3 - Participatory Approaches to Agricultural Research and Extension: International Development Research Centre

International Development Research Centre (IDRC)

Web Archives > Publications > IDRC Books > All our books > PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: A SOURCEBOOK >

Topic Explorer

People

ID: 85045

Added: 2005-07-18 14:50

Modified: 2007-03-22 19:49

Refreshed: 2012-02-10 18:29

Click here to get the URL for the RSS format file

3 - Participatory Approaches to Agricultural Research and Extension

Document(s) 6 of 34

Scott Killough

The emergence of participation as an issue to be addressed within extension approaches was slower in coming to the forefront, as compared to the attention participation received within research systems. One key element of participation is an emphasis on developing the capacity of local people as an end in itself, as opposed to the purely mechanistic emphasis of participation as a means within the technology development flow that has often characterized research and extension programs.

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, increasingly more field-based experiences emerged creating more space for methodological and institutional innovations for agricultural research and extension. Within these participatory approaches - as they became commonly known - a special emphasis was placed upon participation of local people and their communities, especially working with and through groups; and building upon the traditional or indigenous knowledge that they held (Chambers et al., 1989; Waters-Bayer, 1989; Haverkort et al., 1991). Table 1 situates farmer participation in a comparative context of previous and existing research-extension paradigms.

Table 1. Farmer-Led Extension Approach within Research-Extension Paradigms
Indicative paradigm parameters	Technology development (research)	Technology dissemination (extension)
Processes with outsiders as major protagonists	Conventional research; farming systems research	Transfer of technology; conventional extension; farming systems research/extension
Processes with insiders as major protagonists	Indigenous technical knowledge; indigenous experts; farmer innovators	Indigenous communication networks; farmer-to-farmer extension
Processes with insiders as major protagonists, but supported by outsiders	Farmer participatory research; participatory technology development	Participatory extension; farmer-led extension

Farmer Participation in Agricultural Research

The rise of farmer participatory research (FPR) was a deliberate effort among agricultural professionals to combine farmers' indigenous traditional knowledge (ITK) with the more widely recognized expertise of the agricultural research community. The approach aimed to distinguish itself from farming systems research (FSR) in its more deliberate attempt to actively involve farmers in setting the research agenda, implementing trials and analyzing findings and results (Farrington and Martin, 1988). FPR has gone beyond the on-farm trials which became the standard of FSR, and actually called for farmers to design, monitor and evaluate experiments - in collaboration with researchers - carried out in their own fields (Okali et al., 1994). Some have argued that while FPR approaches can increase participation among farmers, as a research methodology, it has not brought about impact and output (Bentley, 1994), or may require more than short-term technology development efforts (Humphries et al., 2000). Research from Africa supports this argument by showing that less than 15% of "experiments led by farmers" resulted in the definition of new knowledge or the development of new technologies (i.e., were not already in existence elsewhere). The study concluded that farmers' experiments are in fact more "complementary" than "synergistic" to formal agricultural research efforts, and that farmers' experiments are more closely linked to agricultural extension activities rather than to agricultural research accomplishments (Sumberg and Okali, 1997).

Some of the trends like the recognition of the importance of farmers' ITK, strengthening of farmers' participation, the emergence of non-government organizations (NGOs) within the agricultural technology development sphere -allowed for the development of one of the more articulate models deriving from the FPR experiences - the multiple source of innovation model (Biggs, 1989). The model states that agricultural innovation (and the systems that carry those innovations between and among farmers) can derive from several sources, rather than from a single formal source (i.e., traditional research institutions). Evidence from Ecuador, Niger and other countries supports the multiple source of innovation model by providing well-documented examples of innovations emerging from farmers' associations and NGOs, and argues that public sector research/extension institutions are neither the only nor the main agents of agricultural technology adaptation and dissemination (McCorkle et al., 1988; Bebbington, 1989; Engel, 1990). The multiple source of innovation model has allowed for greater operational space for NGOs within the agricultural technology development system, as it has provided greater legitimacy to their contribution (Farrington and Amanor, 1991).

Farmer Participation in Agricultural Extension

Despite the articulate and increasingly large body of literature on participatory research and extension approaches, much of the work that has been conducted under the farmer-first and FPR frameworks focuses mainly on the research dimension of agricultural technology development and dissemination approaches. Concrete examples of the application of the underlying principles of participation, indigenous knowledge, and the users' (or farmers') perspective to the extension function and a discussion of the implications of these considerations to agricultural extension systems have been somewhat limited.

Röling (1995) outlines the facilitation model of extension that has emerged in recent years. The model also identifies the need to support farmer networking to reinforce individual learning, centered within a process which is facilitated by highly trained outsiders (agricultural professionals - both researchers and extension workers), thus comprising an agricultural knowledge and information system (AKIS). While the move from a linear transfer-of-technology extension model to the facilitation model is a difficult one, it is a trend which is gaining acceptance within donor and public sector institutions, but it also begs the need for further investigation into the characteristics of the approach (Röling and van de Fliert, 1994).

Engel (1991) presents a (general) typology of participation in extension which attempts to qualify levels of intensity of farmer participation as:

participation in extension meetings or activities

participatory diagnoses (e.g., participatory rural appraisal, problem-census, etc.)

participation through organization

Using this typology, much of what is called farmer participation in extension falls under the first two levels. However, for extension to become more farmer-led, a greater emphasis must be placed on the third - more substantive - type of farmer participation. One example of this third type of farmer participation in extension can be noted in the experience of the Uganda National Farmer's Association that has established a "demand-driven, cost-recovery" extension system as an alternative to public sector extension in a number of districts (Carney, 1998).

Farmer participation in extension will require putting farmers first by placing real ownership and accountability of public extension organizations into the hands of the clients - the farmers, and their communities and organizations. Antholt (1994) suggests that this might be accomplished by developing mechanisms for improving public support (i.e., cost-sharing, local taxes, etc.) that would provide resources to farmers and their organizations, and allow them to choose the types of extension services that are most relevant to their needs. However, he goes on to say that this will also require farmers to assume more responsibility to determine (and pay for) extension services and programs. User-centered approaches to extension - while increasingly fashionable - are not favored by agricultural extension agencies (particularly the public sector) because of the resulting changes in their power relations with farmers (Tendler, 1993).

Drawing upon extension practice and literature, key elements of agricultural extension approaches can be identified and formulated into a comparative typology for three different types of extension approaches (Table 2). The first two columns represent two distinct extension approaches - extensionist-centered and farmer-led approaches. Using key elements of any extension approach, the table attempts to differentiate between these two distinct approaches, recognizing that these are only models and that no single extension program may neatly fit into either model. The third column represents an emerging typology of extension approach which argues for a synthesis of these two conventional models into the form of an "accompaniment" model for participatory agricultural extension – a "middle path" between the more traditional extensionist-centered approaches and the more dynamic farmer-led approaches.

This "accompaniment model" suggests that farmer-led extension approaches cannot solely focus on the farmer promoters involved in the process, as there is, indeed, a critical role for professional extension workers to "accompany" the efforts and to support the achievements of farmer promoters. Experience has shown that it is difficult to achieve quality work from farmer promoters if they are not supported by well-trained professional extension workers sensitive to the new attitudes required of them. However, the professional extension workers must also be committed to and enthusiastic about the changes brought about by farmer-led extension approaches, especially in terms of the change in roles expected of them as professionals, and the communication/capacity-building skills that are required of them in order to work effectively with farmer promoters.

Table 2. Comparative Typology of Extension Approaches from the Literature

Elements

Extensionist-centered approaches

Farmer-led approaches

Participatory extension through accompaniment model

Primary goals of the extension approach

Technology transfer

Agricultural productivity through yield increases

Farmer participation

Empowerment

Capacity-building (especially farmer extensionists)

Creating (or strengthening) local institutions

Increase household productivity through agricultural and other livelihood improvements

Encourage farmer participation and community mobilization in local development efforts

Build skills and capacity for local empowerment (especially farmer leaders/promoters)

Create (or strengthen) local institutions

Institutional setting

Government extension service

University

Research institutions (local and international)

NGOs (local and international)

Grassroots or farmers' organizations (e.g., cooperatives)

Applicable to any institutional setting, including government extension service, local and international NGOs, grassroots or farmers' organizations, university and research institutions

Extension organization must be able to provide a policy framework and incentives to staff that support active participation of farmers

Professional staff must be able to focus the extension work of the institution around values and attitudes that foster farmer participation

Type of technology, information or innovation disseminated

Improved seed varieties

Cropping recommendations

Market information

Soil and water conservation

Intensive animal production

Cash crop production (coffee, tea, vegetables, etc.)

Soil and water conservation

Agroforestry systems

Natural resource management strategies

Integrated farming systems

Organic agriculture

Integrated animal production

Relevant to almost any technology, production system or natural resource management regime

Farmer-centered approaches tend to focus more on pro-poor needs, priorities and contexts

Approaches appear to be more appropriate for extension programs that focus on food production/food security and sustainable livelihoods

Approaches appear to be more appropriate for complex, integrated farming systems which require more complex natural resource management strategies, or more information-intensive production systems, e.g., organic agriculture

Approaches appear to not be well-suited for more commercial, overtly market-based production settings

Level of farmer participation in decision-making for extension priorities and activities, resource allocation, etc.

None to minimal

Minimal to medium

Medium to high

Extension methods used

Lectures

Demos

Films, videos and other audio-visual media

Pamphlets and other written materials

Farmer training

Radio programs

Farmer field days

Exhibitions, fairs

Farmers as trainers

Farmer cross-visits or exchanges

Shared labor work groups

Demonstrations and lectures

Films, videos and other audio-visual media

Farmer training

On-farm experimentation for technology demonstration

Almost any extension method may be applicable

Effective use of any particular method is more dependent upon the emphasis that is given to the specific and active role of farmers, e.g., farmers as trainers

Several methods have proven to be more effective for eliciting farmer participation, e.g., farmer cross-visits or exchanges; farmer field days and exhibitions; demonstrations; films, videos and other audio-visual media; shared labor work groups, etc.

Active farmer participation in on-farm experimentation for technology demonstration is a proven method that effectively channels farmer inputs and perspectives

How do farmers participate?

Participate in external assessment of community problems, or assist in community problem analysis

Assist in extension planning

Receivers of technical messages

Provide feedback to extension activities and new technologies

Facilitate community problem analysis

Determine extension priorities

Actively involved in extension planning

Serve as extension workers

Provide feedback to extension activities and new technologies

Monitor and evaluate accomplishments

Participate in and/or facilitate community problem analysis

Determine extension priorities and are actively involved in extension planning

Serve as extension workers

Provide feedback to extension activities and/or new technologies

Conduct small-scale experimentation and/or participate in on-farm experiments

Monitor and evaluate extension accomplishments

Participate in (and often organize) networking and information exchange mechanisms

Participate in (researcher-led) on-farm experiments

Conduct small-scale experimentation

Participate in (and often organize) networking and information exchange mechanisms

Costs, funding mechanisms and control of funding

Generally entails medium to high costs

Traditionally funded through general taxation and/or bilateral/multilateral loans or aid from the global donor community

Control of funding resources is usually through the extension provider (primarilynon-local levels of government)

Generally entails low to medium costs

Grants from international donors, especially NGOs

Institutional revenues (e.g., cooperatives)

Control of funding resources is typically through an NGO or farmers' organizations; some examples also exist through local authorities (e.g., village councils, etc.)

Entails low to medium costs compared with conventional extension programs, but is not a no-cost mechanism for service provision

Can include a range of funding sources, including bilateral/multilateral loans or aid from donor community; grants from international donors, especially NGOs; and institutional revenues or income

Control of resources should be decentralized to the most localized level possible, e.g., local government, NGO, farmers' organizations, local authorities (e.g., village councils, etc.)

Program geographical coverage (area)

Usually covers large geographical areas, e.g., district or state

Tends to be on a limited scale (<100 communities) within a single administrative unit (e.g., district or state)

Or, on a pilot project scale within a larger institutional/area setting

While not scale-neutral, these approaches can be applied at almost any scale

Appear to be most appropriate on a limited scale (<1,000 communities) within a single administrative unit (e.g., district or state)

Before we leave the discussion on participatory approaches to agricultural research and extension, a word of caution is required. Many agricultural professionals, including some of the most vocal proponents in favor of participatory approaches, are calling for a re-examination of the current fad in the promotion of these approaches and highlighting the need to be more objective in the analysis of these approaches (Biggs, 1995; Cooke and Kothari, 2002). In order to more accurately measure their effectiveness and impact, Biggs (1995) specifically underlines the importance of developing a framework for analysis and evaluation of participatory technology development (PTD) (and related) experiences - a recommendation that has been strongly seconded by others (Oakley, 1995).

References

Antholt, C. 1994. Getting Ready for the Twenty-First Century: Technical Change and Institutional Modernisation in Agriculture. World Bank Technical Paper No. 217. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Bebbington, A. 1989. Institutional Options and Multiple Sources of Agricultural Innovation: Evidence from an Ecuadorian Case Study. Overseas Development Institute. Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension) Network Paper No. 11.

Bentley, J. 1994. Facts, Fantasies and Failures of Farmer Participatory Research. Agriculture and Human Values Vol. 11, No. 243, pp. 140-150.

Biggs, S. 1989. A Multiple Source of Innovation Model of Agricultural Research and Technology Promotion. Overseas Development Institute. Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension) Network Paper No. 6.

Biggs, S. 1995. Participatory Technology Development: Reflections on Current Advocacy and Past Technology Development. Paper for The Limits of Participation Workshop, 23 March 1995. Intermediate Technology Development Group, London.

Carney, D. 1998. Changing Public and Private Roles in Agricultural Service Provision. London: Overseas Development Institute.

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

Cooke, B. and U. Kothari (eds.). 2002. Participation: The New Tyranny. London: Zed Books.

Engel, P. 1990. Two Ears, One Mouth... Participatory Extension or Why People Have Two Ears and Only One Mouth. AT Source Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 2-5.

Engel, P. 1991. Farmers' Participation and Extension. In: Haverkort, B., J. van der Kamp and A. Waters-Bayer (eds.). Joining Farmers' Experiments: Experiences in Participatory Technology Development. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Farrington, J. and K. Amanor. 1991. NGOs and Agricultural Technology Development. In: Rivera, W. and D. Gustafson (eds.). Agricultural Extension: Worldwide Institutional Evolution and Forces for Change. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Farrington, J. and A. Martin. 1988. Farmer Participation in Agricultural Research: A Review of Concepts and Practices. Agricultural Administration Unit, Occasional Paper No. 9. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Haverkort, B., J. van der Kamp and A. Waters-Bayer (eds.). 1991. Joining Farmers' Experiments: Experiences in Participatory Technology Development. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Humphries, S., J. Gonzalez, J. Jimenez and F. Sierra. 2000. Searching for Sustainable Land Use Practice in Honduras: Lessons from a Programme of Participatory Research with Hillside Farmers. Overseas Development Institute. Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper No. 104. July.

McCorkle, C., R. Brandstetter and G. McClure. 1988. A Case Study on Farmer Innovations and Communication in Niger. Communication for Technology Transfer in Africa. Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development.

Oakley, P. 1995. People's Participation in Development Projects. Occasional Paper Series, No. 7. Oxford: INTRAC. July.

Okali, C., J. Sumberg and J. Farrington. 1994. Farmer Participatory Research: Rhetoric or Reality. London: Intermediate Technology Publications (for ODI).

Röling, N. 1995. What to Think of Extension?: A Comparison of Three Models of Extension Practice. Article for Francophone Issue of the AERDD Bulletin, Edited by Nouridin Salamna, ICRA, Montpellier Office. December.

Röling, N. and E. van de Fliert. 1994. Transforming Extension for Sustainable Agriculture: The Case of Integrated Pest Management in Rice in Indonesia. Agriculture and Human Values Vol., 11 No. 2/3, pp. 96-108.

Sumberg, J. and C. Okali. 1997. Farmer's Experiments: Creating Local Knowledge. London: Lynne Rienner.

Tendler, J. 1993. Tales of Dissemination in Small-Farm Agriculture: Lessons for Institution Builders. World Development Vol. 21, No. 10, pp. 1567-1582.

Waters-Bayer, A. 1989. Participatory Technology Development in Ecologically-Oriented Agriculture: Some Approaches and Tools. Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension) Network Paper No. 7, London: Overseas Development Institute.

Contributed by:
Scott Killough
Email: Scott.Killough@iirr.org

Document(s) 6 of 34

guest (Read)(Ottawa) Login