Allen, W. 2001. Working together for environmental management: the role of information sharing and collaborative learning. PhD Dissertation, Development Studies, Massey University, New Zealand.

Colfer, C.P.J., R. Prabhu, M. Günter, C. McDougall, N.M. Porro, R. and Porro.. 1999. Who counts most? Assessing human well being in sustainable forest management. C&I Tool No. 8. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.Who Counts Most? Assessing Human Well-Being in Sustainable Forest Management presents a tool, ‘the Who Counts Matrix’, for differentiating ‘forest actors’, or people whose well-being and forest management are intimately intertwined, from other stakeholders. The authors argue for focusing formal attention on forest actors in efforts to develop sustainable forest management. They suggest seven dimensions by which forest actors can be differentiated from other stakeholders, and a simple scoring technique for use by formal managers in determining whose well-being must form an integral part of sustainable forest management in a given locale. Building on the work carried out by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) on criteria and indicators, they present three illustrative sets of stakeholders, from Indonesia, Côte d’Ivoire and the United States, and Who Counts Matrices from seven trials, in an appendix.

Allen, W., M. Kilvington and C. Horn. 2002. Using Participatory and Learning-Based Approaches for Environmental Management to Help Achieve Constructive Behaviour Change. Landcare Research Contract Report LCO102/057. Landcare, Lincoln, New Zealand.

Gladwin, C.H., J.S. Peterson, A.C. Mwale. 2002. The Quality of Science in Participatory Research: A Case Study from Eastern Zambia. World Development, 30(4):523-543. Request reprintRecent discourse in the development field has been directed to the question of how to maintain and enhance the quality of science in agricultural research using participatory methods. Discussion has also focused on the question of how to combine microlevel research/extension efforts using participatory methods with scientific methods employing rigorous and statistical testing techniques. Is there a tradeoff between researchers' use of microlevel, gender-sensitive, ethnographic participatory methods and a commitment to "the scientific method," with its conventional assumptions about sampling, data collection, hypothesis testing, and use of standard measures of statistical significance? If there is such a tradeoff, which of the two methods should be given the greater attention? Should scientific and rigorous testing methods take precedence in the agricultural science community over use of farmer-sensitive participatory methods? Should scientific rigor be sacrificed for ethnographic accuracy, or vice versa.

Colfer, C.J.P., Brocklesby, M.A., Diaw, C., Etuge, P., Harwell, E., McDougall, C., Porro, N.M., Porro, R., Prabhu, R., Salim, A., Sardjono, M.A., Tchikangwa, B., Tiani, A.M., Wadley, R.L., Woelfel, J. and Wollenberg, E. 1999. The Grab Bag: Supplementary Methods for Assessing Human Well-Being. C&I Tool No. 6. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.The Grab Bag: Supplementary Methods for Assessing Human Well-being is designed to complement The BAG. The Grab Bag is designed for use by social scientists who may find The BAG overly prescriptive. The eight methods presented are either more difficult for non-social scientists to use or, in a couple of cases, can substitute for one or more method presented in The BAG. Again, The Scoring and Analysis Guide provides the user with help in making an actual assessment of the social criteria and indicators, based on the results of these methods.

Allen, W. NRM-Changelinks.Net. Links for developing Change in Natural Resource Management: an on-line resource guide for those seeking to improve the use of collaborative and learning-based approaches. Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research, New Zealand and Natural Resource Management Programme, Massey University, New Zealand.

Douthwaite, B. J.D.H. Keatinge and J.R. Park. 2002. Learning selection: A model for planning, implementing and evaluating participatory technology development. Agricultural Systems 72 (2):109-131. Request reprintThis paper develops a model of the early adoption process that takes into account modifications made by users. The model is based on data from 13 attempts to introduce six postharvest technologies into the Philippines and Vietnam. It is built on an analogy between technology change and Darwinian evolution. At the core of the model is the interactive experiential learning process –– learning selection (LS) –– that is analogous to natural selection in the living world. In learning selection stakeholders engage with a new technology, individually playing the evolutionary roles of novelty generation and selection, and in their interactions creating recombinations of ideas and experiences and the promulgation of beneficial novelties. Peoples' motivations to engage in learning selection, and its outcomes, are influenced by the interaction between their lifeworlds and their environments. The model has implications for management of agricultural technology change. It suggests the need for a nurturing of new technology during its early adaptation and adoption, until the point where the beneficiary stakeholders (manufacturers and users) are sufficiently numerous and have adequate knowledge to play the evolutionary roles themselves. The LS model, while developed with data from agro-mechanical technologies, could provide a theoretical underpinning for participatory technology development.

Ashby, J.A. 2002. Integrating Research on Food and the Environment: an Exit Strategy from the Rational Fool Syndrome in Agricultural Science. Special Feature on Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM). Conservation Ecology. Vol 5(2).  Access other articles in the special issue of Conservation Ecologyon INRM

Ritchie, B., C. McDougall, M. Haggith and N. Burford de Oliveira. Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability in Community Managed Forest Landscapes. CIFOR.This guide is intended to make a contribution to the larger efforts worldwide at improving forest management, human well-being, and the sustainability of natural resources. Three points should be noted by anyone intending to use the Guide:1. As with any such tool, everything in this guide needs to be considered in, and adapted to, the local context in which it is to be used.2. Successful implementation of the approach suggested in this guide relies on adequate understanding of, commitment to, and skills in participatory approaches and processes.3. This is a work in progress. CIFOR and collaborators are continuing work in this area, and we welcome input and feedback on this guide.

McDougall, C., Isbadi, I.R., Santoso, L., Corless, M. and Purnomo, H. (eds.) The CIFOR Criteria and Indicators Resource Book DatabaseThe CIFOR Criteria and Indicators Resource Book Database offers information on attributes; definitions, relevance, method for assessment, how to go about measuring a particular indicator, how to design a sample plot etc. The Resource Book Database is a work in progress at CIFOR and subject to further improvements.

Douthwaite, B., N.C. de Haan, V. Manyong and D. Keatinge 2002. Blending “Hard” and “Soft” Science: the “Follow-the-Technology” Approach to Catalyzing and Evaluating Technology Change. Special Feature on Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM). Conservation Ecology. Vol 5(2). Other articles in this special issueThe types of technology change catalyzed by research interventions in integrated natural resource management (INRM) are likely to require much more social negotiation and adaptation than are changes related to plant breeding, the dominant discipline within the system of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Conceptual models for developing and delivering high-yielding varieties have proven inadequate for delivering natural resource management (NRM) technologies that are adopted in farmers' fields. Successful INRM requires tools and approaches that can blend the technical with the social, so that people from different disciplines and social backgrounds can effectively work and communicate with each other. This paper develops the "follow-the-technology" (FTT) approach to catalyzing, managing, and evaluating rural technology change as a framework that both "hard" and "soft" scientists can work with. To deal with complexity, INRM needs ways of working that are adaptive and flexible. The FTT approach uses technology as the entry point into a complex situation to determine what is important. In this way, it narrows the research arena to achievable boundaries. The methodology can also be used to catalyze technology change, both within and outside agriculture. The FTT approach can make it possible to channel the innovative potential of local people that is necessary in INRM to "scale up" from the pilot site to the landscape. The FTT approach is built on an analogy between technology change and Darwinian evolution, specifically between "learning selection" and natural selection. In learning selection, stakeholders experiment with a new technology and carry out the evolutionary roles of novelty generation, selection, and promulgation. The motivation to participate is a "plausible promise" made by the R&D team to solve a real farming problem. Case studies are presented from a spectrum of technologies to show that repeated learning selection cycles can result in an improvement in the performance of the plausible promise through adaptation and a sense of ownership by the stakeholders.

Allen, W., Bosch, O., Kilvington, M., Oliver, J. and Gilbert, M. 2001. Benefits of collaborative learning for environmental management: Applying the Integrated Systems for Knowledge Management approach to support animal pest control. Environmental Management 27:2 pp. 215-223.

AN OVERVIEW OF PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH AND LEARNING PROCESSES AND THEIR RELEVANCE TO WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food. 2003. An overview of participatory research and learning processes and their relevance to watershed management and development. Paper commissioned to the working group on Participatory Natural Resource Management of CGIAR System wide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis. 30 p.

Beaulieu, N., G. Leclerc, M. Alvarez, G. De Wispeleare, J. Jaramillo, Y. Rubiano, A. Fajardo, O. Muñoz, N. Peñuela. 2001. A Proposed Framework for Using Remote Sensing Imagery to monitor environmental dynamics in support to local planning efforts. Presented at the Workshop on Integrated Natural Resources Management (INRM), 28-31 August, 2001, CIAT, Cali, Colombia.

Ashby, J. 2003. Uniting Science and Participation in the Process of Innovation – Research for Development. IN: B. Pound, S. Snapp, C. McDougall and A. Braun (Eds.O Managing natural resources for sustainable livelihoods: Uniting Science and Participation. Earthscan/IDRC.Researchers are approaching the process of innovation, as well as their own role in improving natural resource management (NRM) in a new way. ‘Research and development’ – also known as R&D – derives from the concept of researchers who are in control of a pipeline for producing technological innovations: an idea goes in at one end of the pipeline, research develops a prototype, and then a fully developed product comes out, ready to be released to eager users, at the other end of the pipeline. In contrast, ‘research for development’ emphasizes the iterative, adaptive nature of innovation in complex ecosystems, which is achieved through systematic enquiry combined with learning based in action. The purpose of this chapter is to set the scene for understanding the evolution of new approaches to innovation in agriculture and NRM and the kind of research and development process needed to realize their potential for NRM.

Colfer, C.J.P., M.A. Brocklesby, C. Diaw, P. Etuge, M. Günter, E. Harwell, C. McDougall, N.M., Porro, R. Porro, R. Prabhu, A. Salim, M.A. Sardjono, B. Tchikangwa, A.M. Tiani, R.L. Wadley, J. Woelfel,. and E. Wollenberg. 1999. The BAG (Basic Assessment Guide for Human Well-Being). C&I Tool No. 5. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.The Basic Assessment Guide for Human Well-Being (or The BAG) focuses on the social criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management, a topic that has been the subject of considerable controversy and uncertainty. It is designed for people interested in assessing sustainable forest management, but who do not have a high degree of expertise in social sciences. The six simple methods described in this manual are designed for use by biophysical scientists with a college education. They can also be used by assessors with higher levels of expertise in social sciences, but they are presented in a ‘cookbook’ format. The Scoring and Analysis Guide, meant to be used with The BAG, provides additional help in making assessments of human well being, including a specific scoring method. It also provides increasingly detailed levels of guidance in analysis.