IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ovdeia/295957.html

Institutionalising Participatory, Client-Driven Research And Technology Development In Agriculture

Author

Listed:
  • Ashby, Jacqueline
  • Sperling, Louise

Abstract

This paper identifies key characteristics of participatory research and development (R&D): it is client-driven, requires decentralised technology development, devolves to farmers the major responsibility for adaptive testing, and requires institutions and individuals to become accountable for the relevance and quality of technology on offer. The paper then reviews ways by which institutions can respond to these characteristics. For creating clientdriven agenda options commonly include: representation by clients on their governing boards, joint research planning and the establishment of researchextension liaison units. However, more effective than this "representation" strategy might be to place a significant proportion of the available research resources directly under client control: client groups would then contract as they deem appropriate. Decentralising technology development requires scientists to shift away from a "pipeline" model which defines a limited number of products towards the development of menus of options, and prototypes, which are then adapted to "niche" conditions by others. Such localised testing, requiring a community-based adaptive research capacity, can be achieved through working with groups of fanners (rather than individuals) and with producer organisations. The devolution of trial testing is discussed in reference to experimental methods, statistical validity and cost. Institutionalising accountability sharing is probably the most challenging issue. While scientists' rewards might be tied to the success or failure of technologies, clients' contracts with research or third party evaluations probably serve as more binding options. Three issues are signalled for future attention. First, clarification is needed of the respective roles of fanners and scientists in prototype screening: e.g. what features should scientists be screening for and at what stage?; how. early in the process can farmers be involved and to what degree can they control decisions on trial design and measurement? Second, decentralised technology development requires corresponding reorientation in service provision (e.g. credit, extension and seed multiplication). Third, steps need to be taken to safeguard equity, both between the more and less vocal groups of fanners,and between the requirements of present and future generations (the latter referring particularly to environmental concerns). Finally, participatory R&D alone is insufficient to deliver innovations relevant to diverse client groups: explicit procedures are required to define which clients are to participate, whose agenda are to drive the process, and what organisational innovations are needed to move agricultural R&D in these directions.

Suggested Citation

  • Ashby, Jacqueline & Sperling, Louise, 1994. "Institutionalising Participatory, Client-Driven Research And Technology Development In Agriculture," Overseas Development Institute Archive 295957, Overseas Development Institute.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:ovdeia:295957
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.295957
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/295957/files/odi036.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.295957?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bhatnagar, B. & Williams, A.C., 1992. "Participatory Development and the World Bank.; Potential Directions for Change," World Bank - Discussion Papers 183, World Bank.
    2. Berdegue, Julio, 1990. "NGOs and FARMERS' ORGANISATIONS IN RESEARCH and EXTENSION IN CHILE," Overseas Development Institute Archive 295637, Overseas Development Institute.
    3. Gubbels, P, 1993. "Peasant Farmer Organization In Farmer-First Agricultural Development In West Africa: New Opportunities And Continuing Constraints," Overseas Development Institute Archive 295951, Overseas Development Institute.
    4. Eponou, Thomas, 1993. "Partners in Agricultural Technology: Linking Research and Technology Transfer to Serve Farmers," ISNAR Archive 310775, CGIAR > International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    5. Kohl, Benjamin, 1991. "PROTECFED HORTICULTURAL SYSTEMS IN THE BOLIVIAN ANDES: A Case Study of NGOs and Inappropriate Technology," Overseas Development Institute Archive 295646, Overseas Development Institute.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ashby, Jacqueline & Gracia, Teresa & Guerrero, Maria & Quiros, Carlos & Roa, Jose & Beltran, Jorge, 1995. "Institutionalising Farmer Participation In Adaptive Technology Testing With The `Cial'," Overseas Development Institute Archive 295968, Overseas Development Institute.
    2. Hagmann, Jurgen & Chuma, Edward & Connolly, Mike & Murwira, Kudakwashe, 1998. "Client-Driven Change And Institutional Reform In Agricultural Extension: An Action Learning Experience From Zimbabwe," Overseas Development Institute Archive 295995, Overseas Development Institute.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jacqueline A. Ashby & Louise Sperling, 1995. "Institutionalizing Participatory, Client‐Driven Research and Technology Development in Agriculture," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 26(4), pages 753-770, October.
    2. Gershberg, Alec Ian, 1999. "Fostering Effective Parental Participation in Education: Lessons from a Comparison of Reform Processes in Nicaragua and Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 753-771, April.
    3. Seweryn Zielinski & Yoonjeong Jeong & Seong-il Kim & Celene B. Milanés, 2020. "Why Community-Based Tourism and Rural Tourism in Developing and Developed Nations are Treated Differently? A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-21, July.
    4. Clark, John, 1995. "The state, popular participation, and the voluntary sector," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 593-601, April.
    5. Aline Coudouel & Stefano Paternostro, 2005. "Analyzing the Distributional Impact of Reforms : A Practioner's Guide to Trade, Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy, Utility Provision, Agricultural Markets, Land Policy and Education, Volume 1," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 7251, April.
    6. Bebbington, Anthony & Farrington, John, 1992. "The Scope For Ngo-Government Interactions In Agricultural Technology Development: An International Overview," Overseas Development Institute Archive 295649, Overseas Development Institute.
    7. Kristen Nelson, 1994. "Participation, empowerment, and farmer evaluations: A comparative analysis of IPM technology generation in Nicaragua," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 11(2), pages 109-125, March.
    8. Olgica Grcheva & Beser Oktay Vehbi, 2021. "From Public Participation to Co-Creation in the Cultural Heritage Management Decision-Making Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-21, August.
    9. Joanna Becker, 2004. "Making sustainable development evaluations work," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 200-211.
    10. Pretty, Jules N., 1995. "Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(8), pages 1247-1263, August.
    11. Deborah Merrill-Sands & Marie-Hélène Collion, 1994. "Farmers and researchers: The road to partnership," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 11(2), pages 26-37, March.
    12. Saikou Sanyang & Te-Chen Kao & Wen-Chi Haung, 2009. "Comparative study of sustainable and non-sustainable interventions in technology development and transfer to the women’s vegetable gardens in the Gambia," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 59-75, February.
    13. Berduhue, Julio, 1992. "Challenges. To Farming Systems Research And Extension," Overseas Development Institute Archive 295650, Overseas Development Institute.
    14. Yunjeong Yang, 2016. "Participation in development: learning from the past and present in the Republic of Korea," Asia-Pacific Development Journal, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), vol. 23(2), pages 81-103, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ovdeia:295957. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.