McDougall, C and Braun, A. 2003. Navigating Complexity, Diversity and Dynamism: Reflections on Research for Natural Resource Management. In: Pound B; Snapp S; Mcdougall C; Braun A (ed) Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods: Uniting Science and Participation. Earthscan/IDRC.

Horton, D., A. Alexaki, S. Bennet-Lartey, K. Noële Brice, D. Campilan, F. Carden, J. de Souza Silva, L. Thanh Duong, I. Khadar, A. Maestrey Boza, I, Kayes Muniruzzaman, J. Perez, M. Somarriba Chang, R. Vernooy, and J. Watts. 2003. Evaluating Capacity Development: Experiences from Research and Development Organizations around the World. ISNAR/IDRC/CTA. 188 pp.The international community is placing a growing emphasis on developing local capacity as the key to alleviating poverty and hunger in the developing world. Although ensuring the effectiveness of a capacity building effort requires appropriate use of evaluation, few organizations have implemented a system for monitoring or evaluating the changes taking place during organizational development. In January 2000, ISNAR began the ambitious Evaluating Capacity Development project, which aimed to improve capacity development efforts in research and development organizations through the use of evaluation.This book explains how the project used an action learning approach, bringing together people from various countries and different types of organizations. As they conducted six evaluation studies over the course of three years, project participants learned a great deal about capacity development and the process of evaluation. The authors use examples and lessons drawn from the evaluation studies as a basis for making more general conclusions regarding how capacity development efforts and evaluation can help organizations to achieve their missions.

Horton, D., A. Alexaki, S. Bennett-Lartey, K.N. Brice, D. Campilan, F. Carden, J. de Souza Silva, L.T. Duong, I. Khadar, A. Maestrey Boza, I, Kayes Muniruzzaman, J. Perez, M. Somarriba Chang, R. Vernooy, and J. Watts. 2003. Developing and Evaluating Capacity in Research and Development Organization. ISSN 1021-2310. 8p. ISNAR Briefing Paper.The international aid community is placing a growing emphasis on developing the capacity of local organizations as the key to alleviating poverty and hunger in the developing world. Ensuring the effectiveness of a capacity building effort requires the appropriate use of evaluation. Yet few organizations have systematically monitored or evaluated organizational development processes. In January 2000, ISNAR began an ambitious "Evaluating Capacity Development" project, which aims to improve capacity development efforts in research and development organizations through evaluation. This Briefing Paper explains how the project used an action-learning approach, bringing together people from various countries and different types of organizations. These people conducted six evaluation studies over the course of three years, learning a great deal about capacity development and evaluation in the process. One of the key findings was the importance of involving staff and stakeholders in the evaluation process. A participatory approach fosters commitment to building the future of an organization and can speed up decision making. As people "learn by doing", they strengthen their own capacity for evaluation and are motivated to pass their knowledge on to others. When conducted in a participatory and structured way, evaluation can make a substantial contribution to improving overall organizational performance.

Loevinsohn, M. (Ed.) 2002. Deepening the Basis of Rural Resource Management. Agricultural Systems 73(1) Special Issue.This Special Issue of Elsevier Science's Agricultural Systems includes eight of the papers presented at a workshop entitled “Deepening the Basis of Rural Resource Management,” held at ISNAR in The Hague in February 2000. The workshop brought together researchers working in diverse situations and with resources of different types -- natural, human, and economic -- who are developing innovative methods aimed at enabling farming communities to adjust their decision making in the face of rapid and significant change. The workshop sought to throw light on four main questions: 1. What are the features of methods that are effective in supporting farmers’ decision making where resource systems are undergoing such change? 2. How do the features of effective methods vary in different types of resource management situations? 3. What approaches are available to assess the impact of these methods? 4. What institutional factors have favored or hindered the development of effective decision support methods and their use over wider areas? The articles in this Special Issue include a critical review of the key issues emerging from the workshop, five diverse case studies and one of two theme presentations, on the state of the art in decision support in rural resource management. The other theme paper, on learning theory and its relevance for rural resource management, can be found in the workshop’s proceedings, as can the other nine case studies.

Matsaert, H., Z. Ahmed, N.Islam and F.Hussain. 2004. Actor oriented tools for analysis of innovation systems: Some guidelines from experience of analysing natural resource based innovation systems in Bangladesh. DRAFT.These guidelines are based on our experiences of using actor oriented tools to analyse chilli and livestock innovations systems and identify pro poor interventions in the char lands of Bangladesh, and in sharing and discussing these tools with other development partners. These tools are drawn from a wide range of sources. These include social anthropological and social network research techniques (see Long and Long 1992, Lewis 1998), stakeholder analysis (see Grimble and Wellard 1997), agricultural information knowledge systems (see Roling and Jiggins 1997) and process monitoring and documentation (see Mosse et al 1998). However, the tools are not commonly found in the analysis and planning of interventions in natural resource based innovation systems. Actor oriented tools complement other planning, monitoring and evaluation tools by focusing on the structure of social relationships between the key actors involved in a development scenario. We have found them useful for:- Analysis of a given institution (e.g organisation or enterprise, project or sector) in terms of strong and weak linkages between its actors; planning: visual presentation of critical links which should be supported or developed to meet the overall development goals e.g poverty reduction, inclusion of marginal groups and in monitoring and evaluation for visualising how interventions have impacted on critical linkages over time.

Stroud, A. 2003. Transforming Institutions to Achieve Innovation in Research and 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 around the globe are taking on complex, multi-faceted environmental and livelihood challenges. In doing so, they are searching for, testing and proposing a number of methods and approaches that depart from those normally used in traditional agricultural research. There are several driving forces behind this evolution: a growing dissatisfaction of governments and donors in the limited impact from the substantial investment that has been made in agricultural research; a heightened pressure to deliver and to show that farmers are using the technologies that have been ‘on the shelf’; and an awareness that technologies and other research products need supportive conditions, coupled with local innovation and incentives, to enhance adoption. There is also a growing realization by researchers and natural resource management (NRM) practitioners that technologies in themselves are not a panacea to address NRM issues, but need to go hand-in-hand with supportive social, institutional, economic and policy arrangements. It is the major hypothesis of this book that the participatory research and gender analysis (PRGA) approaches promoted by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) will help to address these sorts of concern.As researchers are being pressured to be more client, impact and results-oriented, research managers are also being pressured to change their organization’s orientation. The changes sought in research practice to more directly address local capacity needs and support sustainable, self-led change require supportive changes in institutional operations, arrangements and values. This path of change should lead to a more ‘learning type’ research system – one that internalizes the necessary changes in attitudes, structures and research practices so as to increase responsiveness to local community development needs, consideration of economic, institutional and social aspects, and the ability to positively influence policy. Public research organizations are, in fact, currently being challenged to embrace a twofold change: to move towards the use of PRGA approaches in research practice (see Box 5.1); and, to become ‘learning organizations’ so that they can continue to effectively innovate in the future (see Table 5.1). To date, the promotion of PRGA methods has been primarily addressed through projects and one-off training programmes. Very few of these projects or programmes are conceived to, or have strategies that, influence the core attitudes or working practices of the institutions, so that many of the experiences remain isolated, and as a result there is still a dearth of public institutional support for these new approaches. However, some researchers are promoting an integrated natural resource management research and development (INRM R&D) approach, which also embraces participatory approaches) (CGIAR INRM Task Force, 2001; CGIAR INRM, 2000; Stroud, 2000, 2001; AHI, 2000). There are now some examples of changes in attitudes,

Vincent, L. 2003. Participatory Research, Natural Resource Management and Rural Transformation: More Lessons from the Field. IN: B. Pound, S. Snapp, C. McDougall and A. Braun (Eds.O Managing natural resources for sustainable livelihoods: Uniting Science and Participation. Earthscan/IDRC.The word ‘lesson’ can refer to a teaching exercise that is structured to provide facts, skills and information, or to the meaning and awareness that is extracted from an experience. By reflecting on what we are doing and why, we can hope to limit our mistakes and create new ways of seeing, negotiating and resolving problems and opportunities. Lessons are important to the future of participatory research, as the recent critique of participatory development as a ‘tyranny’ shows (Cooke and Kothari, 2001). They call for a critical review of participatory development approaches and research methods – to study the controls on the processes behind ‘participation’ paradigms, and to demonstrate why it should be preserved as an approach. However, even ten years ago, Fals-Borda and Rahman (1991) were also warning of the take-up of participatory methods by agencies as a requirement and new form of control and social engineering, that would bring criticism of the role of participatory research methods. They emphasized the need for reflection to counter such outcomes, going on to stress instead how the importance of participatory research might increase in the future. This is through its demonstration of the complexities and stresses of local joint action in changing social and political conditions, at the same time as showing the changes achievable by people in such joint action – to continue to understand the commitment, understanding and support their ever-changing context might require. Although participatory research may also provide better ‘knowledge’ for more enlightened action by planners and policy-makers, or create more local civic action, the changes it achieves are part of a more profound self-awareness about the taking of action for change. This chapter aims to show that this critical review and personal reflection is taking place for participatory research, in both methodological and personal practice, to make it better placed to meet the challenges and critiques of research for transformation in natural resources management (NRM) (see also Hobart, 1994). It illustrates why and how people at the Chatham workshop have continued learning with participatory processes in research supporting development, despite the many stresses in their conduct. Chapter 6 has already reviewed certain key ‘good practices’ from the case studies, emphasizing ‘the field’ as a critical alternative to controlled, narrowly focused pilot trials and models of conventional scientific agricultural research. It showed how to build bridges between different research methodologies, both for better work with stakeholders and new learning possibilities for users of natural resources and for those researching NRM. This chapter brings together lessons from the wider range of practitioners at the Chatham workshop, and the wider field of development-related and action-oriented research they represented. These lessons reflect on why participatory research was being done, why collegiate research was important and difficult, how new frameworks help those involved to rethink the relations between action and knowledge, and what ‘ownership’ means in research terms, going well beyond a ‘restatement of methodologies’ (Biggs and Smith, 1998). It thus looks beyond the ‘learning’ discussion of Chapter 6, to look at the complex questions of action if research is to have real transforming power. Much of the recent effort and critique of participatory research has been about recognition and sharing of different knowledge to enable action to be planned, and giving local people a clearer voice However, there is a wider effort and critique within participatory research – to bring understanding and confrontation of social relations and dynamics into the design of action, beyond just those experienced in knowledge and its synthesis. This chapter tries to look at the impact of these new lessons on action, learning and knowledge as presented at the Chatham workshop.

Rocheleau, D. 2003. Participation in Context: What’s Past, What’s Present, and What’s Next. IN: B. Pound, S. Snapp, C. McDougall and A. Braun (Eds.O Managing natural resources for sustainable livelihoods: Uniting Science and Participation. Earthscan/IDRC.Since embracing participatory methods in the 1990s, scientists at international and national agricultural research centres and a variety of natural resource management (NRM) agencies have encountered both successes and failures. Innovations have been identified, as well as pitfalls, among the panoply of participatory methods available. The early days of debate for and against the participation of farmers, residents and local land users in research have given way to more grounded discussions about appropriate approaches and specific methods for particular circumstances. The examples presented in this volume illustrate how far the debate has matured. Rather than advocating one ‘brand’ of participatory research over another, researchers are innovating and experimenting to match the methods and the situation. They are also working to bring the insights of everyday practice in the field back into the design of new technologies and future research practices, protocols, structures and strategies. Researchers are not asking if participatory methods should be used, but rather when and how, and which type of method, in combination with which traditional research tools. The experience and insights of the participants at the Chatham workshop complement those of prior meetings and publications focused on the challenges and potentials of participatory research in practice, targeting technology generation for sustainable agriculture and NRM. This effort is part of a decades-long conversation between social scientists, biological scientists, farmers and forest dwellers on the possibilities for a collaborative science of agriculture, forestry and watersheds (Buck et al, 1998). It is also part of a wider movement to support people’s ability to envision, choose and create their own futures. The contributors to this volume have touched upon several recent developments in the field of participatory research that warrant further attention from individuals and organizations engaged in sustainable agriculture and NRM. Promising trends include: A focus on the ethics and power relations involved in participatory research approaches. A call for more accountability, standards of practice, codes of conduct and constructive critique among practitioners of participatory research. An exploration of research on the process of participation under uneven relations of power, including conflict resolution. A shift from participation in technology transfer to collaborative science. A creative proliferation of hybrid methods, mixing quantitative and qualitative analysis, and social and biological approaches. The experimental combination of geographic information systems (GIS), remote sensing, maps, models and participation. A serious effort to scale up, from farm to landscape level, participatory research and an exploration of regional and national applications (Landcare, adaptive co-management, and future-visioning). A willingness to place research questions and results in their social and historical context. Attempts to link specific practices and information to broader meaning, including interpretations of history and visions of the future, through scenarios and other integrative tools for negotiation and planning. For the purpose of this discussion I have grouped these points under four themes: (1) ethics and standards; (2) collaborative science; (3) context; (4) scales and vision.

Almekinders, C., 2003. Institutional changes for integrated manament of agricultural biodiversity. In: CIP-UPWARD, Conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity: a sourcebook. International Potato Center. Users' Perspectives with Agricultural Research and Development, Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines. p. 571-577.Recognition alone of the importance of agricultural biodiversity is not enough for its effective use and conservation. Farmers’ skills and capacity for sustainable agricultural production and access to resources must be developed. Agricultural research and development institutions must review their approaches and activities to support agricultural biodiversity management. Furthermore, linkages among institutions must be established and collaborative efforts must be sustained. Such undertaking also entails change within the organizational structure and culture of involved plant genetic resources (PGR) institutes. It asks for a different institutional culture in which there is space for participatory approaches and mutual learning.

Morin, S., F. Palis, K. McAllister, A. Papag, and M. Magsumbol. 2001. Farmer Learning and the International Research Centres: Lessons from IRRI. IIED Gatekeeper Series Issue 96.The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) is one of 16 centres in the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). IRRI has a huge mandate: to conduct research and training to improve the lives of rice producers and consumers, particularly those with low incomes. This broad mandate means that whilst IRRI generates knowledge and products such as improved pest management methods or new varieties and machinery, it is the role of extension workers from other organisations to promote and disseminate these to the farmers. This means that the dissemination of the research outputs is outside IRRI’s control. However, some IRRI researchers have recently developed ‘decision aids’ as a way for farmers to adopt and adapt technologies on a much wider scale than can be achieved through focused research projects alone. In this paper we highlight one of these innovative approaches, the development and promotion of the ‘no early spray’ (NES) technique in integrated pest management in Central Luzon, Philippines, and discuss its implications for farmer learning within the institutional culture of IRRI. The NES technique grew from research revealing that farmers’ belief that leaf folders caused yield-reducing damage in rice was incorrect. The research showed that in fact spraying for leaf folder is not necessary up to 40 days after transplanting. This simple message was tested by farmers in the Philippines, prompting them to conduct site specific research and to entirely cease spraying their fields for leaf folder when they found it to be true. These experiences suggest that decision aids work best when the decisions farmers are encouraged to take are not mandated or fixed, but prompted by the research process itself. The NES started out as a decision aid and, through farmer experimentation, turned into a learning tool. The success of NES indicates that decision aids offer ways to have impact and foster farmer learning at the farm level within the corporate culture of IRRI, and other similar International Agricultural Research Centres.