawan, Philip- pines (Sibal et al. 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 necessary adjustments in terms of data collection or other administrative arrangements. 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 reconnaissance survey (Step 2). For instance, the kinds of artisanal gear being 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 methodologies" (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 framework provides for a structured approach to documenting and evaluating the origin, current status, operation, impact and performance of fisheries management 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 relationships, 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, cooperate 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 contextual variables can change through time. This change causes variations in institutional arrangements which influence incentives, patterns of interaction 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 reduce 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 institutional 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

-=,o _8_n

CD

Gro

up I

Fis

her/

co

mm

unity

le

vel

Exo

geno

us

attr

ibut

es:

mac

roec

onom

ic,

polit

ical

, soc

ial

and

natu

ral

Out

side

fis

her/

co

mm

unity

le

vel

Bio

logi

cal,

phys

ical

, te

chno

logi

cal

attr

ibut

es

Attr

ibut

es o

f fis

hers

, st

akeh

olde

rs,

com

mun

ity

Gro

up V

Ext

erna

l ins

titut

iona

l an

d or

gani

zatio

nal

arra

ngem

ents

Ince

ntiv

es to

co

ordi

nate

, co

oper

ate

and

cont

ribut

e

Pat

tern

s of

in

tera

ctio

ns

amon

g re

sour

ce

user

s

Out

com

es

Fig

. 11

. A

res

earc

h fr

amew

ork

for

inst

itutio

nal a

naly

sis

(ada

pted

from

Oak

erso

n 19

92).

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 example, as high levels of fishing effort can lead to overexploitation, regardless of whether or not institutional arrangements are in place. Institutional arrangements, 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 integrated information system management that has the capability to store, edit, update, process, analyze and display spatial data for a particular set of purposes. What makes GIS different from other information systems and computer-aided design (CAD) is its ability to treat data together with its geographic position, topological description and attributes. Spatial data are commonly 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, national 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 fisheries 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 development 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 habitats is a research project. The acquisition of patrol boats is a development project. The communal fishing ground management, however, requires institutional 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

Rea

sons

No

illeg

al f

ishi

ng

natu

ral c

alam

ity

lack

of c

apita

l sp

oila

ge

decl

inin

g ca

tch

due

to i

ncre

ased

fis

hing

pre

ssur

e ba

d lu

ck

low

pric

es

lack

of i

mpl

emen

ts

high

ope

ratin

g co

st

vice

s bi

g fa

mily

Alte

rnat

ives

hire

d la

bor

farm

ing

(dur

ing

bad

wea

ther

) po

ultr

y/liv

esto

ck

trad

e ga

ther

ing

of m

inor

fore

st p

rodu

cts

Fis

hing

Is

inco

me

Gea

r

baby

pur

se s

eine

gilln

et

fish

corr

al

enou

gh?

Rea

sons

fast

ret

urns

no

far

mla

nd

skill

s ne

eds

less

cap

ital

oppo

rtun

ity f

or h

igh

inco

me

acce

ssib

ility

go

od f

ishi

ng g

roun

ds

Yes

crab

pot

bu

lldoz

er n

et

hook

and

lin

e

liftn

et

purs

e se

ine

Fig

. 12.

Dec

isio

n pa

ttern

for f

ishi

ng a

s an

occ

upat

ion

in M

alam

paya

Sou

nd, P

alaw

an,

Phi

lippi

nes

(Pid

o

et a

l. 19

90).

++

+

++

+

+

+

++

++

++

++

+

+

++

+

++

Table 23. Matrix of agricultural and fisheries problems, perceived solutions and proposed projects for Malampaya Sound, Palawan, Philippines (Pido et al. 1990).

Problems Perceived solutions Proposed projects

Agricultural problems Saltwater intrusion

Forest destruction

Vulnerability of soil to erosion

Low soil fertility

Flooding

Tenurial status

Pests/diseases

Fishery problems Declining fishery production

Illegal fishing

Building of dikes Conversion of ricelands into fishponds/livestock areas Introduction of saltwater- resistant rice varieties Forest protection

Introduction of appropriate farming

Enhancement of soil fertility

Forest protection

Land titling

Introduction of appropriate agricultural technology

Conservation of resource base

Review and enforcement of existing fishery laws

+ Feasibility study on dike construction + Feasibility study on the economics

of converting ricelands into fishponds/livestock areas

+ Pilot-testing of varieties + Upland stabilization project + Hillside farming + Integrated social forestry (ISF) + Application of sloping agriculture

land technology + ISF + Introduction of organic farming + Provision of fertilizer subsidy + Riverbank protection + Reforestation + Land survey and titling + Land stewardship contract + Integrated pest management

Resource inventory of fishes and marine habitats Application of new fishing technologies for mariculture/ aquaculture Acquisition of patrol boats Environmental education Communal fishing ground management

Freshwater flooding/ - Forest protection + Reforestation siltation + ISF Deposition of agricultural - Monitoring of chemical + Monitoring/evaluation of key chemi- effluents cal parameters in selected sites

or field notes do not get lost, and that relevant field insights are still fresh in

the minds of the researchers. The most important thing is to come up with a written outline of the items

to be prepared. It shall serve as a guide for draft report writing and during community validation. As a rule, each diagram, figure, chart or matrix should be accompanied by bullet statements or notes. This activity may have to be parceled out among the team members.

At this stage, the summaries and their accompanying bullet statements are drafted mainly from the twin perspectives of RAFMS practitioners and local researchers. The viewpoint of the fishing community is yet to be integrated.

57

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 community to come up with a synthesis or a "triangulated" perspective, i.e., the RAFMS practitioners, the local community and the local researchers as earlier depicted in (Fig. 2). It must be stressed to the members of the community 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 realistic at the whole community level. Among subgroups of the community, it

may be possible to gain consensus. It may be equally important to document 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 recommendations 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, background 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

Soil fertility in the hills of Nepal has been high on the research and development agenda for many years. Yet quantitative data on the

spatial and temporal dynamics of soil fertility are few, and repetitive reports of `low and

declining soil fertility' have little meaning without a reference point. Our study set out to develop a clear understanding of the magnitude and extent of the problem and the underlying reasons for changes in soil fertility.

This paper describes how a variety of research methods were used to explore the complex issue of soil fertility. It also illustrates some of the problems faced in applying PRA by government research institutions with mandates covering large areas. It suggests that the use of conventional surveys and participatory approaches in parallel is one solution to the

challenge of achieving `breadth of coverage' whilst maintaining `depth and quality of information'.

Participatory and formal approaches in parallel

The study covered 13 villages, characterised by a

range of bio-physical and socio-economic

conditions to which farming systems have

adapted. Realising the need for a better

quantitative and qualitative understanding of the

problem, the multi-disciplinary team of researchers adopted an integrated approach, using

a range of methods to build a picture of soil

fertility in the hills. The sequencing of methods

(see Figure 1) and their likely outcomes were

carefully considered in the design of the study.

At the outset, a Literature review was carried out to establish the existing state of knowledge. The

team then visited a large number of villages and

had extensive discussions (guided by a checklist)

with groups of farmers. Of particular interest

during these initial visits was the type of soils

found in each village. These were documented

using indigenous classification schemes. On the

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 study, PRA is an appropriate term. In our research, farmers' participation was primarily in the definition and analysis of the 'soil fertility problem', which had been given a high priority by farmers in previous surveys and during extensive interactions with institute staff. It is envisaged that in the follow up to the study, farmers and researchers will work together in the design and implementation of the research.

Informal group discussions guided by a checklist

were held in each of the 13 villages. Farmers

began by drawing maps to illustrate patterns of resource use and features, such as land type,

forest and grazing areas, landslides, gullies, water

courses and soil types. Groups which included

retired soldiers produced highly detailed and

technically sophisticated maps. These maps acted

as a focal point for discussions on community

forestry and its effect on soil fertility, erosion and

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 classification systems, differentiating soils on the

basis of texture and colour. These were used to

locate sites for soil sample collection.

Many valuable studies on indigenous management practices have been carried out in Nepal, but they have tended to ignore the integrated nature of farmers' management strategies. In any one field, and at any one time, a range of different practices are used together to maintain and improve soil fertility. Farmers were therefore asked to

construct soil fertility management diagrams. Practices were then listed and one fanner was

asked to distribute 20 maize grits amongst them

according to their relative importance on khet (irrigated) and bari (non-irrigated) land. The grits were adjusted until a general consensus was reached. The exercise was repeated to show the importance of different practices 10-15 years

previously (see Box 1). In a similar fashion, diagrams showing the relative workloads of men,

women and children in different soil management

activities were constructed (see Box 2).

BOX I

Soil fertility management in Talbari

Seven different practices are used to maintain and improve soil fertility, including:

Farm Yard Manure (FYM)/compost; Terrace slicing; Chemical fertiliser; Mulches; Flood water; In-situ manuring; and Trash burning.

In Talbari, as in other villages, the importance of different practices has changed over time. There has been a decline in the importance of in-situ manuring and traditional practices (such as green manuring and mulching) and an increase in the use of chemical fertilisers. There is also much variation in management strategies across the hills. In low altitudes, a decline in FYM availability has been compensated for by an increase in the use of chemical fertiliser. In higher altitudes, farmers continue to rely on the traditional practices of in-situ manuring, trash burning and FYM/compost application

38

I'LAI Notes 2.4

Fehntm7I99-

Whilst recognising the value of PRA. many have

noted the difficulties of providing the

representative quantitative data that are needed for planning purposes using participatory approaches.

Such data is essential in the context of a research

station such as Lumle Agricultural Research

Centre (where this study was based), with a

mandate for agricultural research in a wide area,

stretching across the eight lull districts that comprise the Western Development Region of Nepal.

BOX 3

A valid approach to wealth ranking?

One limitation of conventional wealth ranking is the relative nature of the grouping process. This leads to problems when it becomes necessary (as in our case) to compare information from different villages. A household placed in the wealthiest category in one village may be placed in the lowest category in another, due to differences in village economic profiles.

Thus, a short questionnaire was designed to collect information on farmers' perceptions of fertility status, the reasons for change and the

factors associated with any change in soil fertility. The questionnaire was designed to enable easy

statistical analysis. Wealth ranking was carried out to ensure that a representative sample of households was selected for survey (see Box 3).

To overcome this problem, this study adopted a standardised set of categories. Previous wealth ranking experiences in the hills showed that food sufficiency and pensions paid by British and Indian armies to ex-service men are the most common criteria used to rank households. Key informants were therefore asked to place households into 1 of 3 groups:

food and/or cash surplus for 12 months or more home grown food lasts between 6-12 months home grown food sufficient for less that 6 months

BOX 2

Division of labour

Soil fertility management practices include: Cutting/carrying grass and bedding material Cleaning shed Carrying and spreading FYM Staying/moving goth' Slicing terrace risers Trapping flood water Burning trash in field Carrying chemical fertiliser Applying chemical fertiliser

The majority of tasks are shared between men, women and children, but the degree of involvement varies according to the nature of the work. If the relative importance of management practices is taken into account, women play the primary role as they contribute most of the labour to the most important activity of FYM preparation and application. Consideration of women's knowledge of FYM/compost preparation may improve the relevance and impact of this widely researched topic.

1 Tethered animals in temporary sheds which remain in the. field depending on feed availability and manuring requirement

The feasibility of adopting a fixed number of pre-defined groups was tested in 3 villages by comparing the results with those from a

conventional wealth ranking approach carried out simultaneously by a separate group of informants. A Spearman Rank Correlation was used to test the association between the composition of the 2 groups. High levels of statistical association between these groups were found, indicating that this approach may be a rapid and effective way of classifying households which allows comparisons of households beyond the village level.

A complex problem

There is are strong and widespread belief among farmers that soil fertility is declining: 61 % and 67% of farmers reported a decline on

khei and bari land respectively. Somewhat

surprisingly, responses of unchanged or 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

spread less thinly. As expected, fewer poorer

households apply chemical fertilisers.

39

PL4 Notes 28 February 199?

The scale and extent of the problem, the nature

of soil fertility decline and the underlying reasons for change differed significantly across

the surveyed area. Three broad pictures emerged:

Case 1: In a few villages in low altitude accessible areas, the majority of farmers reported unchanged or increasing soil fertility. However, soil analysis in these villages highlighted critically low levels of organic matter, as well as nitrogen and acidification problems. Management of soil fertility increasingly relies on chemical fertilisers and many traditional practices have disappeared. (see Box 4)

Case 3: In between these two extremes, the picture from other villages was mixed, although there was a general pattern of low nutrient status and declining soil fertility.

This brief summary of our findings illustrates the complexity of the problem of soil fertility. It is characterised by considerable differences in the nutrient status of soil, perceived changes in soil fertility and variations in the management practices and strategies adopted by farmers in response to increasing pressures.

Reflections on our approach

Case 2: In higher altitude/inaccessible areas,

the dominant opinion was that soil fertility is

declining. Yet, measured soil nutrient levels

are higher than for villages in Case 1. From group discussions, several key factors were identified that may account for the perceived decline in soil fertility. These include the deterioration in forest resources and a decline in

livestock numbers. These villages do not have access to alternative nutrient sources.

BOX 4

Soil fertility in Hyanja

Hyanja is a low altitude village located close to the large town of Pokhara, which provides a

market for its agricultural produce.-The soils in Hyanja are highly acidic and have lower levels of organic matter than other surveyed villages. This has been related to high crop intensities, low FYM/compost applications and a decline in in-situ manuring. It was somewhat surprising, therefore, to find that 45% and 62% of farmers reported that soil fertility was unchanged or increasing on khet and barn land respectively. Several reasons may account for the apparent contradiction, the most likely being that the use of chemical fertilisers, which has resulted in increased yields, has disguised an underlying deterioration in soil physical and chemical properties. This was understood by farmers who commented that soils have become hard and dry, and yields fall dramatically without the use of fertiliser.

The approach adopted by the team ensured that different aspects of soil fertility were

systematically explored and enabled direct comparisons of results from different villages. This was an important consideration for Lunle Agricultural Research Centre with a research

mandate that covers 8 hill districts. The use of complementary approaches combined the

qualitative strengths of PRA with the

quantitative benefits of conventional surveys.

Information from the questionnaires on farmers'

perceptions of fertility change can be easily incorporated into research planning processes.

Although we anticipated at the outset that PRA would contribute qualitative strengths, this was

not exclusively the case. For example, the management diagrams constructed by farmers provided quantitative information on the

relative importance of different practices.

A key challenge for the future lies in identifying and developing complementary methods and

approaches, that enable an optimum balance between qualitative considerations (the extent, depth and nature of farmer participation) and

quantitative concerns (breadth of coverage) to be achieved. For example, wealth ranking helped to improve the degree of representation of quantitative information.

An important benefit of the diagrams was that farmers participated in the analysis process.

The diagrams showing soil fertility management now and in the past, enabled

farmers to identify their constraints and

40

NLA Notes 2' l ehrua ), 199

opportunities and revealed the strategies they have adopted as a result of changes in the

external environment. The nature of farmers' responses varies widely, from the use of chemical fertilisers to increasing the proportion of leaf litter in FYM. The key point is that responses are highly location specific. The diagrams also enabled researchers to appreciate soil fertility management from the farmers' perspective i.e. a continuously evolving system, which is the outcome of a complex decision making process dictated by wider socio- economic and bio-physical circumstances.

The use of local soil classification systems proved to be an effective and rapid way of planning the soil survey. It helped distinguish soils that are important to the farmer and the use of local terms enabled us to communicate clearly and easily with rural people. The major limitation of the indigenous systems is that they are location specific. Soils are classified on the

basis of farmers' experiences and consequently. 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.

This study represented the first phase of a project to improve the prospects for sustained agricultural productivity in the hills. As such, PRA approaches were used in conjunction with other tools in a mainly diagnostic fashion, to enable researchers to gain a clearer understanding of the issue. Lumle Agricultural Research Centre is currently in the process of preparing a research strategy based around integrated nutrient management. This aims to support farmers in their constant efforts to adjust to changes in the resource base. The maps and diagrams form an output which, in conjunction with other tools, such as resource flow models, can be used in the next phase to assist farmers to further analyse their practices, plan improvements and identify opportunities for research.

Cate Turton, Overseas Development Institute (ODI), UK, Ashok Vaidya, Junoo Tuladhar and Krishna Joshi: Lumle Agricultural Research Centre, PO Box 1, Pokhara, Kaski District, Nepal

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

Introduction

The current world-wide crisis facing fisheries, and the apparent inability of centralised agencies responsible for fisheries management to deal with the crisis, have encouraged an increasing interest in alternative forms of managing fisheries resources. Among the forms of management that have attracted the attention of researchers are the numerous customary mechanisms found in the Southern and Western Pacific. On the reefs and lagoons of the Melanesian islands, a wide range of measures are still widely used. These appear to ensure some level of sustainability in the harvesting of fish and shellfish which form a key element in the livelihoods of local people.

These customary arrangements have persisted in spite of increasing commercialisation of fisheries and appear to adapt to changing circumstances. This has provoked interest among fisheries policy makers and planners as the incorporation of such mechanisms into wider fisheries management strategies offers many advantages. By definition these arrangements should be locally acceptable, they are generally 'self-policing' and they encourage the decentralisation of decision-making.

In contrast, the costs of centrally-imposed regulation of coastal fisheries is high and they are often not effective in the management of tropical, multi-species fisheries with large numbers of small, opportunistic fishing activities. In this context, there is interest in making use of existing, well-established arrangements. Various forms of 'co-

management', which combine some of the methods of fisheries researchers with the knowledge and skills of local resource-users, have been investigated and introduced with some success in Fiji, Vanuatu and other countries in the region.

Customary marine tenure

Customary forms of tenure over marine areas is

one set of mechanisms frequently encountered in the region which is widely interpreted as a

form of management of marine resources.

Recent research has investigated both the

impact of customary tenure and the social and

cultural features of marine tenure systems in

Fiji and Vanuatu. It aims to determine how appropriate it is to incorporate customary tenure systems, which control resource-use,

into more formal systems of fisheries management. A range of marine tenure areas

in Fiji and Vanuatu are being monitored and the conditions of resources under different forms of tenure arrangement and different forms of control have been compared.

In order to make sense of observed differences in resources, an understanding of the social and

cultural features of the tenure systems, as well as the economic forces affecting levels of fisheries activity in different areas, was crucial. As the first step in the work, PRA was planned

in each area involving both the biologists concerned with the monitoring of resources and

a social scientist.

36

4H I

? g

g -

ill i

I


PRA tools - extraction and intervention

The PRA techniques employed included the use

of semi-structured interviews with individuals

and groups of respondents. During the

interviews, various mapping, timelines and

ranking tools were used. These encouraged

local people to analyse and discuss patterns of resource use and the ways in which tenure can

influence resource exploitation.

Uninburbula

a Q

Reef

The mapping of marine tenure areas showed that the notion of `tenure' is in most cases

different from the western notion of some kind of exclusive control of clearly defined areas. The frequency with which members of different tribal or clan groups with adjacent tenure areas would claim different boundaries appeared, at first sight, to be simply a question of competing claims for potentially valuable resources. But discussions over sketch maps of tenure areas clarified that there was more at stake (see Figure 1).

fl LEGEND _ - reef

Hamanguru - name of dan dairning tenure rights

- - - - - bonier between village areas

- border between clan areas

4* ' - disputed border

Fig. 1. Claims to marine tenure areas on Uliveo Island, Maskelyne Islands, Vanuatu Disclaimer: All details shown on this map are based on unofficial spoken accounts given by a range of local people and shown for illustrative purposes only. The details shown, including all borders, are approximate and do not, in any way, indicate any officially recognised claim to any of the areas shown

37


The land and sea areas associated with different clans and tribes are an integral and inseparable part of that group's identity and the identity of all its members. But it is also clear that the identity generated by tenure over a particular area comes less from controlling it and protecting it from others, but from sharing it. The notion of customary tenure emphasises the importance of an area as an instrument of exchange in dealing with other tribes and clans and in defining different degrees of relationship with those other groups.

The intrinsic value of an area's resources appears only of secondary importance. The exclusive right to use them probably had little meaning until the recent advent of commercialised fisheries and the possibility of generating income through the sale of fishing rights in customary tenure areas. This has implications for the notion of protecting the resources within tenure areas for the future. In a quite profound sense those resources seem to acquire meaning by being shared with others.

It is notable that, in Fiji, the process of mapping customary tenure areas, both on land and sea, during the course of the British colonial period seems to have had a seriously disruptive impact on the whole notion of `property'. Boundaries which had always been mobile and subject to dispute and negotiation became fixed. This removed an important element in the interactions between the various tribes and clans which exercised tenure. The drawing of boundaries by the authorities inevitably seems to have involved a decision to believe one version of `who owns what' rather than the opinions of many others. Needless to say, as these boundaries begin to acquire a different, economic meaning (e.g. with the penetration of tourism and commercial concerns), the disputes over boundaries and òwnership' are becoming increasingly acrimonious.

The research team itself risked becoming part of a similar process in Vanuatu. In some communities, the arrival of an outside team asking questions about tenure over marine areas seemed to escalate into claims to different areas. This was indicative of how flexible are the tenure systems. In such circumstances the

act of drawing a sketch map could become charged with political overtones and interpretations. In one specific case, tenure was explained to the team in terms of rival ancestral claims going back ten generations.

Our understanding of the concepts of tenure and property which were generated by these mapping exercises, and subsequent discussion of them, underpinned one of the principal findings of the research to date. This is that customary marine tenure, at least until very recently, has had little to do with the conservation of marine resources, at least in the minds of local resource-users. This does not necessarily mean that customary marine tenure is not a valid instrument for fisheries management. But it is an important factor to be considered when customary mechanisms are being used as a means to implement fisheries management with a view to resource conservation.

The study encountered numerous cases where traditional measures that were adapted to exploitation control for the purpose of `conserving resources' (e.g. taboos) were systematically ignored by resource-users. In contrast, equivalent measures imposed for `customary' purposes, such as to mark the death of chief or to demonstrate the relative status of one resource owner over another, were more frequently observed. The exercise of customary marine tenure rights makes sense in its own cultural context for customary reasons,

but does not necessarily make sense when a new rationale, such as marine resource conservation, is added.

Issues - research and intervention

Mapping techniques proved useful during the research but they also highlighted some of the

problems associated with participative research. It is clear that, while assisting in

stimulating a discussion of the issues with which the research was concerned, the activity itself constituted an intervention in the situation being researched. Awareness among local

people that the lines which they drew on the

sand were being noted down in a notebook by

the researchers significantly influenced the

38


responses being given. This was so, even if the researcher was at pains to record what was being said after the interview, rather than during it. The presence of interested outsiders appeared to be a powerful symbol of official ratification.

Similarly, questions about resources and their management would stimulate responses that tended to exaggerate the environmental motivations behind certain interventions. Awareness of the environment, and the need to preserve natural resources, was generally associated with being advanced, modern, and progressive. This had apparently been induced by recent government campaigns to raise environmental awareness through posters, radio and television. This could lead to discussions of environmental issues with community leaders becoming stimuli for action.

In one case, this led to the placing of taboo on fishing grounds. This was not necessarily based on real needs or priorities, but on a desire to be seen as active and ready to accept new ideas brought in by `researchers'.

as it can significantly alter that outcome. Alien and inappropriate concepts of organisation and action may be exhibited, and acted upon. Local people, and particularly local leaders, may feel this is expected of them and that it represents modernity and association with the `progressive' outside world.

In the context of participatory research for development, the opportunity exists for compensating for this through a more systematic and thorough participatory analysis of the issues involved. This could encourage local people to identify more firmly those actions which they regard as of prime importance. But without this, and an awareness on the part of the PRA team of the possible effects of their presence, there is a risk that decisions reached by local people are aimed more at the outsiders and their assumed objectives, than at the real needs and priorities of local people.

+ Philip Townsley Via',, Anno':'',','12+;ttint T°" ' 01100 Viterbo, Italy, James-, Ander

Gate, London SW7 2QA;° Tenure Project;, MRAG

U,,-

and Chns Mees, Custom

Conclusion

In different circumstances, this sort of process, where learning and analysis led directly to action to address identified issues, might be exactly what was hoped for - Participatory Learning and Action. But in the context of a research initiative, it highlights certain dangers.

Outsiders carrying out a PRA ìntervene' in local reality, even if they may do so in a way which they regard as being informal and participatory. This can foster the belief that whatever comes out of the process is the result of deliberations by those directly concerned and is therefore locally appropriate. However, the impact which the presence of outsiders can have, no matter how 'low-profile' they try to be, always needs to be taken into consideration

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like ' tb"than and staff of the 'fisheries -`de'p;

and Vanuatu, the roe dana ' p 1

ct:ileld', 'rie'ii4 the Director=an'd' staff of Al e''IMariin` e

" "' tyl;;of;f y Prog,ramme``àt the Universi Pacific for making'this research ep"o's

also wish to' thank ,the people of all the villages we hi've' is '

theirgenerosit'y and co-operation. v eµlctk forwar'd'to continuing our collaboration

This research, was, funded by the British Overseas Development, Adminrstration CODA)

" under, their,,;;-Fish'e'ries Management Scienc '' nd P,rogramm(FMSP) a Implemented b t

Marine Resources Assessment! Gro w

39


13

Getting fisherfolk off the hook: an exploratory PRA in Southern India

R. Ramesh, N. Narayanasamy and M.P.Boraian

Introduction to elicit the views of fishers on ways to ameliorate their working and living conditions.

Fishers in India are largely unorganised. Where they are grouped together, it is usually in small numbers and their associations are rarely strong enough to ensure their voices are heard. Yet fishers live with many challenges: occupational, seasonal, geographic, social and economic and have not used collective bargaining to ameliorate their conditions. Many claim that they live with the hope that there are as many good fish remaining in the sea as ever came out of it.

Fishing can be lucrative, yet many fishers are poor because of the exploitation which has become so institutionalised that the fishers often do not realise it for themselves. According to a survey of Indian small fisheries, for every hundred rupees worth of fish bought by consumers, only one-third reaches the traditional fishers, the remainder goes to merchant intermediaries.

The Tri-Sea Fishermen Union at Nagercoil works for the welfare of fishers in Kanyakumari district, Tamil Nadu, India. The union approached the Gandhigram Rural Institute's PRA Unit to assist it conduct a three-day workshop to study the fishing livelihoods in Kanyakumari District. This paper reports the outcome of the PRA workshop which was attended by 25 men and women engaged in different fishing trades.

The objectives of the workshop were: to study the socio-economic and occupational problems of the fishers; to analyse the factors that underpin these problems; and

To study the livelihoods, a number of PRA exercises were completed, including: a trade inventory, preference ranking, key problem analysis, seasonal, case and time use analysis, semi-structured interviewing, focal group discussions and causal diagram. The findings from some of these exercises are discussed below.

PRA findings

Trade inventory and risk ranking

During preliminary discussion with Trade Union Officials and the fishers, it became clear that there are many trades in the fisheries sector and that each has its own problems. Thus, the PRA team decided to start by taking stock of the various trades in which fishers are involved. A trade inventory, an adapted form of a resource inventory, was used.

The 25 fishers were divided into two groups to develop inventories of fishing trades. Each group was given cards and pens and was asked to list the various trades in which fishing communities are involved. When both groups had finished their lists, they were presented in a

plenary session. Comparison of the lists showed the nineteen sea-related trades in which the fishing community are engaged.

Split into two groups again, the participants ranked the trades according to the severity of problems faced by each. High risk trades are those that face the most challenges with regard

54


to the labour involved and threats to the survival of fishers.

There was heated debate at the beginning of this exercise as everyone present argued that his/her trade was in the high risk category. Finally, however, the groups completed their ranking and presented them in a plenary. Their lists were similar, with only two trades in varying positions. In the plenary session,

consensus was reached and the final ranking of trades prepared in the plenary session is

presented in Box 1.

BOX 1

BOX 2

RISK ANALYSIS OF FISHING TRADES: DEEP SEA DIVING

When we plunge into the sea, we have to go very deep. We dive with two flat plates tied to the soles of our feet. We wear goggles but do not have an oxygen cylinder or fins that would enable us to swim faster. The maximum time we can normally be under to harvest lobsters, oysters, scallops and clams is two minutes. Timing is very important. Any disturbance or distraction might cost our life. We get back after spending nine to ten hours in the sea. We go to the private traders for selling the catch. The income is not stable. It is nothing but a gamble and depends on luck.'

RISK RANKING OF FISHING TRADES

Deep-sea divers: fishers who dive (down to 30 metres) to collect shells; Trap fishing using locally made traps to catch expensive and deep dwelling fish; Hook fishers who catch fish on a line/fishing rod travelling on a catamaran; Country boat (Vallam) fishers who catch fish using nets thrown from a country boat; Shore trawling: fishers who catch fish with nets by standing on rocks in the sea; Mechanised fishing fleet employees: salaried workers who work off-shore; Deep-sea trawler fishing employees; Loaders who load sand onto ships; Hand net-makers; Carpenters (wood cutters) who cut the right size and quality wood for making catamarans; Country boat carpenters Carpenters who build boats; Head load fish monger; Cycle load fish monger; Lorry load fish monger; Ice-plant fish processing workers; Fish processing workers (salting). Fish processing workers (making fish pickles); Auctioneers.

Boxes 2 - 4 highlight in more detail the risks faced by three of the 19 trades. They show the real physical and economic hardships that are suffered in some trades, particularly in diving which requires physical fitness, lots of luck and learned skills in reading the currents to find a good harvest.

BOX 3

RISK ANALYSIS OF FISHING TRADES: HEAD LOAD VENDING

Head load fish mongers buy fish from auctioneers in the morning. The fish can be paid for immediately, or in the evening when the fish cost 5 per cent more. The auctioneers prefer instant payment, but most head load fish mongers buy fish on credit and accept the 5 per cent interest for the twelve hour loan. Whether the fish is sold or not during the day, the price has to be paid in the same evening or the monger will not be allowed to buy fish the next day.

The mongers carry the heavy fish on their heads. The dirty water seeps from the fish basket and makes their bodies stink. The mongers become 'untouchables' in buses. When they wait for the bus with their fish- baskets, the buses pass through at, high speed without stopping.

BOX 4

RISK ANALYSIS OF FISHING TRADES: ICE-PLANT WORKERS

I hurt while cutting the fish in the machine.

Girls are mostly employed for cleaning, cutting and packaging fish in ice-plants. They work every day in the month and have money deducted from their salaries if they are absent. The working hours are long, 11 - 12 hours per day. Ice plant workers are given special clothing to wear but many develop skin diseases. They risk electrocution in the plant and have to carry heavy fish (25 to 28 kg) through a cutting machine. Some workers get

55


The risk analysis enabled the fishers in each trade to explore their key problems. In the course of the discussion, one of the participants commented that he had never thought of his work with so much seriousness in the past. A fisherwoman in the group stated that the discussions enabled fisherfolk to collectively share their experiences and the problems involved in their trades.

Seasonality analysis

Fishing is subject to weather conditions and is

highly seasonal. It was therefore decided to study the season-wise activities and problems of the fishing trades. The participants were divided into four groups of six members each,

based on their trades: Group 1 - Communities involved in fishing, Group 2 - Community

involved in occupations relating to fishing, Group 3 - Community involved in fish vending and Group 4 - Community involved in fish processing.

Each group was asked to draw a seasonal

calendar and identified the activities occurring in each month. Extracts from the calendars 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 seasonal. Fishers have surplus money during the peak season. They borrow money during the slack season but have to deal with the high interest rates charged by local money lenders. Many fishing trades are inter-related, a poor catch affects the fish processors who preserve the fish (compare Tables I and 2). Much work is intermittent, such as that of carpenters and 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


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

A focus group discussion employing semi- structured interviewing was conducted among fisherwomen to understand the specific problems they face. All the women participated in the discussion.

Women are mainly involved head load fish mongering and the fish processing industries. These are poorly paid positions and are usually temporary assignments. Women may also discrimination in wage payments: even if the work done by male and female workers is of the same quantity and quality, women will usually be paid less. Yet the income women generate is key in almost all families, ensuring that children are fed and the luckier ones can attend school.

Women fish mongers who head load fish suffer from the little income that this business generates. If men also get a meagre wage when catches are low, there can be much tension in the household. To bring up the family, wives and husbands often have to borrow money, but do not usually tell each other about their credit arrangements. When money is short, young daughters start work processing fish in the ice- plants. Workers in most of these factories are prone to occupational diseases and these affect their marriage prospects.

Planning

The workshop aimed to learn the views of the participating fisherfolk on how to improve their working and living conditions. Given the wealth of information shared during the workshop, this was not completed. However, the participants made thirteen recommendations for improving their livelihoods. Examples of these are listed below:

1. Deep-sea profession. supplying

divers have the highest risk The government may consider

oxygen cylinders and other protective equipment for deep-sea divers at a subsidised rate.

2. The fishers who go deep-sea diving or trap fishing encounter many accidents and sometimes die at sea. With a view to helping the family of the diseased fishers, the government has introduced an accident insurance scheme, by which the premium is paid by the government. There is often much delay in the payment of these claims and this needs to be investigated and rectified.

3. Head load fish mongers need to organise a credit co-operative society exclusively for women. This would help them to negotiate more successfully with money lenders.

4. Boat owners only give 35 per cent of the 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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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 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)


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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).


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


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


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