Resources

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.

As part of the Kenya Indigenous Forest Conservation Programme, staff at Kakamega forest have been involving local people in forest management. This included individual households as well as local administration. Both sustainable forest use and opportunities for income generation outside the forest were examined. Self help groups were formed, and a number of different vegetable growing methods developed. The evaluation team used PRA to discuss the benefits and problems of the programme - spontaneous development of other self-help groups, increased interest and increased awareness and concern over environmental isses, although some groups had greater problems, and groups that did well had worries for the future over marketing. It is unclear whether this had decreased the impact on the forest area.

This paper describes the experiences of a rural sociologist implementing a wealth ranking procedure in Swaziland under the auspices of the FAO. The approach of wealth ranking was tested in Swaziland as a method of identifying the poorer members of the community. The paper contains sections on the decision to adopt a 'rapid' approach; training and preparation; the actual ranking mechanism used; its results; and conclusions drawn from the exercise. The paper emphasizes the need for training and observes that setting aside adequate time for the process is essential in order that good results be obtained.

This paper may be of interest to government policy makers and planners, NGO rural fieldworkers, agriculturalists and economists. The paper describes the application of Farmer Participatory Research (FPR) in Botswana. FPR is viewed as being most useful as a complement to more traditional on-station and on-farm farming systems research approaches. Its goal is to incorporate farmers more directly into the process of technology development and application. The paper describes the success of the incorporation of FPR into the research programme at Francistown, Botswana. The success of this synthesis is seen to lie in the final structure being shaped by local cultural norms.

It looks at the principles and the methodology employed on a research project in northern Nigeria, which involved the collection of both farm management and nutritional data. The study was a wide ranging one; as such clear decisions about the type of data to be collected was made on the basis of time costs. The use of registered-non registered, continuous - one point and data cores are described and discussed. From these follow the means of sample stratification using these principles. Some ideas for improving RRA are suggested.

It draws on the experience of the author with regard to socio-economic surveys carried out in Kenya and elsewhere in East Africa. It considers problems in sampling, farmers' responses, the interview situation, survey staff, and various problems with regard to recording accuracy and data processing. The paper concludes by noting 20 key aspects that should be taken into account when designing surveys. These include: (1) careful selection and training of staff; (2) the importance of learning the farming systems in advance; (3) where possible to choose farmers for whom the key parameters are known from other sources; (4) utilize at least one full time supervisor resident in the survey area with independent transport; and (5) allow two thirds of the total period for activities other than the field survey, ie. data processing.