The participatory research assessment initiative started in early 2001 when there was an agreement on shared objectives with EARO management. This was followed by the design of anassessment frame (workshop in April 2001), a field assessment of case studies (in March 2002), and a subsequent analysis of field assessment information (part I of this workshop), and then feedback to EARO management which resulted in decisions on next steps and the way forward (part 2 of this workshop reported here). The 8 case studies for the field assessment were chosen to compare different types of research that were conventional to those using different degrees of farmer participation and associated techniques and methods. The selection of cases were also set up so as to make a comparison between NRM and variety selection types of research, and to provide practical examples that could be analysed using the performance indicators related to effective research (the impact framework designed in the first workshop.) The overall general expectations at the onset of the assessment process were to understand the potentials and constraints of participatory research in the Ethiopian context, to produce a framework and guidelines for best practice and for impact assessment of research, and formulate a strategy for operationalizing participatory research using our knowledge of success factors in Ethiopia as part of implementing effective research. The overall hypothesis that was that participation of farmers and stakeholders makes research more effective. More specifically, the 2-part workshop reported here was organized to deepen the analysis of participatory research (PR) using a synthetic assessment of a range of field experiences against the impact framework that is indicative of good general research practice (Part I ). Part I had the following outputs: a summary of the impacts, benefits, gaps, challenges and constraints of the approaches used; identification of best practices in existing work and reflections on the assessment, the guiding principles and lessons arising — which we called success factors. These results were then shared in Part 2, a second workshop session that invited a wider group of EAROmanagers from headquarters and research stations. This management group provided further reactions, impressions and recommendations as well as a strategy to move forward to improve the efficiency of research in Ethiopia. Some guiding values and principles for effective, impact-oriented research were identified in the first workshop and shared with managers during Part 2 a and these were felt to be very important.Some of the important impact areas and contributions of PR identified in the synthesis included:. Enhances the development of appropriate technologies. Enhances relevance of research approach. Establishes linkages among farmers, between farmers and institutions. Engages farmers in actively searching for their own solutions to problems. Builds farmers capacity in managing their resourcesria . Changes attitudes of researchers and institutions towards farmers of the weak areas identified in current application of PR included:Inadequate competency in PR of implementing agents. Limited commitment and engagement by research staff in fieldwork with farmers. Inadequate documentation of the PR process. Limited technology options for farmers
Tag: Participatory approaches
Analyzing ranking and rating data from participatory on-farm trials
Responses in participatory on-farm trials are often measured as ratings (scores on an ordered but arbitrary scale) or rankings (respondents are simply asked to order treatments). Usual analysis of variance and linear model based analyses are not appropriate for these data. Alternative analyses based on generalized linear models are described in this paper. These methods can be successfully used when trial designs are irregular—a common characteristic of participatory trials—and when covariates are measured on each plot or farm in order to identify genotype x environment interaction.
Analyzing data from participatory on-farm trials: research and participation
P1111111111Analyzing Data from ParticipatoryOn-Farm TrialsResearch and Participation articipation and the systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of dataare not contradictory activities. Among some practitioners there is a belief thatadoption of a participatory paradigm removes the need, or even makes itimpossible, for researchers to collect and analyze data. The purpose ofparticipation is seen as empowerment of local people, which is inconsistent withresearchers conducting activities that meet their own objectives. However, manyresearchers recognize that broad conclusions of relevance beyond the immediateparticipants are still necessary, and that a part of this research must be thecollection and interpretation of data.A participatory approach, however, hasimplications for the collection, analysisand presentation of data. Data from on-farm trials take many forms, from cropyields measured on individual plots tothe reported consensus of participants ata group meeting. Data collection is doneusing qualitative and quantitativemethods and by different individual andgroups of people.Data analysis can alsobe for, and to some extent by, differentparticipants, each of whom have theirown interests and objectives
Building on lessons learned from EARO’s assessement of research approaches
This report documents the workshop that took place in June 17-21 2002 in Addis Ababa. This report is not a final synthesized report, but tries to capture the crude output of the workshop in a non-interpreted way and serves as a base for shaping the final report. This documentation is meant to be a reference document for all participants snd intends to provide the desired transparency. Almost all results of the working groups and plenary sessions are documented here. It comprises two parts of the workshop: the first part is about the processing of the field assessment by the group who carried out the assessment. The second workshop part was feedback of the assessment results to managers (including senior EARO managers) by the assessment group. The whole group identified ways to move forward.
Beyond the farm: a new look at livelihood constraints in the Eastern African highlands
Throughout the highlands of eastern Africa, farming communities face critical challenges in providing for an ever-growing population while maintaining the productivity of the resource base. Most research and extension programs have approached this problem by focusing on the alleviation of farm-level productivity constraints, largely through technological solutions. There is a strong push within national and international arenas to move toward broader units of analysis and intervention, with the aim of enhancing the sustainability of rural livelihoods as well as environmental services emanating from highland areas. Yet little treatment has been given to the issue of farmer motivations for thinking and acting beyond the farm level. Outcomes of a participatory assessment of landscape-level problems of concern to highland farmers of Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania shed light on this question and point to contributions that can be made from research and development to support farmers and communities in addressing identified challenges
Assessing the adoption potential of agroforestry practices: ICRAF’s experiences in sub-saharan African
This paper describes the participatory approach and methods that ICRAF and partner-institutions use of assessing the adoption potential of agroforestry practices, that is, their biophysical performance, profitability, and acceptability to farmers. The information required for assessing adoption potential is presented. Three types of on-farm trials– researcher-designed and managed, researcher-designed and farmer-managed, and farmer-designed and managed — are examined and their relative suitability for different objectives is assessed. Next, methods for assessing adoption potential are presented, using seven case studies from four study areas in sub-Saharan Africa. Finally, an example is presented of comparing the adoption potential of improved tree fallows across sites for assessing the boundary conditions of the practice, that is, the circumstances that determine whether the practice is likely to be adopted. Assessments of adoption potential improve the efficiency of the technology development and dissemination process, help document the progress made in disseminating new practices, demonstrate the impact of investing in technology development, facilitate inter-institutional cooperation, and help to identify the factors contributing to successful technology development programs as well as the constraints limiting the achievements.
How to stop wasting money in international development: Using a structured group selection approach to counter procedural inefficiency
A lot of money is wasted in international development, prompting research that identified various systemic and procedural features of the observed development inefficiency. Within procedural inefficiency, problems in project implementation have led to unmet objectives within proposed timeframes and budgets, and consequently, projects ‘failing’. Subsequently, numerous project designs have been dismissed for not producing the expected results and not ‘working’. Yet, the observed failure to achieve project objectives is often a result of inefficiency rather than actual unsuitability of the project approach and design. In this paper, we address the core issue of random sampling and recruitment of project ‘beneficiaries’ without identifying whether these partners are suitable during project implementation. Yet, it is these very ‘beneficiaries’ whose engagement, practices and performance will be assessed to qualify the project’s success. Conventional targeting methods are typically needs-based and fail to address concerns of responsiveness to project objectives, efficiency, and legitimacy. The aim of this paper is to develop, use, and evaluate a group selection tool for purposive project group sampling based on an assumption that their performance could be predicted ex ante. The proposed tool is composed of two multi-indicator categories: group material well-being, and group capacity and agency. To determine how the tool is associated with positive outcomes, we triangulated various project data. Some relevant results from comparing performance data with the adapted group classification include that groups with higher well-being often formed strategic partnerships with external actors, while those with higher agency and lower well-being were more likely to collaborate with each other. Overall, higher agency was correlated with higher overall performance. While the tool needs further refinement, we expect it to contribute positively to procedural inefficiency concerns in development projects and programs, and to lead to better, faster, more sustainable development outcomes.