You are here: Home > *PRGA Newsletter issue No. 25 September 2007 > Deadline extension until: October 31/07

Deadline extension until: October 31/07

PRGA Newsletter

Call for “Practical Notes” for a special issue of Development in Practice

FROM THEORY TO THE PRACTICE: OPERATIONALIZING PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH AND GENDER ANALYSIS

Contributions deadline extension until: October 31, 2007

Practical Notes

Concise accounts of up to 3000 words usually of an empirical nature concerning a particular experience or topic, but presented in a way that will interest a wide international readership.

In October 2005, the CGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation (PRGA Program) and the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) brought together about 30 impact-assessors drawn from the research-for-development sector to discuss the status quo of agricultural impact assessment of participatory research and gender analysis, and options for its future. A special issue of Development in Practice will present brief summaries of seven of the papers presented at that workshop. The seven papers included in this special issue discuss major challenges in relation to the operationalization of participatory research and gender analysis. In addition, the journal editor has requested that we include a section of "Practical Notes." These are concise accounts of up to 3000 words (2500-3000 words) usually of an empirical nature concerning issues related to operationalizing participatory research and gender analysis, and presented in a way that will interest a wide international readership. It is likely that between 3 and 5 of these Practical Notes will be selected for publication.

If you wish to contribute a Practical Note to this special issue, please provide a full (complete) draft by September 30, 2007 to Nina Lilja ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ), copied to John Dixon ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ) and Guy Manners ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ). The format is as follows:

• Practical Notes (for this special issue) are concise accounts of up to 3000 words (2500-3000 words), usually of an empirical nature, concerning the operationalization of participatory research and gender analysis, presented in a way that will interest a wide international readership.
• Maximum 3000 words (about 12 pages of Times New Roman double-spaced)
• full names and contact details (including e-mail) for each author
• title up to 12 words only
• key words
• abstract 100-150 words only
• use end notes if necessary (not footnotes)
• up to 15 references only
• include a biographical note "The author(s)" in the form "A.N. Author is [title] at [institution]"
• supply separate files for graphics (TIFF, EPS or JPG only)
• UK spelling
• See DIP vol. 17 issue 1 on the Taylor & Francis website for sample Practical Notes: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=g770353878~db=all

Background to this special issue of Development in Practice

For more than two decades the literature has been replete with a variety of approaches and tools for participatory research and gender analysis, yet the harsh reality is that participatory methods are often seen as a low-cost alternative to formal data-collection instruments and the quality of field application often leaves a lot to be desired. Empirical evidence of the effectiveness and impact of participatory research exists, but several challenges in operationalizing participatory research still remain.

Perhaps the first of the major changes facing impact-assessors has been the introduction of participatory research methods that have gone beyond partnering fellow researchers in the national programs to including the ultimate beneficiaries of the research (and development) process. Early participatory methods focused on the functional aspect of improving the research process by involving the intended end-users in various stages to ensure that the end-products (technologies, mainly crop varieties and management practices) were best suited to their needs and situations. This in turn was expected to result in faster and higher rates of adoption of the new technologies-and in many cases did. More recently, participatory methods have been used to empower the intended beneficiaries, enabling them to assess their own needs and address these either directly or by creating demands on research organizations. Underpinning the rise of participatory research has been a realization that the poor in general, and poor marginal farmers in particular, are far from being a homogeneous group. Thus, the concept of "one technology fits all" breaks down.

Draft contents of Development in Practice special issue on Operationalizing Participatory Research and Gender Analysis

Editorial

Deborah Eade, Editor, Development in Practice

Introduction - From theory to practice: Operationalizing participatory research and gender analysis

Nina Lilja and John Dixon

Articles

Agricultural development among poor farmers in Soroti district, Uganda: Impact assessment of agricultural technology, farmer empowerment and changes in opportunity structures

Esbern Friis-Hansen

No more adoption rates! Looking for empowerment in agricultural development programmes

Andrew Bartlett

A methodological appraisal of an evaluation study of Integrated Pest Management Farmer Field Schools in Central India

Francesca Mancini and Janice Jiggins

Intra-household impact of improved dual-purpose cowpea (IDPC) on women in northern Nigeria

Anita Tipilda, A. Alene, Victor Manyong and B.B. Sing

Out-scaling participatory research approaches in the dry areas: A learning process for making impact

Aden Aw-Hassan

Costs and benefits of integrating participatory elements into conventional research projects

Andreas Neef

Practical Notes

Viewpoint

Some causation pathways in the history of participatory research: Personal reflections

Stephen Biggs

Resources

Nina Lilja, John Dixon, Deborah Eade, Guy Manners, et al.