ILEIA Newsletter Vol. 11 No. 2 p. 12

Integrating formal research into a participatory process

Jürgen Hagmann, Edward Chuma and Oliver Gundani

The Conservation Tillage Project has been involved in tillage and soil and water conservation research using a combined on-farm and on-station research approach since 1990. The initial objective was to test and develop tillage systems for soil and water conservation for smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe. Quantitative research data were obtained by both the on-station and the on-farm component. Farmer participatory research on-farm also focuses on qualitative aspects in farmers’ experimentation, adaptation and adoption process. A major challenge has been the integration of quantitative research into the process of farmer participatory research.

To build trust between farmers and researchers and to get the research process started, farmers were familiarised with several conservation tillage techniques. These techniques corresponded to their priority need in the semi-arid area, namely water conservation. One technique, tied ridging, was suggested for further joint testing and development in farmer managed and farmer implemented adaptive trials.

In workshops principles of Freire’s conscientisation (Training for Transformation) were introduced to catalyse active farmer participation, experimentation and openness in the farmer groups. A problem analysis was carried out and mutual roles and expectations as well as a simple trial design were clarified and agreed upon. After the first year when trust and farmers’ spirit of curiosity had fully developed, the researcher-initiated process was taken over by farmer-initiated experimentation on various aspects of land husbandry while testing and development of tied ridging continued. Farmers’ own way of experimentation was further encouraged in a "competition for the best ideas" and used as technology and idea pool to be screened every season.

The experimentation process was titled as kuturaya (meaning: let’s try) and some farmers came up with more than 10 different trials, mostly based on traditional knowledge. Farmers’ trials and experiments were jointly evaluated by the farmer groups, researchers and extensionists during the growing season in a qualitative manner. Quantitative evaluation took place in feedback and planning meetings after the results had been analysed.

As many farmer-initiated trials and ideas showed high potential but did not allow a quantitative comparison, they were jointly screened for either further testing and development using the simple paired design, for further testing on the research station or for promotion if the idea was extremely successful and clear.

Integrating formal research

To evaluate the performance of the tested techniques it was necessary to understand the processes determining their performance using a combined analysis of several methods. The following methods are applied:

• The core method for the researcher-driven quantitative technical evaluation is a simple paired treatment design where the traditional practice as control plot is right next to the improved technique in the same field. After explaining the basic principles of comparison (e.g. for tillage: same planting date, same population, same fertilisation rates) farmers manage their trial field and observe the performance of the two treatments.

• Check plot pairs which are close together in order to avoid high variability in soils and fertility are marked by the researchers. These check plots are used for further quantitative measurements and allow for more control by the researcher without interfering in the farmer’s management and without sacrificing easiness of implementation which would be the case in completely randomised block designs. Results are analysed on the basis of the relative performance of the improved technique in comparison with the traditional technique. For statistical analysis each farmer’s field is considered as a randomised block with five replicates (see Fig. 1).

• Qualitative observations are made and informal discussions are held with farmers during weekly visits. This tool has proved to be the most successful method to monitor the farmer’s trial management and adaptations. The continuous, long-term interaction with individual farm families revealed how farmers’ rationale and attitude towards technologies are influenced by the coping strategies within their livelihood system. It also revealed that farming circumstances are highly diverse. They vary between families and are dynamic within families.

• Joint evaluation tours with sharing experiences and results in group discussions among farmers revealed farmers’ understanding of the techniques and processes and provided information on implementation.

• Formal questionnaire surveys are used to learn about the attitudes of participating and non-participating farmers towards certain techniques.

Hard and soft data contradict

In an in-depth analysis the results of the quantitative and qualitative methods were combined. However, high quality and reliable quantitative (hard) and qualitative (soft) data emerging from both on-station and on-farm research were often contradictory. Tied ridging, for example, yielded significantly lower than the conventional practice on-station whereas on-farm this technique improved yields significantly.

Factors like variability of soils, fertilisation and farmers’ management practices greatly influenced the performance of the technique. The performance of tied ridging varied also highly between farmers and the statistical analysis of the hard data collected on-farm showed that the farmer was always a significant actor in terms of e.g. yield and labour requirements. Farmers’ management practices were the overriding factor which determined the failure or success of the technique.

The diversity of results forced farmers and researchers to analyse the underlying factors and processes influencing the performance. Only farmers’ qualitative analysis monitored through informal observations and discussions and in joint evaluation tours can explain the variety in hard data and help to understand the processes.

Numerous farmer techniques, ideas and modifications from farmers’ evaluation based on soft data were taken to the research station to be quantified under controlled conditions and to understand the processes and interaction between various factors in more detail. During workshops and "look and learn" visits to the research station which became a "think pool for technology options", these hard data were again fed back to farmers who commented and explained the causes and effects from their perspective.

In general, however, farmers’ evaluation of technologies valued qualitative criteria like risk and labour distribution or simple criteria like size of cobs and yield of the total field higher than the hard data provided by researches. The major advantage of the paired design for farmers was the direct comparison which facilitated the analysis and understanding of processes (learning by experimenting).

Qualitative data essential

Without the qualitative socio-economic and socio-cultural data gained through informal observations and discussions the formal surveys could not have been interpreted meaningfully. Based on our experience, we can say that a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to evaluate results of farmer experimentation and research is the basis for meaningful technology development and spreading.

Qualitative data and evaluation contribute more to the understanding of diversity and should be taken as the basis for quantification. Topics arising from qualitative assessment forced us to broaden the scope of the project as we were driven by the farmers’ perspective of their farming system with the relevant problems.

Dealing with diversity

Analysing the variety of hard data led to the conclusion that tillage and soil and water conservation techniques are highly site, soil and farmer specific and therefore no blueprint recommendations can be formulated. Diversity has to be accepted and farmer participatory research and technology development must be geared towards the development of a matrix of interactions between factors influencing the performance of such techniques. For promotion and extension, instead of teaching techniques, technical options, this matrix and the processes should be explained.

Farmers should be encouraged to experiment with technical options using their conventional practice as control plot. The process of experimentation serves farmers, extensionists and researchers as a tool to gain experience-based knowledge on processes and site and farmer specific adaptations required to improve production. Extension based on farmer experimentation and sharing of knowledge among farmers would lead to more farmer-to-farmer extension.

Conclusion

The integration of formal research into the participatory technology development process enabled both farmers and researchers to jointly develop technologies and have the benefits in terms of data (researchers and policy makers) and a deeper understanding of processes (farmers and researchers).

A very important effect of the process of farmer experimentation, although difficult to quantify, was the gain in confidence and pride of people who have been looked down upon as being helpless peasants. This human factor is the starting point for sustainable bottom-up development.

Jürgen Hagmann, Talstrasse 129, D-79194 Gundelfingen-Wildtal, Germany.
Edward Chuma and Oliver Gundani<>, Agritex/GTZ Conservation Tillage Project, PO Box 790, Masvingo, Zimbabwe.

References
– Chuma, E. 1994. The contribution of different evaluation methods to the understanding of farmers decisions on adoption/adaptations of innovations: experiences from the development of a conservation tillage system in souther Zimbabwe. Paper presented at the international symposium on systems-oriented research in agriculture and rural development, held in November 1994 in Montpellier, France.
– Hagmann, J. 1993. Farmer participatory research in conservation tillage; approach, methods and experiences from adaptive on-farm trial programme in Zimbabwe. In: Kronen, M. (ed). 1993. Proceedings of the third annual scientific conference, October 5-7 1993, pp 319-330. SADC Land and Water Management Research Programme, SACCAR, Gaborone, Botswana.

Fig. 1

Back to Top