Resources

This paper considers ways in which farmers' own analysis, method and scope, can be documented and explored. It draws out the partially complementary nature and some of the differences with regard to PRA and FPR (Farmer Participatory Research). PRA methods tend to emphasize the visual, while FPR methods are more verbal and observation based. Visual methods have strengths. Farmers have greater capacity to diagram and analyse than most outsiders have supposed, and farmers are proving to be good facilitators of analysis by other farmers. The challenge is to further develop, spread, test and improve farmers' analysis through these and other methods.

This paper will be of interest to agriculturalists, researchers and fieldworkers, and those working at the community and project level. It notes several misconceptions which limit researchers in their investigation of local knowledge concerning crop health. Farmers have many ways to assess and influence the health of a crop without explaining it in terms of a disease. It may often be useful to carry out a parallel study of the analytical principles in understanding personal health within the community, as this will shed light on health in the plant world. Explanations also need to be considered in association with different socio-political contexts. The paper warns against the use of formal methodologies and data collection tools, as they are seen as being inappropriate in the context of learning how farmers understand crop health. It is also seen as important to look as much at variations in the production system as it is at the norm. Indeed, the paper warns against any notion of the norm. Finally, it is also suggested that researchers be careful to avoid choosing informants who have a high profile in terms of their perceived farming skills.

This is a compendium of papers presented at IDS/IIED seminar on 'Wealth and Well-Being Ranking'. It draws on various attempts to implement a wealth ranking exercise, given in the form of presentations, which include: B. Grandin, and the 'Background to wealth ranking'; Marie-Therese Sarch, 'The Adoption of New Agricultural Technology in The Gambia'; Verona Groverman, and the ' People's Participation Programme', Swaziland; Ian Scoones, looking at 'Wealth Ranking in Zimbabwe'; and Pramesh Shah's report on 'AKRSP (India), Gujarat, among others. Most comments and questions focused on definitions, applicability and sensitivity. The last section looks at the questions left unanswered, and is concerned with what happens over a longer time period, whether wealth ranking can be implemented over a wider area, and notes the difficulty experienced with regard to passing wealth ranking ideas on to community facilitators.

It is essentially a brief note on wealth ranking methodology using the card sorting system. Wealth ranking is a method which helps researchers understand the relative wealth within an area and thus the impact of any intervention on different social groupings. The paper goes into detail, looking at the preparation of the cards, their introduction to the informant, card sorting, and follow-up discussion. Computing and grouping, calculating the scores for each informant is also discussed.

It concerns the experience of Krishi Gram Vikas Kendra (KGVK), a NGO sponsored and supported by the Usha Martin Group of Industries. It has conducted a series of PRA training exercises for government officers from watershed and forestry programmes, for voluntary agencies, research institutions and other NGOs. This paper describes one particular PRA camp at Mahilong, Bihar, which had two purposes. Firstly, to ascertain more information about the area and project sustainability, and secondly to train others in the required methodology. The paper discusses the sequence adopted at the camp, special features of the programme and the opportunities the camp gave to discuss issues with farmers from the area.

It describes why and how wealth ranking was used in the early stages of a collaborative policy research and training project in Mongolia. The Policy Alternatives for Livestock Development project aims to facilitate the transition from a command to a market economy in the extensive livestock sector which dominates the Mongolian rural economy. The paper addresses the role and value of wealth ranking by card sorting in the research and training process, and its sequencing with other activities, rather than the technical details of the method itself. Wealth ranking served two principle purposes, one direct and one indirect. It enabled the team parsimoniously to target the use of other research methods in subsequent rounds of fieldwork by means of positive sampling. This paper contains sections on the following: the research context, the direct use of wealth ranking, indebtedness, availability of labour, and the indirect uses of wealth ranking.

This reports on the trials of various pigeonpea cultivars. In 1989- 90, the performance of four pigeonpea genotypes resistant to helicoverpa armigera - ICPL 84060, ICPL 332, ICPL 87088 and ICPL 87089 were evaluated in on-farm trials in Medak district, Andhra Pradesh, India. Forty marginal farmers from 16 villages were asked to grow the genotypes on large plots using their own management practices, and compare them with local pigeonpea cultivars. PRA methods were used to elicit criteria for comparisons from farmers in semi-structured interviews. All participants were women farmers who play a central role in fuelwood collection and in all aspects of food production, preparation and storage. The PRA methods used were pairwise ranking and direct matrix ranking in the context of semi-structured interviews involving groups of 10-15 women.