Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods

Uniting Science and Participation

Earthscan Publications Ltd
London Sterling, VA

International Development Research Centre
Ottawa   Cairo   Dakar   Montevideo   Nairobi   New Delhi   Singapore

Contents

List of Tables, Figures and Boxes

List of Contributors

Jacqueline Ashby is a development sociologist by training and her work is focused on action research to promote organizational change and innovation in natural resource management and food systems, both global and local. She recently took on new responsibilities as Director of the Rural Innovation Institute at the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) having been, since 1996, Director of Research, Natural Resource Management, and Coordinator for the CGIAR System-wide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis.

Ann Braun is an ecologist by training and has worked in basic and applied agricultural and environmental research and also as a developer of participatory research methods. After two decades with the CGIAR in Asia and Latin America, she now lives in New Zealand’s South Island and works as an independent consultant. Her current focus is on creation and support of learning communities to promote social, environmental and economic sustainability. Her interests include mentoring in participatory and user-sensitive approaches to research, education and development, systematization of learning processes, distillation of lessons learned, and promotion of ecological literacy.

K L Heong is a senior scientist at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) based in the Philippines. He is an insect ecologist by training, having graduated from the Imperial College at Silwood Park, from which he recently received his DSc. Before joining IRRI, KL worked in the Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute as the rice entomologist. At IRRI his work has focused on community ecology and he has established that insecticides in rice ecosystems do more harm than good, because they disrupt food web linkages and natural biological control mechanisms, favouring the development of secondary pests, such as the brown plant hopper. In his effort to reduce farmers’ unnecessary use of insecticides, he applied social psychology frameworks and developed ‘heuristics’ to motivate farmers to experiment with them. Working with communication scientists and extension workers in Vietnam, he initiated the use of media to scale up farmer motivation, reaching about a million farmers in the Mekong Delta. Farmers’ insecticide use was reduced by 50 per cent with no yield loss and he was awarded the Medal for Agricultural Development by the Vietnamese government and won the St Andrews Prize for Environment for this achievement. His interests include using decision sciences for research on resource management decision-making, developing multi-stakeholder participatory processes and the use of Entertainment Education to motivate change.

Cynthia McDougall pursues positive change in the areas of social justice and environmental sustainability through a combination of social science and popular education approaches. Originally trained in political science, comparative development and geography, she has been a part of the Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management and the Adaptive and Collaborative Management Research Project teams at the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) in Indonesia for the last five years. Her work there has been primarily focused on strategies for enhancing social learning and equity in community forest user groups in Nepal, as well as contributing to comparative work in other communities in Asia, Africa and Latin America. She has also been involved in participatory research and participatory action research methodology development, with an emphasis on gender and diversity.

Adrienne Martin is a specialist in social and institutional development with over 25 years of experience of development work with a focus on the interaction between people and natural resources. She has worked with a range of organizations, including national, international, governmental and non-governmental organizations. Since 1990 she has been based at the Natural Resources Institute (NRI), University of Greenwich, Chatham, UK, and currently leads the Livelihoods and Institutions Group. She has long-term overseas experience in Sudan where she worked on rural development issues in western Sudan, and in Syria with the farming systems programme at the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA). She has extensive professional experience in Africa having undertaken research, consultancy, training and publication on the themes of participatory research, local knowledge (in Uganda and Tanzania) and livelihoods analysis (in Ghana, Uganda and India). Her current interests are in agricultural policy and the institutionalization of client-oriented approaches within national agricultural research and extension systems, rural and urban livelihoods and the role of social capital.

Barry Pound started his career as an agronomist, but has steadily broadened his scope to include farming systems and sustainable livelihoods. He has worked long term on agricultural research and development projects in Tanzania, Nigeria, Dominican Republic, Yemen and Nepal. For the last ten years he has been with the Natural Resources Institute (NRI), University of Greenwich, Chatham, UK, from where he has led, or contributed to, a wide range of research, development and training initiatives in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe for multilateral, bilateral and non-governmental organizations. Particular interests of his are the application of participatory approaches, and most recently research into the implementation of farmer-led extension approaches.

Dianne Rocheleau has conducted field research on the social and ecological dimensions of land use change, watersheds, agroforestry and biodiversity for over 25 years, in Kenya, Dominican Republic and the US, as well as short-term studies elsewhere. She worked as a Rockefeller Foundation Social Science Fellow and Senior Scientist with the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry

(ICRAF) from 1983 to 1986 and as a Program Officer with the Ford Foundation from 1986 to 1989. She is currently an Associate Professor of Geography at Clark University. She has co-authored and co-edited five books including Agroforestry in Dryland Africa; Gender, Environment and Development in Kenya; Power, Process and Participation – Tools for Change; and Feminist Political Ecology. She has worked extensively on methodologies for community-based and participatory research as well as on the integration of social and ecological research methods and designs. She has also served on the Boards of CIFOR, the Land Tenure Center and committees of the National Science Foundation and National Research Council in the US. In all of her work she seeks to document, promote and protect socially just and viable human ecologies.

Sieglinde Snapp is an Assistant Professor of vegetable integrated crop management at Michigan State University, with a focus on applied, systems research and outreach to develop farmer knowledge and problem-solving capacity. In the long term she works to promote adoption of more biologically smart and sustainable systems in high-risk, high-input vegetable systems. The underlying premise is that nutrient efficiency is enhanced by greater use of carbon sources to build soils and greater reliance on deep-rooting legumes. She collaborates with farmers and extension staff to investigate mechanisms and develop technologies that integrate nutrient sources and use manure and cover crops to diversify systems and promote vigorous roots and healthy crops. She has over seven years of experience working in southern Africa in collaboration with national scientists to research maize and bean systems and the use of integrated soil management practices, and continues to research and teach on African cropping systems. She is deeply committed to developing new outreach methods and improving communication among researchers, farmers, crop advisors and extension workers. She developed a novel farmer participatory research method, the ‘mother–baby trial’. This on-farm trial design facilitates the relatively rapid but rigorous integration of farmer and researcher assessment of technologies and varieties. It is now used widely by scientists from eight different countries.

Ann Stroud is completing her 20th year in Africa, having resided in Kenya, Ethiopia, and Tanzania, and is now in Uganda. She has worked in extension, research and development modes. Currently, she is the Regional Coordinator for the African Highlands Initiative (AHI). AHI is a unique programme that aims to improve the integration and coordination of contributions from a number of national, international and non-governmental research organizations to arrest land degradation and improve livelihoods in the highlands of eastern Africa. Her professional career has evolved from her graduation as a weed scientist from Cornell University, US, through work as a farming systems agronomist, to her current broader interests in sociology and institutional dimensions. These interests have been generated by her fieldwork with African farmers and her advisory work with many stakeholders involved in cracking the challenges of rural development in Africa.

Alistair Sutherland has worked in participatory agricultural research projects and programmes in various parts of southern and eastern Africa since 1983. He is currently based at the Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Chatham, UK, and works within the Livelihoods and Institutions Group on a range of research, training and consultancy activities overseas and in the UK. His current interests include capacity building and training in managing organizational change and performance assessment, the monitoring and evaluation of client perspectives in agricultural research and the development of cost-effective methodologies for participatory research and social analysis.

Ronnie Vernooy is a senior programme specialist at the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Ottawa, Canada. He received his PhD in the sociology of rural development from the Agricultural University of Wageningen in the Netherlands in 1992 and joined IDRC in the same year. His research interests include rural development, natural resource management, agricultural biodiversity and participatory (action) research methods including monitoring and evaluation. His current work focuses on southeast Asia (China and Vietnam), Central America and Cuba; he has a special interest in Nicaragua where he carried out field research in both hillside and coastal environments during 1985–1986, 1988–1991 and 1997–1998. Recent publications include, as editor and co-author, Taking Care of What We Have: Participatory Natural Resource Management on the Caribbean Coast of Nicaragua (2000), Para una mina de oro se necesita una mina de plata: historiando sobre la Costa Caribe de Nicaragua 1910–1979 (2000) and, as co-editor and co-author, Voices for Change: Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation in China (2002).

Linden Vincent is Professor of irrigation and water engineering at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. Previously she worked with the Irrigation Management Network at the Overseas Development Institute, London, and the University of East Anglia in the UK. She has particular interests in the relationships between agroecology, technology and water management, and collective action for water management in mountain areas, semi-arid environments and water-scarce locations. She has also written on the links between irrigation and water management, livelihood security and poverty alleviation. The Irrigation and Water Engineering Group at Wageningen, which she heads, is committed to interdisciplinary research. Staff and students have worked to develop ‘socio-technical’ theoretical frameworks and research approaches that integrate the environment, technology and society, to understand the relationships between irrigation and rural transformation. Linden Vincent has worked as an academic researcher, field engineer and consultant in development projects in India, Yemen and several countries in sub-Saharan Africa, and continues to facilitate postgraduate research in south Asia, southern Africa and South America. She has worked with various methodological approaches to knowledge generation, including survey and statistical methods of analysis, actor-oriented approaches, rapid rural appraisal and participatory technology development. She believes that it is possible for these different methodological approaches to inform each other.

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

Foreword

It is a rare opportunity to be involved in both the creation of a resource on participatory research in natural resource management and in the history that led up to it. My involvement, first as a researcher in Africa and, subsequently, as a Director at two international research centres in different regions of the world, has allowed me the good fortune to witness and participate in the positive evolution of research in natural resource management (NRM).

Motivated by the limited record of conventional NRM research in generating improvements in rural people’s well-being (especially that of marginalized peoples) in the 1980s, a number of key international institutions and a wide range of developing-country farmers and other partners began to seriously investigate participatory technology development. As the experience gained from this initiative showed some promise, financial and intellectual investments grew in this new field of research on the ancient human practice of participation for the common good. These developments were stimulated by, and have become part of, a much broader societal movement among non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and academia towards democratizing research and development activities. An ever-expanding community of practice has since developed among social and biophysical scientists and other practitioners working at the community level.

The participatory research and gender analysis approaches undertaken by these scientists, local peoples (ie, the natural resource managers) and partners, when done well, have provided tremendous benefits in mutual learning and problem-solving for local and research institutions alike. Experience has also confirmed, however, that these returns – as in conventional research – are dependent on the quality of the research design, implementation, analysis and dissemination. Unlike conventional research, however, quality approaches to these elements of research have been relatively uncharted territory. Furthermore, the integrative and people-oriented nature of participatory research on NRM has demanded that it address head-on critical challenges that conventional research had previously ‘dodged’, such as cultural diversity and integrated natural resource management. Finally, experience has also shown us that meeting these challenges is going to require the thoughtful and dynamic integration of both participatory and conventional approaches to science for each context and each issue – in other words, adaptive science for the adaptive management of natural resources.

And this is where this book comes in. Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods draws on international authors who are at the forefront of innovation and field experience in applying participatory methods to NRM

research, especially in smallholder agricultural systems in the developing world. It analyses the issues and the lessons that have been raised by the practical application of participatory principles to complex landscapes and social situations. It also looks ahead and considers how to meet the institutional, methodological and technical challenges, which are illuminated by such critical reflection, in order to improve the livelihoods of local natural resource managers, as well as to conserve natural resources for future generations. One of the strengths of this book is that it recognizes and reflects the need for research that parallels NRM in the transition towards adaptive management approaches. This includes the ‘democratization’ of NRM and research as well as integrated efforts to cope with the unpredictability, variability and diversity that characterize natural systems and help confer resilience. In this context, the book offers a critical review of the potential tensions and synergies of traditional and participatory approaches to research, and the role of gender and stakeholder diversity analysis within that. It offers signposts for researchers and research managers in undertaking effective participatory research and gender analysis (PRGA), including meeting the challenges of ‘scaling up’ from field, to farm, to landscape levels. It also offers them a practical framework for ‘good practice’ in PRGA design and implementation. Furthermore, it stretches beyond the research project level, to address two of the key organizational level challenges of our time in NRM: the institutionalization of PRGA in research organizations; and the broader transition towards becoming learning organizations. In this way, the book elucidates the need and potential paths for the conscious evolution of research in NRM towards flexible and multi-faceted approaches that effectively respond to human and ecosystem challenges. We sincerely hope that you find the results as inspiring and useful as was our intent.

Joachim Voss
Director General, International Center for Tropical Agriculture
July 2002

Preface

This book is an important, tangible outcome of the workshop, entitled ‘Participatory Research for Natural Resource Management: Continuing to Learn Together’, held at the Natural Resources Institute (NRI), University of Greenwich, Chatham, UK, in September 1999, and co-sponsored by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) System-wide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (PRGA) and the NRI.

The PRGA and NRI convened a group of scientists, nominated by their peers for their involvement in innovative participatory natural resource management (NRM) research, to strengthen interchange in the Program’s international working group on participatory research approaches for natural resource management formed in 1998, and to exchange experiences related to:

• management of common property and protected areas;
• natural resource management at the landscape and watershed scales;
• soil and water management, land care and rehabilitation.

These themes were explored through the following key questions:

• What innovative approaches are being developed for collective participation and decision-making in research on NRM problems and processes?
• What new linkages have been established between farmer-led research initiatives and formal-led ones?
• What methods are proving most useful for participatory research with gender and stakeholder analysis and for improving the involvement of specific groups of actors in planning, monitoring and evaluating NRM research?

Each participant at the workshop offered a case study from their own experience that integrated biophysical NRM themes with methods for building and maintaining partnerships with stakeholders.

The workshop enabled the working group, which had hitherto interacted mainly by email, to fuse as a learning community based on a strong nucleus of field experience. The Program prepared a short handbook on the case studies presented at the workshop, and added more from other centres in the CGIAR (PRGA, 2000, Equity, Well-being and Ecosystem Health: Participatory Research for Natural Resource Management, Cali, Colombia). This collection is a companion volume to the analysis and synthesis of this work. The participants resolved to

develop a book based on lessons drawn from practical experience and analysis of the case studies as a contribution to the debate surrounding several major questions facing participatory research at the present time. These include:

• challenges to organizing participatory research;
• the quality of participation and quality of science in participatory research;
• scaling up of participatory research approaches and successful participatory natural resource management (PNRM) initiatives.

The purpose of the book is to present a variety of innovative approaches for collective participation and decision-making at various stages of NRM research, to identify principles of good practice for research on NRM, to identify common problems and weaknesses in PNRM research, and to identify priority issues and challenges for future research and institutional change.

Researchers from the CGIAR, universities, government research and development organizations, and NGOs in developed and developing countries, as well as donors, research programme managers and policy-makers are our main audience. We hope that the book will prove useful for graduate courses on both the biophysical and social science aspects of NRM, and to those involved in the field implementation of PNRM.

Chapters 2–7 were commissioned by the editors from case study authors who are active field practitioners of PNRM research. The introductory and final chapters were commissioned from senior research managers. Each chapter was both reviewed by the editors and peer reviewed.

Throughout the book, reference is made to the 23 case studies, summarized in Annexe 1, which illustrate a wide range of NRM research and development situations at the farm, community, watershed and landscape levels, and bring practical reality to bear on generalized concepts.

Barry Pound, Sieglinde Snapp, Cynthia McDougall and Ann Braun (editors)
December 2002

Acknowledgements

Many people gave freely of their ideas and advice during the development of this book. This began with the participants of the CGIAR System-wide Program on Participatory Research on Gender Analysis/Natural Resources Institute (PRGA/NRI) workshop ‘Participatory Natural Resource Management Research: Continuing to Learn Together’ held at Chatham, UK, in September 1999, and supported by Kathryn Laing of PRGA and Claire Troy of NRI. Maria Fernandez was co-organizer of that event, and she continued as an early mover and shaker in the development of the book, the character of which was shaped by her inputs. Barry Blake, then at NRI, lent full encouragement to the workshop and the subsequent involvement of NRI staff in the editing and authorship for the book. We would also like to acknowledge the financial support given by IDRC to the Chatham workshop.

The 23 case studies presented at the workshop were too lengthy for inclusion in the book in full, and it was Trudy Brekelbaum who developed a format for summarizing them without losing their impact. Annie Jones then took up the challenge of summarizing the case studies, and met it valiantly. Phil Macoun stepped in at a critical moment to assist with the final editing of chapters. We are particularly grateful to those who have contributed material or suggestions to the chapter texts. A special mention in this regard goes to Hans Schreier and Sandra Brown.

We would like to recognize the Natural Resources Institute (NRI), Michigan State University, the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and the PRGA (particularly Jacqui Ashby and Anna Knox) for the support they provided to the editors’ committee.

Chapter 1

Introduction: Uniting Science and Participation in the Process of Innovation – Research for Development

Jacqui Ashby

Introduction

Researchers are approaching the process of innovation, as well as their own role in improving natural resource management (NRM) in a new way. ‘Research and development’ – also known as R&D – derives from the concept of researchers who are in control of a pipeline for producing technological innovations: an idea goes in at one end of the pipeline, research develops a prototype, and then a fully developed product comes out, ready to be released to eager users, at the other end of the pipeline. In contrast, ‘research for development’ emphasizes the iterative, adaptive nature of innovation in complex ecosystems, which is achieved through systematic enquiry combined with learning based in action. The purpose of this chapter is to set the scene for understanding the evolution of new approaches to innovation in agriculture and NRM and the kind of research and development process needed to realize their potential for NRM.

Research for development in NRM is just one part of an innovation process, which is shaped by multiple social and political actors as well as by environmental conditions. Adaptive management is an approach to coping with the complexity of resource management, based on establishing indicators, trying interventions, monitoring their effects and learning from feedback. It depends on the ability of resource managers to receive, understand and respond to positive or negative signals in the physical and social environment and to change management responses accordingly (Berkes and Folke, 1998). Several of the case studies in this book make use of the livelihoods approach (Scoones, 1998), which integrates NRM into a framework for analysing how people use natural resources to make a living. The livelihoods approach treats access to natural resources as one asset among several other kinds of capital – human, social,

financial and physical. A rural livelihood is considered sustainable when it is resilient enough to bounce back from stresses and shocks, maintaining its assets without degrading the natural resource base. From this perspective, natural resource use by individuals or groups is only one part of the livelihood strategy of those people. A reversal of environmental degradation requires new livelihood options that change people’s incentives, in particular the benefits and costs of resource use. When innovation in resource management is driven by perceived tradeoffs, participatory assessments of livelihood strategies are important for developing a common understanding of how these depend on natural resource assets (Carney, 1998). Both adaptive management and livelihood analysis approach NRM as a process of social change.

In an adaptive process, enquiry (or research) to generate new knowledge and learning to share existing knowledge are both important, although the emphasis on one or the other will vary from time to time. Researchers are only one among many stakeholder groups, each with different kinds of knowledge and often with competing ideas about the purpose of research, as well as of the use of the natural resources in question. As several cases in this book illustrate, in order to do research for development, researchers are beginning to relinquish classical, reductionist notions of control and objectivity. One of the major challenges is for researchers to recognize that their results and their impact on NRM depend on relationships with other stakeholders, who may have more power to visualize and to realize the desired outcomes of interventions than the researchers do. As a result, the participation of key stakeholders alongside scientists in a jointly managed process of investigation and learning based in action is a central feature of research for development. In such science, quality depends on the quality of the participation of all the relevant stakeholders in research and development, and in the overall innovation process.

The change in concepts and approaches that is represented by ‘research for development’ is a crucial part of a larger societal process of rethinking several important relationships: between post-industrial, globalizing economies and stocks of natural capital; between human health and the environment; between our food systems and the flora and fauna, soil, water and air on which we depend; and, ultimately, the relationship between human society and nature. This shift in thinking is occurring because the capacity of global ecosystems to support current levels of human consumption of food and environmental goods and services is threatened at local, regional and global scales and has finally become a major political issue and a topic for headline news. Research for development is also part of a movement to promote broad and inclusive participation in determining the goals and direction of societal development.

Global concern for the depletion of natural capital stocks is not only an expression of the conservation ethic, but is linked to concern with international poverty, famine and disaster. Ecological threats of global significance are paralleled by the vulnerability of over 800 million poor people to malnutrition, disease and high rates of infant mortality, together with rising inequality in the distribution of wealth. The capacity of poor households, communities and countries to recover from external shocks such as war, famine, epidemic disease,

hurricanes, global climate change and indebtedness partly depends on the status of their stocks of natural capital. The diversity of this natural capital gives it an important advantage over man-made capital in providing the poor with the resilience to survive periods of stress in their livelihood systems, given that diverse ecosystems are more able to recover from shocks and stress (Conway, 1985, 1987; Pearce et al, 1990). Poverty, growing inequity and the importance of natural capital to the poor mean that global and local competition between rich and poor over natural resources, such as water, is expected to be one of the most significant causes of conflict in the 21st century.

Several decades of NRM research have proved disappointing to efforts to halt the degradation of stressed environments and fragile ecosystems where poverty is increasing. Critics find that rural development policies, agencies and practitioners have repeatedly been proved wrong and have lost credibility; that the research establishment has shown itself incapable of addressing the decline of rural society, the needs of poor rural populations in fragile environments and deepening crises in the depletion and degradation of natural resources; and that resource management science is fundamentally on the wrong track (Ashby, 2001; Campbell, 1998; Chambers, 1997). Public sector research on NRM could build a stock of socially useful knowledge that would enable human societies to sustain both natural resources and human well-being over the long term. However, the prevalent approach to NRM which treats ecosystem components separately (for example, independent disciplines, programmes and policies for soil, biodiversity, forestry, etc) is unsuited to addressing problems in complex ecosystems. One of the main reasons for this is the high degree of variability and unpredictability of processes in complex ecosystems which tend to reach a critical threshold and then produce unanticipated effects, often the opposite of those the resource managers intended (Holling, 1986; Tenner 1996; McDougall and Braun, this volume).

The conventional approach to NRM is based on reducing and controlling variability in order to contain and avoid negative impacts. But experience shows that if variability is reduced and natural patterns of disturbances are disrupted, they accumulate and return at a later stage on a much broader scale. Diminishing variability tends to increase the potential for larger-scale, less predictable and less manageable disturbances, which can have devastating effects on ecosystems (Ludwig et al, 1997) and reduce their capacity to provide the environmental services on which material and energy stocks and flows depend. A well-known example given by Holling (1986) is forest fire suppression that leads to an accumulation of litter on the forest floor, which eventually provides fuel for a fierce, uncontrollable conflagration once a fire does take hold. In contrast, allowing variability to occur in the form of periodic, small-scale fires helps to maintain a viable forest ecosystem. For NRM to work with variability in whole ecosystems, a radical change is called for in the way research is carried out (McDougall and Braun, this volume). The emergent properties of new approaches can already be detected in new ways of doing science as well as in new kinds of research organizations (Ashby, 2001).

New approaches to adaptive NRM involve social and organizational, as well as technical, change. Recent research has highlighted the value of traditional as

well as new, modern local institutions to sustainable resource management –and this evidence has contributed to a forceful critique of the neglect and destruction of local resource management institutions by central government interventions, often leading to worsening resource degradation (Ostrom, 1990; Folke et al, 1998). As a result, decentralization and participation in resource management are widely seen as increasing effectiveness, although for these to be realized, locally accountable representation and power of decision – ie, a domain of independent local decision-making – must be present (Ribot, 1999). Devolution of resource management to local stakeholders is part of the wider movement to empower citizens to determine the directions and goals of development, of which research for development is one facet.

Most of the literature on common property regimes for resource management has not yet included a hard look at how institutional and technical innovations are catalysed, or the role of stakeholder-based, participatory approaches to research in the innovation process. However, recent work using field experiments with alternative common property management decision-making regimes conducted in rural communities suggests some insights that are valuable for participation in research for resource management. The findings illustrate the importance of collective participation by researchers and the ‘researched’. The construction of communication channels between scientists and the people whose behaviour they were investigating led to preconceived hypotheses being discarded while the participants’ explanations opened up new avenues for investigation (Cardenas, 2002). These findings from economics are analogous to those showing that an important result of farmer participation in a plant breeding process is to provide feedback that re-orients breeding objectives and the way plant breeding research is organized (Lilja and Erenstein, 2002).

Although decentralization, devolution and participation are widely promoted as desirable features of the organization of NRM, the need for comparable changes in the organization of research including stakeholder participation has received little attention. Research programmes that do not include organizational learning about relationships between researchers and the people whose NRM practices are being investigated run into serious difficulties. As Stroud’s case study in this volume illustrates, stakeholder participation in NRM research requires changes in research practice, attitudes, roles and responsibilities.

The research analysed in this book provides a foundation for addressing the issues of complexity, stakeholder diversity and institutional transformations needed to enable research for development and the cornerstones of ‘good practice’ for participatory research in NRM.

The challenge for research

When researchers analyse and make recommendations on the management of natural resources – soil, water or biodiversity, for example – they confront the different values that stakeholders assign to these services. Ecological services include: maintenance of the composition of the atmosphere; regulating climate

variability; water quantity and quality; flood control; waste assimilation; nutrient recycling; soil generation; crop pollination; pest regulation; biodiversity maintenance; and landscape maintenance – to name but a few (Daily, 1997; Conway, 1997). Alternative resource management regimes distribute ecological services, and their costs and benefits, differently among different groups in society, who have competing interests in how the resources in question are managed – for example, in managing forests for commercial logging, for tourism or for wildlife preservation. In order to move from theory to practice, and to put research findings to practical use, tradeoffs between different uses have to be taken into account. The tradeoffs between one resource management regime and another have to be negotiated among different interest groups, or open conflict may emerge. Even if conflict over competing objectives for a given resource is not explicit, the result of a lack of consensus about how to manage that resource can be mismanagement – to its long-run detriment. The need for negotiation or conflict resolution to facilitate agreement about the use of natural resources means that research to improve NRM must ‘democratize’ by involving a broad set of stakeholders. As noted before, this requires researchers to recognize that they are only one group of stakeholders among many with different values and objectives for the resources in question.

The principle of involving stakeholders in NRM research is at the heart of research for development for two important reasons. The first reason is that stakeholder involvement and ‘buy-in’, or ownership, is crucial for identifying acceptable tradeoffs, for negotiating distributions of costs and benefits and for reaching consensus about the research findings and recommendations. Successful common property regimes can restrict access to a resource and establish procedures for decision-making about joint use; and they typically include social mechanisms for regulating the levels of resource use allowed, by whom, when and where, as well as procedures for resolving conflict, enforcing compliance and sanctioning non-compliance (Ostrom, 1990). Stakeholder ‘buy-in’ to these self-imposed rules and regulations depends on the existence of a shared understanding about cause and effect in key resource management processes and operations: for example, how much logging can be done without permanently damaging a forest ecosystem. In traditional common property regimes the understanding of cause–effect needed to maintain ‘buy-in’ can be established by long-term empirical observation and testing of cause–effect relations and may be embodied in long-accepted ritual, religion and custom. In conditions of rapid change, the understanding needed for consensus and compliance requires new knowledge to be generatedby research in order to achieve stakeholder ‘buy-in’ and often needs to include expertise drawn from other stakeholder groups (Funtowicz and Ravtz, 1993; Irwin, 1995). This form of ownership often needs to be established across a range of institutions and levels of decision-making (Martin and Sutherland, this volume).

A second reason for involving stakeholders in research is that their involvement is key to coping with the unpredictability of change and to sustaining variability, diversity and resilience in ecosystems, which was discussed earlier as an important principle for managing complex ecosystems. To adapt resource management iteratively so that it works with natural variability and

disturbance patterns in ecosystems, stakeholders, including researchers, need to interact with each other in a process of discovery and learning about how each other’s behaviour affects an ecosystem, how this alters the status of the natural resources in which they have an interest, and how each stakeholder’s actions (or passivity) influences the distribution of costs and benefits. Social norms or behavioural rules, values and institutions that encourage shareholders to engage in shared experimentation, trial-and-error learning and ‘ecological literacy’ (see Box 1.1) help groups of people to respond to variability and to calculate the cross-scale effects (see Box 1.2) of their behaviour (Vernooy case study, this volume), which may otherwise remain hidden, but powerful, drivers of environmental change. Behavioural rules and institutions for experimenting with resource management can be seen as one aspect of resilience and adaptiveness in co-dependent social systems and ecosystems (Berkes and Folke, 1998). Participatory research for adaptive NRM can be understood as an important cluster of behavioural rules, values and ways of organizing that promote receptivity in a social system to feedback from the environment, and thus ecosystem resilience.

In summary, there are three main facets of the challenge facing participatory research for NRM. The first is to engage stakeholders in processes of systematic enquiry to uncover and understand the ‘knock-on’ effects of different management regimes and their cross-scale effects. The second is to link this enquiry to knowledge sharing, so that the information produced by research is relevant to common goals, is socialized and provides a basis for action. Given that the problems needing research involve cross-scale effects, the third facet is to find the appropriate scales at which stakeholders’ enquiry, learning and action need to mesh with each other in order to change (or maintain) resource management regimes.

In order to make the connection among enquiry, learning and action at appropriate scales, it can be useful to situate thinking about participatory research in the broader context of promoting innovation for NRM. Research to promote innovation through learning based in action is a key to successful, sustainable resource management in a rapidly changing environment. An analysis of 208 cases of sustainable agriculture from 52 countries, involving almost 9 million farmers on close to 30 million hectares, concludes that successes have been founded on a participatory approach involving farmer experimentation, and building a capacity to learn about biological and ecological complexity (Pretty and Hine, 2001). Many of the cases in this book are about the transition from doing research and development to doing research for development that builds on this principle. A sustained, collective capacity for innovation is critical for improving the management of natural resources. The capacity to innovate must be sustained because an iterative learning process is required to maintain or improve the complex natural systems that provide human society with food and environmental services. And the capacity to innovate must often be collective because, most of the time, managing natural resources involves multiple stakeholders with different and often competing uses for the same resources who must negotiate and act together to avoid destructive management practices. As many of the case studies illustrate, research in this setting has to become a collective enterprise in which different stakeholders’ values, knowledge and expertise are negotiated to produce results.

Definitions of participatory research

This book is a reflection on the conduct of research for participatory adaptive NRM when this research is part of a learning process shared by multiple stakeholders, including the state, non-governmental agencies, community-based groups and private individuals, as well as research organizations. The terms ‘participatory management’, ‘participatory research’ and ‘participatory learning’ are frequently used interchangeably and with little concern for overlap among them. In order to discuss different kinds of participatory research, it is useful first to clarify what we are talking about, and then to review some of the principles that are common to all.

Participatory natural resource management

Participatory natural resource management (PNRM) involves the management of resources by the relevant stakeholders (as opposed to their being excluded by other agencies). It requires the negotiation of goals and acceptable tradeoffs among multiple stakeholders, who may include researchers and other learning communities. It also involves participatory problem definition, visioning and building a shared agenda for action. Agreeing upon rules of resource management and how to enforce compliance is a typical element of participatory resource management. Examples of participatory management are given in the case studies included in this volume by Brinn, Borrini-Feyerabend and Garrity.

Sharing knowledge among stakeholders to build a common analysis of a problem and its solutions is a characteristic of participatory resource management. Some of this knowledge may need to be generated by research, but this is often not the case. In many cases the knowledge exists in one stakeholder group but it needs to be shared. An example of the role of knowledge sharing in PNRM is the community approach to the control of bacterial wilt (Pound case study, this volume).

Adaptive, participatory natural resource management

The inclusion of the term ‘adaptive’ means that integrating participatory knowledge sharing with knowledge generation is achieved in an NRM process. Iterative learning and research loops are a major feature of the adaptive approach to management and they involve changes in social institutions as well as in environmental conditions (Folke et al, 1998). This is not just a question of degree, as participatory management often stops short of operationalizing these feedback loops, and as a result is unable to self-correct or to scale up. As Vincent (this volume) and Stroud (this volume) emphasize, the importance of learning lessons in participatory research is to limit mistakes and create new ways of looking at resource management problems. Participatory management without the feedback loop afforded by integrating research and learning often stagnates after the first flush of participation. Successful adaptive PNRM usually involves a process in which one or more stakeholder groups combine their efforts to

understand environmental feedback, do participatory research and use the results to inform the learning process, intervene jointly in resource management, monitor the status of the ecosystem including its people, and learn from this experience in order to adapt the next management intervention. Adaptive PNRM includes re-vitalizing and institutionalizing many practices common in successful local resource management systems (see Box 1.1), for example building monitoring indicators (McDougall case study, this volume).

Participatory learning

Participatory learning is an approach aimed at sharing knowledge based on the principles of discovery learning. Adult education, in particular, uses discovery-based learning because adults often learn and retain information better when they uncover principles and facts themselves rather than when they are told about them. Farmer field schools are a good example of the use of participatory learning to share knowledge for NRM (Nelson case study, this volume). Participatory learning often evolves into participatory research because there are questions that none of the stakeholders can answer satisfactorily and that can best be addressed through participatory research methods (Braun et al, 2000). Vernooy and McDougall (this volume) argue that participatory learning that changes people’s fundamental understanding of resource management processes, including their own behaviour, is a means of empowering stakeholders, particularly the underprivileged, to take more control over resources important to their survival.

Research for participatory resource management

Research for participatory resource management requires, but is not limited to, the use of participatory methods. In other words, PNRM does not mean that only participatory research approaches and methods can be used. A wide range of research methods, both participatory and non-participatory are combined and need to be understood as a spectrum of methods and approaches (see McDougall and Braun, this volume, for a comparison of approaches) from which stakeholders – not just researchers – can choose. The cases analysed in this book illustrate how research for participatory management involves stakeholders in generating new information relevant to making decisions about the parameters and procedures for adaptive management. These parameters or procedures may include the boundaries of the ecosystem, the relevant actors, the physical and social spaces for intervention, the priority problems and opportunities, the alternative development paths, optional interventions (both technical and institutional) and the tradeoffs these entail for different stakeholders. The Schreier case study in this volume illustrates the combination of geographic information systems (GIS) research with participatory management; Vaughan’s case study in this volume shows how modelling is being integrated with participatory research methods; Martin and Sutherland in Chapter 2 explain how researchers’ own institutional studies were used to inform participants in community meetings convened to vision new forms of devolving resource

management. Snapp and Heong, in this volume point out that a major research challenge is to combine the various ‘information bits’ derived from different stakeholders, and distil these into decision rules that they can use.

A useful rule of thumb is: the more stakeholder ‘buy-in’ that is required –and the more diverse expertise needed to generate the information required to reach agreement – the more important it is to use participatory research approaches and methods for NRM.

However, whether participatory or non-participatory methods of enquiry are used, research carried out for PNRM has to incorporate stakeholders’ different research objectives and criteria for validity and credibility even if, for example, stakeholders are not involved in data collection and analysis. Then methods – both participatory and non-participatory – need to be agreed upon that meet these objectives.

Participatory research

It can be seen from the above discussion that participatory research is a collection of approaches that enable participants to develop their own understanding of and control over the processes and events being investigated. This is derived from the principle that greater understanding and power to use information results from being involved in its generation. Participatory methods for monitoring and evaluation help to make NRM more accountable to stakeholders, and to give participants greater confidence in the results. In the McDougall case study in this volume, easily understood criteria and indicators are developed by local communities, researchers and other stakeholders. These provide a framework for later monitoring, and for assessing key factors and their direction of change. This monitoring process creates the opportunity to feedback information and learning into the community forest management system. It thus serves to guide future action, helping to increase the sustainability of community forest resources. In a different approach, Vernooy and McDougall (Chapter 6) show how creating a set of environmental monitoring indicators with stakeholder participation, and presenting these to local government decision-makers, raised awareness and provided a basis for action. Participatory action research has the added objective of enabling participants to act more effectively based on their own improved understanding. Action research combines intervening in the process being studied with investigating the changes this action produces, and this approach is highly compatible with the concept of adaptive PNRM.

Different kinds of participation in research are possible and there are several typologies that distinguish along one or more dimensions (Arnstein, 1969; Biggs, 1989; Pretty, 1995). Empirical study of how different kinds of participation are being used in participatory research shows a huge diversity of practice in combining different types (Lilja et al, 2001). Analysis of 150 NRM projects using participatory research shows that there is a definite pattern of using more empowering types of participation in the dissemination of results – ie, at a stage when conventional researchers are most comfortable in ‘letting go’ and relaxing conventional controls (Lilja and Ashby, 1999).

One of the fundamental differences among approaches to stakeholder participation in research for NRM is the way in which power relations among different stakeholder groups are structured. Natural resource management and research about it are embedded in power relations (Vincent, this volume). These may encompass powerful international, national or regional interest groups and relatively powerless local people. And they may also include the relatively wealthy, high caste or male members of a community in contrast to the poor and those of low social status, such as women and minority ethnic groups. Information is one source of power in a changing NRM situation, and participatory research can purposively generate new information that changes the balance of power, and can strengthen the bargaining situation of less powerful stakeholders.

Processes to promote participation in the management of resources and in research that fail to examine how power relations affect, and are affected by, the participatory process are often superficial and transitory. For example, participatory rural appraisal (PRA) has been heavily criticized for failing to recognize the incentives for different interest groups to manipulate the appraisal process (Cooke and Kothari, 2001).

The way in which power relations among stakeholders are handled in a participatory research process is intimately related to the issue of research quality. For example, gender relations affect the distribution of power in a participatory research process and bias results. This issue is examined in depth in the chapter in this volume by McDougall and Braun.

One way to assess quality in participatory research is to ask: ‘How valid and reliable do the different stakeholders who are party to the research process judge the results to be?’ In a PNRM process researchers are stakeholders who set research standards, but they are not the only ones. Thus standards for reliability and validity have to be negotiated with stakeholders. Often researchers have to accept compromises. A variety of different standards will often have to be met for quality assurance. The way in which power relations shape results can make or break the credibility of both the research process and its conclusions. For example, Mosse (2001) describes a PRA sponsored by a State Forest Department in India in which an overwhelming preference for planting eucalyptus trees was identified among the villagers participating. It turned out that villagers had little knowledge or experience of eucalyptus, but prioritized what they perceived the agency was able to deliver. The results of the PRA reflected the balance of power between the villagers and the State Forest Department, but did not provide a valid assessment of villagers’ needs nor a conclusion that stands up to further analysis. Sutherland’s case study in this volume reports that villagers did not distribute vetevier grass planting material from experiments to other communities because they did not have permission from the project that had paid them for growing these, illustrating how power relations also affect ownership and how research results are used.

One of the major threats to the validity of research occurs when stakeholders have not explicitly negotiated how control or ownership of a participatory research process is going to be managed. Ravnborg et al (1996) show how the exclusion of a key stakeholder group from a problem diagnosis

led to a result that was fundamentally biased against them and towards an interpretation that ultimately damaged the agreed-upon collective reforestation programme. Only once a forum was created, in which the absent stakeholders were included, were new information and competing interpretations of the advantages and disadvantages of slash and burn practices aired. Only then was it possible to negotiate a viable plan for collective action, which was subsequently successfully implemented. The cases in this book illustrate the broad spectrum of approaches to managing power relations, control and ownership of participatory resource management and the research it involves. For example, the African Highlands Initiative (AHI) case did not negotiate power relations explicitly and this affected research quality as researchers began to drop out because of their loss of control (see the Stroud case study in this volume). The ‘Landcare’ process is quintessentially owned and driven by local groups, but managing the dynamics of power relations among different stakeholders within the Landcare groups or among groups, and how these affect research is not evident in the project strategy (see the Garrity case study in this volume). In the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) case study reported by McDougall (this volume) researchers were flexible from the start in providing a framework for monitoring that enabled multiple stakeholders to develop their own indicators, and eventually to take over and adapt the framework. This approach focused on generating feedback and adaptive learning, making it easier for researchers to see the advantages of ‘letting go’, but the negotiation of power relationships among other stakeholders in the research process was less explicit. In all these cases, the motivation for the participatory research is researcher-driven, at least at inception.

A different approach is illustrated by the explicit negotiation of control in a PNRM process, which is secondary to and embedded in solving a compelling wetland management problem (see the Borinni-Feyerabend case study in this volume). This case initiated its process with a meeting in which a vision for the future of the wetland involved various ‘stakeholders’ presenting their individual views and negotiating a basic agreement on rules to be respected and activities to be carried out. Within this framework of agreed rules, stakeholders decided what research they needed and how to collect it in order to throw light on different resource management options.

In summary, research for NRM cannot be carried out as if it were independent of power relations among researchers, or between researchers and other stakeholders. For this reason, a capacity for organizational learning in research organizations is an important determinant of the outcomes and impacts of research, because organizational learning is essential for transforming power relations that otherwise become an obstacle to innovation in NRM, as the case study by Stroud in this volume illustrates. The models or theories of participation and resource management that drive innovation in a research organization engaged in NRM are critical determinants of research practice. Many of the problems encountered in conducting participatory research are rooted in organizational behaviour rather than in the choice of methods or types of participation (see Box 1.3).

Models of participation in a research organization provide a means to structure and organize the research process, methods for decision-making, and the rules and behaviours of researchers. Models that are incompatible with adaptive PNRM make it difficult for the necessary learning to occur. When models of participation incompatible with adaptive PNRM prevail in a research organization, for example when research and development is the dominant model in contrast to research for development, most of the innovative research is done by an informal, or ‘shadow’, organization that develops as a way of circumventing the outmoded rules of the formal organization (Sherman and Schultz, 1998). Rocheleau, in this volume, analyses the world of isolated and undocumented participatory research outside formal research organizations and the institutional divides within formal research that are an obstacle to organizational learning. In contrast, in a learning organization new models of how to conduct research for development are rapidly incorporated and innovations are readily undertaken. The idea of a learning organization arose in the private sector out of the need to be adaptive in the face of rapid change driven by intense competition, and the learning organization concept has several features in common with participatory methodology, as the chapter by Stroud in this volume explores in detail. The models of participation that drive organizational behaviour and research practice are based on underlying principles (defined as the ideas that are used to formulate models). Principles are more important than rules or methodology: ‘rule-generated behaviour doesn’t work’ (Sherman and Schultz, 1998). For this reason, an important focus of this book is the illustration of the underlying principles of participation that are more important than the specificities of one or another participatory methodology. One way of illustrating how principles are more important than methods is to examine how participation in research adds value to adaptive NRM.

Adding value to resource management with participatory research

Participatory research adds value to NRM in several ways:

• By introducing new information and feedback into participatory learning and adaptive management.
• By increasing the capacity to cope with complexity and diversity.
• By the inclusion of lay knowledge in the identification of problems and monitoring of change.
• By enabling diverse stakeholders to challenge accepted wisdom, whether lay or expert.
• By potentially levelling the playing field and breaking down the monopoly of ‘one version of the truth’, which is often that of the dominant elites, and which can short-circuit collective action.
• By helping to establish agreement about what information stakeholders need and can use to make collective decisions.
• By building social capital which ‘spills over’ into collective action.
• By increasing the capacity for innovation.

Participatory learning is an essential part of research for development and adaptive management of complex ecosystems. Participatory research has a vital role to play in making sure that the learning process which drives adaptive management can draw on different kinds of knowledge and is not biased by just one explanation of key cause–effect relationships. When power relationships in the participatory research process are negotiated in an open forum, where different perceptions of cause–effect (and of credit and blame) can be aired, then research adds value to participatory management by bringing to the table new information that all stakeholders can use to forge an agreement. Pretty and Hine (2001) observe that innovation in sustainable resource management for agriculture is fostered by ‘farmer participation, rapid exchange and transfer of information when trust is good, better understanding of key agro-ecological relationships in fields, and farmers experimenting in groups’. Several case studies from this volume provide examples of participatory research adding value to resource management by fuelling the process of learning, successful innovation and adaptive management. Adding a farmer research component to evaluate and select promising potato clones with increased late blight resistance complemented learning about potato late blight through farmer field schools in Peru (see Nelson’s case study in this volume). Seed management innovations developed in Nepal through a process of interactive learning between indigenous and formal knowledge systems, and the success of community action, depended fundamentally on their ability to control processes of knowledge production through different kinds of research (see Pound’s case study in this volume). Their improved understanding of gene flow stimulated the interest of community members in learning plant breeding skills to proactively manage genetic resources.

Participatory research adds value to NRM by building on natural diversity because it is highly decentralized, adapted to location-specific conditions and stakeholder-driven. Classical research is identified with resource management practices based on reducing variability, and this slowly changes the functioning and resilience of an ecosystem, undermining ecosystem capacity to withstand or recover from shocks and stress. If natural variability is reduced or disturbances prevented, they accumulate and return at a later stage on a much broader scale. Diminishing variability tends to increase the potential for larger-scale, less predictable and less manageable disturbances that can have devastating effects on ecosystems (Ludwig et al, 1997), and to reduce the capacity of ecosystems to provide environmental services in the future.

Participatory research adds value to NRM in a different way when it promotes the involvement of extended peer communities in science. Adaptive management of complex ecosystems needs to include the stakeholders in an environmental problem when there is a high level of uncertainty about cause and effect, disagreement about research measurement and debate on ethical aspects (Funtowicz and Ravtz, 1993; Irwin, 1995). Participatory research approaches are especially needed in situations where there is disagreement and conflict over appropriate management: debate heightens the need to include lay expertise in the research process and to bring an end to the practice of research being conducted exclusively by technical specialists. Inclusion of lay expertise promotes an exchange of different forms of knowledge and cross-fertilization across diverse knowledge forms. Research for development requires: a willingness to engage in non-scientifically generated knowledge; an acceptance of a plurality of knowledge forms, not a unitary consensus; and a preparedness to engage with stakeholders’ concerns.

Common principles of participatory research

Participatory research can add value to NRM oriented at the development of sustainable livelihoods when some basic principles apply (see Box 1.4) that are common to all the diverse approaches illustrated in this book. First, the research agenda and problem definition is formulated by and with stakeholders and is driven by an organized expression of different stakeholder demands. This usually requires the use of diversity analysis to understand different roles, rights and responsibilities. Examples are given by the case studies of Conroy and Snapp, in this volume, of changes in research priorities after participatory problem analysis and experimentation.

A second principle is that data collection, processing, analysis and interpretation has to involve relevant stakeholders, improve their analytic capacity, advance their understanding of the resource management situation and provide them with a basis for action. Participation in research builds the capacity for ongoing innovation which is essential for sustainable livelihoods and resource management. It is not enough for researchers to collect and interpret data on their own.

Third, different types of knowledge and evidence are usually required and combined – both expert scientific knowledge and lay empirical knowledge –and this involves participatory learning and an exchange of knowledge among different stakeholders to ‘level the playing field’, and permit shared understanding to evolve. Blending knowledge also involves hybridization of methods, as when free experimentation combines with controlled experimentation, survey research with local observations, or GIS analysis, remote sensing and history with participatory scenario building.

Fourth, establishing the usefulness and relevance of results as a basis for action involves negotiation among all the stakeholders affected by the problem or the proposed action(s). The need for conflict resolution and facilitation skills is widely appreciated in PNRM. It is less well understood that these skills are equally important in the research process when needs for information are diverse, variant standards for what constitutes scientific proof are held, and definitions of participation diverge. Researchers approach participation in different ways, and their notions of participation may not be congruent with those held by local stakeholders, leading to implicit or explicit struggles for control over the research process.

A fifth principle is that mechanisms and procedures for monitoring, feedback and learning are integrated into the research process (as well as into the resource management process). This includes scrutiny of and learning about the quality of the participation and of the research, where questions of professional standards for participation may arise. Organizational learning and change in research entities to stimulate changes in research practice and evolution towards a model of participation in research for development may be crucial.

Finally, locally accountable representation and power of decision over research priorities and practice must be present. Adaptive PNRM is unavoidably embedded in action, real-life decisions and tradeoffs because the natural and social processes being investigated are almost impossible to subject to controlled experimentation. All the stakeholders in a participatory research process intended to promote innovation in resource management that improves livelihoods must have a decision-making domain and power to make choices that either approximate their actual situation or resemble the changes that are being anticipated in their power to choose among alternative resource management regimes. Otherwise unreal decisions and false choices will corrupt the process and confound the results, leading to conclusions that cannot be replicated or scaled up, issues that are explored by Rocheleau in this volume. Often this implies that researchers and development professionals give up some of their customary control and other stakeholders gain more power over the research process.

From the perspective of research and development, the idea of uniting science and participation seems at worst a messy, and even risky, interference by lay people in the domain of experts, complicating controlled experimentation and throwing scientific standards into question; and at best a poor substitute for market research. From the perspective of research for development – itself one facet of a broader goal of establishing the rights of citizens to participate in

defining the directions of an inclusive and empowering development process –participation is an important procedure for relevant science. This book provides an insight into many innovative efforts to unite participation with scientific rigour that show the promise of this endeavour.

References

Allan, T and Starr, T (1982) Hierarchy, University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Arnstein, S (1969) ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’, AIP Journal, July

Ashby, J (2001) ‘Integrated Research on Food and the Environment: An Exit Strategy from the Rational Food Syndrome in Agricultural Science’, Conservation Ecology, 5(2), http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art20/index.html

Berkes, F and Folke, C (1998) Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices for Building Resilience, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Biggs, S (1989) ‘Resource-poor Farmer Participation in Research: A Synthesis of Experiences from Nine National Agricultural Research Systems’, OFCOR Comparative Study Paper, ISNAR, The Hague, pp3–37

Braun, A, Thiele, G and Fernández, M (2000) ‘Farmer Field Schools and Local Agricultural Research Committees: Complementary Platforms for Integrated Decision-making in Sustainable Agriculture’, AgREN Network Paper No 105, Agricultural Research and Extension Network, Overseas Development Institute, London

Campbell, A (1998) ‘Fomenting Synergy: Experiences with Facilitating Landcare in Australia’, in Röling, N and Wagemakers, M (eds) Sustainable Agriculture and Participatory Learning, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp232–249

Cardenas, J (2002) ‘Rethinking Local Commons Dilemmas: Lessons from Experimental Economics in the Field’, in Isham, J, Kelley, T and Ramaswamy, S (eds) Social Capital, Economic Development and the Environment, Edward Elgar Publishing, Aldershot, UK

Carney, D (ed) (1998) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What Contribution Can We Make? DFID, London

Chambers, R (1997) Whose Reality Counts? Putting the Last First, Intermediate Technology, London

Conway, G (1985) ‘Agroecosystem Analysis’, Agricultural Administration, 20:31–55

Conway, G (1987) ‘The Properties of Agroecosystems’, Agricultural Systems, 24:95–117

Conway, G (1997) The Doubly Green Revolution: Food for All in the 21st Century, Penguin, London

Cooke, B and Kothari, U (2001) Participation: The New Tyranny?, Zed Books, London

Daily, G C (1997) ‘Management Objectives for the Protection of Ecosystem Services’, Environmental Science and Policy, 3(6):333–339

Folke, C, Pritchard L Jr, Berkes, F, Coling, J and Svedin, U (1998) ‘The Problem of Fit between Ecosystems and Institutions’, Working Paper Number 2, International Human Dimensions Program on Global Environmental Change, Bonn, Germany. Available online at http://www.uni-bonn.de/ihdp/WorkingPaper02/WP02m.htm.

Funtowicz, S, and Ravtz, J (1993) ‘Science for the Post-normal Age’, Futures, 25:739–755

Giampetro, M and Pastore, G (1999) ‘Multi-dimensional Reading of the Dynamics of Rural Intensification in China: The Amoeba Approach’, Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 18(3):299–329

Holling, C (1986) ‘The Resilience of Terrestrial Ecosystems: Local Surprise and Global Change’, in Clark, W and Munn, R (eds) Sustainable Development of the Biosphere, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp292–317

Holling, C S, Schindler, D W, Walker, B H and Roughgarden, J (1995) ‘Biodiversity in the Functioning of Ecosystems: An Ecological Synthesis’, in Perrings, C A, Maler, K G, Folke, C, Holling, C S and Jansson, B-O (eds) Biodiversity Loss: Economic and Ecological Issues, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Irwin, A (1995) Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development, Routledge, London

Lilja, N and Ashby, J (1999) Types of Participatory Research Based on Locus of Decision Making, Working Document No 6, PRGA Progam, Cali, Colombia, http://www.prgaprogram.org/download/working_documents/wd6.pdf

Lilja, N, Johnson, N and Ashby, J (2001) Characterizing and Measuring the Effects of Incorporating Stakeholder Participation in Natural Resource Management Research: Analysis of Research Benefits and Costs in Three Case Studies, PRGA Working Document No 17, Cali, Colombia

Lilja, N and Erenstein, O (2002) Institutional Process Impacts of Participatory Rice Improvement Research and Gender Analysis in West Africa, Working Document No 20, PRGA Progam, Cali, Colombia

Ludwig, D, Walker, B and Holling, C (1997) ‘Sustainability, Stability and Resilience’, Conservation Ecology, 1: 7, and http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss1/art7

Marion, R (1999) The Edge of Organization: Chaos and Complexity Theories of Formal Social Systems, Thousand Oaks, California

Mosse, D (2001) ‘ “People’s Knowledge”, Participation and Patronage: Operations and Representations in Rural Development’, in Cooke, B and Kothari, U (eds) Participation: The New Tyranny?, Zed Books, London, pp1–35

Ostrom, E (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Pearce, D, Barbier, E and Markandya, A (1990) Sustainable Development: Economics and Environment in the Third World, Edward Elgar Publishing, Aldershot, UK

Pretty, J (1994) ‘Alternative Systems of Inquiry for a Sustainable Agriculture’, IDS Bulletin, 25:37–48

Pretty, J (1995) Regenerating Agriculture: Policies and Practice for Sustainability and Self-reliance, Earthscan Publications, London

Pretty, J and Hine, R (2001) Reducing Food Poverty with Sustainable Agriculture: A Summary of New Evidence, Final Report from the SAFE-World Research Project, University of Essex, Colchester

Ravnborg, H, Ashby, J, Guerrero, M, and Rubiano, J (1996) ‘Experiments with a Stakeholder Approach for Conflict Resolution: Burning in Hillsides Farming’, ILEIA Newsletter, April 1996, pp14–15

Ribot, J (1999) ‘Accountable Representation and Power in Participatory and Decentralized Environmental Management’, UNASYLVA, 50:18–22

Scoones, I (1998) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis, Working Paper 72, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton

Sherman, H and Schultz, R (1998) Open Boundaries. Creating Business Innovation Through Complexity, Perseus Books, Massachusetts

Tenner, E (1996) Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge Effect, Fourth Estate, London

Chapter 2

Navigating Complexity, Diversity and Dynamism: Reflections on Research for Natural Resource Management

Cynthia McDougall and Ann Braun

Introduction

Despite notable productivity-related successes, traditional, scientist-led, technical research in natural resource management (NRM) has come under criticism from farmers, donors, and even scientists themselves (GFAR, 1999, 2000) for concerns about weak relevance and adoption. In response to this critique, participatory research approaches – with more user-oriented, flexible methods and a different set of assumptions about research – have emerged. Yet as these participatory approaches have gained momentum, criticisms of their application have also emerged, especially around ‘scientific rigour’, generalizability and naiveté about power relations (Cooke and Kothari, 2001). Furthermore, the relationship between traditional and participatory research is often confusing, the lines between them blurred. Despite increasing interdisciplinarity in enquiry and innovation processes, a multitude of tensions and even scepticism surrounds the two approaches. These tensions have created the risk of NRM researchers aligning themselves either with participatory or with traditional research, and missing opportunities to gain from the strengths of the other. In this chapter, we seek to address this risk by exploring some key dimensions (see below, ‘Traditional and participatory research: key dimensions of difference’) and the strengths and weaknesses (‘Putting it together: reflections on navigating the research spectrum’) of both approaches, as well as the related concept of diversity analysis (‘Diversity analysis in NRM research’). Through this exploration, we underscore the complexity and dynamism (‘The challenge: complexity, diversity and dynamism in human and natural landscapes’) inherent in the human and natural systems that

NRM research addresses. We argue that the desired improvements in NRM demand that research institutions assess, more explicitly and thoughtfully than ever before, the multiple facets of traditional and participatory research approaches, and consciously craft appropriate and innovative combinations of approaches for each research initiative.

The challenge: complexity, diversity and dynamism in human and natural landscapes

NRM research faces multiple challenges if it is to contribute to environmental sustainability, improved livelihoods and equitable social development. Many of these can be traced to three factors that underpin the resilience of human and natural systems: complexity, diversity and dynamism. We will briefly explore here how these affect both human and biophysical aspects of NRM systems.

NRM takes place in complex human landscapes. Multiple stakeholders such as local people, various levels of government, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and private sector actors have different perspectives, interests, entitlements, knowledge, capabilities, values and power (see Chapter 3 in this volume). This is true at all scales of NRM, and in all ‘sectors’, including forestry, fisheries and agriculture. Within stakeholder groups, tremendous diversity also exists – a reality that dispels commonly held assumptions of homogeneous, consensual ‘communities’ and the existence of stable, universally valued ‘environments’ (Leach et al, 1997, in Anderson, 2001). Within a single community forest user group, for example, there are overlapping categories of human diversity, such as gender, age, ethnicity and caste, religion, wealth and proximity to resources. These ‘internal differences’ underpin critical issues of equity, power and access to resources and decision-making. This human landscape is also dynamic in nature. This is especially true in today’s global economy: there are no closed social systems (Anderson, 2001); governments are decentralizing; roles and rights are changing rapidly; rural people are often relocating in search of viable livelihoods or to escape environmental or political hardship; and households rely on a constantly changing mix of livelihood activities and strategies.

One of the implications of this human system of complexity, diversity and dynamism is that individuals and institutions face constant changes in terms of risks, opportunities and decisions. The majority of decisions in NRM affect a number of different stakeholder groups, and may affect them differently. Especially where resources are scarce, or have a high value, or where differences in power exist between and within stakeholder groups, NRM becomes an on-going process of negotiation and conflict management. This varies in nature and by degree; from the forging of agreements, through ‘hidden’ undercurrents, to explicit violence – (such as in illegal logging conflicts in Indonesia). Anderson (2001) insightfully notes that the role of human diversity, or pluralism, is ‘somewhat paradoxical since it provides some of the force that can break down or inhibit cooperation and collaboration, while it also provides basic forces for essential elements of robustness and adaptability’.

Source: Adapted from Anderson (2001), and drawing on concepts from Denslow (1980), Grubb (1977), Picket and White (1985), Maturana and Varela (1980), Capra (1997) and Holling (1995)

Figure 2.1 Key characteristics of natural systems

One human complexity issue of particular interest in the context of this chapter is the relationship between local people and NRM researchers. Traditional resource managers, such as farmers, may have an extensive understanding of local systems and an interest in applied learning that might lead to increased livelihood security and benefits. In contrast, the aims of most scientists are to understand systems or their individual components, monitor changes, determine responses to management and predict trends and impacts over various time periods. These different knowledge bases and interests reflect Anderson’s (2001) reference to the potential for ‘clash’ or, we hope, complementarity.

As with human systems, natural systems also need to be understood in terms of complexity and dynamism. The Cartesian view of the world provided a relatively simple way of understanding ‘nature’: that is by dissecting it into smaller and smaller pieces (Capra, 1997). This ‘building block’ worldview

evolved to recognize how ‘blocks’ are organized into systems. More recent, and still emerging, perspectives recognize that natural systems can more accurately be understood as self-organizing processes driven by the ‘messy’ principles of dynamism and complexity, as well as unpredictability and openness. Figure 2.1 highlights these principles.

To make matters more challenging still, human and natural systems are obviously interlinked. If the management of these systems is to be effective, it must parallel their interactive, dynamic and adaptive nature (Anderson, 2001; Costanza et al, 1997, 2000). If research is to successfully contribute to NRM, then the research itself must also embody these qualities. The question then becomes how to translate this into practice. The history of formal NRM research reflects a culture of research endeavours set up along political, sectoral and disciplinary lines, with specialists operating independently on a narrow set of issues, and agendas dominated by short-term, problem-solving concerns (Shreier, pers comm). If complex and diverse human and natural systems, and the research systems that are applied to them, can be brought into harmony, the current trend of diminishing returns and decreasing relevance from research might be reversed. It is for this reason that we now turn to an exploration of participatory and traditional research, and their joint potential to contribute to positive social and environmental change.

Traditional and participatory research: key dimensions of difference

Traditional (or conventional) research and participatory research do not exist as neatly definable and independent concepts. These terms refer to collections of approaches and experiences, which theorists bundle together out of convenience and necessity, as a way of making sense of experience. We draw from several sources in this chapter to outline those dimensions that we find useful (Biggs, 1989; Probst et al, 2000; Pretty, 1994; Milne et al, 2001; Lilja and Ashby, 2000; Johnson et al, 2000).

Who owns and controls the research?

NRM research generally refers to enquiry in which there are both local and external actors involved in some way in an innovation process (Probst et al, 2000). One (some would argue the) fundamental dimension of difference between traditional and participatory research is the issue of ‘who controls and makes decisions’ about this process (Lilja and Ashby, 2000). Biggs (1989) (see Box 2.1) offers a well-known four-tier framework for understanding this range of control. Other typologies of participation that researchers are likely to find useful include those of Arnstein (1969), Pretty (1994) and Ingles et al (1999).

The related question of ownership also needs to be considered when defining participation. Who is participating in whose process? Scientists might invite farmers to participate in formal research processes using different types of

participation or, on the other hand, the scientists themselves might participate to varying degrees in a locally owned innovation process (Probst et al, 2000).

What do these types of participation look like in practice? Contractual participation is well illustrated by on-farm research where a farmer provides the land, or socioeconomic surveys in which local people respond to researchers’ questions. In this chapter, the term ‘traditional research’ predominantly involves this type of participation, although it can also include consultative participation, or may involve no participation (that is, pure on-station testing of crops, or pure biophysical assessment of water or forest properties).

The other types of participation are effectively illustrated by the case studies found in the annex to this volume. For example, the McDougall et al case study illustrates research that combines consultative participation (in the background studies, which gave direction to the subsequent action research phase) with collaborative and collegiate participation (in the participatory action research (PAR) phase, in which local people, researchers and other partners confronted local issues of forest management decision-making, equity and income generation). While the background studies in this case were basically ‘researcher owned’, the PAR phase was ‘jointly owned’ by the forest user group (FUG) members and researchers, with the FUG members ultimately taking over and continuing to integrate the institutional innovations into their on-going management processes.

Where does research end and implementation begin?

The second fundamental difference that we highlight here is the significant difference in the links between the research and implementation (that is, application or adoption) phases of development. Traditional research collects results – typically for several seasons – before data are analysed, put into reports

and then ‘released’. These are (ideally) taken up by (separate) extension services and translated into extension messages, which are then disseminated. In participatory research, particularly participatory action research, the implementation of research findings – and the related technical and social changes in the rural areas – is integral to, rather than separate from, the research process (Pound, pers comm).

Other dimensions of difference

In the above sections we located ‘traditional’ research (if it involves local people) towards the ‘contractual participation’ end of the spectrum, and associated ‘participatory’ research with consultative, collaborative and collegiate participation. We also noted that traditional research operates with research and implementation as discrete phases, while participatory research tends to integrate or iterate between the two. But the terms ‘traditional’ and ‘participatory’ research also embody other dimensions. In Table 2.1 we illustrate these differences with a simplified view of the ‘extremes’ of a multi-dimensional spectrum.

Table 2.1 shows how the ends of the spectrum reflect different assumptions and foci (as discussed in the section entitled ‘The challenge: complexity, diversity and dynamism in human and natural landscapes’). We can see a difference in the complexity and ‘activeness’ of the research and in researcher and farmer roles: from single to multiple perspectives and types of knowledge; from neutral or passive roles to active and engaged; and from single level/linear to multiple levels/directions of dissemination. Another point of interest in this matrix, and in the Biggs typology, is the greater degree of overlap in methods compared to other dimensions of difference. Many people assume that any research that uses some participatory methods cannot be ‘traditional’; and that ‘participatory’ research cannot apply ‘traditional’ scientific tools. Methods, however, are less important in distinguishing these research approaches than the other dimensions or the degree of control over decision-making. One of the reasons for this is the increasing frequency with which traditional types of research (for example the ‘transfer of technology’ type, see‘NRM research in practice: four examples of research “types” ’ below) use participatory methods of accessing information as a means of increasing the accuracy of information or its legitimacy in the community.

NRM research in practice: four examples of research ‘types’

If we pull together the types of participation, the question of ‘whose research’, and some of the other key dimensions of difference outlined above, we see emerging patterns of NRM research. In Figure 2.2 we illustrate four ‘prototypical’ approaches to innovation development (adapted from Probst et al, 2000) in relation to control over research and form of participation. These are not the only possible ‘types’ nor are they mutually exclusive or fixed (as represented by the arrows); we present this typology because it is relatively simple, yet informative.

As Mcallister and Vernooy (1999) state so simply, ‘there is no right or wrong amount of participation’, nor is there any single ‘best type’, nor ‘best place’ on

Table 2.1 Comparison of traditional and participatory research on several key dimensions

Sources: Costanza et al, 2000; Biggs, 1989; Pretty, 1994; Lilja and Ashby, 2001; DFID, 1998; Chambers, 1994; Milne et al, 2001; Cooperrider and Srivastva, 1987; von Glasersfeld, 2001; Guendel et al, 2001; Allen, 2001

Source: Adapted from Probst et al, 2000

Figure 2.2 Examples of four ‘prototypical’ approaches to innovation development

the research spectrum. The challenge is for researchers to consciously navigate the research spectrum in order to maximize the effectiveness and positive contribution of their research to NRM and development. Before we go on to discuss this in greater depth, including implications for future research, we turn to another fundamental aspect of NRM research: gender and diversity.

Diversity analysis in NRM research

While it is an integral element of traditional and participatory research, diversity analysis is so significant and complex that it merits separate consideration in this chapter. It is obvious how diversity (see Box 2.2) affects some research

dimensions, such as methods. Yet diversity also interacts in subtle ways with other research dimensions; it influences, for example, the issues of rigour, validity and objectivity. These, in turn, affect the confidence and credibility that can be accorded to research results, and the domains into which they can be disseminated.

What is diversity analysis?

Diversity analysis is more than analysing data by gender or ethnic group. It is an approach in which key elements of human difference, such as gender, wealth, caste, age and ethnicity, become analytical variables throughout the research or programme, from design to implementation, analysis and evaluation. It involves exploring a range of questions and issues spanning both the structure (roles) and dynamics (relations) of human systems. Some of the points for exploration include:

• What are the roles and responsibilities of the different groups relating to natural resource management?
• How and why are these roles, relationships, patterns and differences changing over time?
• What are the differences in how resources are valued?
• What are the differences in the criteria for decision-making about resources and why do they exist?
• Who controls access to resources? Who makes decisions about them and why?
• Who benefits from each activity or enterprise? Who bears any associated costs?

• What are the relationships among the groups? What are the power dynamics?
• How do relationships, power and roles influence the decision-making of the group regarding resources and ultimate outcomes?
• What options exist for increasing equitable access to decision-making and natural resource benefits, especially for marginalized stakeholders?

Many practitioners and theorists increasingly emphasize that the focus of the analysis should be on relations rather than roles (McDougall, 2001), except at a very descriptive level. This is because a focus on roles offers a ‘static’ perspective on issues that are based on power relations, and thus inherently dynamic (Young, 1988). In Box 2.3 we offer a modified version of a typology of gender analysis developed by the System-wide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (PRGA) of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). The typology ranges from an analysis aimed at a description of roles to a more dynamic approach that seeks to address inequities.

As with the participation typologies (see the section entitled ‘Who owns and controls the research?’), there is no single ‘correct’ type of diversity analysis; instead the researcher must identify the key dimensions of diversity or difference that merit inclusion, and navigate the spectrum of participation to find the appropriate level for the given objectives and context.² The different outcomes of navigating this spectrum are well illustrated by the range of diversity approaches used in the case studies (see Table 2.2), summarized in this volume.

In its shift from descriptive to more action-oriented enquiry, this diversity analysis typology (see Box 2.3) can be seen to roughly parallel the spectrum of traditional to participatory research. The very ‘ends’ of the traditional and participatory research spectrum are fairly clearly linked (for example,

Table 2.2 Types and significance of diversity approaches from case studies

participatory action research and transformation-oriented diversity analysis); the vast middle areas, however, call for considerable attention and flexibility on the appropriate type of diversity approach (eg, consultative research might take descriptive or design-oriented approaches). The potential ‘clash’ that can be identified between diversity approaches and some traditional research occurs where the research assumes that local stakeholder views and needs are homogeneous. It may be that these views and needs are, indeed, homogeneous in a certain case. In cases where there is significant heterogeneity, however, the ‘costs’ of overlooking the diversity may be very high, including limitations to the relevance, effectiveness or adoption of the research, or even the marginalization of certain groups. This potential clash can be avoided by research teams seeking out and examining the validity of underlying assumptions in this area, on a case-by-case basis.

Besides the analytical aspects, there is one further point related to diversity that we suggest as necessary for all parts of the research approach spectrum whenever any local people are involved: design and implementation of research that is sensitive to local stakeholders including, and especially, women and marginalized groups. This refers to the simple, yet still sometimes overlooked aspects of accommodating workloads, cultural and other factors that may create difficulties or discomfort for local people in research settings.

Diversity analysis, research and NRM

Experience has disproved the projections of development pundits who believed in the ‘trickle down theory’. The assumption that targeting development interventions at male heads of households would equally benefit other household members, particularly women, has not been validated in practice. (Sarin, 1997)

Natural resource managers’ perceived opportunities and constraints in decision-making, and their resulting actions and behaviours, are not only determined by the natural system in which they exist; they are significantly determined by their different (diversity) identities, including their interests, roles, knowledge and vulnerability and power (Schmink, 1999). In this way, diversity analysis in NRM contributes to ‘a more accurate and complete picture of a complex social landscape’ (McDougall, 2001). Research that better reflects the experiences of diverse (especially non-dominant) groups is more likely to lead to NRM policies or programmes that take into account those different experiences and aim for more sustainable and equitable impacts. Furthermore, a diversity approach tends to bring to light the ‘invisible’ poor stakeholders, and elucidate the fact that relative well-being is neither neutral nor random. In this way, more accurate and complete assessments also lead to more effective and efficient impacts of research, policy and development programmes (McDougall, 2001; Wilde and Vainio-Mattila, 1995).

While diversity analysis (and sensitivity) is necessary across the research spectrum, diversity analysis and participatory research are mutually reinforcing. In collaborative or collegiate research there is shared responsibility for, and

ownership of, the outcomes resulting from choices and decisions made jointly. Ideally, by taking part in research, learning, and negotiation, all those who participate become collectively responsible for decisions and for the resulting outcomes. They become the owners of their choices, and the research and consequent NRM process may be ‘democratized’. As diversity analysis addresses the key issue of who should participate in decision-making about NRM, it can enable multiple stakeholders to critically assess how different users affect, and are affected by, the status quo and innovations in technology, institutional arrangements, management practices and information flows. Used effectively, participatory research grounded in diversity analysis can draw out and build on the range of perceptions, interests, relations and power, to form the basis for a consensus-building process for increasingly equitable and sustainable NRM. At the same time, these changes are not without risks. These processes can shed light on and activate dormant or latent conflicts. Pound (pers comm) suggests, as well, that enhanced equity in NRM institutions can also reduce motivation and contribute to the loss of local natural resource enterprise viability.

A final and important question is raised here about the nature of diversity analysis: because it is rooted in a movement for social transformation, and is essentially ‘political’ in nature, is diversity therefore also transformative about other relations? Specifically, does it redefine concepts of ‘subject–researcher’ relations? Does it challenge traditional notions of ‘objectivity’? Certainly diversity analysis at least demands a certain degree of critical self-reflection by researchers in terms of their roles and relationships with the ‘participants’ or ‘subjects’ of the research. This, and the potential reflection on researchers’ own identities, influences and biases, pose a (welcome or sometimes unwelcome) challenge for research teams. (McDougall, 2001)

Putting it together: reflections on navigating the research spectrum

The foregoing sections explored the challenging context of NRM research, some dimensions of traditional and participatory research, and the indispensable concept of diversity analysis. The goal of this section is to contribute to critical reflection on research design by highlighting several key factors that relate the research approaches to the desired NRM impacts. The ‘litmus test’ of an NRM research approach is, of course, the extent to which it contributes to creating greater choice of livelihood and environmental options, benefits and security, while maintaining the quality of the natural resource base. If either traditional or participatory research alone had excelled at this challenge, then the choice of research approach would be relatively simple. In fact, both traditional and participatory research approaches have produced mixed and uneven contributions towards these goals. While there have been

advances in NRM and human well-being that relate to traditional research, for example, its record has been inconsistent and limited, and where it has contributed, it has tended to do so only for the middle-income to wealthy farmers (Conway, 1997). Traditional research also faces some valid questions in terms of its impact on long-term food security, because of its potential narrowing of the agricultural genetic base in farming systems. The field of biotechnology is also faced with questions about its potential environmental and human health threats. While participatory research, especially participatory action research, has made some significant progress in increasing well-being in some communities and management systems at a neighbourhood level, these impacts have been predominantly localized (Guendel et al, 2001). Furthermore, participatory research experiences have also abounded in which the quality of participation was questionable and/or the attention to gender and diversity was not sufficient to counter a bias towards the local elite (Cooke and Kothari, 2001). This being the case, in this section we consider several other factors that can help in the navigation of the research spectrum, including the linking of research approaches to objectives, research questions, knowledge and communication.

Research objectives and approaches

In this section we highlight three ways in which the level and kind of participation needs to be adjusted to the research objectives, defined collectively by researchers and other stakeholders. The first, and perhaps most ubiquitous, issue is the matching of type and degree of participation to the nature and quality of information required for each research case. Questions such as the following may help guide research teams through these decisions:

• What kind of qualitative versus quantitative information is needed for the desired analysis?
• Do some stakeholders (for example, credit organizations or variety release boards) require quantitative information from the experimentation process?
• To what extent does our research question require participation, and diversity analysis, to achieve the appropriate level of accuracy (and specificity) of information?
• What are the tradeoffs between local accuracy and the generalizability of findings, and how can they be addressed?
• To what extent can the ‘hypotheses’ be tested ‘in action’, in complex social or natural environments, and to what extent do they require a more controlled environment?

Research with a local-scale agenda, may do well to have a highly participatory and qualitative research process (possibly with a transformation-oriented diversity approach). The degree to which the research questions and objectives demand the ability to extrapolate the findings beyond the site will influence the design in terms of mechanisms for ‘scaling up’, such as comparative cases with common variables, or tools such as geographical information systems (GIS, see

Chapter 4; van de Fliert and Braun, 2002; Guendel et al, 2001 and the McDougall et al case study in this volume). On the other hand, research into a limited number of components of a specific biophysical process may be well suited to more ‘station-based’, scientist-led, disciplinary research, which provides an opportunity for ‘controlled’ experiments where the effect of individual variables can be isolated and compared. This ties into an important role of traditional biophysical research, the development of general theories for the structure and dynamics of natural and managed ecosystems, such as agroforestry and fishery systems (Schreier, pers comm; Settle, 1997).

The farmer field school experience (see Nelson case study, this volume; Braun et al, 2000) illustrates how traditional research can contribute to locally specific research needs, and how traditional and participatory approaches feed into one another. Farmer field schools emphasize experimentation aimed at discovering how the local agroecosystem operates as the foundation for decision-making. For example, in some contexts, experiments have helped farmer field school participants to realize that a reduced use of pesticides permits the development of larger populations of beneficial species capable of controlling pests. Farmers can translate this knowledge into relatively simple decision rules governing their pesticide use. In other contexts, for example where there are recently introduced species, local understanding of ecosystem components and inter-relationships is not sufficiently developed to permit the development of good field school learning exercises. In these cases, farmers cannot easily formulate simple decision rules (Settle, 1997), and thus there is a need for a more explicit link with formal research (as well as development of farmer capacity for controlled experimentation and relatively rigorous data collection (Loevinsohn et al, 1998; Whitten, 1996; Braun et al, 2000).

The second issue relating objectives to participation is that any research initiative involving local people must define its social goals and its level of obligation to improve the situation of local people. De facto responses to this question range from no responsibility, through return of research findings in an appropriate manner, to engaging in transformative activities at the sites. In fact, in many cases, this decision is made implicitly (by the research team), rather than explicitly, both at the research project and institutional level. This is indicative of the dimension of difference between traditional and participatory research regarding the degree to which the research merges into dissemination and application of the results (see the section entitled ‘Where does research end and implementation begin?’ above). Our own case experiences suggest that negotiating this decision in a more explicit way can help to strengthen the clarity of the design and objectives (and expectations) for researchers and local people.

The third, and related, issue in the consideration of objectives and corresponding research approaches is that participatory processes can catalyse institutional learning in the research team (as opposed to the acquisition of knowledge by scientists on NRM issues). They not only potentially change the kind and source of the information gathered but, more fundamentally, require that the research teams loosen their control over the ‘lens’ through which different NRM options or scenarios are viewed. Research teams that put a premium on their own learning as the basis for adaptive approaches to research may therefore

seek participatory approaches to their initiatives (and likely to their own internal processes as well – see Chapter 6).

Strengths and weaknesses of research approaches

Besides the implications of research objectives, several other factors may play a definitive role in developing an appropriate research approach for a given initiative. Table 2.3 and the following four sub-sections explore some differences, strengths and risks of traditional and participatory research relative to four underlying conditions for successful NRM research:

1. asking the ‘right’ research questions – those that are critical and relevant to stakeholders;
2. integration of local and scientific knowledge;
3. effective communication of research findings to those who need them;
4. assuring that ‘costs’ of inputs to research are acceptable to local stakeholders and researchers. (Pretty and Hine, 2001; Chapter 6, this volume).

Asking the ‘right’ research questions

No matter how good the research, if the question it is seeking to address is not the right one, then its impact is limited. Gladwin et al (2002), for example, suggest that the seemingly crucial question of ‘how much nutrient a farmer should put on her soil given the desired output’ is not the ‘right’ question for most poor African farmers. Although these farmers desire higher outputs, and being able to predict the impact of nutrient levels would be potentially useful, their resource constraints do not permit them the luxury of responding effectively to that information. The type of questions they need answers to are more like: ‘How much nutrient can we afford to put on, and how much yield will that give and how will we make up for the gaps? (Gladwin et al, 2002)

From Table 2.3, we can see that participatory research (especially the critical objective setting and design phase) offers the advantage of acting as a check on the relevance of research questions to local people (the ultimate beneficiaries). Yet, great local relevance may pose certain risks as well. It may make the research questions (and outcomes) so specific that it limits their generalizability to other areas, and it may shorten the ‘lifetime’ of the relevance of research questions and their outcomes. Traditional research, on the other hand, typically addresses ‘slower moving’ issues, and thus research questions with longer time scales. Furthermore, while in theory the outputs of traditional research may be more readily transferred to greater geographical scales than locally oriented participatory research, in practice its results may be of limited ‘real world’ relevance (especially in the context of relatively more marginalized lands and farmers). Clearly some articulation between the two, as well as appropriate application of diversity approaches, would lend strength to NRM research in terms of an ability to balance issues of scale. The McDougall et al case study in this volume offers one example of an effort towards such articulation. This research project has a set of overarching strategic research questions (that is, conditions and strategies for, and outcomes of, adaptive and collaborative management of forests) and a set of basic variables, shared by sites in

ten countries. Researchers at each site use these questions and variables for guidance in their own research design, and respond to them as a part of both their initial context studies and their final analysis. This shared framework enables cross-site and cross-country comparative analysis. Meanwhile, at the site level, researchers and local stakeholders engage in action research that falls within this research framework ‘umbrella’, yet addresses a locally specific set of priority NRM issues. For example, they explore the possibilities for improving equity and accountability within a forest user group, and enhancing forest-related livelihood benefits, through joint self-monitoring and adjustments in decision-making processes.

Integrating local and scientific knowledge

The dangers of theorizing while safely ensconced in the ivory tower are not exaggerated. Yet . . . throwing out the methods of modern science along with quantification and statistics . . . is putting the researcher in more danger – the danger of being wrong with no way to show it. By contrast, the scientific method requires the researcher to model their interpretation of reality by generating a hypothesis about people’s behavior, then collect observational data to test the model, then revise the model based on the test results. This hypothesis-testing sequence is the basis of science. Without it, researchers have no way of giving themselves a reality check. (Gladwin et al, 2002)

The value of the knowledge generated is perhaps one of the most hotly contested of the debates in development science, because it includes questions of rigour and generalizability, as well as different knowledge worlds. As illustrated by many of the case studies in this book (Dey, Stroud, Vaughan, Snapp and Rohrbach, Heong, Nelson and Braun), research that intends to produce agricultural or NRM technologies or processes for ‘adoption’ and ‘adaptation’ by farmers needs to integrate the best of local and scientific knowledge worlds, or else risk failure.

We start by addressing the issues of knowledge worlds: what is the relevance of the differences in knowledge worlds in NRM research? Traditional researcher-led experiments draw on the scientific method to provide information on theoretical maximum effects under controlled conditions, where constraints are minimal. They also provide understanding of key processes. Local research by farmers and other resource users provides responses under realistic management conditions where a wide range of constraints may affect the outcome. In traditional researcher-led experiments a limited number of factors are tested and hence the extrapolation of the results to more complex settings is problematic. In farmer-led research, on the other hand, it is more difficult to assess the direct causes of diminished performance, because of the fact that it is addressing issues in a complex and dynamic system.

In terms of the ‘validity’ of that knowledge, Chambers (1994) points out that there is significant evidence of ‘local knowledge’ being more ‘accurate’ than

Table 2.3 Strengths, weaknesses and risks of participatory natural resource management research approaches (relative to traditional approaches)

scientific knowledge in some issues; thus the need for ‘science’ to be humble in its claim for validity. At the same time, the reverse may also be true. Local resource managers may notice the symptoms, but incorrectly assign the cause. For instance, herders in east Africa avoided grazing their cattle on some areas because of their fears of ‘poisonous grasses’ that made their cattle sick, when it was actually tsetse flies causing trypanosomiasis. In Asia, K L Heong points out that the very visible damage done to the early stages of rice by leaf folders resulted in many farmers spraying their crops in the belief that this would lead to higher yields. In fact, carefully controlled studies showed that the leaf folders did not lead to economic damage, and that spraying was unnecessary (Heong, pers comm).

The issue of the ‘quality of science’ or ‘rigour’ has also been at the heart of much debate on the knowledge derived from traditional and participatory science. The wealth of experience of ‘rigorous’ research that did not take into account local needs, interests, knowledge and preferences, and resulted in ‘scientifically’ valid, but unused, outputs helps to contextualize this issue. Clearly, classical ‘rigour’ is not in itself sufficient if the science cannot transfer into real world, complex systems, and ultimately to benefits. In these cases, traditional research can profit from combining with holistic complex local knowledge through the incorporation of participatory approaches. Equally, there are some valid critiques of potential shortcomings of participatory research in gathering and analysing data. Gladwin et al (2002) point out three of these, in relation to ‘rapid rural appraisal’ types of research (which are participatory – but tend to be on a very short timeline):

1. each member of the research team tends to work with, and then draw generalizations from, too small a sample size (and these generalizations are pooled with other generalizations);
2. time pressures contribute to ignoring variations in farmers’ decisions and practices, and focusing instead on similarities;
3. the hypotheses and generalizations generated may remain untested, mainly because much of the data may remain uncoded and unanalysed.

In these cases, the research risks its quality, and/or its generalizability.

Research teams can avoid these pitfalls of participatory research, by directly and creatively addressing them through careful design (while maintaining flexibility), detailed observation and record keeping, and explicit analysis with clear documentation. The design can enhance the quality of its local findings by drawing on the essence of the scientific method (ie, reality checking through testing ‘assumptions’), not in a rigid way, but innovatively and as appropriate (eg, the Braun case study in this volume; Gladwin et al, 2002). Several sources highlight ways to safeguard the ‘quality of science’ in participatory and ‘soft systems’ research (see Chapter 5, this volume; Pretty, 1994; Chambers, 1994; Dick, 1997; Checkland, 1981; Checkland and Scholes, 1990). We highlight some of these in Box 2.4.

Integrating local knowledge and ‘scientific’ knowledge is not a simple task. As traditional research seeks to increase its ultimate effectiveness through the

incorporation of local knowledge and preferences, it comes face to face with diversity of all kinds, and needs also to seek the appropriate place on the diversity spectrum. Approaches for ensuring ‘rigour’ employed in the research cases in this volume include: the use of common strategic questions and analytical variables across PAR case studies; participatory modelling; the use of forums for the exchange of experimental results; analysis at different temporal and spatial scales; and the use of GIS for extrapolation and the integration of qualitative and quantitative information (see the Vaughan, Heong, Nelson, Braun, Vernooy and Schreier case studies in this volume).

Effective communication and application of research findings

A participatory research approach can contribute to NRM research its experience in the establishment of local communication and research findings ‘uptake’ mechanisms. The on-going horizontal, multi-directional information sharing between external and local stakeholders, and within local groups, which is typical of participatory research, may help to correct distortions in information. This distortion correction function should not be underestimated; most NRM research is not only operating in a complex system, but at the intersection of multiple

complex systems, and the likelihood of misinterpretations by research is very high. Furthermore, this kind of communication is a critical part of generating the immediate application of research findings and thus research impact.

Traditional research offers powerful methods of communicating to audiences well beyond the research site, including international donor agencies, national policy-makers, and extension services. In this case, participatory research experiences can benefit from borrowing strategies and tools for scaling-up results, such as GIS and modelling. The attention to explicit documentation and analysis contributes, also, to the ability of participatory research to effectively use the dissemination channels of traditional research, including scientific journals and policy fora. In other words, it seems very likely that combining the communication (and related impact) strategies of participatory and traditional research, on a base of high quality research, will generate movement towards research that is both relevant locally, and effectively and broadly disseminated and applied.

Costs of inputs to research are acceptable to local stakeholders and researchers

Participatory research is generally viewed as having higher time and ‘effort’ costs than traditional research, in the sense that a research team can do surveys in dozens of villages in the time that it takes to do participatory action research in one village. Although this is true in relation to the intensity of effort involved, this perception is also somewhat flawed because it is comparing initiatives with different objectives and processes. As noted in the section ‘Where does research end and implementation begin?’, above, traditional research views the research findings and/or output as the product, whereas participatory research typically views greater livelihood security and positive environmental change as the product. In other words, the participatory research ‘timeline’ necessarily involves an ‘impact’ phase that merges with the research phase itself (Pound, pers comm).

A related point, distinguishing the ‘efforts’ involved in research, is the nature of local stakeholders’ decision-making regarding their involvement (and expectations) in research. Traditional research is extractive, and there is no obvious research findings-related benefit to communities; their time is generally either paid for (in cash or in kind), or donated (out of interest, hoped-for benefits, curiosity, a sense of obligation or a variety of other motivations). In well-conducted participatory research, local stakeholders should be clear from the start, and throughout, about the costs and benefits that might accrue to different groups; in other words, they make a conscious decision (and an on-going series of decisions) whether or not to invest their time and effort in a long-term process. An additional consideration here is that the impact in the early years often gives an advantage to the stronger members of a community. This may be due to it taking longer for the socially weaker, less secure members to join the processes of joint experimentation – for reasons that may include time and costs. This can also be because research benefits relating to long-term improvements in financial and natural capital can depend on certain levels of human and social capital, and these must be built up during the research process as well.

Participatory research can speed up the innovation process. For example, participatory plant breeding consistently leads to faster release and dissemination of locally accepted varieties (PRGA Program, 1999). The key is sharing the responsibility for selection with farmers early in the breeding process when the amount of genetic variability is at its maximum (Ceccarelli et al, 2000). In one successful example, Syrian farmers working with barley breeders began producing seed from a few of their own best selections after only two growing seasons (PRGA Program, 1999). On the other hand, as research becomes more participatory, issues of democracy, equity and voice become increasingly significant – all of these require careful process and cannot be rushed. In these cases, and especially where participatory research involves significant or difficult negotiations of interests (either between external and local stakeholders, or among local stakeholders), it will add time to the research process. This cost must be weighed against the potential gains of this type of research; the outcome of this weighing-up will be different for different issues and contexts. As a whole, it seems likely that the future of research may indeed require a shift in the time and effort allotted to NRM research activities. If our hypothesis is correct – that NRM research requires both traditional and participatory research – then these costs may increase slightly; if donors and institutions are committed to impact, then they may have to adjust the traditionally short (three-year) research activity time frames accordingly.

Another critical input to the research process, which differs by approach, are the skills of researchers (including local researchers). Participatory research approaches require new skills, such as facilitation, which have not been part of the training of traditional researchers. The most challenging component of any participatory research approach is the organization and maintenance of the stakeholder processes (Cooperrider and Dutton, 2001). Success, therefore, hinges on positive interactions and creating a spirit of collaboration between researchers, local peoples and other partners. Participatory approaches require that team members have exceptional ‘people skills’. This implies that they should be culturally sensitive, tolerant, diplomatic, motivated to collaborate and possess appropriate enquiry skills (eg, avoiding the use of leading questions in favour of open and probing questions). They must be able to engage in multi- or interdisciplinary analysis, and be flexible while seeking ways of maintaining scientific rigour. These skills are necessary so that stakeholders can reach agreement on common objectives, keep the interactions transparent, and maintain open and active trust and communication. While access to these skills may pose a challenge to research institutions in the short term, it seems likely that these costs will be reduced somewhat with the current trend of increasing numbers of interdisciplinarians in research, and a greater emphasis on building teamwork skills, and collaboration in and between research teams.

Participatory action research is like 19th century physics: the best researchers are the ones with the handicraft skills for building the (social) apparatus necessary to test their hypotheses. (Dean Holland, pers comm)

Conclusions

There will always be some cases where pure ‘traditional research’ or pure locally oriented ‘participatory research’ are the appropriate approaches. However, if the assessment above is valid – that appropriate combinations of traditional and participatory research make for more relevant research questions, better knowledge bases and communication – then we can extrapolate a lesson from it for current and future NRM research: NRM research is more likely to achieve livelihood and environmental benefits through thoughtful and appropriate combinations of traditional and participatory research approaches than it is through adopting either approach on its own. This assumes that such combined methodologies can maintain the strengths of both traditional and participatory research vis-à-vis impact, including:

1. maintaining the generation of local benefits in the research sites as participatory research often has;
2. exploring both locally and generally relevant research questions, including the desirability or adoptability of the technologies or processes generated;
3. applying diversity analysis (including gender) to increase inclusivity and relevance;
4. applying appropriate aspects of the scientific method and good documentation and analysis for the validation of results;
5. creating impact by influencing stakeholders (including policy-makers at various levels) through research.

We are at a global crossroads in terms of human and environmental development. Research in NRM needs to respond more effectively than it ever has before, if we are to successfully meet the local, regional and global challenges facing humanity. And yet, NRM research itself also appears to be at a crossroads, with some latent tensions surrounding traditional research on one side and participatory research on the other. This is further complicated by the increasing recognition of diversity as a critical, but as yet weakly implemented, factor in development and NRM. Are traditional research, participatory research and diversity analysis compatible? Our response is that although traditional and participatory approaches may have different philosophical roots and other differences, they are not only compatible but, in many cases, they need one another. Together they generate richer and deeper knowledge, and more effective and appropriate technology than either one alone. How should they be combined to achieve this? There is no prescription for developing research approaches, nor will there ever be. The challenge is for research teams to implement careful, early and on-going assessments of their NRM issues and multiple objectives – through the lenses of complexity, dynamism, gender and diversity – as the basis for the thoughtful and creative building of research approaches for each research initiative. Research teams can use these assessments to sieve through the plethora of research options and decide, with their partners, which aspects of each approach are of value in that context.

Combining aspects of the different approaches thoughtfully and appropriately may enable NRM researchers, development practitioners and policy-makers to access greater understanding of both the fundamental biophysical processes that underlie NRM systems, and the human needs and interests involved. This thoughtful approach to research methodologies may enable societies, both large and small, to begin to deal more effectively and equitably with the challenges and opportunities posed by the complexity and dynamism inherent in human and natural resource systems.

Notes

1. See the Sustainable Livelihoods website of the Department for International Development (DFID): www.livelihoods.org.
2. ‘Given objectives’ refers to those agreed upon by key stakeholders in the research. Depending on the circumstances, this may include diverse local people, researchers, extension agents, non-governmental organizations and others.

References

Allen, W J (2001) ‘Working Together for Environmental Management: The Role of Information Sharing and Collaborative Learning’, PhD Dissertation (Development Studies), Massey University, pp12–29, http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/social/ar_working html

Anderson, J (2001) ‘On the edge of Chaos: Crafting Adaptive Collaborative Management for Biological Diversity Conservation in a Pluralistic World’, in Buck, L, Geisler, C, Schelhas, J and Wollenberg, E (eds) Biological Diversity: Balancing Interests through Adaptive Collaborative Management, CRC Press, Boca Raton, LA, pp171–186

Arnstein, S (1969) ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’, AIP Journal, July

Biggs, S D (1989) Resource-poor Farmer Participation in Research: A Synthesis of Experiences from Nine National Agricultural Research Systems, OFCOR Comparative Study Paper ISNAR, The Hague, pp3–37

Braun, A R, Thiele, G and Fernández, M (2000) ‘Farmer Field Schools and Local Agricultural Research Committees: Complementary Platforms for Integrated Decision-making in Sustainable Agriculture’, AGREN Network Paper, No 105, ODI, UK

Capra, F (1997) The Web of Life: A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter, Harper & Collins, London

Ceccarelli, S, Grando, S, Tutwiler, R, Baha, J, Martini, A M, Salahieh, H, Goodchild, A and Michael, M (2000) ‘A Methodological Study on Participatory Barley Breeding I Selection phase’, Euphytica, 111:91–104

Chambers, R (1994) ‘Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Analysis of Experience’, World Development, 22(9):253–268

Checkland, P (1981) Systems thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, Chichester

Checkland, P and Scholes, J (1990) Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Wiley, Chichester

Conway, G (1997) The Doubly Green Revolution Food for all in the 21st Century, Penguin Books, London

Cooke, B and Kothari, U (eds) (2001) Participation: The New Tyranny?, Zed Books, London

Cooperrider, D L and Srivastva, S (1987) ‘Appreciative Inquiry in Organisational Life’, Research in Organisational Change and Development, 1:129–169

Cooperrider, D L and Dutton, J (2001) ‘No Limits to Cooperation: An Introduction to the Organization Dimension of Global Change’, http://appreciativeinquiry. cwru.edu/research/bibPapers cfm

Costanza, R, Daly, H, Folke, C, Hawken, P, Holling, C S, McMichael, A J, Pimentel, D and Rapport, D (2000) ‘Managing Our Environmental Portfolio’, BioScience, 50(2):149–155

Costanza, R, d’Arge, R, de Groot, R, Farber, S, Grasso, M, Hannon, B, Limburg, K, Naeem, S, O’Neill, R V, Paruelo, J, Raskin, R G, Sutton, P and van den Belt, M (1997) ‘The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital’, Nature, 387:253

Denslow, J S (1980) ‘Patterns of plant species diversity during succession under different disturbance regimes’, Oecologia, 46:18-21

DFID (Department for International Development) (1998) Action Research for Community Forestry: Sharing Experiences from Nepal DFID, London

Dick, B (1997) ‘Rigour and relevance in action research’, http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/rigour html

Edmunds, D (1998) ‘Notes for CIFOR Gender Analysis Training in Yunnan’, Centre for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia

GFAR (Global Forum on Agricultural Research) (1999) ‘Activities of the NARS Secretariat: Implementing the Programme of Work Towards a Global Agricultural Research System’, Global Forum for Agricultural Research, FAO, Rome, Italy

GFAR (Global Forum on Agricultural Research) (2000) ‘GFAR-2000 Conference, Dresden Germany, 21–23 May 2000, Highlights and Follow-up Action’, Global Forum for Agricultural Research, FAO, Rome, Italy

Gladwin, C, Peterson, J, and Mwale, A (2002) ‘The Quality of Science in Participatory Research: A Case Study from Eastern Zambia’, World Development, 30(4):523–543

Grubb, P J (1977) ‘The Maintenance of Species-richness in Plant Communities: The Importance of the Regeneration Niche’ Biological Review, 52:107–145

Guendel, S, Hancock, J and Anderson, S (2001) Scaling-up Strategies for Research in Natural Resources Management, Natural Resources Institute, Chatham

Holling, C S (1995) ‘What Barriers? What Bridges?’ in Gunderson, L H, Holling, C S and Light, S S (eds) Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions, Colombia Press, New York

Ingles, A, Musch, A and Qwist-Hoffmann, H (1999) The Participatory Process for Supporting Collaborative Management of Natural Resources: An Overview FAO, Rome, Italy

Johnson, N, Lilja, N and Ashby, J (2000) ‘Using Participatory Research and Gender Analysis in Natural Resource Management: A Preliminary Analysis of the PRGA Inventory’, Working Document No. 10, CGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis, Cali, Colombia

Lilja, N and Ashby, J (2000) ‘Types of Participatory Research Based on Locus of Decision-making’, PRGA Working Document No. 6, CGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis, Cali, Colombia

Lilja, N and Ashby, J (2001) ‘Overview: Assessing the Impact of Using Participatory Research and Gender/Stakeholder Analysis’ in Lilja, N, Ashby, J and Sperling, L (eds) Assessing the Impact of Participatory Research and Gender Analysis, CGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis, Cali, Colombia

Loevinsohn, M, Meijerink, G, and Salasya, B (1998) ‘Enhancing Capacity to Manage Resources: Assessing the Farmer Field School Approach’, Second Meeting of the Integrated Pest Management Network for the Caribbean, February 4–6, Kingston, Jamaica: CARDI and CTA

Maturana, H and Varela, F (1980) ‘Autopoiesis and Cognition’ in Autopoiesis: the Organisation of the Living, D Reidel, Dordrecht, Netherlands

McAllister, K and Vernooy, R (1999) Action and Reflection: A Guide for Monitoring and Evaluating Participatory Research, IDRC, Ottawa, Canada

McDougall, C (2001) ‘Gender and Diversity in Assessing Sustainable Forest Management and Human Well-being’ in People Managing Forests: The Links Between Human Well-being and Sustainability, Colfer, C J P and Byron, Y (eds) Resources for the Future and CIFOR, Washington, DC and Bogor, Indonesia

Milne, M, McDougall, C, Siagian, Y and Uprety, L (2001) ‘A Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Impact Assessment: The Local People, Devolution and Collaborative Management of Forests Research Programme’, CIFOR Report to the CGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis, Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia

Pickett, S T A, and White, P S (1985) The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics, Academic Press, New York

Pretty, J (1994) ‘Alternative Systems of Inquiry for a Sustainable Agriculture’, IDS Bulletin 25:37–48

Pretty, J and Hine, R (2001) ‘Reducing Food Poverty with Sustainable Agriculture: A Summary of New Evidence; Final Report from the SAFE-World Research Project’, University of Essex, Colchester, UK

PRGA Program (1999) Crossing Perspectives: Farmers and Scientists in Participatory Plant Breeding, CGIAR Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis, Cali, Colombia

Probst, K, Hagmann, J, Becker, T and Fernandez, M (2000) ‘Developing a Framework for Participatory Research Approaches in Risk Prone Diverse Environments’, Proceedings, Deutscher Tropentag 2000, University of Hohenheim

Sarin, M (1997) ‘Meeting of the Group on Gender and Equity in Joint Forest Management’, 29 September to 1 October, Report on Proceedings, Society for the Promotion of Wastelands Development, New Delhi, India

Schmink, M (1999) ‘Conceptual Framework for Gender and Community Based Conservation Case Study Series on Gender, Community Participation, and Natural Resource Management’, No. 1, University of Florida, Center for Latin American Studies, Gainesville, Florida

Settle, W H (1997) ‘Science by Farmers and Science by Researchers: Challenges and
Opportunities’, Paper presented at the International Symposium on integrated pest
management in rice-based ecosystems, 20–24 October, Guangzhou, China

van de Fliert, E and Braun, A R (2002) ‘Conceptualizing Integrative, Farmer
Participatory Research for Sustainable Agriculture: From Opportunities to Impact’,
Agriculture and Human Values 19(1):25–38

von Glasersfeld, E (2001) ‘The Radical Constructivist View of Science’, Foundations of Science, special issue on Riegler, A (ed), ‘The Impact of Radical Constructivism on Science’, 6(1–3):31–43

Whitten, M (1996) ‘The Empowerment of Vegetable Farmers in the Philippines Using IPM as an Entry Point: A Four-way Partnership between Farmers, Researchers, Trainers and Industry’, Intercountry Programme for Vegetable IPM in Asia, Makati, Philippines, FAO

Wilde, V and Vainio-Mattila, A (1995) Gender Analysis and Forestry, Forests, Trees, and People Programme International Training Package, FAO, Rome, Italy

Young, K (1988) ‘Gender and Development: A Relational Approach’, in Gender Analysis for Management of Research in Agriculture and Natural Resources, International Service for National Agricultural Research, The Hague, Netherlands, pp101–109

Chapter 3

Whose Research, Whose Agenda?

Adrienne Martin and Alistair Sutherland

Introduction

This chapter starts with the premise that fostering ownership during the natural resource research process is good practice. Fostering ownership requires time and resources. Moreover, it becomes increasingly complex and challenging as the scale of research moves from farm to landscape levels, and research moves beyond the analysis of situations and into the implementation, evaluation and uptake stages. Conflicts of interest may arise at various levels, as each of the stakeholders has a particular perspective, time horizon and expectation about outcomes. The focus of this chapter is on the factors that influence the ownership of research processes; from the identification of the problems and setting of the research agenda through to the ownership and direction of research implementation, evaluation and dissemination. We use the term ‘research’ liberally, to include situational analysis, participatory learning and planning and the investigation of the constraints to and opportunities for uptake of natural resource management (NRM) strategies and technologies. Three levels of ownership are addressed:

1. Ownership at the macro (national and global) level, by policy- and decision-makers in national governments, donor organizations and international research organizations.
2. Ownership at the meso/district level, by administrators, technical experts, politicians and private sector players.
3. Local ownership, involving communities, households and individual farmers.

We begin with a short discussion of ownership at the macro level and then move on to examine a case of a project fostering ownership at a district level. The cases illustrate some of the different institutional contexts and participatory

approaches used and bring out important general principles relating to ownership of the process. We then focus in more detail on the local level, through a series of case studies which document interventions in communities covering different aspects of ownership of natural resource research and management processes. These cases describe the involvement of communities and other stakeholders during agenda setting and problem identification, research implementation, review and evaluation. The final section discusses some of the critical issues and factors in encouraging broader ownership of research, the benefits of this sharing and the implications for researcher roles and institutional relationships.

Ownership at the macro level

The cases presented at the Chatham workshop focused mainly on implementation issues and good practice at field level. Ownership at the meso and macro levels did not feature strongly in the cases, but was raised during discussions. Aspects of ownership at the macro level relate to the community of researchers, national governments, donors and multinational companies.

The benefits of research practitioners engaging more robustly with the wider community, including the research community, is increasingly recognized as an aspect of more macro-level ownership. This applies to links between researchers within research institutions and across institutions: national, international and advanced. Often, research institutions have fragmented programmes organized along disciplinary or commodity lines, with focused technical research efforts under the control of individuals who may have very limited knowledge of and interest in the activities of their colleagues. Such conditions offer limited incentives for forging links that address key NRM issues from a more holistic perspective. Such fragmentation brings with it the risk of different researchers separately undertaking participatory needs assessment with similar communities as part of a project requirement, but not sharing the results, nor working towards the development of collaborative programmes.

Sustaining the interest of national governments in natural resource research, both in developing and developed countries, may require constant lobbying from the research and development (R&D) community. The privatization trend in research and extension services, and the contracting out of these services, poses a major threat to sustained interest in and commitment to NRM research, particularly the R&D activities that are of marginal interest to the private sector. This threat was not addressed in the cases, although initiatives such as the formation of the Participatory NRM group within Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (PRGA) and policy-oriented publications provide a means for lobbying governments and the donor community (PRGA, 2000).

The way that research is funded and managed is also linked to the above aspects of macro-level ownership. Public research funds are frequently managed by disciplinary-based groups of scientists, who are likely to be more inclined towards promoting disciplinary excellence than with cross-cutting environmental issues and with short-term developmental impact. Private sector

funding for research, while targeted to address commercial concerns/opportunities, and perhaps sensitive to environmental legislation, is often driven largely by a commodity or a product focus that mitigates against a more holistic view of NRM and a concern to provide services to poorer farmers.

International donors contributing technical assistance and guidance to research are key players at the macro level. They have a focus on the impacts of poverty and environmental sustainability and employ technical advisers who have a policy orientation and mandate, along with a perspective on development, which is broader than that of most research scientists. While donor organizations are very image conscious, are sensitive to the sometimes rapidly changing formulations of development approaches and want quick and visible results, they also attach importance to natural resource sustainability, equity and participation. One of the main concerns of the donor community is how to bring the results of previously funded research in NRM to bear on the massive task of addressing a widening poverty gap.

Building ownership at the meso level: ownership and governance of communal resources

Scaling-up successful research initiatives requires that ownership be built among key stakeholders, operating in between the local community and the national government – at the ‘meso’ level. Challenges of developing participation among different stakeholders for NRM at the meso level include the need to develop a shared vision and to build confidence and capacity among less powerful stakeholders. This can perhaps be done by overcoming communication barriers, engaging in dialogue and discussion over different perspectives and authority structures, negotiating proposals for implementation and monitoring the results.

A participatory research project on NRM systems in Chivi District, Zimbabwe is presented in Box 3.1. It describes a process undertaken to facilitate direct communication from villagers to district officials, avoiding hierarchical transmission through layers of committees. Visions of the future governance of natural resource use were developed and presented by stakeholder groups, including a group of district officials, leading to proposals for a pilot study.

The Zimbabwe case presents a vivid example of how community participation in a process of vision building can lead to re-negotiation of governance roles in NRM. The visions of the future helped to construct alternatives to the current unsatisfactory situation, specifically, the need for greater devolution of decision-making powers to community level. The vision proposed greater community participation in developing regulations and sanctions, monitoring and enforcement, distribution of revenue, identifying development projects, maintaining boreholes and tanks and land use planning.

It is unsurprising that the initial visions developed by the communities were very pessimistic, since it is difficult to develop scenarios when there is no basis in experience for envisioning their acceptance or implementation. This envisioning was developed through the learning process and interaction in the workshops

and district meeting. The threats to the visioning process – local politics, dominant personalities, assertive ‘experts’ – that can derail such processes were effectively managed. The methods used in the visioning process allowed the voices of different stakeholders – young men and women – to be heard.

The case study identifies some of the key features that led to this progressive vision and that are relevant to other projects trying to negotiate for greater community participation in meso-level NRM. A concern of the project was to develop a more democratic process. Close examination is required to see the extent to which participation was encouraged among different sections of the community, including youth, women and the poor, or consolidated the traditional male gerontocracy (Hagmann et al, 1999).

Ownership over the research process at the community level

Building ownership in agenda setting and problem identification – examples from villages in India and Uganda

There are many influences determining who defines the research agenda and the specific research focus. Underlying these decisions are the institutional structures, donor and programme priorities and assumptions about who should be involved in the research and whom it is intended to benefit.

The Conroy and Rangnekar case study describes how the community influenced the agenda of a research project focused on finding ways to overcome seasonal fodder scarcity for small ruminants in Gujarat, India. Participatory methods were used to explore problems and priorities of different stakeholder groups and to create ownership of the research from the early stages of the project. Stakeholder participation in identifying priorities led to a specific recommendation that was not part of the original project plan or focus.

The Borrini-Feyerabend case study is highlighted in Box 3.3. It describes a participatory approach to a community articulation of priorities and plans for improved wetland management in Uganda. A process is described of building stakeholder ownership in collaborative NRM through an on-site, joint discussion of relevant problems and opportunities, followed by a ‘vision building’ session facilitated by external professionals. An increase in rice cultivation had caused a reduction in the area of wetlands, with associated localized flooding, water scarcity in the dry season and the disappearance of wetland resources and biodiversity. Three key elements or phases in the participatory management process were defined:

1. preparing the partnership;
2. developing the agreements; and
3. implementing and reviewing the agreements or ‘learning by doing’.

These two case studies illustrate how stakeholder participation at the community level can inform and influence the focus of natural resources research and management. Participation at the early stages of exploring NRM can help to ensure the relevance of the research agenda, and hence engender a sense of ownership.

The preliminary stages are conerned with identifying the main stakeholders within communities and developing communication and a working partnership between them (Grimble, 1998). NRM problems were discussed by different stakeholders together with researchers, to identify their principal concerns and to reach a deeper understanding of the problem. In the first case, the livestock owners perceived a need for a water trough to overcome seasonal water scarcity. Dialogue helped to expose the different interests of the researchers, compared to the livestock owners (eg, an emphasis on the water/feed scarcity relationship and the requirements for monitoring data). In both cases, community-level discussion drew out detail on the benefits perceived by different stakeholders, both immediate impacts and indirect effects on various social groups (eg, the effects of the water trough on people in the next village and on the well owner in India and the different consequences of continuing privatization or community management of wetland in Uganda).

In both cases, the problems and issues in NRM were explored through group activities. In the Indian example, semi-structured interviews with the main stakeholder groups were conducted and then refined through problem tree analysis. This helped to identify different perspectives and the probable technology impacts on other social groups. In both cases, researchers played an important role as facilitators of the discussion and of the process of determining the direction of action. The process of adding a water component into the livestock feed project reflects the value of effective interdisciplinary facilitation and support during the participatory management process.

Sustaining ownership throughout the research process

We now discuss and illustrate factors influencing ownership at more advanced stages of the research process. Three other cases further illustrate the establishment of local research management structures, the interaction between local knowledge and the technologies proposed, efforts to include women stakeholders and the review of technology testing and dissemination efforts. Some of the important issues in generating ownership of the research process highlighted in these cases from Nepal (see Box 3.4), Peru (Nelson case study, in this volume) and Malawi (see Box 3.5) concern the ownership of knowledge, providing adequate support and facilitation, building on existing cohesive social relationships and encouraging motivation by ensuring that research is relevant to stakeholders’ priorities and roles.

Ownership and sharing knowledge

Ownership of the research process closely relates to the nature of the problem, the extent of farmers’ knowledge, and the process of knowledge sharing. In the next two cases, participation in the research process is based on farmers’ interest in learning as a solution to a serious problem. The Pound case study from Nepal illustrates the importance of sharing knowledge and establishing cooperation for community-based disease management. It draws on the experience of researchers, extensionists and farmers in developing an innovative community approach to the control of bacterial wilt (Pseudomonas solanacearum) of potatoes. The approach was developed in 1990 by a multidisciplinary team from Lumle Agricultural Research Centre (Pradhanang and Elphinstone, 1997).

The status of knowledge about the problem and provisions made for sharing knowledge are significant. In the Nepal case, developing control strategies for potato bacterial wilt, sharing knowledge of disease symptoms, the factors influencing the spread of the disease and the recommended control measures, was vital in combating the disease. Meetings were held with villagers and training was given through workshops and exchange visits.

The challenges of developing ownership of the research process are much greater the more remote the problem and its causes are from farmers’ existing knowledge (Warburton and Martin, 1999). In these circumstances, knowledge-intensive approaches are required, with an emphasis on training and information sharing. The varied response of villages in the Nepal case suggests that the proposed solution is only likely to be acceptable to farmers where the problem is perceived as acute. In the Nelson case study (this volume) farmer field schools in Latin America provided a learning process which included participatory evaluation of resistant lines, but the interest in learning differed between men and women in the participating communities.

Gender and stakeholder involvement

It is apparent that active stakeholder participation in research is more likely to occur when the focus of the research is relevant to their priorities and roles. Consider the Nelson case study from Peru (this volume) that discusses farmers’ involvement in participatory research addressing potato late blight through training and local research committees facilitated by farmer field schools (FFS). The approach addressed improved management of this particularly devastating plant disease that often causes complete loss of the potato crop. Resource-poor farmers have little knowledge of the disease. Nelson discusses the role of farmer field schools (held in Peru and other Latin American countries) in increasing farmers’ knowledge and raises questions concerning appropriate strategies for increasing women’s involvement.

The Peru case study by Nelson highlights the important role of gender analysis in planning and reviewing ownership of knowledge by types of stakeholder. It is unclear whether it was the time-demanding features of FFS

that discouraged women (context, formality, the demands on time, literacy, etc) or whether their lack of ownership was simply because women do not play a major role in many of the stages of potato production. Either possibility requires that the content or context of any proposed training be based on adequate gender analysis. In this case, the analysis might look at women’s concerns and responsibilities, including relevant roles not immediately connected with the field production of potatoes (eg, the purchase and storage of fungicide, varietal selection, potato seed management and participation in informal seed systems).

Motivation and ownership of technical innovation

In addition to training, other motivations may be provided to foster the ownership of new knowledge. In the next case study from Malawi (see Box 3.5), project management had concerns about the effectiveness of local soil conservation management committees, particularly in terms of promoting knowledge and technology dissemination beyond the participating communities. Participatory methods were used to encourage the exchange of knowledge and views about technology adoption and dissemination, which could form the basis for improving ownership and participation in planning in the future. Timelines were used in helping to gain a historical perspective. This case explores the important relationship between approaches to technology testing and demonstration and the extent to which the approach used creates a sense of ownership and motivation for sharing results.

Managing a complex process

The above cases suggest that the process of moving from problem exploration and setting the research agenda to fostering ownership throughout the research process is complex to manage. Factors critical to fostering ownership of the research process relate to relevance, perceptions of benefits, support and training provided and participation in the technology development process.

The case studies suggest that motivation and participation is strongly influenced by the relevance of the research focus and intervention strategy to stakeholders’ priorities, roles and their expectations of benefit. The Malawi experience is interesting in that the approach reflected the project’s concern with two objectives, reflecting different time scales and levels of interest from farmers – poverty alleviation (in the short term) and participatory and sustainable soil and water conservation (a longer-term objective). Project experience suggests an incompatibility between donors’ concern to tackle poverty by directing project resources to the community through incentives, and the wish to stimulate soil and water conservation in a participatory and sustainable manner. There were indications that soil conservation was seen as a response to external pressures and incentives, as opposed to a local effort to improve productivity and conserve soil for the future. The provision of

incentives to target groups may discourage technology uptake by a wider group of farmers over a larger geographical area.

The extent of professional support and facilitation given to farmers’ research is important, particularly in cases of complex and little-known biophysical processes such as new diseases. Multidisciplinary support from technical and social scientists and extensionists and good quality facilitation are often success factors. In the Nepal example, support went beyond information

and training and included the identification of, and support to, alternative NRM options. However, it was noted that scaling up from the pilot project to a wider application would make heavy demands on resources for information gathering, awareness creation, training and support (Gündel et al, 2001; and see Chapter 4, this volume). Similarly, in the Malawi case study, extension officers were concerned that their area of operation was too large to manage intensive extension approaches.

Ownership through participation in a process of technology development and adaptation was lacking in the Malawi case. Although the project later involved farmers in reviewing progress, at the start no structure was put in place for incorporating farmer feedback or generating a participatory research approach. Local perceptions of soil and water technologies focused on externally introduced features, in the absence of an attempt to foster local research capacity or innovation.

The value of building on local social relationships and institutions is evident in several of the case studies. The Samuhik Bhraman described in the Nepal case, used interactive and participatory methods not only to identify the reasons for the fast spread of the disease, but also to show that disease control at individual or small crop level would not be effective. Through an understanding of social and ethnic structures and cultural practices, it led to the development of appropriate institutions for control of the disease in the shape of village-level committees. These were crucial to the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of the programme. The project results demonstrated the importance of community relationships in effective disease management. Communities varied greatly in their levels of cohesion or ‘social capital’; where this was strong, the programme achieved greater success in eliminating the disease. The project also recognized the importance of targeting and understanding the grievances of non-cooperating members. The Malawi case further illustrates how institutional structures set up to mediate project activities are inextricably bound up with local social and political relationships and processes. Committees functioned most positively when they had effectively incorporated local village leadership and where the village headship was not being contested.

Conclusions

The benefits of fostering shared ownership through dialogue between stakeholders during the research process have been clearly demonstrated in the cases above. Participation during the earliest stages of exploring NRM problems helps to ensure the relevance of the research agenda, engendering a sense of ownership. The sharing of ownership needs careful management if it is to be sustained through the process of implementation and evaluation. Effective management of the process of sharing ownership contributes to local institutional development, encourages more equitable participation by different stakeholders and increases the effectiveness of research at different scales. It also supports capacity building and the development of skills and knowledge,

democratic governance and the spread and uptake of innovations. We conclude by highlighting aspects that are important to fostering ownership in natural resources research and management.

Appropriate institutional structures

In practice, natural resources research is undertaken within the context of NRM. Thus, a commitment to applying new knowledge and technology to community-based NRM brings with it the need for appropriate structures to manage resources. This need emerges from the case studies. The structures appear to be more successful when they build on local social relationships and institutions, for example a particular kin or interest group, community committees, local associations or traditional leadership. Communities vary in their levels of cohesion or ‘social capital’. Where this is strong, successful cooperation and joint decision-making are more likely.

The impact of strong local, social capital can also be seen in an improved exchange of information, higher participation in the design, implementation and monitoring of service delivery systems and more effective collective action (Grootaert and van Bastelaer, 2001). The importance of social capital in the livelihood strategies of the poor is becoming well known (Narayan, 1997), however, it appears that the poorest communities are those most lacking in a capacity for joint action. Projects and programmes looking for relative ease of entrance and measurable achievement of results in a limited time frame, may well choose to avoid communities that are lacking cohesion or disrupted by conflict. This may be justified in a participatory research phase where technologies and approaches are being developed, but in NRM beyond the village these issues will have to be addressed. It is important to anticipate the greater requirements for social analysis and facilitation in such communities and the need for a longer time frame.

Where the selected structures are representative and legitimate they can enhance the sense of ownership. In the Indian case, livestock-keepers agreed to form a management committee for the future maintenance of the water trough. In the Ugandan case, a positive factor was the existence of an effective local association. The management of wetlands would draw on management skills and structures already present in the community, but would broaden these to be more representative of the range of stakeholders. Research activities and steps towards developing a management plan and basic rules for resource use were proposed, debated and agreed by the stakeholders themselves.

Acknowledging local belief systems and values

Natural resource management has significance for communities beyond the merely technical. There is an important relationship between NRM systems and institutions and the value and belief systems of communities. In the Zimbabwe case, the legitimacy of traditional authorities’ control over natural resources is underpinned by belief systems. In the Ugandan case, there was to be a ritual legitimization of the community vision by clan elders. Furthermore, the

negotiation of the benefits and responsibilities in NRM was integrated with community values of equity and benefit sharing, in particular the question of whether the wetland could be managed to enhance the wealth of the whole community or for individual exploitation.

Political processes

Natural resource management is tied into political processes. The ability of project teams to understand micro-political processes, and counter attempts by powerful interest groups to undermine consensus is important. R&D initiatives working towards shared ownership can be thrown off course by local politics, dominant personalities, traditional leadership or experts. Early awareness, discussion and negotiation of management responsibilities and rules for the use of natural resources can help to prevent social conflicts and problems becoming acute. It also helps to ensure sustainability if participants agree on commitments (eg, the water trough maintenance agreement in Case Study 3.2). In-depth institutional analysis provides insights as to possible intervention points and alternative routes to promote change, as shown in Zimbabwe in Case Study 3.1. This case also points to the importance of maintaining a critical perspective in assessing the implications of decentralizing decision-making to community level. In some cases, agreements to devolve responsibility and decision-making power might be viewed as establishing mechanisms through which district authorities increase their control of outcomes, through their retained functions of coordination, arbitration, approval, monitoring and evaluation. In practice, decentralization could function as a means for extending state influence rather than supporting local autonomy and ownership.

Learning, knowledge exchange and methods used

Learning processes are vital in engendering a sense of ownership, as the cases illustrate, particularly in terms of collective learning and interaction between stakeholder groups and researchers. The process outlined for wetlands management in Kapuwai, Uganda, was designed to increase local awareness of problems and opportunities and to enhance the local capacity for sustainable use of the wetland and protection of its biodiversity. It was planned to hold regular reviews and discussions of management results among the entire community.

Researchers and community members may have different perspectives on learning. In the Indian case, while researchers and livestock owners met monthly to share their observations and to discuss management issues, they had different levels of interest in the monitoring data, and the monitoring data itself were not available for feedback and discussion until later. The effectiveness of such meetings depends on sharing knowledge around agreed common interests. Where there are differences in the agenda of communities and researchers that are not made explicit, there is a risk of an inefficient use of research time, of misunderstanding or even conflict. A sense of ownership of the research agenda is one of the early building blocks on which communities can increase their sense of empowerment in managing their resources and their livelihoods.

A joint learning process empowers and challenges both researchers and farmers to extend their knowledge and action into new areas (Hagmann et al, 1999). This is particularly important for the understanding of complex social processes, for highly specialized technical knowledge not available within the farming community and for technology which requires changes in behaviour and management practices, rather than the adoption of discrete technologies. The case studies from Nepal (see Box 3.4) and Peru (Nelson, in this volume) provided examples of learning processes established with farmers, which helped to create a sense of ownership and provide the basis for cooperation.

Knowledge exchanged with farmers is not merely technical knowledge. Technology is socially embedded; its meaning and significance is interpreted and integrated within existing belief and knowledge systems. The technical boundaries of a problem as perceived by researchers do not necessarily have significance for local people. As outlined in the example from Uganda, the exploration of existing knowledge within the local cultural, linguistic and social context is vital, followed by a joint learning process and discussion of management strategies compatible with local norms and institutions. The content and context of the learning process needs to be based on stakeholders’ concerns and responsibilities, although it can be helpful to draw on experiences from elsewhere to identify strategies.

There were many methods and tools used in the cases for joint learning about research problems, such as problem trees, Samuhik Bhraman, timelines and ‘visioning’. These cannot be covered in detail here; we note, however, that each tool has its limitations and is only effective as part of a wider process of learning and consultation.

Motives and perceptions of benefits

The case studies indicate the importance of exploring motives and the benefits perceived by different stakeholders, both in terms of immediate impacts and the indirect effects on various social groups. It also allows interventions to be targeted to specific groups for whom the problem is most acute (livestock owners and herders in Gujarat in Case 3.2, and potato producers in Nepal in Case 3.4). Motivation for participation is strongly influenced by the relevance of the research focus and intervention strategy to stakeholders’ priorities, roles and expectations of benefit. A more explicit understanding of this relationship has the potential to encourage the greater involvement of specific groups in monitoring and evaluation. Stakeholders’ own criteria of achievement could be the basis for participatory monitoring and evaluation.

Interdisciplinary facilitation and support

Another important lesson emerging from the case studies is the importance of effective interdisciplinary facilitation and support. The extent of professional support and facilitation given to farmers’ research is particularly important in cases where farmers have limited knowledge. Knowledge-intensive approaches are very demanding in time and resources and consequently pose a management

dilemma when planning for the scaling up of programmes, as discussed in the Sutherland case study from Malawi.

Operating at different scales

The case studies cover different dimensions of scale, ranging from specific crop or livestock-related interventions to the research and development of holistic management strategies. Organizational scales range from individual learning and adoption, to community-level ownership, to ownership at the district or meso level. The scale of the technology and the different levels of stakeholders involved have implications for ownership and control of the research process. The larger the technology scale, the more difficult it may be to develop a community consensus in determining the research agenda or ownership of the research process since there are more complex patterns of institutional interaction. Generating ownership of individually applied relevant technologies is usually more straightforward than those which require community coordination and joint action. Different institutional stakeholders (researchers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), local government, private sector) have diverse mandates, financial structures and staffing profiles, which pose challenges for agreeing common ground and establishing communication mechanisms (Sutherland et al, 2001). Decentralized approaches require more inter-sectoral awareness and linkage between institutions. Negotiation processes to establish mechanisms for linkages between community and district level, as described in the Zimbabwe case study, are vital.

Time scale, urgency and the impact of problems on livelihoods, all influence the level of interest and ownership of different stakeholders. Farmers and NRM users may place a lower priority for R&D on problems that threaten longer-term sustainability, as compared with those that threaten their current livelihoods. This may be in contrast to the perspectives of researchers and NRM policy-makers. For interventions that do address problems of immediate concern, their longer-term ownership and maintenance are important if there are to be sustainable benefits. A lesson from the Malawi case study is that incentives may encourage initial interest by the contact group, but they are likely to discourage a wider uptake of the technology and also to be unsustainable. There is a need for realistic time frames for interventions, such as soil and water conservation measures, which are necessarily longer term in their impact.

Implications for changing roles

Clearly, shared ownership has implications for the roles of researchers, extensionists and farmers. In the case studies included here, the power of researchers to direct and decide, based on their control of research funds and their technical skills, is modified to operate in collaborative mode or, in one case, to act in an advisory capacity, supporting community initiatives. Current trends towards the devolution of financial resources and responsibility to district and community level for the commissioning of research and extension are likely to bring fresh challenges and a more radical shift in how research is initiated and owned.

One of the changes in orientation required by this approach is the ability to work more with group-based activities rather than with single individuals. Group activities may involve different combinations of stakeholders than are usually encountered by research and extension personnel. New skills are required, such as the management of meetings in a participatory and democratic way, the ability to explain technical issues in the local language, open-mindedness about different worldviews and explanations. Shared ownership is built through processes of participatory technology development and adaptation.

In addition to new roles and skills, there is also a power-sharing dimension. Participatory approaches to NRM require a shift in power and decision-making from district-level bodies, to community institutions. Complex relationships around governance and the negotiation of equitable outcomes require a high degree of flexibility in approach and methods, and a willingness to accept the need for accountability and transparency. It is recognized that such a shift in power has to be supported with capacity building, for example through a process of confidence building in the community and familiarization and discussion at district management level.

References

Campbell, B, Mandondo, A, Nemarundwe, N, Sithole, B, De Jong, W, Luckert, M and Frank, M (2001) ‘Challenges to Proponents of Common Property Resource Systems: Despairing Voices from the Social Forests of Zimbabwe’, World Development 29(4):589–600.

Grimble, R (1998) Stakeholder Methodologies in Natural Resource Management – Socio Economic Methodologies for Natural Resources Research, Best Practice Guidelines, Natural Resources Institute, Chatham, UK

Grootaert, C and van Bastelaer, T (2001) Understanding and Measuring Social Capital: A Synthesis of Findings and Recommendations from the Social Capital Initiative, Social Capital Initiative Working Paper No 24, The World Bank, Social Development Department

Gündel, S, Hancock, J and Anderson, S (2001) Scaling-up Strategies for Research in Natural Resources Management: A Comparative Review, Natural Resources Institute, Chatham, UK

Hagmann, J, Chuma, E, Murwira, K, and Connolly, M (1999) ‘Putting Process into Practice: Operationalising Participatory Extension’ in ODI Agricultural Research and Extension (AGREN) Network Paper No. 94, www.odi.org.uk/agren/papers/agrenpaper_94.pdf or as a booklet

Narayan, D (1997) Voices of the Poor: Poverty and Social Capital in Tanzania. Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Network, Studies and Monograph Series No 20, World Bank, Washington, DC

Pradhanang, P M and Elphinstone, J G (eds) (1997) Integrated Management of Bacterial Wilt of Potato: Lessons from the Hills of Nepal, Proceedings of a national workshop held at Lumle Agricultural Research Centre, Pokhara, Nepal, 4–5 November 1996

PRGA Program (2000) Equity, Well-Being, and Ecosystem Health. Participatory Research for Natural Resource Management, PRGA Program, Cali, Colombia

Sutherland, A, Martin, A, and Rider Smith, D (2001) Dimensions of Participation. Experiences, Lessons and Tips from Agricultural Research Practitioners in Sub Saharan Africa, Natural Resources Institute, Chatham, UK

Warburton, H and Martin, A (1999) ‘Local People’s Knowledge and its Contribution to Natural Resources Research and Development’, in Decision Tools for Sustainable Development, Grant, I F and Sear, C (eds), Natural Resources Institute, Chatham, UK

Chapter 4

Scaling Up and Out

Sieglinde Snapp and K L Heong

Introduction

Natural resource management (NRM) is necessarily situated within a landscape and human context. Engaging in participatory research and management with rural families requires an understanding of ‘at what scale?’, as well as ‘who’ and ‘what’. In this chapter we discuss working across scales, and scaling up and out to reach a larger audience. The primary focus is researchers, farmers and change agents, working together in the southern hemisphere for more sustainable, productive agriculture. The chapter is grounded in case studies, where different approaches to scaling up and out are presented. This includes examples of learning together at a community level and synthesizing the knowledge gained to reach thousands of rural families with improved, integrated crop and soil management practices. Different means of sparking farmer innovation on a large scale are also explored.

‘Scaling up’ can be defined in diverse ways that are not necessarily mutually exclusive. One definition involves enhanced geographic cover – the scaling up of an intervention or technology to serve a wide area. Another spatially based view involves extrapolating from a small, field or plot-sized, experiment to estimate the impact on a larger area, such as a region. Nutrient budget estimates, for example, can be conducted at local or larger scales (Brown et al, 1999; Smaling et al, 1993). Statistical or simulation modelling approaches are frequently used to evaluate uncertainty associated with scaling up spatially, or temporally. A third definition focuses on the growth of a small-sized organization to a large-sized organization. Projects or initiatives can be ‘grown’ to a large scale – such as a small-scale and short-lived project that becomes a large-scale endeavour with some permanence (Braun et al, 2000), or a large number of new initiatives that may be scaled up through a multiplier effect (Gündel, 1998). A fourth definition involves expanding impact from a small number of beneficiaries to a large number.

The scaling-up process required to reach large numbers of clients is one of the main challenges that face researchers and farm advisors who are publicly supported (eg, government ministries, universities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), regional networks and international research institutions such as the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)). Government extension systems were set up to reach rural populations; that is their mandate. They are charged with extending technologies and working with less-advantaged members of rural communities. Yet, in general, resource-poor farmers reap few benefits from public services (Chambers et al, 1989). One growing problem is that extension systems suffer from declining numbers of extension personnel, and farmers’ access to new information is often very limited. Furthermore, the relevance of extension messages to the most resource-poor households and female-headed households may not be clear (Fujisaka, 1993; Snapp and Silim, 2001).

The primary focus of this chapter is on scaling up participatory research, in terms of it being a process of reaching out and engaging with many stakeholders. A conundrum in participatory research is that improving local resource management requires tremendous investment in human resource development, in local education and in building quality partnerships for learning and action research. This requirement for quality interaction and considerable investment at a local level poses barriers to scaling up and out. Financial and human resource support requirements would have to be massive to engage many people in participatory action research (PAR). One approach to overcoming this investment barrier is to engage farmers through mass media ‘research challenges’. Another is to improve farmer-led experimentation through facilitating community research groups or working with extension farm advisors in government and non-government organizations. Other approaches discussed here include PAR that uses information tools such as meta-analysis of watershed, geographic information systems (GISs) and regional researcher–farmer partnerships. These are just a few of the many approaches possible for scaling up and out.

To understand how scale interacts with participatory approaches we combine the classic continuum of participatory research typology and a spatial scale. That is, the continuum from researcher-led (farmers as contractors) initiatives to collaborative arrangements that are client-driven (farmer-led) (Chambers et al, 1989). We explore this relationship as a matrix, with ‘scale of operation’ on one axis and ‘farmer/researcher partnership typology’ on the other axis (Figure 4.1). We present case studies documenting examples of researchers and change agents working with people to improve experimentation, technology adaptation and collective management of resources, at different spatial scales.

Source: 1 Sperling et al, 1993; 2 Freire, 1972; 3 Braun et al, 2000; 4 Ashby, 1987; 5 Defoer et al, 1998; 6 Ooi, 1996; 7 Kanyama-Phiri et al, 2000; 8 Heong and Escalada, 1999; 9 Hildebrand and Russell, 1996; 10 Schreier, 1999 and case study in this volume

Figure 4.1 A comparison of participatory learning and research approaches in terms of scale of operation, and degree of farmer versus researcher involvement

Situating natural resource management

Attention to spatial scale is implicit in research on NRM. The endowment of resources is tremendously variable from place to place, and the goals of local managers are diverse as well. It is necessary to be situated in a locale to understand the soil, water, flora and fauna present and human interactions with the ecology. The scales at which resources are managed vary from a field, to a whole farm, to a community level, to a regional watershed or agroecosystems and even to the continent level. It is not enough to engage individuals in NRM. Collective action and community participation may be required to protect a watershed, to rehabilitate soil or manage a pest. Natural resource management issues frequently involve many communities and policy-level engagement.

Heterogeneity is a reoccurring motif in NRM. It has both a physical and cultural basis. It occurs across the biophysical landscape, and among stakeholders with their diverse agendas. Biophysical heterogeneity includes the environmental extremes of human habitat, from dry desert to humid tropics, from low altitude shores to mountain tops. Temporal heterogeneity must be considered as well. Risk management in the face of extreme climate variability is

a crucial concern of smallholders, one that can mean the difference between food deficit and security (Rohrbach and Okwach, 1999).

Smallholder farmers are often located in the most marginal environments. Not only are these environments highly variable, they are also rarely enhanced by inputs such as irrigation or fertilizer. A limited resource base impedes the ability to reduce heterogeneity. Extremes in topography and a wide range of locally specific conditions are difficult to characterize and to synthesize (Defoer et al, 2000; Lightfoot and Noble, 1999). Efforts to use information technologies to characterize biophysical heterogeneity include remote sensing and GIS-informed mapping. We will discuss some examples using these approaches later in the chapter (see the case studies in this volume by Williams from India, Peters from Central America and Schreier and Brown from Nepal). As discussed in these case studies, access to knowledge generated using information technologies requires commitment on the part of all stakeholders. Attention must be paid to the generation of figures with indicators that have local relevance as well as indicators that are of interest for research, meta-analysis and an international audience.

Socioeconomic diversity cannot be underestimated either. Different objectives and agendas will occur, particularly when working at watershed or regional scales. Stakeholders of the rural landscape may include nomadic peoples engaged with livestock and farmers active in cropping or integrated cropping–livestock systems. This is explored in a case study from India, where investment in water storage and forage management was evaluated from different perspectives (Conroy and Rangnekar case study from India, this volume). Water requirements for livestock often compete with that needed to irrigate vegetables and demands for household needs, which is frequently a gender equity issue as well (Snapp, 1989). The entrepreneurial elite who have access to capital and local officials or finance institutions are frequently in a position to monopolize irrigation or other water management technologies, as discussed in a case study from South Africa (van Koppen case study, this volume). Soil fertility enhancement through improved residue and manure management to reduce nutrient losses has been explored through field-, farm-and village-level participatory nutrient budgeting in West Africa. In this study, different perspectives and objectives were articulated by nomadic and settled peoples, at the regional, community and household levels (Defoer et al, 1998).

Cultural heterogeneity is a major factor at relatively local scales of operation, where farmers, researchers and external facilitators and advisors interact with a range of organizations. These include governmental ministries, universities, non-governmental development agencies and private industry. Interested participants may include traders, shop owners, fabricators and artisans, financiers, buyers and sellers of produce, all from different resource bases, and linked to local or multinational bodies. Local institutions and the community fabric frequently involve religious groups, social and kin networks, health and educational or community development groups, worker or farmer organizations. Ethnic and cultural differences may be reinforced and overstated by political and hegemonic interests, but they also may inspire fundamentally different viewpoints. Action-oriented approaches that prioritize collaboration across

diverse stakeholders and empowerment that addresses local objectives as well as a wider impact may be a way forward out of the challenging complexity of different agendas (Cramb, 2000).

Dynamics within and across families must be considered. Gender and cross-generational issues can provide quite different points of views, and priorities (Hirschmann, 1995). Female-headed families frequently have unique concerns in farm system management, as suggested by experiences in south eastern Africa (Snapp and Silim, 2001). Empowerment issues are complex and the agendas of stakeholders may differ enormously. Chapter 3 provides an in-depth exploration of these issues, including the challenging questions of ‘whose agenda?’ and ‘whose research?’ is being pursued.

Heterogeneity is a major barrier that constrains efforts to reach a wide audience. Over the last few decades the farming systems approach addressed heterogeneity by a reductionist process of documenting different agroecological zones and socioeconomic groups, and then developing recommendation domains (Fernandez, 1988). These domains were to encompass relatively homogenous groups within a complex environment. Participatory action research has evolved towards a more inclusive partnership process among researchers, change agents and farmers (Defoer et al, 2000; Fernandez, 1994). We explore, in this chapter, how some participatory research approaches are enriched by diversity, and attempt to reach many different audiences, engaging with communities rather than defining recommendation domains.

To address heterogeneity, we contend that participatory research and technology development needs to address two issues simultaneously:

1. empowerment and investment in human resource capacity to enhance local experimentation and adaptation efforts;
2. knowledge construction based on indigenous and scientific sources, to understand locally specific agroecosystems, and conduct ‘meta-analysis’ of universal aspects.

Meta-analysis to extrapolate and predict how technologies will perform within biophysical contexts can help to extend results from localized areas (Conway, 1985; Lightfoot and Noble, 1999 and Schreier and Brown’s case study in this volume).

The challenge of synthesizing NRM knowledge

Local resource knowledge and innovative capacity is intrinsic to soil fertility and resource management. It is difficult to embody knowledge or develop synthesized forms of information about how to improve resource management. Integrated decision-making that takes into account the entire system and sustainability of resources is difficult to codify or to distil into small bits of information, in contrast to genetic information (Figure 4.2). Synthesis is challenging due to the locally specific nature of NRM decision-making, and the complex, dynamic relationships involved. Technologies to protect, conserve

Figure 4.2 Alternative pathways for enhancing knowledge distillation, testing and dissemination in genetic improvement and natural resource management research

and regenerate resources require an understanding of agroecosystem relationships, and application to local environments (Lightfoot and Noble, 1999). This is a keystone of the non-formal education approach known as farmer field schools: training farmers and farm advisors in general ecological principles. The idea is to replace recommendations with education, to promote local understanding and adaptation of ecological principles and the development of specific management practices that improve a local system (Braun et al, 2000).

Research information on resource management, though abundant, seems to lack a process that can effectively integrate the various ‘information bits’ into usable entities (Figure 4.2). This contrasts with genetic technologies, where information is physically embodied in seeds and planting material. The ‘information’ is encoded within the seed, which can be tried out in many different environments by numerous participants. Locally specific information, generated from participatory breeding research is integrated into new seeds by the breeding and selection process (Figure 4.2). New seeds can be disseminated throughout rural areas through traditional and non-traditional seed distribution channels (Sperling et al, 1993). We suggest a need for processes that distil bits of information and develop them into usable entities or knowledge that can be communicated and used by farmers to make resource management decisions. The research distillation process is rarely used to integrate and simplify volumes of information into decision rules or heuristics (Heong and Escalada, 1999). If more attention was paid to this process, the information could be presented to farmers in an appropriate frame to motivate adoption. One such approach is described in Heong and Escalada’s case study in this volume.

Steps to scaling up: enhancing relevance and accountability

Researchers and extension workers have the explicit goal of reaching many clients. Yet farmers are rarely involved in a meaningful way in the assessment of technology development services (Ashby and Sperling, 1995). Thus, accountability is limited. Institutions must address how to involve clients in research priority setting, decision-making about funding and performance assessment (see Chapter 6). In this context, scientists and farm advisors do not necessarily ask relevant questions, or work in partnership with farmers. Researchers may fail to understand farmer priorities (Chambers et al, 1989; Defoer et al, 1998; Sperling et al, 1993). Given the lack of accountability mechanisms, it is not surprising that researchers at times neglect to document the extent of local knowledge and client priorities, and relegate such studies to ex ante analysis and isolated research on indigenous knowledge.

The case studies documented in this book present many examples of researchers making a commitment to understanding local priorities and taking them into account in the research and development process. For example, a participatory research project working with two villages in India shifted from a focus on forage to broadening access to water (Conroy and Rangnekar’s case study in this volume). To revisit this conundrum of scaling up participatory research, we note that most examples of accountability in the research and development process occur at a local scale; they are not multinational or regional in scope (Snapp’s Malawi case study in this volume).

The result of limited accountability in research and development services has been the development of single, generalized recommendations, which assume that the main underlying priority is maximization of yields. For example, in Malawi, decades of soil fertility research resulted in a single, blanket recommendation for fertilizer rates applied to maize (Kumwenda et al, 1997). Farmers have a wide range of goals, and many are interested in risk aversion or maximizing return to minimal inputs (Rohrbach and Okwach, 1999). Market linkages and specific local quality traits also need to be addressed – yet technology development rarely includes surveying client or market preferences (Kitch et al, 1998; Snapp and Silim, 2001). A step forward in building more appropriate recommendations would be to consider market conditions and agroecozone influences on crop responses to inputs (Benson, 1997). Yet, participatory approaches require further steps: farmers are best served by providing a wide range of flexible, promising technology options, and farmers need to be involved early and often (Okali et al, 1994). It has been almost impossible to address these complex goals while remaining within narrow, commodity-structured organizations.

A closely related problem is that recommendations are not disseminated in ways that facilitate farmer’s own experimentation. Demonstrations are frequently not understood by local clients, and they are carried out by extension staff, or by farmers who have been hired specially (Kanyama-Phiri et al, 2000). The purpose of participatory, client-driven research and technology

development, by contrast, is to support local experimentation and decision-making in resource management (Ashby et al, 2000; Braun et al, 2000).

Is participation possible on a large scale?

There is widespread interest in PAR approaches as a way to improve research relevance. Yet, as discussed in the Malawi case study (Snapp’s case study in this volume), there are also valid concerns about the costs involved and the feasibility of working intensely over a large area. On the one hand, participatory approaches were seen by participants in this case study as the only way to change farmer decision-making. On the other hand, it was not perceived as a cost-effective method for reaching clients, beyond the few in the project villages. This was a reoccurring theme in the Malawi-based case study, which involves a comparison of on-going technology development approaches in parallel villages. One survey documented that the NGO staff, farm advisors and researchers involved felt that partnering with farmers was only possible on a micro-scale (Johnson et al, 2001). Human resources and capital constraints present significant barriers to farmer empowerment or to partnering with farmers on a significant scale, beyond small, localized case study areas. Surprisingly, extension staff from the government and from NGOs considered conventional trial and demonstration approaches to be the only cost-effective way forward (Johnson et al, 2001 and see Snapp’s case study on Malawi in this volume). The same NGO workers who conducted empowerment exercises and helped local farmers conduct their own research were worried about the expense of participatory approaches and felt that they were not a practical way to reach large numbers of clients. In this chapter we explore a range of scaling up and partnership approaches, and discuss ways forward out of this conundrum.

Participatory action approaches explicitly attempt to improve the relevance of NRM research. See, for example, the PAR approaches illustrated by McDougall and colleagues’ multinational community forestry case study, and the Dey and Prein case study, in this volume, involving aquaculture systems in Bangladesh and Vietnam. Frequently these efforts involve strong partnerships with NGO staff and community organizers. Academics are often collaborators in transforming research for development, struggling with issues of making feminist and activist agendas work within this development paradigm (Cottrell, 1999). Different types of partnership among academics, scientists and NGO development workers can all be effective. This is illustrated by experiences with soil-conserving contour hedgerow systems in the Philippines (Cramb, 2000). At each location the action research partnerships varied, depending on local organizations, history, land tenure and farmer priorities. Adoption of soil-conserving technologies occurred widely, although it varied in degree and form at different sites (Cramb, 2000; Fujisaka, 1993).

Participatory approaches that involve farmers, change agents and researchers working closely and intensely together allows the articulation of different agendas. Groups that have been neglected by conventional research and extension may gain a voice within organizations. Ideally, scientists and

farmers learn from each other, strengthening traditional knowledge through participatory research. However, the ability of a project to reach beyond the scope of the original locale where scientists and farmers worked together is frequently not addressed. It is becoming widely acknowledged that attention to the scope of a project, and how it might expand out, must be integral, from inception (Braun and Hocdé, 2000).

Some of the case studies presented in this book paid attention to scaling up from project inception, indeed they were central to the conception of the project – for example, the watershed mapping and participatory nutrient budgeting endeavours in Nepal (Schreier and Brown in this volume). New information technologies were used to involve more participants in documentation, monitoring and evaluation, over a larger area. This is also illustrated by the India case study by Williams, in this volume, where GIS is used to guide communities in developing indicators and monitoring progress. However, to ensure the relevance of outputs, the use of information technologies must be negotiated by all partners, as discussed in Chapter 5.

To revisit the conundrum of scaling up participatory research: many of the case studies in this book focus on a few key locales, with limited scope beyond the project scale. On the plus side, human capital is generally built through the empowerment and training that are an integral part of action research projects –as capacity building is an explicit goal. Yet, it is challenging to develop a sustainable approach that lives beyond the project, once funding and technological or human resource support are withdrawn from an area. In three Philippine examples described by Cramb (2000), the adoption of soil-conserving technologies did not spread effectively beyond a few, local success stories. In some cases, technologies such as contour plantings were not maintained after initial investments. Malawi soil conservation efforts also suffered from limited uptake, over both time and area (Sutherland’s case study in this volume). Empowering farmers and stakeholders to conduct more effective research in partnership with researchers and change agents may be a necessary but not sufficient step towards improving NRM over the long term (Braun et al, 2000).

Steps to scaling up: building quality partnerships

Cooperation is key to building participatory team approaches. It arises from a recognition of the need to view resource management issues as a complex human activity system (Wilson, 1992). Research, development and extension are interactive as well as iterative. The main emphasis of this approach is to involve key stakeholders in a cooperative and flexible process that facilitates discussion and implementation of activities to achieve improvements. Building social capital, including empowerment of partners to participate provides a foundation for PAR. A cycle of monitoring, reflection and evaluation that involves all partners is key to furthering this process (Braun and Hocdé, 2000). Many participatory techniques are available, including rapid rural appraisal (RRA) techniques, participatory rural appraisal (PRA), focus group discussions and structured workshops (Carmen and Keith, 1994). The common themes across

these techniques are qualitative appraisals and joint participation by stakeholders, fostering common understanding of the problems. However, often it is not how thoroughly analyses have been done but the partnership that will determine success or failure of a project (Norton et al, 1999). As discussed in the van Koppen and Sutherland case studies in this volume from southern Africa, partnerships tend to last when benefits accrue widely, not just to local elites or project administrative elites.

In order to enhance partnership quality, facilitating communication between stakeholders and joint planning, the participatory workshop approach is one way forward. This approach is iterative and inter-related. It frequently involves the following stages, many of which overlap.

Stage 1: Empower stakeholders

Use ‘training for transformation’ and related approaches to empower partners (Freire, 1970). This is particularly important for farmers and community members who may feel they are uneducated and powerless compared to participants who are perceived as outside experts, thus critical consciousness is a first step in building social capital. Braun and Hocdé (2000) provide concrete examples of local empowerment efforts. It is critical that local knowledge and priorities are articulated and put at the centre stage from the beginning of the participatory workshop (Norton et al, 1999).

Stage 2: Specify problems and opportunities

Use a range of techniques that will facilitate communication between stakeholders. Identify root causes and cause–effect relationships. Use baseline data whenever available. Some of these techniques are described in Norton and Mumford (1993), and texts on quality control circles (QCC) used in management (see for example Karatsu and Ikeda, 1987; Crocker et al, 1984). This can be seen, alternatively, as an opportunity to discuss with partners where opportunities lie and what inquiry or area of research is of interest to the group (See McDougall et al’s case study in this volume).

Stage 3: Identify constraints

Brainstorm for opportunities to make improvements and to find ways to remove constraints. The key issues to be addressed include research, extension, training and policy aspects.

Stage 4: Analyse needs and design action plans

Engage participants in determining what actions need to be taken and in outlining action plans to achieve expected outcomes. Egan’s (1988) model for change can be usefully employed at this stage.

Stage 5: Evaluate progress and review from different partners’ perspectives to redesign action plans

One way to conduct this iterative approach is through a series of workshops, where the review stage is initiated approximately a year or two into the process as an all-stakeholders’ review workshop, to ensure the quality of the activities as well as the partnerships (Escalada and Heong, 2003). Action and reflection cycles are integral to this process.

It can be challenging to build quality partnerships on a large scale. A participatory project-based approach, as described above, is generally carried out at the community or watershed scale. However, the information generated can be codified and disseminated through different means, such as farmer field school educational materials (Thalbitzer, 1996; van de Fliert and Braun, 2000), through the mass media (Huan et al, 1999) or via local agricultural research committees (Ashby et al, 2000; Braun et al, 2000, and see Braun’s case study in this volume).

Scaling up participatory NRM to the watershed level

An example from India of emerging capacity at the watershed level involves the balancing of different group priorities through participatory watershed development (Turton and Farrington, 1998). Local control of resources by community organizations has been partnered with technical assistance from government organizations to serve local watershed development and conservation-oriented groups. A key component of this approach has been developing human resource capacity and community experience in dispute mediation.

Watershed management has been approached through a wide range of projects that partner technical and academic advisors with community-based organizations that initiate their collaboration through community visioning exercises. In Malawi, this has involved resource and priority setting workshops, integrated with jointly planned research along transects (Kanyama-Phiri et al, 2000). In Nicaragua, community watershed visioning was catalysed through participatory mapping and local training in monitoring tools. Combined with community-led research groups and landscape-level experiments, this has led to local empowerment to address larger-scale questions (see Vernooy’s case study on Nicaragua in this volume). Schreier and Brown’s case study in this volume presents a watershed-based approach that uses spatial tools, such as GIS, to document landscape ecological parameters in the service of local research endeavours. Long-term sustainability, and replication of these efforts – scaling out – may require a close connection of technical support and watershed tools to priorities and indicators that have meaning for local communities.

An exciting example of the collaborative management of community forests is presented in McDougall et al’s case study in this volume. As shown by

the experience of McDougall and colleages, developing sustainability indicators owned by the communities involved is key to adaptive management. Indeed, monitoring and evaluation that involves all stakeholders is the foundation of community-based participatory research. Indicators of sustainability may emerge that focus on economic returns to communities, at least initially (Turton and Farrington, 1998). Long-term, ecologically based indicators frequently emerge over time as technical advisors and communities expand partnerships and extend the scope of their collective visioning (see, for example, the Nicaragua case study by Vernooy).

Beyond the watershed: the continuum of scaling up and out

At the Chatham meeting, we found it useful to discuss the case studies in terms of a continuum, from researcher-led, to farmer-led. Another step further is to consider where participatory natural resource management (PNRM) approaches are situated in a matrix, with ‘scale’ on one axis and ‘type of participatory involvement’ on the other axis (Figure 4.1).

Intensive PAR approaches are frequently situated at locally specific sites, involving individual farm families and village community levels of the matrix. For example, PAR on nutrient budgeting to improve community resources in Mali (Defoer et al, 1998; Figure 4.1) requires intensive interaction with a community. Thus it is carried out locally. A major investment of researcher time and funds is necessary for this approach, focused primarily at one location. Advocates say this improves our understanding of nutrient cycling complexity and empowers local change agents to improve nutrient efficiency (Defoer et al, 2000). However, the sustainability of this effort over time, and the ability to reach many beneficiaries needs to be addressed. Farmer-to-farmer training can be a key component of scaling up from local, intensive efforts in PNRM. This could extend the ability to conduct nutrient budgeting to a large number of farmers. Possibly, a farmer field school approach to training would be effective, to educate on integrated crop management, basic nutrient cycling principles, and farm budgeting methodology to improve nutrient cycling efficiency (Braun and van de Fliert, 1997; Braun et al, 2000).

A community-based approach to micro-watershed rehabilitation is situated in the matrix in an intermediate position (Figure 4.1). For example, in India, a participatory watershed development approach has used guidelines that prioritize local autonomy, a decentralization of decision-making and funding, and partnership among NGO and government institutions (Turton and Farrington, 1998). Another type of watershed PAR, involving community visioning, mapping and monitoring is illustrated in Vernooy’s case study in this volume. A critical early step in this approach is the group identification of problems early in the analysis. After initial training in interdependence of resources, local decision-makers led efforts to map the consequences of alternative resource utilization strategies.

A regional scale is illustrated by GIS-based landscape analysis and country-wide extension demonstration trials (Figure 4.1). The challenge in these cases is to enhance the quality of participation. Participation is frequently limited to initial consultations or surveys of communities. Documentation of local priorities are – in some cases – integrated to improve the relevance of NRM research (see Schreier and Brown’s case study in Nepal; Vernooy’s case study in Nicaragua, both in this volume). Researchers are generally the lead designers in this approach, and work is implemented by extension and field staff. There may be little or no systematically designed role for farmers and communities as the project is implemented (Benson, 1997). These efforts, frequently involving hundreds of trials carried out throughout a region or agroecozone, and thousands of measurements and site monitoring, are conducted over several years (Hildebrand and Russell, 1996 in Figure 4.1). Final results are often communicated to communities or a region in the form of recommendations. For example, two major soil fertility endeavours in Malawi were conducted at separate times: each involved hundreds of maize fertilizer demonstration trials (Benson, 1997; Hildebrand and Russell, 1996).

One challenge is that farmers frequently perceive demonstration trials conducted across a region, or landscape monitoring with GIS-based tools, as having limited relevance. Indicators of agronomic performance or watershed sustainability may be quite different from sustainability indicators chosen by farm communities, such as increased market access, employment options or control of water management. It is a challenge to fully understand farmer resource levels and priorities. This is discussed in more detail in Snapp’s Malawi case study in this volume, which compares different approaches and how these constrain or enhance partnerships among farmers, researchers and extension (Johnson et al, 2001). A range of indicators and technology trial designs that rigorously link farmer assessment with researcher assessment may need to be carried out, to ensure relevance to diverse stakeholders.

Approaches to scaling up and out include using mass media campaigns to spread information in a way that challenges the listening audience, and builds local capacity. Mass media vehicles have been used too often for uni-directional dissemination of recommendations. Yet media can be used to catalyse experimentation on-farm. An example from Vietnam shows that research and extension staff can use leaflets, posters and radio to engage tens of thousands of farmers in experimenting on their own. Farmers were motivated to test the need for pesticides early in the rice growing season. Pesticides were being overused; after testing this idea for themselves, the majority of farmers involved reduced use of insecticide sprays (Escalada et al, 1999, and see Box 4.1). Local governments extended the approach further and, in 1999, 15 other provincial governments multiplied the media materials and launched their own campaigns, reaching about 90 per cent of the 2.3 million households in the Mekong Delta (Huan et al, 1999).

The potential use of the media to complement face-to-face participatory approaches has not been well exploited. It is evident from this case study that when systematically planned and implemented, a media campaign can initiate and help sustain changes in farmers’ beliefs and practices. A number of

components could have accounted for the large-scale adoption of the heuristic communicated in the campaign – detailed understanding of farmer decisions, simplicity of the message, educated farmers, benefits of the innovation, the media mix, the materials development process and delivery. In addition, an emphasis was placed on motivating farmers to test the heuristic. Researchers started with an understanding of current farmer knowledge and belief (see Box 4.1), to show how farmers could test for themselves a new, more efficient pesticide use strategy. Economic, ecosystem and health benefits obtained from more targeted pesticide use were also emphasized (Escalada et al, 1999).

In the case of complex agricultural management issues, enhanced human resource development at the local level may be critical to helping communities ask the right questions, and design appropriate research. Soil and disease management issues may not be simple to understand, or straightforward for farmers to test on their own. An example of a methdology for facilitating local experimentation is the CIAL (Comité de Investigación Agrícola Local) or local agricultural research committee, first developed in South America (Figure 4.1, Ashby et al, 2000; Braun et al, 2000, and see the Braun et al case study in this

volume). These act as a platform for improving local research capacity. They are locally situated, but CIALs interact at the regional level through second order organizations and national meetings.

Ways forward

Communication is the medium of participatory research. Technology development collaborative efforts need to be focused on strategic and priority questions. Thus the key role is listening to each other and paying attention to ensure communication among partners. The case study described in Malawi (Snapp in this volume) includes different types of participatory research trial designs. The goal is to assess the costs and benefits of a range of collaborative and communicative modes, from the perspectives of all involved. One promising trial design involves the linkage of simple ‘one-farmer, one replica’ trials – managed by farmers – so that they feed into central trials managed by academic researchers, extension and NGO farm advisors (Box 4.2). These trials were named ‘mother–baby trials’ by a participating farmer (Snapp, 1999). The goal is to facilitate communication and researcher attention to farmer input (quantitative and qualitative) in a relatively cost-effective, rigorous and practical manner (Kanyama-Phiri et al, 2000). This approach takes a conventional mode of research and stretches it. Communication is institutionalized early and often in the project, among scientists, extension staff, NGO workers and farmers. The mother–baby trial design can be carried out at the community scale (Box 4.2). To scale up further, effort must be invested initially in choosing representative communities that will allow meta-analysis and synthesis at the regional scale (Snapp and Silim, 2001).

Meta-scale analysis can also be conducted through watershed-based approaches, such as the case study presented in this volume for Nepal (Schreier and Brown). This illustrates how geographic information systems (GIS) and statistical meta-analysis can help to build on knowledge in an extremely complex environment (Schreier, 1999; Figure 4.1 and see the case study in this volume). Issues raised by the communities in two Nepalese watersheds were addressed using a GIS approach that included overlay stratification, modelling, statistics and socioeconomic surveys. The key factors indicative of climatic conditions (elevation and aspect), the major soil types, and dominant land uses were used to define categories and conduct meta-analysis. Communities were surveyed through rapid rural appraisal (RRA) methods and participated in on-farm research to assess sustainability of nutrient management practices. The case studies by Williams and Peters in this volume illustrate the use of GIS-based information tools to help synthesize lessons from local NRM experience.

Performance of technologies over the long term, and how risky they are in different agroecosystems and climates, can be addressed by nutrient budgeting and modelling (Lightfoot and Noble, 1999). Linkages of models to on-farm experimentation, to explicitly evaluate risk and farmer perceptions is an approach developed in Zimbabwe. These experiences are reported by Rohrbach and Okwach (1999) and closely related work by Snapp and colleagues (1999);

see also the Zimbabwe case study by Vaughan in this volume. New methodology and knowledge has improved efforts to integrate on-farm evaluation of cropping system performance over time and space. These include multivariate statistical approaches to analysis of variance and nutrient balance methods to calculate nutrient inflows and outflows as sustainability indicators and guides (Brown et al, 1999; Defoer et al 2000; Mutsaers et al, 1997)

As spatial analysis and simulation prediction tools become more widely available, stronger linkages to PAR need to be developed. Empowering communities to improve natural resource decision-making across regions, and countries, is a process being explored by McDougall and colleagues where community forest management is challenged by conditions of rapid change, deforestation and involving multiple stakeholders in Indonesia and other countries (McDougall et al, this volume). CIFOR (the Center for International Forestry Research) has recently carried out initial research to develop and test suitable criteria and indicators to help assess the sustainability of community forest management.

Links to markets and access to inputs are also important components of scaling up, where demand and supply can help facilitate farmer experimentation.

An interesting example is provided by a recent uptake of pigeonpea in new regions of Malawi through a combination of events, including market liberalization and increased market access for smallholder farmers (Jones et al, 2000). This may have long-term positive consequences for soil fertility regeneration: pigeonpea is one of the most effective grain legumes in terms of fixing nitrogen and increasing phosphorus availability under on-farm conditions (Snapp, 1998). Thus, strategic partnerships among private and public organizations to facilitate market demand and access to inputs may be necessary to scale up technology adoption.

Summary

A highly heterogeneous environment that requires locally specific decision-making complicates efforts to improve NRM. Heterogeneity among stakeholders makes it difficult to craft cooperative agreements, and develop effective communication. Further, smallholder farmers and resource-poor rural people cannot always invest in experimentation, and they may not understand all of the interactions and the biophysical principles involved (Bentley and Andrews, 1996). Researchers frequently have knowledge about agroecological principles, but do not know how to apply them to local circumstances or resource bases. A major stumbling block is that those charged with improving local decision-making are frequently unclear about indigenous knowledge or local priorities.

To scale up and move forward, a radical change in the research sequence is necessary. Participatory problem definition needs to start with the farmers’ perspectives (Bentley and Andrews, 1996; Heong and Escalada, 1997a). Improved communication tools and PAR methods are becoming available to facilitate this process. Structured means of improving information flow among farmers, researchers, farm advisors and other stakeholders are discussed here. These include relatively practical and rigorous methods that can be adopted immediately by agronomists and soil scientists, such as community nutrient budgeting and mother–baby trials (Kanyama-Phiri et al, 2000). Key components include improving communication through participatory workshops and the linking of action research and synthesis of biological performance and farmer perceptions. Spatial analysis tools such as GIS can play a role in the synthesis of natural resource information and developing indicators at different scales, including those with local and multi-regional importance. Community participation and human resource development approaches may take longer to develop, but are essential to the sustainability of scaling up efforts. Community agricultural research groups, watershed management associations and farmer field schools provide examples of how to develop human capacity and improve NRM decision-making on a grand scale (Ashby et al, 2000).

Reaching many farmers may require learning from nationwide literacy campaigns (Freire, 1970), and understanding how market access and links can be developed. These require major investments in terms of time and resources, which may involve mobilizing the private and public sectors. At the same time,

in cases where relatively simple relationships are apparent, we suggest that one way forward, with short-term impact potential, is for resource management scientists to distil research information into testable rules of thumb. Then clients throughout a country or region can be challenged to evaluate this hypothesis (Cooperrider et al, 2000). Management decision-making framed as heuristics has the opportunity to be disseminated widely by the mass media. Thus, thousands of farmers can become engaged in experimenting to evaluate rules of thumb, and determine validity for themselves (Escalada et al, 1999).

We attempt here to distil information about building quality partnerships, while expanding to reach many people. The case studies detailed here are rich sources of information about what worked and did not work. It is apparent that communication among farmers, researchers and change agents as well as community skills in building in NRM are essential ingredients to sustainability and scaling up; this holds for a range of different information tools and participatory approaches. Maintaining and expanding on these partnerships is part of the challenge of reaching the multitudes.

References

Ashby, J A (1987) ‘The Effects of Different Types of Farmer Participation in the Management of On-farm Trials’, Agricultural Administration and Extension, 25:235–252

Ashby, J A and Sperling, L (1995) ‘Institutionalizing Participatory, Client-driven Research and Technology Development in Agriculture’, Development and Change, 26:753–770

Ashby, J, Braun, A, Gracia, T, Guerrero, M, Quirós, C A and Roa, J I (2000) Investing in Farmer Researchers: Experience in Latin America, CIAT Publication No 318, Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, Cali, Colombia

Benson, T D (1997) ‘Spatial and Temporal Variation in Fertilizer Recommendations for Maize Grown by Smallholders in Malawi’, in Maize Commodity Team Annual Report 1995/1996, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Research, Chitedze Research Station, Lilongwe, Malawi, pp135–144

Bentley, J W and Andrews, K (1996) ‘Through the Road Blocks: IPM and Central American Smallholders’, Gatekeeper Series No 56, International Institute for Environment and Development, London

Braun, A R and Hocdé, H (2000) ‘Farmer Participatory Research in Latin America: Four Cases’. in Stür, W W, Horne, P M, Hacker, J B and Kerridge P C (eds) Working with Farmers: The Key to Adoption of Forage Technologies, ACIAR Proceedings No 95, pp32–53

Braun, A R and van de Fliert, E (1997) ‘The Farmer Field School Approach to IPM and ICM in Indonesia: User participation’, in Local R&D: Institutionalizing Innovations in Rootcrop Agriculture, UPWARD, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines, pp44–64

Braun, A R, Thiele, G and. Fernande, M (2000) ‘Farmer Field Schools and Local Agricultural Research Committees: Complementary Platforms for Integrated Decision-making in Sustainable Agriculture’, AGREN Network Paper, No 105, ODI, UK

Brown, S, Schreier, H, Shah, P B and Lavkulich, L M (1999) ‘Modeling of Soil Nutrient Budgets: An Assessment of Agricultural Sustainability in Nepal’, Soil Use Management 15:101–108

Carmen, K and Keith, K (1994) Community Consultation Techniques: Purposes, Processes and Pitfalls. Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Chambers, R, Pacey, A, and Thrupp, L A (1989) Farmers First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research, Intermediate Technology Publications, London

Conway, G R (1985) ‘Agroecosystem analysis’ Agricultural Administration, 20:31–55.

Cooperrider, D L, Sorensen, P F, Whitney, D and Yaeger, T F (eds) (2000) Appreciative Inquiry. Rethinking Human Organisation Towards a Positive Theory of Change, Stipes Publishing, Champaign, Illinois

Cottrell, B (1999) ‘The Right Connections: Partnering and Expertise in Feminist Work for Change’, in Porter, M and Judd, E (eds) Feminists Doing Development: A Practical Critique, Zed Books, London and New York, pp87–100

Cramb, R A (2000) ‘Processes Influencing the Successful Adoption of New Technologies by Smallholders’, in Stür, W W, Horne, P M, Hacker, J B and Kerridge, P C (eds) Working with Farmers: The Key to Adoption of Forage Technologies, ACIAR Proceedings, No 95, pp11–22

Crocker, O L, Charney, C and Chiu, J S L (1984) Quality Circles – A Guide to Participation and Productivity, Methuen Publications, New York

Defoer, T, de Groote, H, Hilhorst, T, Kante, S and Budelman, A (1998) ‘Participatory action research and quantitative analysis for nutrient management in southern Mali: a fruitful marriage’, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 71:215–228

Defoer, T, Budelman, A, Toulmin, C and Carter, S E (2000) Building Common Knowledge. Participatory Learning and Action Research (Part 1), Amsterdam, Netherlands: Royal Tropical Institute

Egan, G (1988) Change-Agent Skills B: Managing Innovation and Change, Pfeiffer & Co, San Diego

Escalada, M M and Heong, K L (2003) Participatory Planning Frameworks for Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research in Rice Pest Management, International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippines

Escalada, M M, Heong, K L, Huan, N H and Mai, V (1999) ‘Communications and Behavior Change in Rice Farmers’ Pest Management: The Case of Using Mass Media in Vietnam’, Journal of Applied Communications, 83(1):7–26.

Fernandez, M (1988) ‘Technological Domains of Women in Mixed Farming Systems of Highland Communities: MantaroValley of Peru’, in Poats, S, Schmink, M and Spring, A (eds) Gender Issues in Farming Systems Research and Extension, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, pp213–221

Fernandez, M (1994) ‘Women’s Agricultural Production Committees and the Participative-research-action Approach’, in Feldstein, H and Jiggins, J (eds) Tools for the Field: Methodologies Handbook for Gender Analysis and Agriculture, Kumarian Press, West Hartford, Connecticut, pp239–243

Festinger, L (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press,California Freire, P (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Seabury Press, New York

Fujisaka, S (1993) ‘Learning from Six Reasons Why Farmers do not Adopt Innovations Intended to Improve Sustainability of Upland Agriculture’, Agricultural. Systems, 46:409–425

Gündel, S (1998) Participatory Innovation Development and Diffusion: Adoption and Adaptation of Introduced Legumes in the Traditional Slash-and-Burn Peasant Farming System in Yucatan, Mexico, GTZ, Eschborn, Germany

Heong, K L and Escalada, M M (1997a) ‘Perception Change in Rice Pest Management: A Case Study of Farmers’ Evaluation of Conflict Information’, Journal of Applied Communications, 81:3–17

Heong, K L and Escalada, M M (1997b) Pest Management Practices of Rice Farmers in Asia, International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippines

Heong, K L and Escalada, M M (1999) ‘Quantifying Rice Farmers’ Pest Management Decisions: Beliefs and Subjective Norms in Stem Borer Control’, Crop Protection 18:315–322

Heong, K L and Schoenly, K G (1998) ‘Impact of Insecticides on Herbivore–Natural Enemy Communities in Tropical Rice Ecosystems’, in Haskell, P T and McEwen, P (eds) Ecotoxicology: Pesticides and Beneficial Organisms, Chapman and Hall, London, pp381–403

Hildebrand, P E and Russell, J T (1996) Adaptability Analysis: A Method for the Design, Analysis and Interpretation of On-Farm Research and Extension, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa

Hirschmann, D (1995) ‘Managing Gender and Equity in an Agricultural Programme in Malawi’, Public Administration and Development 15:21–40

Huan, N H, Mai, V, Escalada, M M and Heong, K L (1999) ‘Changes in Rice Farmers’ Pest Management between 1992 and 1997 in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam’, Crop Protection, 18:557–563

Johnson, N, Snapp, S and Lilja, N (2001) Assessing the Impact of User Participation in Research on Soil Fertility Management: The ICRISAT Mother–Baby Trials in Malawi. PRGA report, unpublished

Jones, R, Likoswe, A and Freeman, H A (2000) ‘Improving Poor Farmers’ Access to Technologies and Markets for pigeonpea in Malawi’, in Ritchie, J M (ed) Integrated Crop Management Research in Malawi: Developing Technologies with Farmers, pp150–157

Kanyama-Phiri, G Y, Snapp, S S, Kamanga, B and Wellard, K (2000) ‘Towards Integrated Soil Fertility Management in Malawi: Incorporating participatory approaches in agricultural research’, Managing Africa’s Soils, No 11, IIED, UK

Karatsu, H and Ikeda, T (1987) Mastering the Tools of Quality Circles, PHP Institute Inc, Singapore

Kitch, L W, Boukar, O, Endondo, C and Murdock, L L (1998) ‘Farmer Acceptability Criteria in Breeding Cowpea’, Experimental Agriculture, 34:475–486.

Kumwenda, J D T, Waddington, S R, Snapp, S S, Jones, R B and Blackie, M J (1997) ‘Soil Fertility Management in Southern Africa’, in Byerlee, D and Eicher, C K (eds) Africa’s Emerging Maize Revolution, Lynne Publishers, Boulder, Colorado pp153–172

Lightfoot, C and Noble, R P (1999) ‘A Farming Systems Approach to Ecological Agricultural Research’, in Devlin, J F and Zettel, T (eds) Ecoagriculture: Initiatives in Eastern and Southern Africa, University of Guelph and Weaver Press, Harare, Zimbabwe, pp205–226

Mutsaers, H J W, Weber, G K, Walker, P and Fisher, N M, (1997) A Field Guide for On-Farm Experimentation, IITA/CTA/ISNAR, Ibadan, Nigeria

Norton, G A and Mumford, J D (1993) Decision Tools for Pest Management, CAB International, Wallingford, UK

Norton, G A, Adamson, D, Aitken, L G, Bilston, L J, Foster, J, Frank, B and Harper, JK (1999) ‘Facilitating IPM: The Role of Participatory Workshops’, International Journal of Pest Management, 45:85–90

Okali C, Sumberg J E and Reddy, K C (1994) ‘Unpacking a Technical Package: Flexible Messages for Dynamic Situations’, Experimental. Agriculture 30:299–310

Ooi, P A C (1996) ‘Experiences in Educating Rice Farmers to Understand Biological Control’, Entomophaga, 41:375–385

Rohrbach, D D and Okwach, G E (1999) ‘Setting Targets: Modeling Crop Performance or Cropping Decisions’ in Risk Management for Maize Farmers in Drought-Prone Areas of Southern Africa, CIMMYT, ICRISAT, Danida, Mexico, DF pp47–58

Schreier, H (1999) Methods Used to Address Resource Issues in Integrated Watershed Management in Nepalese Watersheds, unpublished manuscript; and see case study, this volume

Smaling, E M A, Stoorvogel, J and Windmeijerm, P N (1993) ‘Calculating Soil Nutrient Balances in Africa at Different Scales: II. District scale’, Fertilizer Research, 35:237–250

Snapp, S S (1989) ‘Nicaragua: Will the Hand that Rocks the Cradle Grasp the Plow?’ Journal of National Women Studies Association, 11:37–46

Snapp, S S (1998) ‘Phosphorus and Sustainability of sub-Saharan Africa Smallholder Farms’, in Lynch, J P and Deikman, J (eds) Phosphorus in Plant Biology: Regulatory Roles in Molecular, Cellular, Organismic and Ecosystem Processe’, American Society of Plant Physiologists, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, pp59–72

Snapp, S S (1999) ‘Mother and Baby Trials: A Novel Trial Design Being Tried Out in Malawi’, Target Newsletter 17:8

Snapp, S S and Silim, S N (2002) ‘Farmer Preferences and Legume Intensification for Low Nutrient Environments’, Plant and Soil, 245:181–192

Snapp, S S, Phiri, R and Moyo, A (1999) ‘Soil Fertility Experimentation and Recommendations for Drought-prone Regions of Zimbabwe and Malawi’, in Risk Management for Maize Farmers in Drought-Prone Areas of Southern Africa, CIMMYT, ICRISAT, Danida, Mexico, DF pp13–24

Sperling L, Loevinsohn, M E and Ntabomvura, B (1993) ‘Rethinking the Farmer’s Role in Plant Breeding: Local Bean Experts and On-station Selection in Rwanda’, Experimental Agriculture, 29:509–519

Thalbitzer, L (ed) (1996) An Inspirational Book for Facilitators: Vegetable IPM Training, FAO Intercountry Program for IPM in Asia, Makati, Philippines

Turton, C and Farrington, J (1998) ‘Enhancing Rural Livelihoods through Participatory Watershed Development in India’, Natural Resource Perspectives, No 34, Overseas Development Institute, Department for International Development (ODI, DFID), London, UK

van de Fliert, E and Braun, A R (2000) Farmer Field School for Integrated Crop Management of Sweetpotato: Field Guides and Technical Manual, International Potato Center, Regional Office for East, Southeast Asia and the Pacific, Bogor, Indonesia

Wilson, J (1992) Changing Agriculture: An Introduction to Systems Thinking, Kangaroo Press, Kenthurst, Australia

Chapter 5

Transforming Institutions to Achieve Innovation in Research and Development

Ann Stroud

‘In times of change, learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.’ Edward Hoffer¹

Introduction

Researchers around the globe are taking on complex, multi-faceted environmental and livelihood challenges. In doing so, they are searching for, testing and proposing a number of methods and approaches that depart from those normally used in traditional agricultural research. There are several driving forces behind this evolution: a growing dissatisfaction of governments and donors in the limited impact from the substantial investment that has been made in agricultural research; a heightened pressure to deliver and to show that farmers are using the technologies that have been ‘on the shelf’; and an awareness that technologies and other research products need supportive conditions, coupled with local innovation and incentives, to enhance adoption. There is also a growing realization by researchers and natural resource management (NRM) practitioners that technologies in themselves are not a panacea to address NRM issues, but need to go hand-in-hand with supportive social, institutional, economic and policy arrangements. It is the major hypothesis of this book that the participatory research and gender analysis (PRGA) approaches promoted by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) will help to address these sorts of concern.

As researchers are being pressured to be more client, impact and results-oriented, research managers are also being pressured to change their organization’s

orientation. The changes sought in research practice to more directly address local capacity needs and support sustainable, self-led change require supportive changes in institutional operations, arrangements and values. This path of change should lead to a more ‘learning type’ research system – one that internalizes the necessary changes in attitudes, structures and research practices so as to increase responsiveness to local community development needs, consideration of economic, institutional and social aspects, and the ability to positively influence policy. Public research organizations are, in fact, currently being challenged to embrace a twofold change: to move towards the use of PRGA approaches in research practice (see Box 5.1); and, to become ‘learning organizations’ so that they can continue to effectively innovate in the future (see Table 5.1).

To date, the promotion of PRGA methods has been primarily addressed through projects and one-off training programmes. Very few of these projects or programmes are conceived to, or have strategies that, influence the core attitudes or working practices of the institutions, so that many of the experiences remain isolated, and as a result there is still a dearth of public institutional support for these new approaches. However, some researchers are promoting an integrated natural resource management research and development (INRM R&D) approach, which also embraces participatory approaches) (CGIAR INRM Task Force, 2001; CGIAR INRM, 2000; Stroud, 2000, 2001; AHI, 2000). There are now some examples of changes in attitudes,

Table 5.1 Comparing characteristics of learning and bureaucratic organizations

Sources: Harrison and Shiron, 1998; Catacutan and Duque, 2000; Thompson, 1995.

practice and institutional arrangements that have promoted and fostered the incorporation of participatory approaches into research.

There is also some recent, increasing interest by public research organizations in the processes of organizational change and learning as a means for improving the impact of research and of participatory INRM approaches (Gurung, personal communication, 2001; Hagmann et al, 1998a; Hagmann et al, 1999; Jonfa et al, 2001; Hagmann and Stroud 2002). Beyond cultural transformations, changes in managerial and structural terms could include an array of new modes of operating, for example: new forms of leadership, new ways of linking with external agencies and partners, new ways of managing and promoting personnel, new incentive structures, new planning, reviewing, resource allocation and monitoring and evaluation modalities. Two challenges are that there are few organizational change experts working for the public research sector and that change experts tend to draw upon experience derived from private sector organizations in developed countries (Senge et al, 1999; Baum, 2000; Kotter, 1996). However, private organizations have different driving forces to encourage change – for example, profit motivation and market orientation – when compared to public ones (Janssen and Braunschweig, 2002). Many public organizations are led by ‘researcher-managers’ who are not expert in organizational assessment, and their institutional culture may not include innovation or the creative exploration of new ideas. These institutions are often part of larger, more bureaucratic government structures that do not encourage innovation. Some of these difficulties, as experienced by public institutions in the ‘farming systems’ research era of the 1970s to early 1990s are documented by Collinson and FAO (2000) and Merrill-Sands et al (1989).

Much of this book has described progress in the use, or development of, participatory methods and practices that encompass gender and diversity concerns. This chapter focuses on aspects and challenges related to changing research organizations so that there is better support for, and use of, participatory methods. The hypothesis put forward in the chapter is that by employing strategies and processes to create a shared vision of effective research and a learning organizational culture, the development and use of new methodologies, such as PRGA, will be encouraged. The chapter describes key elements, conditions and processes required for institutional change in research organizations. The chapter focuses on the three main stages of change: ‘initiating change’, ‘sustaining momentum’, and ‘redesigning and rethinking’. It provides examples to illustrate application in practice, drawing heavily upon the African Highlands Initiative (AHI) experience,² and highlights issues and challenges inherent in public institutional change. These ideas are proposed with the understanding that much more than institutionalization needs to take place to enable a PRGA approach to work. Other critical elements include an organized, relatively sophisticated expression of farmer demand, adequate resources for research, good quality services to support farmer demand, and a supportive policy structure. We suggest that the lessons learned and proposed here could be applied not only to public sector R&D organizations, but also to community groups and community-based organizations, as well as non-governmental organizations.

Key elements and conditions to consider when fostering institutional change

Structural and process approaches

Specialists in the field of organizational change have described several useful frameworks and change processes that indicate key conditions, elements and challenges (Kotter, 1996; Gurung, 2001; Hagmann et al, 1997, 1998b; Hagmann et al, 1999; Senge et al, 1999). The two approaches to organizational change discussed here – a ‘structural approach’ and a ‘process approach’ – have slightly different emphases, but are not mutually exclusive (Kotter, 1996; Baum, 2000; Gurung, 2001; Hagmann et al, 1999). Kotter (1996) lists three major components of his ‘structural’ approach to organizational change: structure, systems and culture. Structure includes the nature of rules and decision-making hierarchies within the organization, numbers of levels, type of leadership, and the number and complexity of policies and procedures that hinder or serve the organization. Systems refers to performance evaluations, information systems, training and other support systems (incentives and rewards) for a wide range of employees. Culture refers to the organization’s norms of behaviour (common ways of behaving) and values that are shared and are visible within the organization and that tend to shape behaviour (Baum, 2000).

Taking a ‘process’ approach, Gurung (2001) points out that unless most of these elements are working together towards changed modalities, a mere policy change – for example, offering incentives to change – will not result in organizational change. Likewise, if one only makes structural changes without other functional changes, little behavioural change will occur. This implies the need for a process to deal with the whole system and its elements in a logical, but iterative way. Culture is one of the most important but difficult aspects to change as it is nearly invisible, is largely unconscious, is difficult to discuss and to challenge, and has a large influence on human behaviour. The Stroud case study on the African Highlands Initiative, for example, illustrated the repeated need to reinforce and mentor the use of participatory methods as researchers kept reverting back to their original behaviour. The new (PR) approaches involved required the researchers to change their behaviour from: closed to open modes of questioning farmers; working with individuals to working with groups; collecting to sharing information; verbal communication to using more visual means; qualitative to using comparisons; and from ‘research to village’ information transfer to ‘village to village’ transfer. The difficulties for researchers to rapidly change their attitudes and practice, given their research organizations’ culture, prevented them from making quick progress in applying participatory research methods.

In the Dance of Change (1999) Senge et al highlight that ‘sustaining any profound change process requires a fundamental shift in thinking’.³ They make the following points in terms of means and process for change: there needs to be a potential for change; that change is a process that needs to be managed and reinforced; and that one has to be cognizant and understand the constraints or

challenges that can limit growth processes and to attend to these constraints. The latter point is key and requires workable strategies for dealing with these challenges. Several cases discussed change the management of local organizations as a process (Vincent, van Koppen, Pound and CIFOR, among others).

Senge et al (1999) divide the change process into three stages. Initiating change occurs as soon as a ‘pilot’ group(s) begins to conduct its work in unfamiliar ways. In the case of PRGA, many of the participatory INRM practitioners might identify themselves as the ‘pilot’ group (or ‘change team’). The second stage is sustaining momentum within the change team and between the team and the larger organization. This concerns confronting ‘sceptics’ and trying to keep the spirit and practice of change alive within the change team. Thirdly, redesigning and rethinking at the organizational level refers to the stage when change initiatives gain broader credibility and confront the established internal infrastructure and practices of the organization. It is at this stage that one actually gets into organizational assessment of strategies, systems and structures (refer to Kotter, 1996 above) and where the organization takes steps in making adjustments in order to change, support a new culture and new ways of doing things. If the organization can adjust itself to become a ‘learning organization’, it can go through periodic stages of reviewing and renewal.

Organizational change requires various supporting conditions. There must be a shared commitment, among leaders, managers and workers. This commitment only develops with collective capability to build a clear vision and shared values such as participation, accountability, openness, transparency, ownership and inclusiveness. There should be people who have the skills to facilitate reflection and enquiry or to use a ‘reflective- learning’ process, as this enables those involved to converse about complex, conflictive issues without invoking defensiveness. Other new skills are needed that support the change process, such as systems thinking, reflective learning, and facilitation, as well as the skills to carry out any new tasks that might be envisioned. Good mentoring or facilitation is required to enable team members to rise to the challenges (ie, helping others to ‘complete’ themselves) (Senge et al, 1999; Hagmann pers comm). An underlying ‘process’ thread that feeds the various stages is a ‘learning’ cycle that promotes a culture of enquiry. This cycle includes: sparking change, searching for new ways to operate, planning and strengthening capacity, experimenting while implementing, sharing experiences and reflecting on lessons learned, and re-planning (Hagmann et al, 1998c). Senge et al (1999) consider these as basic learning capabilities, which if they are missing will limit sustainable change. Various PRGA cases referred to using the learning process (eg, Nelson, Braun, Stroud).

From the above points, it can be seen that organizational change combines ‘inner’ shifts in people’s values, aspirations and behaviours with ‘outer’ shifts in processes, strategies, practices and systems. Clearly, the organization must build capacity for doing things in new ways; it just doesn’t ‘do’ something new. Changed thinking is the foundation so that new strategies, systems and structures can be implemented. In summary, change is a process, and the various stages need to be iteratively understood and managed. (Refer to a scheme in Box 5.2 as an example.)

The first stage of institutional change: initiating change

‘Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it.’ Goethe

Four key aspects of initiating change are introduced here, then explored in further detail in the following sub-sections. Various driving forces usually initiate change: people feel the need for change; they might be led through an analysis that indicates the need for change; or circumstances and clients may demand change. Change is most successful when the effort is driven by commitment, and where the initiative is driven by the interest in learning. Other driving forces however, usually attend this commitment. Once it is realized by a few that change is needed, a change process can be designed, catalysed, facilitated and iteratively reviewed. The change process needs to be linked to the desired outcomes within a conceptual framework, and competence development and iterative reflective learning and action must be linked conceptually and in action to the framework (Hagmann and Stroud, unpublished). As part of the process, one has to think about who is involved, how they are linked to the rest of the organization, what strategies are required, and who is leading and facilitating the process. Visioning and concept development are necessary to enable the change group and others in the organization to visualize alternative ways of working and organizing the work that currently may be beyond their experience. Visioning and concept development need to be returned to and deepened over time in a common interest or ‘change group’. Competence development is an integral part of change and includes management of the reflective learning and action process as well as the development of other new skills that are needed to handle the new dimensions envisioned. The process of change becomes grounded in the elements of ‘experiential learning’ through conceptual development, testing new ways of working through action research, documentation of processes and learning, sharing, reflecting to bring out the lessons and experiences, then re-

planning and redirecting actions as required. There should be many self-discoveries on the way.

Driving forces

Driving forces of change can be, and are often, external (for example, ‘donor-driven’), but are best accompanied by the internal drive or felt need to change. According to Senge et al (1999), an internal drive for change usually starts small, and often with people who are open-minded pragmatists, and who may look at their organizational culture from a different perspective or have curiosity in a particular set of ideas. These groups, sometimes referred to as ‘change teams’, often serve as the ‘seeds’ for change – developing and applying a shared vision, similar mental models and a willingness to experiment with new ways of doing things. This felt need to change is usually not shared by all factions within the organization, and hence come some of the challenges faced in subsequent stages of change. (Based on the AHI’s experience, for example, while the ‘change team’ trying out new modalities may have deep, extensive experiential learning, if they are not also linked to and supported from the onset by management, they risk delays or even external ‘sabotage’.)

The increased use of participatory research methods has been broadly driven by the fact that most research organizations see the need to improve adoption rates and impact. These institutions perceive that the traditional approaches are not achieving this, particularly in the areas of: applying more complex NRM technologies (integrated pest management and integrated soil fertility management); resolving communal resource management issues (irrigation schemes, hillside management); handling varied and multiple stakeholders’ needs who operate in varied circumstances with varied agendas (importance of social and institutional processes); and dealing with multiple dimensions and levels (policies, economic conditions at local, regional and national levels) that are hindering change. In addition, an increased application of PRGA is often driven by an enhanced sense of mission – to give more attention to women and the poor. All case studies make reference to these areas. Here we offer four examples, taken from the case studies, that illustrate drivers of change towards using new PRGA approaches in order to have a better impact.

1   External interests are drivers of change in cases where advisory project personnel from externally funded projects or donors see the need for new research approaches that create impact. A shared agenda is sought by the external project in consultation with local R&D organizations and often the external entity tries to influence or assist the local organization in the change process (Jonfa et al, 2001) (cases from Klemick and Jarvis, Vernooy, Nelson, Borrini-Feyerabend, Pound, van Koppen and Gurung).

2   Local interests drive change in cases where a local movement results in empowered farmers and sufficient funds so that locals can make demands on research and other service providers (cases from Garrity, Braun, Dey and Prein).

3   Two-way interactions between research staff and partners from other organizations involved in development can provide an impetus for change. This is where teams (multidisciplinary) and partnerships (multi-institutional) foster change through exposure to other ways of doing things. Partnerships can require intensive sharing of methods and approaches through action and/or the negotiation process. Adjustments in process may be made to enable the relationship to function (Opondo et al, 2001; cases from Snapp, Stroud, Vernooy and McDougall et al, this volume).

4   Internal realizations by the research teams for the need to change can drive the change process; catalysed especially by field research pursuing improved NRM and livelihoods and working directly with local farmers and other stakeholders. This is witnessed in the testimonies from the cases found in this book as well as from others (Opondo et al, 2001; most cases in this volume).

Designing the process

To be successful, efforts towards organizational change require a conscious process and strategy, as well as leadership and facilitation, and should ultimately be supported by institutional structures and procedures. Changed thinking is a key factor underpinning these because it leads to changed attitudes and practice. The change process, for example, needs to explicitly foster the individual desire for learning and to provide personal satisfaction. It requires social dynamics where individuals interact and work together over time, and where they are able to derive satisfaction from teamwork. The AHI experience illuminated the fact that creating a process that focuses on the ‘outcomes’ of the change process –in other words, what needs to be accomplished, thinking through how to get there and translating this into action – is critical. The outcome provides the compelling vision; the strategy and action translate this into personal and group experiences in the field. The field experiences ground changes in personal experience and support changes in attitude and behaviour. Reflection sessions review these experiences and rethink the strategies and practice (Opondo et al, 2001).

The change process must be led by a strategy for expanding lessons beyond the change team, and into the future; this may involve multiple steps and various parts of the organization. For example, while change groups may be useful in planting ‘seeds of change’ within an organization, these will not take root unless managers adopt and share the new models of practice as examples. Alternatively, if many of the organization members see a need for change, there might be a process put into place that is jointly designed – with a series of task forces, iterative discussion and strategizing and coming to some conclusion (Hagmann and Stroud, unpublished.). Experience has shown that there are several common weaknesses relating to strategies for designing change. There are often structural changes made without a clearly articulated goal and desired outcome. This usually results in a dysfunctional system that does not foster the required behavioural change and learning that are needed for real change. Often the small change teams (based in projects) stay as isolated experiences because they are

not linked to organizational learning. There is usually a weak strategy in place for assisting the ‘change team’ and for harvesting lessons from these cases. For example, reviews and planning sessions may not be organized for reflection –thus limiting opportunities to make adjustments if things are faltering. These weak modalities provide limited support to changing behaviours and practice, and are most likely why PRGA has not been widely adopted, incorporated and internalized in research organizations.

Leadership and membership in a ‘change group’ is very important to its success. The literature (Senge et al, 1999; Adamo, 2001; Stroud’s case study, this volume) highlights several key groups of actors that might be included in the change team:

• Social networks and existing groups that are characterized by a high level of trust and provide a social framework for coordination, cooperation and mutual assistance.
• Effective internal networkers that can diffuse innovative ideas and practices – these often belong to informal social networks.
• Leaders that are accountable, imaginative, committed and have sufficient authority to undertake change at their local level.
• Those that have a propensity for mentoring, are committed to the learning process and can become mentors and coaches.

Top leadership must be involved in the process in order to create the right organizational environment for the change group(s) to operate and pursue its objectives (in this case to provide a good example of the application of the PRGA approach to INRM). If change is externally driven, the process should be optimally negotiated and designed together with management. This is one of the pitfalls in much of the PRGA work when it takes place in a ‘project’ mode. If management is not included, one can expect many challenges to arise in the sustaining stages (Hagmann et al; Stroud case). Jonfa et al (2001) discuss the importance of raising awareness of the PR approach at various levels, and used a wide range of strategies, involving a number of actors, in their change process: publicity campaigns, involving a number of key organizations in planning and implementation, using cross-institutional training, creating forums for discussion, organizing monitoring tours and impact studies, and formulating a set of flexible guidelines.

Conceptual and competence development

The start-up phase of a change process should include ‘visioning’ and ‘conceptual development’ for the research change team to support the new ways of approaching research. Exploring and broadening concepts (or research paradigms) using ‘live’ examples can open the eyes of researchers to new ways of working, while reinforcing the validity of the new methods and enhancing understanding of the rationale for change (Hagmann et al, 1996; Hagmann et al, 1998a; Hagmann et al, 1999; Hagmann and Chuma, 2000; Hagmann and Stroud, unpublished). As part of the conceptual development, a skillfully facilitated

visioning process can contribute to broadened perspectives of researchers, help to establish team consensus on directions and rationale for change, and provide a foundation for a cohesive change group, and a plan for joint action. Visioning is particularly useful for starting the change processes in institutions where outsiders may drive change (for example, in public research institutions which may be heavily influenced by donors) because the vision and specification of the desired outcome is created, owned and internalized by those involved. While the intensive work on conceptual development and visioning might start with a change team, eventually this has to be linked to the organization so that all actors are sensitized. The conceptual scaling up should be considered as part of the change design.

In the design and initial stages of institutional change, conceptual and competence development and reflective learning need to be woven together in an iterative way. The change process should generate (as well as draw on examples of) relevant first-hand experience so that those involved can internalize the need for change. The inclusion of ‘real life’ experiences is critical (see the Stroud, Vincent, Pound, Borrini-Feyerabend cases in this volume; Senge et al, 1999; Opondo et al, 2001). Hagmann (1999) describes such a process that he facilitated in Zimbabwe for improving extension delivery systems and farmer innovation. Developing capacity in participatory research approaches, including mainstreaming gender concerns, goes faster when research teams are interacting and testing methods in the field. This ‘real life’ experience reinforces and internalizes the concepts and associated practices. Furthermore, by working together as a team, members can draw upon each other’s perceptions and skills. Systematic reviews of the work, led by a facilitator in a supportive, innovative atmosphere, can help to build the competences in an iterative way (Hagmann et al, 2000).

Furthermore, the case studies in this book have shown that building competence in PRGA approaches does not come by adding skills via ‘one-off’ training events but requires consistent mentoring, exchange visits, monitoring processes, and commitment to applying the skills, tools and methods in an action research modality (see the Stroud, Nelson, CIFOR, Pound, Gurung cases in this volume; Jonfa et al, 2001). Change teams and managers of their institutions need to develop strategies to build competence in facilitation and other new skills needed to implement and develop participatory methods (Catacutan and Duque, 2000). Senge et al (1999) refer to five stages of competence development (Box 5.3) but cautions that these ‘types’ are not ‘set in stone’. Organizations that become learning-based can support a competence-building process by investing in mentoring and by creating internal coaching capability, where both lead to a self-reinforcing growth process.

Use of reflective and action learning to propel change

To effectively support institutional change, the ‘reflective and action learning’ approach should be coupled with mentoring and good facilitation. This process will enable the teams involved to analyse and synthesize lessons and experiences, associate the ‘real’ work with their goals, and simultaneously build capacity

(Moyo and Hagmann, 2000). Hagmann and Chuma (2000) stress the need to ‘create’ conditions for learning, and state that non-directive facilitation can assist groups in self-organization, governance and sharing knowledge – including joint problem and solution analysis – as a way to foster social learning and collective action. During continued facilitation, the group strengthens its capacity for internal negotiation and conflict management, and innovation through interactive construction of knowledge.

In many of the participatory research experiences from the cases in this volume, we see that support for internal coaching and learning has been intentionally included, but often has been pieced together as the process unfolded, and dependent on the commitment of the group members. Jonfa et al (2001) and the Pound, van Koppen and Vincent cases in this volume used a multi-faceted combination of theoretical training and practical hands-on sessions plus research studies, participatory on-farm trials, and cross-institution learning for this purpose. They included practitioners and senior managers in training events, which helped to make the necessary links between practitioners and supporters and helped to build understanding throughout the organization.

Action research and the application of PRGA approaches reinforce growth and change within the research team. As practitioners engage in catalysing community-level change issues in their work, their efforts often result in changes in their own perspectives and approaches. This interchange, mentioned in a number of the cases in this volume, offers an excellent ‘push’ for the change process in the R&D group and is reinforced by reflection sessions (Hagmann et al 1996, 1998c; Snapp, Stroud, Pound, Vernooy and other case studies in this volume).

Challenges to initiating institutional change

Challenges associated with initiating institutional change begin as soon as the change group starts to conduct its work in unfamiliar ways. These challenges need to be addressed as they appear; this is easier to undertake if the team is aware of their potential emergence before they occur. Teams can anticipate, for example, that staff turnover can slow down the change process and contribute to unequal learning and relationships in community-based work. Many key challenges relate to the time that it may take to create a successful model. For example, facilitation, capacity building, reflective learning, visioning and developing concepts and new mental models will take resources, time and planning energy. Institutional change can require a critical mass of funds, human resources and clear leadership to undertake the work, as well as the ability to articulate a clear focus and need for institutional change. Furthermore, there are often difficulties in changing public organizational procedures where new positions are needed. For example, it took AHI two years to negotiate the position of an INRM coordinator who could integrate research inputs and engage in partnerships. In sum, the change team and other stakeholders must recognize and plan for the fact that change is a process and that sufficient time is needed to initiate and implement it (Jonfa et al, 2001; Stroud, 2001). In Zimbabwe, Hagmann and his team set out to change the extension system; it took about five years. In hindsight, and in a second case of change work going on in South Africa, the process has been speeded up given previous experience (Hagmann, pers comm). This allowed time is critical, especially in the early stages, so that the change team can become proficient and confident in its new role and capacities, and to convince others of the value of change, without alienating them.

The second stage of institutional change: sustaining momentum

‘The problem with learning from experience is that we get the test before the lesson.’ Alfred E Neuman (Mad magazine)

As well as the potential challenges of the ‘start-up’ phase of change, Senge et al (1999) and others highlight a number of challenges that change teams are likely to face once some level of success has already been achieved. The team may be inexperienced in using new participatory methods, so there may be a ‘results gap’ between starting to use good practices and impact. The team may face difficulties in communicating their experiences, especially in terms of efficiency and cost-effectiveness, to those who expect ‘fast results’. This is compounded by the risks they face by ‘experimenting’. The team will likely face internal challenges while they gain skills and confidence in their new ways of working. They will inevitably face criticism, or even sabotage by ‘non-believers’. At this point in the change process, there usually is some competence, but perhaps not yet enough to confidently face these challenges (Senge et al, 1999). It is important therefore, to give forethought to strategies to address these so that

the momentum, and potential to further institutionalize the change, can be sustained.

The team challenge

One key challenge is for research team members – who previously worked as individuals – to develop trust and overcome their feeling of vulnerability when working in a team mode. This includes addressing barriers based in institutional (or personal) values relating to independence, competition and the allocation of credit. It is only when these challenges are met that the individuals can function as a team and effectively explore the use of participatory research methods (Opondo et al, 2001). This was true in the AHI experience where the members had to develop team and leadership skills – including the leader’s confidence to lead –and the ability to maintain an open and trusting team culture. If these values are not forthcoming, the effort to change working modalities will probably fail because of their pivotal role in long-term learning. Some efforts that enabled the AHI teams to meet these challenges included: holding periodic meetings to air potentially problematic issues and to take stock of progress, tackling small, simple conflicts as they arise, fostering trust and mutual support in daily interactions, the leaders setting examples of desired team values, such as openness, appreciating diversity as an asset (for example, illustrating the contributions of social scientists), continuing skills development, and reasserting the team vision throughout the process. The AHI teams also invested in periodic meetings at pilot sites and across countries, and scheduled explicit sessions to build team capacity and strength, and set up explicit monitoring of teamwork modalities.

It is important for the change team to prove that their new methods work –including where, with whom and for what circumstances. The team has to plan how to balance the time spent in developing (and mentoring for) new ways of working and competences with their implementation, and analysis. The critical reflection needs to be balanced with recognition of gains throughout the process, because this reinforces the new positive patterns and renews the team’s energy for the change process.

Fitting in with the status quo while taking new leaps

A second major challenge to teams that are trying to innovate – including implementation of PRGA approaches – is the ubiquitous pressure in research institutions to maintain the methodological status quo. ‘New’ approaches are often met with scepticism, defensiveness, stubbornness and even sabotage. Key words such as ‘participatory’ can trigger negative reactions from peers, and these reactions may become more extreme as the team’s success and enthusiasm increase. Any perceptions of ‘exclusiveness’ or ‘arrogance’ on the part of the change team can alienate others, which can then lead to the change team feeling misunderstood and unappreciated. As innovators are often relatively junior in institutions, they may find it difficult to communicate their goals and findings to their senior counterparts (Opondo et al, 2001). Thus the change momentum may be threatened even though the assessed R&D value of the innovation may be very positive.

Maintaining the change momentum requires change teams to recognize the concerns and criticisms of participatory research made by the ‘status quo’. These are many, and of quite varying validity. They include that: many biophysical researchers feel that PRGA approaches are for social scientists only;⁴ participatory research is not considered to lead to scientific enquiry and refereed publications; PR is seen as site-specific and costly in time and logistics; agendas arising from farmer-led fora are not considered valid or are too site- or interest-specific for public institutions with broad mandates; ways to judge or ensure quality are not well known or practised; and, these approaches are sometimes considered just the latest ‘fad’. The question of scientific validity is a concern. The change team can use this concern in discussion and joint assessment of the new approaches as one strategy to bridge the communication gap between the change team and others representing the status quo. Participatory approaches may require different assessment methods rather than the traditional assessment tools. PRGA approaches, for example, may not yield quantitative data, and therefore might not appear to be ‘scientific’ to very traditional researchers or clients (eg, credit organizations). Yet discussions of a PRGA methodology and its ‘checks’ (see Chapter 6 this volume) might illustrate to those outside the team why a set of qualitative methods and ‘soft’ assessments from farmers and local organizations would be considered more valid than statistical tests. In these cases, farmer impact diagrams might take the place of impact studies (Adamo, 2001). The desire to measure the impact and ensure the quality of participatory research has led to innovative monitoring and assessment methods (Opondo et al, 2001; Sanginga and Opondo, unpublished.). The change team’s recognition and commitment to addressing quality and impact can build confidence in their institution in the PRGA innovations.

There are other strategies that can also help to proactively bridge the gaps between the institutional innovators and the traditionalists. One is for the ‘change’ team to become ‘bi-cultural’ – that is, to live in, and appreciate, both the dominant and the innovative minority worlds. This was done in the ‘mother–baby trials’ in Zambia (Snapp’s case study in this volume) and in the AHI experiences (in this volume). In the latter, for example, the INRM work was justified using similar protocol formats and review sessions used for more traditional work. As a part of this strategy, innovators should be aware of their choice of language – including avoiding the abundant PRGA jargon – to avoid alienating others. Finally, planning for the change team to present research cases to their peers that have applied the new approaches, including using field visits, is essential in communicating the potential of the innovations (Stroud, 2001; Senge et al, 1999; Pound and van Koppen cases in this volume).

Bringing the organization along with the change team

If one wants to promote organizational change through innovation and learning, one must balance innovation with keeping the organization intact (Harrison and Shiron, 1998). This is very true in PRGA approaches, where new paradigms and practices are often being incorporated with the existing traditional ones. It is also important for change agents to aspire to improve the

effectiveness of their organization while negotiating new systems and practices. The AHI is currently testing a systemic approach where the change team and representatives from the organization identify factors or cornerstones that must work in synchrony for effective research. These factors and associated indicators are linked to the participatory research approach and other strategies needed to accomplish the envisioned impact. These impact indicators can be used to judge the quality of the work and performance level, can assist in making comparisons to characterize the contributions of conventional and participatory research methods (Snapp and Vernooy cases in this volume), and can be used to identify best practices leading to positive impact. If the whole organization can be brought along to use a similar framework, then the change team has an easier time justifying itself and the use of new practices (Hagmann and Stroud, unpublished).

Another challenge within the organizational context is that of dealing with the ‘results gap’ – in other words, the gap between the results expected based on a status quo approach and the actual results. The results gap in a PRGA approach can be particularly problematic if the project is being assessed by individuals who do not understand the time and resource implications of initiating and arriving at quality results, including the time needed for the reflective learning and experimentation process, competence development, and for the innovation process to take root. These are often not factored in, so the pressure to perform as per the status quo time frame is high, and can create stress for the leadership and in the change team (Brinn, Pound and other cases in this volume). One strategy to deal with this is to build an assessment coalition between the change team and those outside the change team, including the leadership (Hagmann and Stroud, unpublished). This strategy will be tested in AHI’s new phase of work. Investment in building capacity for using and appreciating new assessment tools is a second strategy. A third strategy is to set explicit and agreed interim goals. This has proved effective, particularly where participatory methods have been used to set these (Opondo et al, 2001; Senge et al, 1999; AHI, 2000; Sanginga and Opondo, unpublished). Reaching interim goals provides a feeling of achievement for the change team and for those who are watching.

New behaviours, new practices and improved results can appear as threatening to the traditional organizational culture. When combined with a lack of clear communication between the change team and others, these may result in comments such as: ‘I have no idea of what those people are doing’, or ‘Those people are going overboard and have lost their focus’ (Stroud, 2000). If paradigm shifts and change are not done strategically, then innovation can actually become an irritant to the organization’s staff outside the change team. From experience, the change strategy needs to include ways of informing policy-makers, managers, practitioners involved in the organization – in other words sceptics and non-sceptics alike. Interactions and communication with these different actors and stakeholders often requires skilled facilitation. Many participatory research and INRM ventures have faced this scepticism and have not dealt with it in a strategic way. This has resulted in many ‘islands’ of good practice that remain disconnected and have no ultimate institutional impact.

The third stage of institutional change: redesigning and rethinking at the organizational level

‘True leaders are hardly known to their followers. Next after them are the leaders the people know and admire; after them, are those they fear; after them, those they despise. To give no trust is to get no trust. When the work’s done right, with no fussing or boasting, ordinary people say, “Oh, we did it”.’ Lao-tzu

As many change initiatives are supported by projects, a major challenge is to move from a project change mode to a sustainable organization-led change. This stage involves larger-scale changes in the organization and calls for modalities to redesign and rethink all aspects of the organization – the toughest part of which is changing culture. Communication and attitude barriers, for example, often pose difficulties to the transfer of knowledge within the organization and across organizational boundaries. Prevailing government bureaucracies and hierarchies can make this a formidable challenge and one that has to be addressed strategically, openly, and with shared ownership of the change process.

Given the challenges faced in undertaking grassroots development, change might mean changing the whole system, not only the research organization

There are considerable capacity gaps in the wide range of R&D organizations globally; at the same time, there are also difficulties in setting up supportive service structures outside of the normal research domain. Furthermore, institutions face difficulties in addressing facilitation and coordination needs at various levels (policy, technical, operational) and in dealing with multiple institutions and levels (farmers up to policy-makers) (Jonfa et al, 2001; Catacutan and Duque, 2000; Stroud, 2001). The Ugandan government, as one positive example, has realized the need for systemic change, and has created a guiding policy and framework: ‘Plan for Modernization of Agriculture’ that provides guidance and a ‘beacon’ for all parts of the system. This is the first step, but most challenging is the implementation.

Let us assume that the ‘change teams’ have done well, have created good models of practice in the field, and that the interactions within the organization have been orchestrated in a way that the change teams have expanded their reach, and have achieved legitimacy within the organization. The next challenge is how the organization as a whole can undergo a more profound change. In this chapter, we are focusing on a twofold change: incorporating lessons from the change team experiences in PRGA approaches; and, becoming a learning organization so that it can provide the necessary support to sustain further change and renew itself in future. This ultimately requires a process at organizational level that is conscious, strategic and working towards emerging new systems, structure and culture.

Organizational structure is more frequently and easily adjusted than the systems or cultural components of institutions. Structural change is often driven by outside forces such as donor interests and governmental bureaucracies that are disenchanted with the impact of research. This type of change alone, however, does not result in institutionalization of lessons and practices generated by the change team, nor in a learning organization. These types of outcomes require change at this level to be managed as a process (as indicated for change in the change team level). A first step in this direction would be to empower managers to manage change directly by revealing the details of organization components and ways to flexibly and iteratively manage all aspects for impact. Organizational management requires systems thinking because of the various dimensions, complex interactions and consequences of actions/decisions on other parts of the system. These skills may need to be acquired. The attributes noted in the first section of this chapter are still relevant at this scale: a shared commitment of leaders, managers and workers; clear and collectively shared vision and values; the skills to facilitate reflection and enquiry or to use a ‘reflective-learning’ process that promotes a culture of inquiry; and new skills that can manage and support the change process.

Managing organizational change as a systemic process

Senge et al (1999) and Harrison and Shiron (1998) suggest some useful steps concerning cultural, structural and supporting systems for participatory and process-oriented approaches that enhance institutional innovation and change. Organizational learning and strategic re-orientations require a revision of existing patterns and adoption of new ‘mental maps’ as the basis for a paradigm shift, or in other words, for a change in the basic attitudes that have been developed through interactions and experience over the years (Senge et al, 1999). Facilitators can assist in this self-examination and identification of values and assumptions to uncover the organizational rationale, and sources of meaning and contradiction. Dealing with the cultural dimension⁵ and underlying perceptions and beliefs of the organization and its individuals is one of the most important but challenging aspects in institutional change. The cultural dimension involves the ‘language’ of the organization – in other words, the shared definitions and assumptions of how things work that shape the way people deal with problems and handle critical organizational processes. It also involves the ways to improve or remedy processes at individual, group and organizational levels including lessons from the past and guides for the future, and shared assumptions about why events occur (such as the way people naturally behave), the ability of people to influence their environment, and capacities for change (after Harrison and Shiron, 1998). Cultural change is a slow process, and one in which it is normal to find internal resistance.

If the size of the organization allows it, cultural change is often best done through a facilitated visioning exercise. Recent experience has illustrated the power of defining the desired or ‘impact’ state to help identify what the organization needs to do to be effective. During this process, values and principles can also be examined (Hagmann and Stroud, unpublished). This

facilitated process can trigger shared insights, a logical re-creation of new frameworks, institutional arrangements, and general implications for the organizational culture, skills and management processes.

Organizational assessment tools have been developed to assist organizations in examining themselves, as part of the change process (USAID, 2001; Gurung, 2001). For example, an assessment framework can help managers to see their organization as a system with certain characteristics (mission/mandate, structure, human resources) and dimensions (technical, socio-political, cultural) (see Table 5.2). Once their impact areas are clearly defined, organizational managers and staff can use such a framework to review the current state against the desired state and the associated implications. In addition to the internal workings of the organization, they should also consider external forces affecting the organization’s policies and their working arrangements with others. It then will take leadership, strategy and an inclusive process to define and implement the desired changes. Hagmann et al (1998) discussed a case in Zimbabwe that illustrates this type of process. In this case, various projects pursuing participatory development acted as a lobby group to bring the participatory development approach into mainstream thinking in a national extension programme. This led to a reform that required substantial changes in the organizational culture, roles, relationships and attitudes. These changes were addressed in an organizational development programme that included a learning process to facilitate behavioural and attitudinal changes.

Gurung (2001) puts forward an explicit strategy for incorporating participatory research as an innovation at the organizational level: establish concrete objectives for change; extend organizational change skills to members, and define indicators to monitor and evaluate the process and output of change. He stresses the importance of developing alternative strategies based on potentials rather than focusing on barriers, being flexible, anticipating possible consequences of certain strategies for the various stakeholders; and listening to the ‘silent voices’.

Progress and future challenges

‘It is not only for what we do that we are held responsible, but also for what we do not do.’ Moliere

Let us return to the original hypothesis put forward in the introduction to this chapter: ‘By employing strategies and processes to create a shared vision of effective research and a learning organizational culture, the development and use of new methodologies, such as PRGA, will be encouraged.’ Learning organizations, as defined by Senge (1990), are:

organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning together.

Table 5.2 Organizational analysis framework

Source: Gurung, 2001

The learning organization concept has a number of underlying values that are very similar to those that participatory methodology is aspiring to meet: empowerment of its members, rewards and structures fostering initiative, to learn from uncertainties and take leaps in experimentation; use local knowledge originating from those in the ‘front lines’, learning through action, and promotion

of trust, accountability, equity, and quality. The idea of a learning organization rose out of the need to survive in private sector competition where change is constant, rapid and complex. NRM challenges also pose similar challenges but in a different context. Asian experience has shown success in using the learning organization model for community development (Korten, 1980).

Most of the cases referred to in this volume are ‘pilots’ and as such have operated as ‘isolated islands in the sea of NRM research’. There are few examples in the literature where public organizations have focused at a high level on change so as to incorporate PRGA and other innovative approaches. The CGIAR System-wide PRGA programme conducted a recent survey that indicates an upswing in the number of projects in the CGIAR system using elements of participatory research, but these remain isolated with limited learning links. One of the future challenges is to connect these ‘islands’ to inform practice and to influence institutions in a more profound way. In Africa, we see a few rising examples of this in the recent work by Hagmann and colleagues with extension services in two African countries, Jonfa et al (2001) with research and development organizations in Ethiopia, and AHI’s work in Ethiopia and Tanzania.

These examples are starting to bring to life the real world NRM research challenges, and to augment the more theoretical studies and guiding principles provided by the literature (Thompson, 1995; Korten, 1980). These, and other examples, are still relatively young and have not yet been taken to completion. However, as the number of projects promoting PRGA approaches and the pressure of the driving forces increase (eg, reduced resources levels for research and the need to improve impact orientation), there is bound to be more work on institutional change in the near future.

We therefore predict that there will be more attention given to organizational change in the near future in NRM research institutions. Self-evaluation of organizations will be more common – including reviewing the leadership style, reward and incentive systems, the M&E system, policies, decision-making mechanisms and other components. Organizations will be viewed as systems with cultures that can be consciously adjusted to achieve more effective outputs. There will be change processes in place based on shared visions of impact, and linked to change strategies. We envision that the early momentum for change in organizations will be sustained by the necessary support and appreciation for the role of change in enhancing effectiveness and efficiency. Some of the key areas that will emerge given the new institutional behaviour, norms and rules are expected to be:

• Enhanced participation of farmers and local communities in research –including combined use of local and ‘scientific knowledge’, local priorities, and local analysis – and in direct application of results.
• Increased non-traditional skill areas of researchers, including incorporation of social (gender, wealth, etc) differences, community mobilization and facilitation, public awareness, socio-cultural non-market incentives, policies, social organization, conflict resolution and appreciation of interdependencies.
• Improved ability of research systems to deal with dynamic, complex systems and social diversity: different scales, hierarchies, and ranges of options and management principles for different stakeholders.
• Enhanced local and research capacity, and some local institutional change, local empowerment and evidence of faster uptake of appropriate technology.
• Enhanced research capacity throughout the research system, through the use of partnerships and networking within and across scales.

In an optimistic future, the islands of PRGA practice would no longer be isolated experiences but would be linked and used within viable ‘learning’ research organizations. These in turn would be providing services to communities so as to enhance local initiatives in improving their environment and management of their livelihoods.

Notes

1. The displayed quotes in this chapter are taken from Baum (2000) Lightening in a Bottle: Proven Lessons for Leading Change.
2. This chapter’s author is the coordinator of the African Highlands Initiative (AHI).
3. This chapter draws heavily on the framework that Senge et al (1999) put forward.
4. This occurs in organizations largely (or entirely) populated by biophysical specialists.
5. Cultural dimensions include: basic assumptions (unconscious, taken-for-granted beliefs, perceptions and thoughts), values and norms (strategies, goals and philosophies) and behaviour patterns and artefacts (visible organizational structures and processes) (Senge et al, 1999; Harrison and Shiron, 1998).

References

Adamo, A K (2001) ‘Participatory Agricultural Research Processes in E and C Ethiopia: Using Farmers’ Social Networks as Entry Points’, Occasional Pub Series No 33, CIAT/EARO

AHI (2000) ‘Strategies for NRM Research in the East and Central African Region. Entebbe, Uganda’, ASARECA Workshop Report

Baum, D (2000) Lightening in a Bottle: Proven Lessons for Leading Change, Dearborn, Chicago

Catacutan, D and Duque, C (2000) Natural Resource Management: Processes and Pathways for Effective Local Governance, ICRAF, Philippines

Catacutan, D, Sumbalan, A and Garrity, D (2000) Analyzing the Processes of Developing the Natural Resources Management and Development Plan of Lantapan, Bukidnon: Results from a Survey and Workshop, ICRAF-Phippines and USAID-GOLD

CGIAR INRM (2000) ‘Integrated Natural Resource Management in the CGIAR: Approaches and Lessons’, 21–25 Aug 2000, Penang, Malaysia

CGIAR INRM Task Force (2001) Tackling Complexity in Agricultural and Natural Resource Management Research – Moving Towards more Integrative Research, Unpublished, CIAT, Cali, Colombia

Collinson, M and FAO (eds) (2000) History of Farming Systems Research, Part III. Institutional Commitment to Farming Systems Research (Various Authors), FAO and CABI, UK

Gurung, B (2001) Institutionalizing Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (PRGA) Approaches through Action Learning, Draft Proposal and Organizational Analysis Framework, PRGA-CIAT, Cali, Colombia

Hagmann, J (1999) Learning Together for Change: Facilitating Innovation in Natural Resources Management through Learning Process Approaches in Rural Livelihoods in Zimbabwe, Margraf Verlag, Weikersheim, Germany

Hagmann, J and Chuma, E (2000) ‘Tying Up Loose Ends: Integrating Soft and Hard Methodologies in NRM Research and Extension’, in Guijt, I, Berdegue, J and Loevinsohn, M (eds) Deepening the Basis of Rural Resource Management, Proceedings of a Workshop, ISNAR, The Hague, pp109–121, http://www.cgiar.org/isnar/environment/nrm-basis.htm

Hagmann, J and Stroud, A (unpublished) ‘Using Self-Assessment of Approaches as a Trigger for Change in Research Organisations – Lessons from Ethiopia and Tanzania’, AHI Working Paper No 13, African Highlands Initiative, ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya

Hagmann, J and Stroud, A (eds) (2002) Analysis and Processing of Field Assessment of Participatory Research, Workshop held in Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization, 17–21 June 2002

Hagmann, J, Chuma, E and Murwira, K (1996) ‘Improving the Output of Agricultural Extension and Research Through Participatory Innovation Development and Extension’, European Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 2(3):15–24, http://www.bib.wau.nl/ejae/v2n4-3.html

Hagmann, J, Chuma, E and Murwira, K (1997) ‘Kuturaya Participatory Research, Innovation and Extension’, in Van Veldhuizen, L, Waters-Bayer, A, Ramirez, R, Johnson, D and Thompson, J Farmers’ Research in Practice: Lessons from the Field, IT Publications, London, pp153–173

Hagmann, J, Chuma, E and Murwira, K (1998a) ‘Scaling-up Participatory Approaches through Institutionalisation in Government Services: The Case of Agricultural Extension in Masvingo Province, Zimbabwe’, in Blackburn, J and Holland, J (eds) Who Changes? Institutionalising Participation In Development, IT Publications, pp47–56

Hagmann, J, Chuma, E, Connolly, M and Murwira, K (1998b) ‘Client-Driven Change and Institutional Reform in Agricultural Extension: An Action Learning Experience from Zimbabwe’, in ODI Agricultural Research and Extension (AGREN) Network Paper No 78, http://www.odi.org.uk/agren/publist.html

Hagmann, J, Chuma, E, Connolly, M and Murwira, K (1998c) ‘Propelling Change from the Bottom-Up. Institutional Reform in Zimbabwe’, in IIED Gatekeeper Series, No 71

Hagmann, J, Chuma, E, Murwira, K and Connolly, M (1999) ‘Putting Process into Practice: Operationalising Participatory Extension’, in ODI Agricultural Research and Extension (AGREN) Network Paper No 94, http://www.odi.org.uk/agren/papers/agrenpaper_94.pdf or as a booklet

Hagmann, J, Chuma, E, Murwira, K, Connolly, M and Ficarelli, P (2000) ‘Success Factors in Integrated Natural Resource Management R&D – Lessons from Practice’, paper for the CGIAR Workshop: ‘Integrated Natural Resource Management in the CGIAR: Approaches and Lessons, 21–25 Aug 2000, Penang Malaysia

Harrison, M and Shiron, A (1998) Organizational Diagnosis and Assessment – Bridging Theory and Practices, Sage Publications, London

Janssen, W and Braunschweig, T (2002) Trends in the Organization and Financing of Agricultural Research in Developing Countries, ISNAR, The Hague, PROSICUR, Uruguay, draft

Jonfa, E, Pound, B, Geta, E, Surur, O and Bedada, F (2001) ‘Institutionalization of Farmer Participatory Research in S Ethiopia: A Joint Learning Experience’, paper for

workshop on advancing participatory technology development, 17–21 September, IIRR, Silang, Philippines

Korten, D C (1980) ‘Community Organization and Rural Development: A Learning Process Approach’, Public Administration Review: (Sept–Oct):480–511

Kotter, J (1996) Leading Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston

Martin, A and Sherington, J (1997) ‘Participatory Research Methods – Implementation, Effectiveness and Institutional Context’, Agricultural Systems, 55(2):195–216

Merrill-Sands, D, Ewell, P, Biggs, S and McAllister, J (1989) ‘Issues in Institutionalizing On-Farm Client Oriented Research: A Review of Experiences from Nine National Agricultural Research Systems’, Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 28(3/4): 279–300

Moyo, E and Hagmann, J (2000) ‘Facilitating Competence Development to Put Learning Process Approaches into Practice in Rural Extension’, in FAO, Human Resources in Agricultural and Rural Development, FAO, Rome, pp143–157, http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X7925M/X7925M14.htm

Opondo, C, Sanginga, P and Stroud, A (2001) ‘Monitoring the Outcomes of Participatory Research in Natural Resources Management: Experiences of the African Highlands Initiative’, paper presented at the workshop on advancing participatory technology development, 17–21 September, IIRR, Silang, Philippines

Sanginga, P and Opondo, C (unpublished) ‘Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation Guide: Improving Application of Participatory Research Approaches’, AHI/CIAT

Senge, P (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Century Business, London

Senge, P, Roberts, C, Ross, R, Smith, B, Roth, G and Kleiner, A (1999) A Fifth Discipline: The Dance of Change: The Challenges to Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations, Doubleday, New York

Stroud A, (2000) ‘A Summary of Annual Progress Reports 1999/2000’, presented at ASARECA CD Meeting, November, Nairobi, Kenya

Stroud, A (2001) African Highlands Initiative’s Synthesis of the Design of Phase 3- Stakeholders Workshop, 21–23 March 2001, Nairobi, Kenya, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)

Thompson, J (1995) ‘Participatory Approaches in Government Bureaucracies: Facilitating the Process of Institutional Change’, World Development, 23(9):1521–1554

USAID/REDCO (2001) ‘User’s guide to the USAID/REDSO Regional Partner Institutional Viability Assessment (PIVA) Index’, Draft, Nairobi, Kenya

Chapter 6

Principles for Good Practice in Participatory Research: Reflecting on Lessons from the Field

Ronnie Vernooy and Cynthia McDougall

Reflecting on practice

In previous chapters our colleagues have described their experiences in exploring new conceptual and methodological grounds in participatory research (PR) in natural resource management (NRM), often as a complement to existing (‘traditional’) research from both the natural and social sciences. These explorations are producing new and exciting insights into promising alternatives for the management of natural resource systems, including crops, soils, water, trees and animals. These experiences are also resulting in the innovative adaptation of participatory research approaches. Venturing into this still relatively new research terrain of working for rural transformations, however, raises difficult questions about the research process. Researchers are faced with the challenge of critically assessing the kind(s) of participation and processes appropriate to the different stages of the research cycle. This expansion of the research domain and the new knowledge generated require that researchers must be able to identify what is ‘good practice’ in PR in NRM.

While this challenge is starting to be met in some individual research projects, the emergent learning has been somewhat insular. Perhaps because the experience of doing participatory research in one context is not easily compared to another, shared learning between research institutions about ‘what is good practice in PR in NRM’ has been slow. We consider that comparisons and the integration of ideas are necessary elements of identifying good practice. The PRGA (Participatory Research and Gender Analysis) Program and the Natural Resources Institute (NRI) NRM workshop in Chatham, England, created an ideal opportunity to begin such a process of shared learning.

In this chapter we draw on the case studies from the Chatham workshop and other literature to generate a number of principles of good practice in PR in NRM and, potentially, beyond this field.¹ The intention is that these principles may be useful in the planning and assessment of the rigour of participatory research methodologies. As such, we aim to contribute to the growing interest in the development of appropriate methodologies for monitoring and evaluating participatory research (eg, Armonia and Campilan, 1997; Guijt et al, 1998; McAllister, 1999; Estrella et al, 2000; Sun Qiu et al, 2000). We argue that this on-going assessment of rigour, and the subsequent refinement of methodologies are integral parts of participatory research.

Following this introduction, the next section highlights the need to conceptually ‘situate’ all participatory research activities in their own local and research contexts. We suggest a number of key factors that define what is appropriate and feasible in a participatory process. In the third section we present five principles of good practice in NRM research followed by a brief review of other contributions to the definition of good practice. The next section illustrates the principles and associated indicators with (five) Chatham workshop case studies. The final section concludes the chapter with some final thoughts on the potential of the framework; the whole framework of principles and indicators is provided for easy reference in the chapter’s appendix.

Understanding the research context

Participatory research needs to be designed and assessed in the context within which it occurs. Various parameters define what is appropriate and feasible in every participatory research project. These guide what we can realistically expect from the process and results of the research (including what form of learning might occur), and therefore need to be considered as the backdrop for any ‘guideposts’ to good practice, and in monitoring and evaluation. We suggest, and then discuss, five key factors that affect participatory research (Found, 1995; McAllister and Vernooy, 1999):

1. The nature of the research question(s).
2. Researchers’ views on participation, learning and the role of science.
3. The social aspects of the NRM system.
4. Experience and capacity of the stakeholders.
5. External contextual factors which enable or constrain participation.

The nature of the research question(s)

The objectives, scale and scope of the research questions influence the appropriateness and feasibility of the participatory research approach, and affect local people’s willingness to participate. Some social or biophysical research issues may be adequately addressed by research processes with relatively low participation, such as in cases when the research findings have relatively ‘low added value’ for the direct participants (eg, an inventory of species in cases

where the local people already have sufficient knowledge for their own purposes). When research questions involve the generation of new knowledge at the local level, then it may be more likely to call for a higher degree of participation. This would include, for example, generating new ideas or testing management practices or processes.

Researchers’ views on participation, learning and the role of science

Researchers who apply participatory approaches tend to do so for one, or a combination, of two purposes: functionality and/or empowerment. The former refers to the contribution of participatory approaches to increasing the accuracy and validity of research findings. For example, research on an innovation in a complex natural resource management system may require participatory research in order to effectively apply (and thus experiment with) the innovation. The second refers to the empowerment aspect of participatory research, in which research becomes a means for capacity building and social transformation in the research site.

Related to the latter, the researchers’ explicit or implicit assumptions about the role of learning in the research also underpin their decisions about whether and what form of PR to use. Van der Veen (2000) and Loevinsohn et al (2000) describe three principal learning theory approaches and their relevance for PNRM research and (rural) development. The first approach, reproductive learning, assumes that there is a body of objectively verifiable knowledge and that this can be taught by breaking down content into its essential elements. Frequently, scientist-led research and various types of consultative participatory research involve reproductive forms of learning as the basis for the dissemination phase of the research. An example of this is researchers and extension workers showing users how to apply specific practices or technical options through the dissemination of pamphlets, training, and/or on-station demonstrations. A parallel can usefully be drawn between approaches to learning in research and research approaches (in the sense of ‘philosophies’ or ‘paradigms’) themselves. In this case, reproductive learning most closely mirrors the ‘logical positivist’ (or empiricist) research paradigm, in which research seeks the ‘accumulation of objective knowledge through the production of empirically testable hypotheses’ (Braun, 2001).

The second approach to learning, constructivist learning, assumes that important features of the external world are uncertain and disputed, and that people actively construct their understanding of it. (Re)discovery and innovation, not repetition, are essential parts of this construction process. In practice, researchers/development workers often assume roles as facilitators, rather than instructors. They encourage work in groups and shared planning, action and reflection. This type of learning tends to occur in more collaborative forms of participatory research. In terms of parallels to research paradigms, a constructivist learning approach is congruent with a ‘social constructivist’ paradigm, which views the human mind as the source of knowledge (Braun, 2001). In this paradigm:

the function of science is the creation of concepts or theories that expand flexibility and choice . . . [social constructivism] holds that all social action is open to multiple interpretations, none of which is superior in any objective sense . . . Theory and practice are not viewed as separate moments, but rather as inseparable aspects of a single practice . . . and theory is a powerful change agent’ (Braun, 2001, p9, based on Cooperrider and Srivastva, 2000).

The third learning approach is transformative learning. In this approach, ‘learners’ together build a more integrated or inclusive perspective of the world. Through the learning process, they jointly transform some part of their worldview, for example their understanding of social relations in their own community forest. Such transformation is often stimulated by communicative learning, but goes beyond it, in terms of internalization and transformation of understanding. Manifestations of transformative learning in resource management include, for example, new values or patterns of decision-making that farmers generate and apply outside the immediate arena of the learning intervention. This approach to learning has linkages to the people-centred, emancipatory research approaches, such as participatory action research. This can be understood as an ‘emergent paradigm’, which draws from and combines both positivist and constructivist views (Fisher, pers comm). Ideally this approach to research integrates knowledge sharing, systematic enquiry and human interpretations of the world. Moreover, it intentionally and consciously activates the ‘praxis’ (the theory and practice linkage that constructivism highlights) as a means of (self-) empowerment for marginalized people and improvements in human systems.

The social aspects of the natural resource management system

Natural resources are governed by complex, overlapping and sometimes conflicting social entitlements and traditional norms such as private versus common property rights, tree versus land tenure, differential security of tenure and use rights. Roles negotiated along lines of gender, kinship, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, age and occupation influence access to decision-making and use of natural resources. Representations of ‘community interests’ and ‘local or indigenous knowledge’ in the research process are often produced in the context of struggles over resources through which different parties defend interests and advance claims. Although participatory research processes may provide an opportunity for less powerful groups to contest existing power relations and resource rights, it may also enable more powerful or politically aware groups to assert preferential rights over resources. Researchers need to take this into account, and make continuous adjustments to avoid possible negative repercussions.

Experience and capacity of the stakeholders

Interaction between researchers and local people, and the skills, attitudes and

personalities of researchers have an influence on what local people say, how they feel about the research, and how willing they are to participate. Previous experience of local people with research and development projects, as well as perceptions of potential benefits, can positively or negatively influence community motivation to participate in new research activities, as well as bias their responses. Hence, it is important that researchers be aware of the social and other constraining or enabling factors which influence the interaction process between researchers and local people, and the process of knowledge construction (Long and Long, 1992).

External contextual factors which enable or constrain participation

The political context and the history of local involvement in decision-making will influence the kinds of local participation which are feasible, as well as local people’s willingness to participate. The type of questions researchers need to be responsive to in research design include:

• Is the government supportive of participatory processes?
• What is the history of local participation in decision-making?
• What is the history of local control over resources?
• Is there a history of hierarchy or oppression?
• Has there been recent conflict in the country, or within the local area?

Towards good practice: shared learning from experience

The above sections highlight key elements that differentiate research contexts; clearly there is a great need to treat each research experience as unique. Yet at the same time, a review of the literature and shared learning experiences in fora such as the Chatham Workshop begin to indicate patterns of good research practices which cross-cut these differences. At the Chatham Workshop participants were asked to identify elements of what they considered ‘best practice² in participatory natural resource management research’ in each of the case studies presented. This process generated a list of 36 aspects, which were then further distilled down to 18 general elements through critical review by a small working group in the workshop (see Appendix 2). Following the workshop, Vernooy et al further analysed these 18 aspects for their commonalities, and grouped them into five key principles of good practice in PR in NRM (Vernooy et al, 2000). These are considered good practice in terms of their contribution to both of the goals of PR in NRM: positive local impacts of research; and the generation of valid, trustworthy, and relevant research findings. The latter implies that these findings may be generalized, in other words that they contribute learning that can be applied in some way to other areas beyond the research site.

The proposed principles of good practice in PR in NRM are:

1. The research reflects a clear and coherent common agenda (or set of priorities) among stakeholders and it contributes to partnership building.
2. The research addresses and integrates the complexities and dynamics of change in human and natural resource systems and processes, including local understanding of these.
3. The research applies the ‘triangulation principle’ (multiple sources of information and methods), and links together various knowledge worlds.
4. The research contributes to concerted planning for the future and social change.
5. The research process is based in iterative learning and feedback loops and there is a two-way sharing of information.

Contributions from the literature: establishing trustworthiness

References to similar collective efforts to identify good practice are scarce. Jules Pretty is one researcher who has discussed in some detail the issue of ‘quality control’, or the need to establish criteria of trustworthiness in participatory research. He developed a ‘framework’ of 12 indicators to identify parts of the research process and to check whether key elements have been omitted (1994: 42–45; 1995: 1256). Looking at the framework of indicators listed below, we can see that it is possible to group most of these indicators under the five generic principles that resulted from the Chatham case studies. We have added the corresponding number of our proposed principles in parentheses to illustrate the linkages. The indicators are:

• Prolonged and/or intense engagement between various actors involved in the research cycle (1).
• Persistent and critical observation (2).
• Triangulation by multiple sources, methods and investigators (3) (further detailed by Patton, 1990: 464–470).
• Analysis and expression of difference (3).
• Negative case analysis, or the search for and explanation of cases, or examples that do not fit the general pattern (3) (further elaborated by Patton, 1990: 463).
• Positive impact on stakeholders’ capacity to know and act (4).
• Parallel investigations and team communications (5).
• Participant checking (5).
• Peer or colleague checking (5).
• Reports with working hypotheses, contextual descriptions and visualizations (5).
• Use of reflexive journals (5).
• Use of an enquiry audit (5).

Other authors have also elaborated upon the meaning of one or more of these indicators. Chambers (1997; 156–161; 1994: 1253–1268), using the term

‘principles for participatory learning and analysis,’ pays particular attention to the importance of the ‘reversal of learning’ (researchers learn from local people), ‘handing over the stick’ (local people take a lead role in facilitation, investigation, analysis and learning), sharing of information and ideas, triangulation, the quality of behaviour and interaction, rigorous observation and reflective judgement. McAllister (1999: 38–39) emphasizes that good participatory research allows for the proper identification of stakeholders, does a sound job in disaggregation, and provides space for the adequate representation of stakeholders. It is encouraging to see that the principles or indicators developed by these authors converge with our five generic principles. What we have not been able to find in the literature, however, are many concrete examples of how these research quality-control criteria are used in assessment, either ex ante or ex post. This seems a difficult task to accomplish, but one that we consider to be of great importance. For this reason, we attempt this task in the following section, drawing out concrete examples of good participatory research practices in action.³

Good practice in action: five case studies

Examples of the Chatham case studies that illustrate one or more of the five principles are listed in Table 6.1. We highlight one case study in depth for each principle. The five chosen cases combine different types of research experiences. Three cases illustrate principles 2, 3 and 4 respectively: the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) ‘Hillsides Project’; the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) ‘Risk Management Project’; and the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) ‘Adaptive Collaborative Management Research Project’. In these three cases the research highlighted is strategic research initiated by research centres, which then builds an agenda with other stakeholders. Principles 1 and 5, which are illustrated by the International Centre for Research on Agroforestry (ICRAF) ‘Landcare Project’, and CIAT’s ‘Comité de Investigación Agrícola

Table 6.1 Chatham case studies that illustrate the five principles

Local (CIAL) Project’ respectively, are both community-based research processes, which experiment in agriculture at the local level.

Principle 1: The research reflects a clear and coherent common agenda

The following ‘guideposts’ or indicators underscore issues of quality partnerships and collaboration between local stakeholders and researchers and of local empowerment. The latter includes empowerment not only via outcomes of research but also through local participation and leadership in the process of the research. As Chambers (1994) expresses it, this requires researchers to have confidence in local abilities and to thus ‘hand over the stick’. The indicators include:

1.1 The research (and extension) agenda has been set collaboratively and transparently.

1.2 The research (and extension) design allows space for the meaningful participation of local stakeholders, including marginalized groups, and takes into account potentially differentiated perspectives and interests (based on gender, class, age, ethnicity or other aspects).

1.3 Partnerships among stakeholders have been created and strengthened through dialogue, joint actions and mutual benefits (friendship and fun included).

1.4 The research initiative respects the commitments made with partners, and the follow-through strategy is defined.

1.5 The research includes a clear strategy for action/change, which has been defined in terms of expected material results and increased social capital (or more broadly, for empowerment).

1.6 There is good documentation of the participatory process, including the use of tools.

1.7 The analysis of results and authorship of published materials have been shared between researchers and other stakeholders.

This principle is explored with reference to ICRAF’s ‘Landcare Initiative’ (see Box 6.1 and Garrity’s case study, this volume). The first four indicators (all relating to ‘partnership’) are discussed together here with reference to Landcare⁴ as a model and as a research activity. In terms of the original design of the ICRAF research agenda, the decision to study contour hedgerow technologies was initially driven by the research institution, based on experience in these areas. The strategy to address hedgerow stakeholder issues was developed through the researchers’ observations and interactions with farmers during the on-going on-farm research. Thus, although not originally conceptually developed in partnership, ICRAF’s decision to ‘experiment’ with Landcare as a dissemination strategy, was sparked by the demands of local farmers. This experimentation, emerging out of a necessity to increase the impact of the ‘main research,’ was initially viewed as an extension approach. As researchers became aware of the multitude of research questions relating to social capital formation,

sustainability, efficiency, and scaling up, however, they engaged increasingly vigorously in Landcare as a form of multistakeholder participatory action research (PAR). The PAR tackles head on the hypothesis that initiatives for sustainable upland development should be able to address both the technical and socioeconomic–institutional constraints faced by poor farmers (Catacatun, pers comm, 2001).

Landcare as an institutional model incorporates all four partnership indicators. According to Catacutan and Mercado (2001), Landcare:

relies on the active participation of participants in building networks and harnessing support for communal activities. Founded by the convergence of common agenda, it enhances the development of social capital among three key actors: the farmers, the Local Government Units, and the Technical facilitators and other service providers. Landcare is not typified as a set of prescribed rules and approaches. However, it aims to maintain and preserve a demand-driven process where the agenda is set by the members themselves and Resource Organizations are there to support their interests . . . It is about people, and the key to success is based on a mature social capital and a close bond between and among farmers – communities – and governments. (Catacutan and Mercado, 2001, p12)

The extent to which each Landcare group is able to fulfil the indicators, and follow the Landcare model in its ideal form, depends on each group’s members, facilitator and processes.

In terms of the fifth indicator, the partnership approach described above is also the basis for a clear strategy for action/change and well-defined empowerment objectives and strategies.⁵ The theory underpinning this strategy is the ‘convergence model of institutional development’. It suggests that social capital formation is triggered when there is a convergence of interests and desired goals among participating communities, institutions and individuals. The Landcare model offers a forum where the key actors can share the costs and benefits of the programme. Typically, farmers share their time, knowledge, skills and leadership, as well as labour and low-cost materials for group activities and projects. Local governments provide leadership, financial, technical and policy support.⁶ Technical facilitators, such as ICRAF staff, and service providers contribute the necessary technical support and facilitation for group formation. The driving force for this social capital formation is the relevance of the issues to the participants. The essence of the concept is that each group ‘responds to issues that affect them and are more likely committed to find and implement solutions on their own ways, than those imposed by external agencies’ (Catacutan and Mercado, 2001). Landcare groups’ interests have embraced such diverse issues as adapting soil and water conservation technologies, stream rehabilitation, education, training and policy advocacy.

In terms of the sixth and seventh indicators (documentation of the participatory process and shared analysis of results and authorship), these rely, again, on the motivations and capacities of the local farmer groups and the researchers with whom they interact. Some of the groups in Mindanao are engaged in participatory self-assessment workshops to monitor and assess the maturity stage of their own groups. In terms of the whole Landcare experience, ICRAF has documented many of its experiences in a range of publications; the president of Landcare in Claveria, who is a farmer himself, has also authored two papers on Landcare (Catacutan, pers comm, 2001).

Principle 2: The research addresses and integrates the complexities and dynamics of change in human and natural resource systems

Sound natural resource management research deals with the intersections of biophysical and social forces. It embraces the complexities of resource dynamics, such as multiple and often conflicting uses and users, individual and common property resources, space and time interdependencies and scales, the self-regulating nature of ecological processes, and off-site effects. This not only demands that researchers integrate social and biophysical science, but because of limited time and resources, that they assess and manage the tradeoffs between the various kinds and depth of information (Chambers, 1994).⁷ Because of the dynamic nature of ecosystems, NRM research also needs to be adaptive in its approach. Researchers need to critically assess the research design, process, and

learning and outcomes on an on-going basis, and adjust it and themselves accordingly. Indicators for this principle include:

2.1 The analysis balances and integrates natural (biophysical) resource dynamics with human (social) changes and innovations in NRM. (The latter includes people’s relationships with the natural resource system and changes, and their perceptions of it.)

2.2 The analysis gives equal attention to both the inherent site characteristics and to (the impacts of) innovative management practices (locally generated or the results of research interventions).

2.3 The research uses an iterative research and learning approach, in other words cycles of diagnosis–intervention–assessment–diagnosis–intervention–assessment, etc.

This principle is explored with reference to the CIAT ‘Hillsides Project’ (see Box 6.2 and the Vernooy case study, this volume). The first two indicators (balancing of biophysical and social science aspects and attention to both the inherent site characteristics and management innovations) can be explored in the three main aspects of this project’s action research activities: natural resource mapping, natural resource analysis, and the application of indicators to the resource systems. In each of these, the researchers made efforts to understand and apply the farmers’ perspectives. This perspective inherently integrates social and biophysical aspects of resource management issues.

Each of the studies started with the participatory design of a local resource map (as per the now well-known participatory rural appraisal (PRA) mapping exercises). The maps included the borders of the area according to local definitions, the hills, principal and secondary roads and paths, the rivers, creeks, springs and reservoirs as well as the principal drinking-water pipelines, infrastructure (schools, churches, health-care centres, cemeteries, coffee-washing/drying facilities, haciendas and farms), agroecological zones, production systems, vegetation (forest types) and soil types. With one or two exceptions the maps gave a detailed picture of the micro watershed landscape. All maps were returned to the local cooperators for future use and reference.

The maps also served to define the line for the transect walk, which would criss-cross the major zones and production systems, passing the other important resource features of the area. During the transect walk, the informants (facilitated by the research team) undertook resource analyses, which were recorded in a table. Factors examined included landscape characteristics and use (agroecological zones, and changes over time), the ‘state’ of forests, water resources, crops, wildlife, domesticated animals, pastures and local soil indicators. In addition, participants identified the limitations as well as opportunities for agricultural production and NRM in the area. The CIAT research team later complemented the information with data from other sources (previous studies, aerial photographs, GIS-based data, local poverty profiles study, and soil analyses).

The third and final step in the micro watershed analysis process constituted the development of a set of ‘simple to understand and use’ local indicators and values for each of the factors. The set of indicators, for use by inhabitants of the micro watersheds, was developed through the following consultative exercise: a draft set was formulated by the research team based on the findings of the combined 15 resource analyses, reviewed and then refined with the informants, and subsequently applied by the informants to their own micro watershed during a workshop. Values given to the indicators (options were: bad, regular and good) were tabled and grouped together by component (water, forests, crops, etc; note that soils were added based on the outcomes of the soil analyses conducted during the transect walks). In order to compare and discuss results with the informants, a second workshop was organized. The results were discussed both by micro watershed (site comparisons) and by component (resource comparisons).

The third indicator – the use of an iterative research approach – is illustrated by the last step of this cycle of the research. Following the indicator development and assessment, the research team and other stakeholders used the research

findings for the selection of potential new sites where CIALs could be formed and other forms of experimentation could be started (in other words they drew on learning from this stage to create the next stage). Among these new initiatives by CIAT and its collaborators are a number of NRM experiments to test alternatives including ‘new’ crops (for example, soy beans) or crop combinations, and soil improvements. As well as providing this kind of direction to the research project, the outcomes also had external impacts. The research team presented the results to key local decision-makers such as the mayor of San Dionisio, state agencies and NGOs operating in the watershed, as well as to the newly created Association of Community Organizations. Decision-makers discussed priority zones for action where natural resources are in bad shape or are at high risk. The analysis was also helpful as a pre-hurricane Mitch overview of the state of the natural resource base and allowed for comparison with the post-Mitch situation (a study completed in 1999).

Principle 3: The research applies the ‘triangulation principle’ and links knowledge worlds

Triangulation is a means of increasing confidence in results by assessing and cross-checking findings from multiple ‘points’, including various sources, various methods or in various conditions. Given the complexity of NRM research, triangulation is particularly important. In the context of participatory research, one potent form of building confidence in results is through the explicit sharing of findings and learning with local stakeholders on an on-going basis. This creates the opportunity for distortions or misunderstandings to be corrected relatively rapidly and easily. Relatedly, research findings will be more sound and more widely accepted if they build on and link the ‘best of diverse knowledge worlds’; in other words, they expand beyond scientific views of the world to also incorporate local and traditional knowledge and views. Potential indicators for this principle include:

3.1 The research process links the local, traditional and scientific knowledge worlds.

3.2 The research methodology uses a diversity of methods and tools.

3.3 Information generation is based on multiple sources.

3.4 Information dissemination (sharing of learning and findings) occurs throughout the process through multiple exchanges between researchers and stakeholders, including at the local level.⁹

This principle is explored with reference to CIMMYT’s ‘Risk Management Project’ (RMP) (see Box 6.3 and the Vaughan and Shamudzarira case study, this volume). The first two indicators of this principle relate to the linking of knowledge worlds and to triangulation through diversity of research methods. In the RMP, we can track these indicators by looking at the project’s use of participatory agroecosystem modelling maps as a shared learning and decision-support tool for researchers and farmers to understanding the soil fertility systems. The linking of local and scientific knowledge was not an explicit goal

at the beginning of the project; the experience gained during the methodological process, however, changed this somewhat. The feedback interface stage (in other words, the role playing and discussion of ‘if and when’ scenarios relating to the model) was critical to the integration of various types of knowledge that did take place. In order to build on the synergy that was created during this stage, the team developed a simplified participatory model that allows for full farmer–researcher involvement in the communication and research process.¹⁰ By linking farmers’ and researchers’ knowledge, these tools have the potential to contribute to a more holistic and thus effective evaluation of soil fertility management technologies, under highly variable and risky climate conditions. Vaughan (2001, per comm) noted from their experience that it is challenging to keep the integration of knowledge worlds present and functioning if it is not built into the framework of the project from the beginning; ideally a project would incorporate these objectives at the outset, and assess and adjust as needed through a dynamic review process.

In the RMP, a diversity of tools and techniques were used, refined, adapted or discarded as necessitated by the process and project stakeholders. The research team used focus group discussions, transects, soil sampling, agroecosystem maps and climatic timelines to undertake the participatory development of farmers’ soil and climate taxonomies (including indications of

production and management practices and constraints by climate and soil type). These were then linked across a matrix format that identifies clustered management practices (rules of thumb) for different typologies of farmers under different soil, climatic and socioeconomic conditions. This enables the model to run different crop, management and climatic scenarios based on each farmer group’s classification criteria for soils, climate conditions and management practices. While these methods were needed in order to integrate different kinds of knowledge, they also provided the opportunity to build the trustworthiness of results through triangulation.

The third indicator refers to triangulation by generating information from multiple stakeholders. The RMP used stakeholder analysis at an early stage as the basis for participation in the research; this process is critical to this indicator. The preliminary stakeholder analysis (to identify different institutions and influential individuals with interest or influence in the project) was followed up with the participatory development of farmer typologies utilizing wealth ranking and other methods. This enabled an identification of the key differentiating variables between the various socioeconomic groups, and was predominantly based on seasonal access to resources. As described above, this enabled the project to develop different scenarios for the different farmer groups, based on their various perspectives and management practices. This illustrates the ‘spin-off effect’ of triangulation of sources; in this case it increased the applicability of the research findings through the diversification of models.

One lesson that emerged from this research experience is that the successful implementation of a multiple knowledge worlds, multi-stakeholder, and multi-research tool approach depends on the team members internalizing a sense of value of this new and time-consuming approach,¹² as opposed to a desire to ‘just getting models running’. This, in fact, also relates to the fourth indicator (dissemination/information exchanges locally throughout the research), which suggests that researchers need to share their findings locally during the research with the explicit purpose of seeking improvement in them.¹³ A challenge that can be highlighted from this is that there is a temptation in science to ‘keep things in the lab’ or ‘in the model’, and not adequately value the knowledge and input of local people. This includes the temptation for scientists/modellers to undertake into local interactions with the (conscious or unconscious) goal of getting their models validated (as opposed to building them based on field-derived input). This is also closely intertwined with issues of farmer ownership over the research. According to Vaughan (2001, pers comm),

the process of resource mapping was critical for sharing ideas and getting farmers to have ownership over a systems view of their resources, for collecting and analyzing information, and for providing the modelers with a framework for developing and interpreting model questions and outputs. Conceptually it was a big leap for the modelers and the farmers to do this. The modelers may have initially under-estimated the farmers’ ability and level of existing understanding regarding outcomes of their resource trade-offs and allocations. (Vaughan, 2001, pers comm)

In addition, the experience pointed to the value of having social scientists integrated in the team, alongside the more technical researchers, as well as having good access to external support from outside specialists.¹⁴

Principle 4: The research contributes to concerted planning for the future and social change

The fourth principle relates to the concept of the research contributing in a concrete and grounded fashion to positive future impacts in the research site (indicators 1 and 2) and beyond it (indicator 3). In referring to options and scenarios development, the first indicator implies that the research process should include some means of explicitly considering various options for activities and future directions, and their ‘pros’ and ‘cons’. The second indicator refers to the research being designed so that any related processes and benefits can continue beyond the research project window, including there being a plan for how the research project staff and resources can withdraw without undermining the momentum that has been developed. This is a critical indicator, because if the research project addresses an on-going issue, but does not successfully ‘work itself out of a job’ at the local level, then it can be argued that it has either: created/contributed to dependency during its work (and thus the process cannot continue without it); or that it has developed a process (as a research ‘product’) that does not accrue sufficient net benefits to the participants for them to be interested in continuing it after the withdrawal of the external agents (thus there is not sufficient local will to continue, without external incentives). The last indicator of this principle refers to the utility of the findings for (geographic) areas or (organizational) arenas other than those directly involved in the research, or in other words, the generalizability of the research results. The indicators are:

4.1 The research process allows for options and scenario development.

4.2 The research methodology has a sustainability focus and an ‘exit strategy’ built in from the outset.

4.3 The research incorporates a ‘scaling up’ or extrapolation strategy, including an analysis of the uptake environment.

This principle is explored with reference to CIFOR’s ‘Adaptive Collaborative Management (ACM) Project’ (see Box 6.4 and the case study by McDougall et al, this volume). The first indicator, which refers to options and scenario development, is illustrated in the ACM research project through its use of local visioning exercises, development of local criteria and indicators of sustainability, and simulation modelling. The ACM project action research process integrated the consideration of various future pathways at two levels: the community ‘direction setting’ level, and the level of ‘micro-actions’. At the ‘direction setting level’, for example, in the research communities in the Philippines, and Nepal,¹⁵ the PAR began with community-based workshops. Participants in the workshops, including women and men of a range of different ethnic (and caste), wealth and interest groups, undertook a joint visioning exercise, in which small groups of participants drew pictures of their ideal future for their forest user

group and community. A facilitator led the process of identifying commonalities that existed across all the visions, and the group also added any other key aspects that were missing from their joint vision. In the Philippines, for example, eight main themes emerged: education, organization, livelihoods, forests and forest management, coastal resource management, infrastructure, health and policy. The participants then used these themes as a framework for developing criteria and indictors for their community forestry self-assessment. In an iterative process, through facilitated small group discussions, participants created possible ‘indicators’, and refined those through discussions based on the question of ‘what if’ that was the case – ‘would that really get us to where we want to be?’ The visioning process was critical to the PAR because it enabled the community members to frame the overall future scenario to which they were jointly aspiring. The development of the criteria and indicators proved to be an excellent process tool to stimulate detailed discussion of the many facets of that vision, including that it made explicit the divergent and convergent local views on the ‘ideal’ community and resource system. It enabled diverse stakeholders to make explicit their experiences and perceptions on a wide range of forest and community issues; the process then encouraged the accommodation of these diverse views through a negotiated development of specific criteria and indicators.¹⁷

The research supported options development by the communities at the ‘micro level’ as well. In the Philippines and Nepal workshops, for example, participants identified the strong and weak aspects of their situation based on their criteria and indicators for self-assessment. They then prioritized several of the weak areas, and set about identifying possible options for actions as part of the action research process. This process of identifying options and assessing them has been followed to date in a preliminary way in these two country sites,¹⁸ and teams are currently considering if and what further forms of ‘soft systems’ scenario development may be useful in weighing those future options. In Zimbabwe, the researchers are exploring participatory modelling as one option for scenario assessment (as described in PRGA, 2000). The process focused on several levels of analysis, from the local to the rural district council. They are using a framework called FLORES (Forest Land Oriented Resource Envisioning System) to guide them in developing a computer simulation model that will allow the exploration of alternative scenarios for NRM in the three villages where they have been working.¹⁹

The second indicator addresses the need for local benefits to continue beyond the life of the research project in the field. In the participatory action research phase of the ACM research project, community members and some other supporting stakeholders (such as District Forest Office representatives, and Federation of Community Forest Users in Nepal), worked together to develop a set of agreed and easily understood criteria and indicators, and then jointly assessed their situation. While it is too early in the project to determine its success, the hope is that the PAR has established a locally appropriate framework for a monitoring and assessment process (embedded in a ‘learning approach’ to management). Local stakeholders should be able to re-apply and adapt these in subsequent years as a means of continuing a feedback and learning process in the community forest management system. It may thus serve to enhance the responsiveness and effectiveness of local management decisions, and ultimately increase the benefits and sustainability of the community’s forest resources.

Clearly, however, a ‘technology transfer’ of such a self-monitoring process would not be useful if it: (a) was not needed by the community; and (b) did not include a build-up of the necessary local skills and capacities to continue using the self-monitoring system after the end of the research project. The latter was assessed before the workshops, primarily through discussions between community members and the researchers (who had been working in the communities for six months or more and so were familiar with the local situation). In all the communities the local forest management committee and researchers tried to design the workshops in such a way that they maintained a high sense of community ownership. Following the development of the self-assessment systems, the participants expressed that it was a tool that they wanted to continue using on their own. Researchers have initiated the local development of skills and capacities to maintain the initiatives through starting to engage local stakeholders, including community members, as facilitators in this process. This will be further supported through local training in facilitation, as needed. To enable benefits from the research project to continue well beyond the life of the research project, the researchers and community members are integrating

the self-monitoring processes and other ACM elements into the existing decision-making and planning systems in the communities. In this sense, the research outcomes (self-assessment processes) become practical and flexible means of strengthening these local institutions over the long term.

The third indicator, ‘producing generalizable results’, is also a CIFOR (and thus an ACM project) mandate. Research based on a small number of isolated PAR initiatives would have presented the project with some significant challenges in regard to this goal. In order to address this, the project embedded the PAR in a larger multi-site framework of scientific analysis. Specifically, in all the research sites in every country, researchers have laid the foundations for comparative analysis by conducting a series of parallel background studies.²⁰ The background studies used a consultative form of participation,²¹ but simultaneously allowed researchers the time to build relations and the groundwork with local stakeholders for the main phase of the research. Additionally, to contribute to the larger CIFOR research goal, as well as local recording, processes and learning in all sites are regularly recorded by researchers in a framework and format that is comparable across countries and sites. Furthermore, these site findings are integrated with additional studies being undertaken in each country; less intensive, but more extensive, these shorter studies (which are more consultative in nature, and less action-oriented than the sites), add breadth to the analysis. Other methods are also being used to triangulate the results across sites, countries and regions, key among these being the use of multivariate analysis across all sites, and the analysis of the outcomes of the participatory modelling in Zimbabwe, Indonesia and Cameroon. Whereas the multivariate analysis is expected to provide a quantified picture of key drivers for the success or failure of adaptive collaborative management processes, the analysis of the simulation models (including the discussion with local partners of the scenarios they deliver) is expected to provide insights into the reasons for failure or success arising out of the structure and behaviour of these processes. Ultimately, these elements of the larger framework for analysis will enable greater depth of understanding within each site and highlight findings that emerge across varying community forestry conditions.

Principle 5: The research process is based in iterative learning and feedback loops and there is a two-way sharing of information

Continuous learning (leading to people’s increased ability to solve problems) is one of the key features of participatory research. It is therefore crucial that the research design allows for systematic, regular and critical exchange and reflection upon both the research process and the results (learning and outcomes).²² A central aspect should be the meaningful participation by the different stakeholders in these activities. Indicators for this may include:

5.1 The research includes regular exchange and reflection events involving key stakeholders.

5.2 The research has regular monitoring events, involving key stakeholders.

5.3 The outcomes of monitoring activities are translated into revised actions.

5.4 There is an appropriately high quantity and quality of participation in exchange and monitoring events.

5.5 The flow of information sharing in the research is multi-directional.

This principle is explored with reference to CIAT’s ‘Local Agricultural Research Committee (CIAL) Project’ (see Braun case study, this volume). The first three indicators, all discussed together here, refer to participants in the research meeting regularly to discuss processes and results, systematically assessing the processes and results, and then translating that reflection into adjustments of research process and management activities. The CIALs case offers a clear illustration of these three indicators, because the essence of the CIAL process is that of joint experimentation and learning.²³ CIALs follow a cyclical process (reminiscent of a PAR cycle), often depicted as a staircase (Figure 6.1). It has the following stages:

• Diagnosis: The CIAL’s research topic is chosen through a group diagnostic process that takes place at an open community meeting. Communities base
  
  their decisions on criteria such as chances of success, the number and groups of beneficiaries and the likely costs of the research. They commonly choose subjects such as the evaluation of new crops or crop varieties, measures for controlling crop pests and diseases, and fertilizer use.
• Planning: With the support of the facilitator, and other farmers and resource persons, CIAL members decide on the objectives of the experiment, the treatments and control, the materials and methods to be used, the inputs needed, the data to be collected, and the criteria for evaluating results.
• Experimentation: The CIAL members implement the experiment, and collect data, using the CIAL fund to pay for inputs. Other members of the community may assist them.
• Evaluation: The CIAL meets with the facilitator to evaluate the data collected. Conclusions are drawn and preparations made to present the results to the community.
• Analysis: The CIAL asks itself, ‘What have we learned’? This stage in the process is especially important when new crops fail or the experiment produces unexpected results.
• Feedback: The CIAL presents its activities, results and expenditures at regular, open meetings of the community. Committee members may support their presentation with simple posters showing research results. If the CIAL feels confident about these results, it may make recommendations based on them. The community then decides whether the CIAL should continue with the experiment, switch to a new topic, or cease its activities altogether.

Source: Ashby et al, 2000

Figure 6.1 Stages of a CIAL process

Monitoring and evaluation, like facilitation, take place throughout the CIAL process. The purpose is to ensure that the process operates as it should and that those responsible for it are held accountable. The community monitors the performance of the CIAL and is free to add, remove, or replace committee members at any time. The CIAL is expected to keep records of its experiments and to make these available to community members, upon request. It must also account to the community for its use of the CIAL fund. The CIAL, in turn, monitors the performance of its facilitator, who is held responsible for the quality of support provided. The results of this evaluation are made publicly available. The research process may be adapted based on monitoring findings within this framework. Revision of ‘actions’ (indicator 3) beyond the immediate CIAL process (for example, ‘adoption’ of research outcomes) is illustrated most clearly by changes in local farming practices. While not all CIALs would have as high a record, Pescador, Cauca, Columbia, offers a strong example of impact: as a result of CIAL monitoring of its trials, over 80 per cent of the farmers adopted a bean variety recommended by the local committee (Ashby et al, 2000:6).

The fourth indicator refers to the quantity and quality of participation in exchange and reflection events, both of which are critical components of success in participatory research. Both of these are underpinned by Principle 1, indicator 2, which refers to the question of ‘who participates’:

The research (and extension) design allows space for the meaningful participation of local stakeholders, including marginalized groups, and takes into account potentially differentiated perspectives and interests (based on gender, class, age, ethnicity or other aspects).

Relatedly, the continuity of the group members can offer some insights into this indicator. As Ashby et al (2000) describe, it is not uncommon for a frequent turnover of members early on in the CIAL process:

Being a CIAL member is not for everyone. Many groups experience a turnover of at least one of their members in the opening year. CIALs often go through a difficult period during their early development. This typically occurs a few weeks after foundation, when the initial rush of enthusiasm experienced at the motivational and diagnostic meetings has worn off. Some members feel that the research topic chosen by the community does not match their own priorities and lose interest. Others drop out because the CIAL takes up too much time that they would rather spend doing their own farming. Women in particular find it hard to fit in CIAL activities because of their many other commitments. (Ashby et al 2000)

Ashby and colleagues (2000) also note that participation can be affected by ‘participation fatigue’, for example where past projects in the area have required input by the community, without generating sufficient benefits. This is, unfortunately, an increasingly widespread phenomenon, which reduces the opportunity for future participation in potentially beneficial initiatives.

The fifth indicator, regarding the multi-directional flows of information, can be understood in this case as the regular exchange of information between core and non-core participants of a CIAL. Because the total number of actual CIAL participants is usually small, this type of information exchange is critical because it underlies the goal of providing a service to the community. Adoption of the recommendations of the CIAL also illustrates its effective information flow. Using the same example as above, in Cauca department, Colombia, not only did 80 per cent of the community adopt a variety recommended by the CIAL, but 50 per cent of farmers in three nearby communities with CIALs, and 20 per cent of farmers in four communities without CIALs also adopted the variety (Ashby et al, 2000:6). The other side of this indicator is information seeking by the CIAL. According to Ashby et al (2000:137), ‘as CIALs mature they become more proactive in seeking information: in about 57 per cent of the CIALs, individual members have taken the initiative to contact institutions for advice or seek assistance without waiting for their facilitator to help’. Thus, new (information) linkages are built.

Conclusions: a framework for reflection and change

In this chapter, based on the experiences of the research case studies explored during the Chatham meeting, and other literature, we have proposed a set of ‘principles and indicators of good practice in participatory research on natural resource management’. We have presented this alternative framework –grounded in concrete field experiences – as a tool, or guidepost, to assess methodological options for participatory research. We view the framework as one that encourages reflection and change, and thus is appropriate to the theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of participatory (action) research. In designing the framework, the aim has been to encourage NRM researchers to explore how, and to what degree, a participatory methodology (and particular tools) influences both the effectiveness of NRM research and empowerment of local resource managers. To do so, we have argued that it is necessary to have a clear understanding of the types of learning that guide the research (from reproductive to transformative) and of the contextual variables that influence participatory research in practice (such as the nature of research questions, and local social dynamics and experiences) so that one can work in an informed way with the ‘good practices’ suggested here. The framework represents a potential tool for transformative learning for researchers – learning that enables the application of increasingly inclusive or integrative perspectives to participatory research practice. It also serves as a hypothesis-generating tool to guide future research design and planning. As such, it is an integral part of the iterative learning process in and to which participatory research practitioners are engaged and committed. We hope that this framework can be used to engender reflection and improvement in individual research initiatives. Finally, we hope that it enables comparisons across sites, and thereby contributes to the on-going learning process of the larger community of NRM researchers about what research approaches work best, for whom, when and why.

Appendix 1: Principles and indicators of good practice in PR on NRM

Appendix 2: List of indicators of good practice generated at the Chatham workshop ‘Continuing to Learn Together’, held at the Natural Resources Institute, Chatham, UK

1. Stimulation of participation by ‘forgotten’ groups (eg, women, landless, lower caste).
2. Shared agenda setting.
3. Realistic objectives and a related, coherent participatory methodology.
4. A clear strategy for action and change.
5. Realistic expectations for empowerment through research.
6. Partnerships created or strengthened through dialogue and joint actions.
7. An eye for incentives and benefits for all parties involved.
8. Use of multiple tools.
9. An eye for the dynamics of change in natural and human-made systems.
10. The best of the various knowledge worlds linked together.
11. Use of multiple sources and triangulation.
12. A built-in exit or sustainability strategy.
13. Possibilities for extrapolation or scaling up of the methodology and results.
14. Good documentation of the use of tools, the participatory process and the results.
15. Horizontal communication.
16. New professional roles accepted and put into practice.
17. Respect for the commitment made with research partners.
18. Shared authorship of results and publications.

These indicators formed the basis of Indicators Framework:

the new proposed Principles and

Principle 1 is based on Indicators 1–7.
Principle 2 is based on Indicator 9.
Principle 3 is based on Indicators 8–11.
Principle 4 is from indicators 12 and 13.
Principle 5 is from indicators 14–18.

Notes

1   In particular, we build on the IDRC discussion paper by Vernooy, Buckles and Schreier, 2000.

2   The term ‘best practice’ – while it held catch-phrase value – gave a misleading impression that there was a single set of ‘correct’ practices. In order to reinforce the notion of ‘good principles’ that can be adapted and applied in a variety of contexts, we opt for the current terminology of ‘good practices’.

3   For reasons of limited space in this chapter, we use only one principle per case in our illustrative ‘assessment’ of good practice. In practice, one would aim to apply all the principles for a well-rounded assessment.

4   The Landcare Case Study is available in the appendix of this book (Garrity, this volume). Key additional information was provided by the discussion paper by D Catacatun and AR Mercado, Jr (2001), and personal communication by D Catacatun (2001).

5   ‘Well-defined’ indicates that they need to be clearly thought out and expressed, and consistent with the research mandate. The actual nature and quality of the empowerment objectives and strategies will, of course, be dependent on the type of PR, and learning and the research goals.

6   In Claveria, for example, the local government has created a legal requirement that it support an annual budget for Landcare-related activities and projects.

7   Chambers (1994) rightly points out the tradeoffs between quantity, relevance, accuracy and timeliness. He notes that this principle includes the notion of ‘optimal ignorance – knowing what is not worth knowing, and then not trying to find it out’ (Chambers, 1994).

8   This case study information was provided by the chapter author, R Vernooy. The full case is available in the appendix (Vernooy, in this volume).

9   This is in addition to, not instead of, a broader more formal dissemination strategy beyond the site; this external dissemination strategy is covered in Principle 4, indicator 4.3.

10  In addition, through a participatory process, a simple agroecosystem map was developed, with either a group or an individual farmer. This process is iterative and dynamic; in other words, the researchers and farmers together and continually revisit and update the map as necessary. After developing the agroecosystem map the researchers asked farmers to demonstrate their soil fertility resource allocations for the past and present seasons by crop and field types. Further discussion and use of focus discussions elaborated on the factors influencing farmers’ targeting of resources. This supported an enabling dialogue between various parties on farmers’ decision-making processes.

11  This case study is based on the case submitted by K Vaughan and Z Shamudzarira, CIMMYT at the Chatham meeting, and personal communication. See also Vaughan and Shamudzarira (this volume).

12  The case study elaborates the fact that the use of participatory tools is ‘time consuming and can be laborious’, but worth it in the end ‘once trust is built and the agenda straight . . .. by backing up (well-documented) participatory field methods with trials based on the PRA work, the research provided some tangible outputs that farmers can use and benefit from’ (Vaughan, pers comm, 2001).

13  The RMP did also have a formal external dissemination strategy, although like many projects, this emerged relatively late in the research process. While this may be a limiting factor (shared by many research initiatives), the project has engaged in

multiple levels of dissemination. These include integration of methods into the university cu