Transfer of Technology

This linear and mainly technology-driven model reflects the modernistic development perspective of the 1960s and is based on the positivist science paradigm. It includes three main actors:

An example of the Transfer of Technology is the green revolution of the 1970s. The green revolution packages were suitable mainly to areas of high natural potential and uniform and controllable growing conditions. This model, aiming at a widespread adoption of technologies, is likely to be successful in relatively homogenous, low-risk, natural and social environments, where farmers live under similar conditions, perceive the same kinds of challenges and share a common set of beliefs and values.

For small farmers in highly variable areas with low levels of control of growing conditions, success was very limited. Adapting the environment to fit the technology (e.g., through fertilizer application) is economically and socially not feasible in this context. As a response, farming systems research emerged. More emphasis was laid on (contractual and consultative) farmer participation to better understand their complex situation and the inter-dependencies among elements of farming systems in order to develop adapted technologies (Biggs, 1989; Farrington and Martin, 1987; Rhoades and Booth, 1982).

Today, the transfer of technology model is often viewed as the antithesis of participatory research. However, this is often not the case. In fact, much of the present participatory practice can still be classified as an expansion of the transfer of technology model because information is obtained from farmers and incorporated into scientific research. Participatory methods are used to better meet farmers' needs and to adapt technologies to site-specific circumstances at a relatively late stage of the research process.

Farmer First

By the mid-1980s, people were re-thinking the transfer of technology model. The emphasis was on the farmer. There are different types of approaches summarized under 'Farmers First':

Farmers became part of the process of generating, testing and evaluating technologies that promoted sustainable agricultural production. The main outcome expected from these approaches is the generation and adoption of new, appropriate technologies by small, resource-poor farmers to aid in solving production constraints in order to increase farm productivity and income (Selener, 1997).

The positivist paradigm is still prevalent in these approaches. Local knowledge is often viewed as a uniform 'stock', which is available for assimilation and incorporation. The role of researchers is to collect information, document rural people's knowledge, provide technology options, plan and manage research interventions. Farmers mainly act as respondents and are involved in planning and on-farm experimentation (Hagmann, 1999). Often, formal research methods and controlled comparison are used.

In the "learning selection approach" to technological change, different stakeholders experiment with a new technology (researchers' "best bet") and carry out the evolutionary roles of novelty generation, selection, and promulgation, i.e., learning selection is seen as analogous to natural selection in Darwinian evolution (Douthwaite, 2002). The innovation process is regarded as a complex, adaptive, multi-agent system.

Participatory Learning and Action Research

In participatory learning and action research, knowledge is developed through critical reflection and experiential learning. These have several advantages.

Learning and action research can be considered as being an integrated process of action (development), education and research, or as Albrecht (1992), puts it, "action research entails the integration of research functions as a continuing part of a development program."

In participatory learning and action research, scientists are no longer observers or external actors; they now help people at different levels of social aggregation to learn and enhance their capacity for adaptive management. The approach favors farmer experimentation as well as platforms for negotiation and action learning at community level and with service providers (Hagmann et al., 2002).

Participatory monitoring and evaluation is an important instrument to integrate participatory research functions as a continuing part of the social or socio-technical development effort, and to investigate more systematically 'how' and 'why' certain changes are, or are not, taking place (Probst, 2002).

Action learning approaches operate in a constructivist perspective, where informal experimentation and indigenous knowledge are put on a more equal footing with scientific knowledge. They draw from traditions in the applied social sciences, pedagogy, organizational development, and community development. According to Kurt Lewin (1946), complex systems can only be explored through action within the system, because a system's reaction to changes reveals its characteristics ('If you want to know how things really work, just try to change them'), i.e., the really relevant issues frequently only come up during the process of action, and would be missed through rigid planning (Hagmann et al., 2002).

The table below gives an overview of three prototypical approaches to innovation, development and their respective attributes.

Most of the current NRM research initiatives focus on the generation and provision of technologies, assume a functioning linear research-development continuum, use mostly consultative forms of participation, and consider participatory research as a tool for applied and adaptive research. Therefore, they principally fall into the categories of 'transfer of technology' and 'farmers first' approaches. Longer-term participatory learning and action research approaches are only beginning to be chosen by international agricultural research centers (IARCs) as they require a different kind of professionalism and challenge the mandate, i.e., they are considered to fall under the sphere of development rather than research. The potential of participatory learning and action research for strategic research and approach development is gradually recognized, particularly since the research system (i.e., 'research on research') has become a focus in institutional research.

Another frequently discussed issue is the question of client-orientation in international agricultural research. Presently, public sector agricultural research is mainly externally initiated, discipline-led and supply-driven, no matter which of the above-mentioned approaches is chosen. Research institutions write proposals according to their strengths and preferences, they manage the funds obtained for development-oriented research, and are accountable and report to donors. Local "clients" in turn have little power and influence on the research agenda. Currently, new financial mechanisms are under discussion to increase the demand-orientation and accomplish more market-led client-provider relationships.

A new concept would for example be that local organizations who have appropriate communication channels to institutions or enterprises and who have control over own and/or donated resources (or competitive funds, vouchers, etc.), initiate contracts with providers of research services to overcome specific constraints. They would act as clients who commission external service providers, and "buy-in" research services they need. Each of the three prototypical approaches to innovation development could be chosen under such market-led conditions, i.e., local organizations could demand either the development of a technology or the facilitation of a learning and action research process. This model would put local people in a position of greatest power, as they can demand accountability, whereas external actors are responding to their requests.

What frequently is ignored in the discussion of such financial agreements, is that some preconditions need to be in place for their functioning, such as a certain level of local organizational and management capacity, the ability to identify and articulate broad based demands, etc. Otherwise, such efforts would be highly susceptible to corruption by local elites, or walk in the trap of "local people demanding more of the same".

Participatory learning and action research approaches by nature seek to strengthen the capacities of poor farmers in marginal areas to ultimately allow the application of more market-led and demand-oriented approaches.

References

Biggs, S. 1989. Resource-Poor Farmer Participation in Research: A Synthesis of Experiences from Nine National Agricultural Research Systems. OFCOR Comparative Study Paper. The Hague: ISNAR. pp. 3-37.

Douthwaite, B. 2002. Enabling Innovation. A Practical Guide to Understanding and Fostering Technological Change. New York and London: Zed Books.

Farrington, J. and N. Martin. 1987. Farmer Participatory Research: A Review of Concepts and Practices. ODI Discussion Papers, No. 19. London: ODI.

Hagmann, J. 1999. Learning Together for Change. Facilitating Innovation in Natural Resource Management Through Learning Process Approaches in Rural Livelihoods in Zimbabwe. Kommunikation und Beratung No. 29. Weikersheim, Germany: Margraf Verlag.

Hagmann, J., E. Chuma, K. Murwira, M. Connolly and P. Ficarelli. 2002. Success Factors in Integrated Natural Resource Management R & D - Lessons from Practice. Conservation Ecology, No. 5(2), 29. Online documents at URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art29[31.10.2002]

Probst, K. 2002. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: A Promising Concept in Participatory Research? Lessons from Two Case Studies in Honduras. Kommunikation und Beratung No. 49. Weikersheim, Germany: Margraf Verlag.

Selener, D. 1997. Participatory Action Research and Social Change. Cornell Participatory Action Research Network. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University.

Contributed by:
Kirsten Probst and Jürgen Hagmann
with inputs from
Maria Fernandez and Jacqueline A. Ashby
Email: JHagmann@aol.com