Resources

It focuses on social processes, experiential, practical and political elements which are often overlooked in the literature on agricultural research and extension. Methodological issues raised by a shift in theoretical perspectives from a structured to diverse approach are explored. A broader view of the 'farmer' is called for: an approach that locates farmers, researchers and extensionists as social actors within the process of agricultural production and extension. Methodology in agricultural research and extension is clarified at the outset, with challenges to mainstream thinking in agricultural development reviewed. The paper finally explores ways to enrich current agricultural research and extension through new forms of practice.

This paper clarifies "the role of methodology in agricultural research and extension", reviews a)"challenges to mainstream thinking in agricultural development" and b) recent participatory methodologies and explores ways to enrich current agricultural research. It does not consider PRA itself except as one of a range of methods. Rather the paper seeks to contextualise PRA within other participatory methods, and within historical developments that have led to the development of these methods.

In September 1991 a workshop on participatory methods for working with farmers was held for one national and eight provincial teams which comprise the Adaptive Research Planning Team (ARPT) in Zambia. Its main purpose was to evaluate the the bean or finger millet varieties that the groups had been working on. Matrices were the prime method of evaluation generated through discussions held with farmers. The paper looks at the setting up of the matrix, the ranking exercise and arguments with respect to the value of the three varieties. The matrices were concluded to be successful in highlighting each of their strengths and weaknesses, as well as indentifying the various characteristics of millet varieties. From the discussion with farmers, researchers were able to ascertain which characteristics of the varieties were most highly prized.

It concerns an attempt to describe the origins and process of the "Griffith RRA" approach, developed by staff at Charles Sturt University, and looks at what a team learnt from a specific RRA exercise of this nature, during January 1993. The paper includes a section looking at the methodology of this exercise; the background to the "Griffith RRA" methodology; a look at the results of the analysis; followed by a discussion of its findings. One of the main conclusions of the paper is that researchers using RRA must be prepared to trust and stick to their aims and draw honest insights from qualitative data, rather than looking for quantitative analysis to apply when none was intended at the outset.

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 research is primarily a critique of the existing agricultural extension approaches, with substantial description and evaluation of indigenous knowledge among pastoralists in eastern Sudan and Eritrea, in the context of postwar reconstruction and development. It makes specific recommendations to advance the integration of indigenous knowledge in development as a way of enhancing the capacity of individuals and institutions to make good use of existing skills.

This paper concerns seasonality diagrams drawn up by farmers during a RRA/PRA training workshop, carried out in western Nepal. Subsequently, the results obtained via the seasonality diagramming were compared with scientifically-collected meteorological data from a nearby agricultural research centre. After briefly reviewing some important methodological data, the paper moves on to discuss the 'goodness of fit' of the two data sets. It concludes that as far as the scientifically collected data represents the 'real data', the data collected from the farmers represents a remarkably good approximation. In fact this latter data set is not only accurate, but, was also constructed in a far more cost effective manner, taking very little time.

Contains sections on the following: what is wealth ranking; why is wealth ranking needed; background work needed before carrying out wealth ranking; actual informant ranking; computing the actual score and grouping; an example of wealth ranking from Maasailand, Kenya, and from Meru district, Kenya; and finally, gives some suggested further reading. An appendix contains a check-list to help those wishing to carry out a wealth ranking exercise.