Document(s) 11 of 12

Photo credit: Ronnie Vernooy (IDRC)

The six studies offer a rich panorama of ongoing fieldwork ranging from descriptive social and gender research to more transformative action research. The studies show some commonalities, but also considerable differences. These differences reflect how research context (history, geography, the knowledge and experience of the researchers, the knowledge and expertise of the farmers and herders), research questions and research methods interact in a particular way. They point to the importance of human agency, social differentiation and changing circumstances. They illustrate how gender interacts with other social variables, such as ethnicity, class and age. They provide evidence of enduring inequalities based on those social variables, but also offer encouraging examples of social change.

In this final chapter we reflect on the achievements made in terms of capacity building of both the researchers and others involved in the six research initiatives. We conclude with a brief discussion of remaining challenges. But before we begin, it is useful to quickly return once more to where we started: the many challenges involved in integrating SAGA into natural resource management including biodiversity research (as listed in Chapter 1) and the desire to do something about them through the Learning Studies initiative:

1. Knowledge of and experience in social science research among natural resource management researchers and research managers is limited.

2. Social science components are not well integrated with natural science components in most research efforts.

3. Researchers and research organizations have different starting points, interests and expertise in terms of social and gender issues.

4. 'Gender blindness' or the refusal to acknowledge the importance of gender issues is common in research and research policy making.

5. Short-term training has limited impact.

6. Resources in the area of SAGA and natural resource management in Asia are not widely available.

7. Networking has potential benefits but operationally is not easy.

Throughout this chapter, achievements and challenges can easily be linked to these seven points. As such, individually and together they serve as additional monitoring and evaluation reference points on our journey.

STRENGTHENING VARIOUS KINDS OF CAPACITIES

New ways of doing field research through participatory action methods and tools, farmer-to-farmer or herder-to-herder and other participatory forms of extension (for example, particularly in Viet Nam, China and Mongolia) and local development work stand out as achievements that can be located somewhere in the middle of the continuum from description to transformation. All teams experimented with methods that integrated a variety of tools, ranging from participatory rural appraisal tools to more qualitative research techniques. Some teams employed surveys (China, Viet Nam, Mongolia). The variety of methods served to address the different kinds of research questions teams were trying to answer.

All case studies contributed to increasing social science knowledge and experience among natural resource management researchers and research managers. The teams made great efforts to integrate social science components with natural science components. These integrative efforts also allowed them to triangulate information gathered. They also served the important function of allowing the teams to learn and become more skilled by doing. More practice will allow further capacity building and refinement of methods and tools to better suit local specificities.

The case study teams became engaged in a social learning process. Social learning is defined as the process by which multiple social actors with competing claims on a natural resource move towards, and engage in, concerted action at multiple scales of interaction (Röling 2002). It is about learning from each other. All six teams made considerable progress in terms of understanding the relevance of social learning and how to bring it about. The various facets of this achievement include the development and improvement, by researchers and others involved in the research, of negotiation skills (Nagaland), entrepreneurial and management expertise (Nepal, Nagaland, China, Viet Nam, Mongolia), facilitation skills (Mongolia, China), basic participatory monitoring and evaluation skills (Mongolia, Viet Nam, China), and advocacy skills (Nagaland, Mongolia, China). Other skills that were instrumental for the teams include communication skills (all teams, but emphasized in the Sikkim/West Bengal team) and training skills (Viet Nam, Mongolia). All teams used and appreciated the networking skills they developed and improved throughout the research process.

The Viet Nam team reflected on its work as follows:

We are using a variety of communication tools and participatory methods, including appraisal, monitoring and evaluation. Over time, we have seen the degree of farmer participation increase, and with a greater degree of farmer participation, results are more readily and widely adopted. We have also learned that farmers adopt simple techniques more quickly. As farmers gained confidence in the researchers, they accepted suggestions more readily and expressed their own ideas more openly.... Using a participatory approach has helped us direct attention to the role and needs of women. While men talk, it is often the women who do most of the work in the fields. Farmer participation is also useful in evaluating research results. Group meetings and on-farm workshops give farmers an opportunity for self-assessment. (From Chapter 6 of this book)

The Sikkim/West Bengal team reported:

Support from the network and IDRC has been beneficial. The major support and learning from this has been in regard to the project proposal—the first workshop of the network [in Beijing, see Chapter 1] helped tremendously in focusing the proposal in a definite and clear manner. Second, the field visit by IDRC program officers was of great value and help by providing the researchers an opportunity to share their problems and difficulties. Discussions on the work and findings and the gaps and difficulties faced helped the researchers to resolve the problems and come up with the necessary solutions. Third, the sharing of work progress of the various teams of the network helped as well, by giving the researchers encouragement and ideas. Finally, the second workshop [in Ulaanbaatar, see Chapter 1] where all the teams and IDRC program officers met and presented the findings was invaluable in the sense that it gave the researchers a lot of input about how and what to do to improve their work. Not only this, it further provided us with an opportunity to share first-hand with the network the stories and experiences from the field. (IDRC 2004d)

Although the researchers learned much from the study, the women and men farmers, herders and vendors with whom they are engaged also strengthened certain abilities, such as marketing skills in the case of China, Nepal and Nagaland, and plant breeding skills in the case of China and Nepal. Or they acquired completely new ones, such as forming and managing an interest group or research group (China, Viet Nam, Mongolia). In some of the studies policy makers became more attentive to the needs and interests of (poor) women and men, such as in Nagaland, China, Viet Nam and Mongolia, and perhaps Nepal as well.

The Nagaland team wrote:

Learning and capacity-building of stakeholders about the SAGA approach is at various levels. It is evident from the interactions with different stakeholders that at one point of time or another everyone has learned something. Some stakeholders were sensitized about the SAGA approach, and about the clamor for a negotiating space. Some are mainstreaming SAGA in the long-term planning process. By carrying out this SAGA action research, we, researchers, have enhanced our research skills and became more systematic in our approach to the research problems. We better understand the ground realities and have become more sensitive to the problems of the primary stakeholders, especially the part-time vendors who are vulnerable to exploitation and harassment. These part-time vendors are facing many challenges in order to get a marginal profit with their best farm produce. This research has also led to an emotional attachment between women vendors and us, strengthening rapport building with them. We have increased our negotiating skills to influence decision makers. We started channeling the 'voices' of vendors to the public using mass media and by interacting with policy decision-makers. (IDRC 2004b)

Networking has been useful in many ways. What the experiences highlight is the importance of learning by doing: implementing and adapting practices in the field with ongoing mentoring and support to address challenges and the continuous linking of experiences to conceptual (participatory) frameworks. The experiences suggest that strengthening the processes for peer networking, review and support, subregionally and regionally, toward the development of a 'community of practice' is a powerful means to build capacities. But learning by doing and the construction of a 'community of practice' are demanding in terms of both time and resources.

CHALLENGES

So far we have summarized the main capacity building achievements of the studies. Good progress is being made, but more learning lies ahead. In the final part of this chapter we highlight three challenges that have emerged.

Organizational Change and Mainstreaming of Social and Gender Research

Continuous awareness raising efforts, dynamic communications, incentives, active 'champions', examples of good practice and an effective monitoring system are some of the elements required to make sound social and gender research part of the everyday practice of a research organization. Although the six study teams are in one way or another working on one or more of these pieces, putting them all together still seems a long way off. It is clear that the teams and research organizations have different starting points, interests and expertise in social and gender issues; and within teams there sometimes exist important differences in terms of expertise, ideas and interests. Building bridges and working toward synergy even within the organizations and research teams remains a challenge, let alone doing so across organizations and teams.

All teams expressed a desire to do more work in their own organization and are looking for continuing support from IDRC and other donors. This is not surprising given that there are hardly any research organizations in the world that have a strong proven record. We let the case study teams speak for themselves. The China team firmly defines a principle:

The case also illustrates that SAGA is essential, not optional, for the formulation of responsive and gender sensitive policies/regulations and related implementation and management to avoid further marginalization and biases in the mainstreaming process. (IDRC 2004a)

The Sikkim/West Bengal study team focuses on some key bottlenecks:

Mainstreaming SAGA in the research world is crucial in order to get a holistic picture that will help in making/developing a purposeful development action plan/project to solve practical problems and to change undesirable and constraining situations. However, mainstreaming SAGA in the research world is a challenge as in almost all cases it is found that gender analysis is conducted only at the diagnostic level. And often it does not go beyond a description of the division of labor (roles of men and women). There is no analysis of the more important and complex gender and social relations. The reason for this is not only lack of capacity, but, more importantly, 'gender blindness' that exists in communities, organizations, institutions, individuals and even among the researchers. Many researchers do not recognize and take into consideration the differentiation of preferences, perceptions, responsibilities that exists on the basis of gender. It is either ignored or overlooked. This is one of the main challenges in mainstreaming SAGA in the research world. (IDRC 2004d)

The Nepal study team adds another perspective by looking at the world of policy making:

Interactions with personnel from the policy level were not very easy. Getting an appointment was very difficult. There was a lot of confusion about concepts. The conversations repeatedly used to incline toward women's issues rather than about gender. Time and again, we had to bring our interviews back on track. This was not always appreciated by higher-level authorities. (IDRC 2004c)

The absence of a proper institutional framework or institutional body responsible for working on social and gender aspects was felt to be a major constraint in the research process. Some efforts of agricultural research and development institutions toward social and gender issues were scattered and lacked proper documentation. Meeting the right individuals and finding useful documents was time consuming.

There is another component of mainstreaming that merits attention, but one that is perhaps not so evident in the studies: communication of the study results to others involved in rural development, including extension agents, policy makers and implementers, and professionals working in education and training. The publication of this book is only one way to disseminate our research efforts and stories, the insights gained, and the achievements and remaining challenges identified. However, identifying other opportunities remains a task to be carried out in the coming period. Some of the teams are forming ideas already, including local language translations of this book (for example, China), and the use of chapters in teaching and training (for example, China, Viet Nam).

Enduring Inequities and the Empowerment of Women

Several cases document the enduring dominance of men in decision making, access and control, reinforced by conservative cultural norms and political systems, for example, Sikkim/West Bengal, Nepal, and also Viet Nam and Mongolia. In China we witnessed the feminization of agriculture, which is increasing the burdens on women, although at the same time the absence of men also is opening the door for some options at home. The six studies provide varied evidence of the interplay of various sorts of gender inequalities, in terms of access to resources, in basic human capabilities, in control of one's own labour, and, notably, in access to markets (all six cases).

The research efforts, with the possible exception of the Sikkim/West Bengal study, are also leading to some changes, although slowly and gradually. The key parameters for empowerment are access, control and a say in decision making. The cases represent a variety of empowerment strategies, such as organizing women's groups (Mongolia, China) or interest groups (Viet Nam) or both; capacity building, locally and via networking (Nepal, China, Viet Nam); building partnerships with stake-holders at other levels (Nepal, China, Mongolia); linking sustainable livelihoods with natural resource management, through attention to marketing and strengthening marketing links (Nagaland, Nepal, China, Mongolia); linking to policy making and policy makers (China, Mongolia); and bridging disciplines (all cases).

At the Ulaanbaatar workshop capacity building was further discussed, and the following steps were identified:

1. Identification of disadvantaged groups according to one or more social variables (class, caste, ethnicity, landholding, wealth, animal holding).

2. Identification of social motivators or animators (women and men).

3. Needs assessment: identifying not only needs but also confidence building opportunities.

4. Participatory action planning: who, what, how, where, when?

5. Implementation of an action plan.

6. Participatory monitoring and evaluation (indicators, local ownership, multi-stakeholder-based, intra-household relations and roles).

7. Participatory impact assessment: if desired results are not achieved, adapt the plan and process.

8. Documentation and dissemination: success stories; mistakes and failures; constraining and enabling factors, community 'voices'.

A key question is, whose empowerment strategy? It was noted that empowerment strategies, similar to research strategies, can vary considerably in terms of the nature of participation: from consultative to collaborative; from researcher driven to farmer/herder driven; from a focus on women (WID approach) to a focus on unequal relations in general (GAD approach). Which women and men participate (and which do not) remains a research question that requires more precise attention.

Empowerment is a work in progress. The cases vary in many ways, but there are also a number of similarities (for example, strengthening seed marketing, in particular by women, in the Nepal and China cases; see more examples given earlier). The 'whose empowerment?' and 'whose knowledge generation?' questions have been identified as important in all cases. The teams continue to explore how to move to a more action-oriented agenda, to counter socioeconomic and sociopolitical inequalities, and to reflect on the complex role of researchers as catalysts of social change.

Improving the Quality of Participation

Participatory action research can contribute to the creation of fora for analysis, discussion and negotiation in which ideas can be exchanged and initiatives planned. As the case studies indicate, this is why it is important to create opportunities for meaningful participation. The building of trust is essential, but this may take time and patience. The process of organizing often involves struggles over the definition of rules and norms, and researchers may become entangled in these struggles. Unfortunately, most of the case studies do not explicitly address this very important 'entanglement' or engagement question. We could hypothesize that what the Nagaland study points to is also relevant for the other studies, but this would require additional documentation and analysis. We highlight the last part of the quote used earlier in this chapter:

This research has also led to an emotional attachment between women vendors and us, strengthening rapport building with them. We have increased our negotiating skills to influence decision makers. We started channeling the 'voices' of vendors to the public using mass media and by interacting with policy decision-makers. (IDRC 2004b)

This description suggests that participation itself remains a challenging research topic. It is not easy to stand back from the process and look critically at what is happening and how. Although most case studies made enormous progress in a relatively short time in terms of facilitating participation, there is likely scope for improving the quality of participation. As the Viet Nam team observed (Chapter 6), this requires appropriate skills, experience and attitudes of outside facilitators to create an enabling environment for people to speak out. Improving the quality of participation of women and marginalized people remains a challenge.

It is important to remember that information and knowledge are not value free and to be aware that the selective choice of information or knowledge may empower some people while displacing others. Knowledge is always socially constructed and often disputed. More analysis and reflection on the question of how different types of participation influence research results seem warranted. Mastering the art and science of participation is a life-long task.

The Power of Macro-forces

The studies provide various insights into how local communities are affected by processes at play at higher societal levels, such as commoditization, privatization, state reform and globalization. The China study refers to the WTO (the country's recent entry into this organization is an important issue) and asks if farmers, especially the poor, are favoured. The Viet Nam study notes that despite impressive and prolonged macroeconomic-level progress, poverty persists and overcoming poverty still remains a challenge in the development of the country. The study also highlights that poverty alleviation coupled with conservation of natural resources in the uplands is critical, not only for the local people but also for the nation as a whole. The same could be said about China—and Nepal.

The studies suggest that building linkages between local communities and national institutions and policy makers helps local actors demand more useful services and influence (to varying degrees) policy agendas. This includes the integration of government into the local planning process so that local interests and concerns are taken into account. It could also contribute to reorient the sourcing of technical assistance and the transfer of expertise.

More analysis will be required, but it is evident from the studies that these processes are not social or gender neutral. At the same time, the studies also demonstrate that these processes are not homogeneous by definition. Different responses occur and this is an important empirical finding that ought to inform theory development and refinement. Everyday differences, however small, matter!

REFERENCES

International Development Research Centre (IDRC) (2004a). China Case Study Final Report. Ottawa: IDRC.

——— (2004b). Nagaland Case Study Final Report. Ottawa: IDRC.

——— (2004c). Nepal Case Study Final Report. Ottawa: IDRC.

——— (2004d). Sikkim/West Bengal Case Study Final Report. Ottawa: IDRC.

Röling, N. (2002). Beyond the Aggregation of Individual Preferences: Moving from Multiple to Distributed Cognition in Resource Dilemmas. In C. Leeuwis and R. Pyburn, eds, Wheel-barrows Full of Frogs: Social Learning in Rural Resource Management, pp. 25–47. Assen, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Van Gorcum.

Document(s) 11 of 12