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.

Defoer, T. and A. Budelman (Eds) 2000. Managing Soil Fertility in The Tropics: A Resource Guide for Participatory Learning and Action Research.. Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) Institute in collaboration with IIED, IER, FAO and CTA.

Gündel, S. 1998. Innovación, desarrollo y difusión participativas: Adopción y adaptación de leguminosas introducidas en el sistema agrícola tradicional de rozatumba y quema en Yucatán, México. Begleitprogramm Tropenökologie, GTZ, Eschborn, Germany.

CIAT (Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical) JIRCAS (Japanese Internacional Research Center for Agricultural Science); PRGA Program. 2002. Proc. Workshop on “How participatory research can complement conventional research approaches”, held in Tsukuba, Japan, 4-8 march 2002. (CD-Rom).

Horne, P. and W. Stür. 2003. Developing agricultural solutions with smallholder farmers -- how to get started with participatory approaches. ACIAR Monograph No. 99 120 pp.Contents1 - Before you start2- Why should I use participatory approaches3 - A participatory approach that has worked for us- Selecting villages- Agreeing on issues - Participatory Diagnosis- Searching for technology options with the focus-group- Testing and evaluating options - starting small- Reporting back to the village- Integrating promising solutions on farms- Reaching other farmers in the village- Sharing successful technologies with other villages4 - Communication and facilitation skills- Why is it important to be neutral?- What type of questions should I use?- How do I facilitate group meetings?- Using cards to analyse ideas5 - Tools- Ranking,scoring and weighting- Village walks- Village resource maps- Wealth analysis- Historical calendars- Seasonal calendars- Problem-cause diagrams- Preference analysis6 - Just do it!7 - Where can I get more information

Kanyama-Phiri, G.,S. Snapp, B. Kamanga and K. Wellard. 2000. Towards integrated soil fertility management in Malawi: incorporating participatory approaches in agricultural research. IIED Series on Managing Africa's Soils. No. 11.In order to effectively develop integrated soil fertility management strategies and disseminate the resulting technologies, we need new approaches that will enable farmers and researchers to build working partnerships. Participatory research is one option, but it is often considered too time-consuming and criticised for not generating quantitative data. Researchers in Malawi have taken up the challenge to overcome these constraints, and have developed both a short-term and a longer-term approach to participatory research. This paper describes the various steps followed in two case studies that followed each approach. The short-term approach tested and disseminated ‘best bet’ technologies in target villages in four different agro-ecological zones. Over three years researchers developed a ‘mother & baby’ satellite trial that was designed to meet both their own and farmers’ requirements. They used innovative trial designs and consultative methods, and in many sites obtained promising results from on-farm trials with intensified cropping systems incorporating legumes. Biological performance was measured against the farmers’ assessments of the new technologies, and farmers also stressed the importance of testing a range of options, such as a wide range of legumes grown with small amounts of mineral fertiliser. The longer-term programme was implemented over a period of more than five years. This involved a participatory, community-oriented approach to work in a watershed located in a densely populated area of southern Malawi. The research addressed the problem of eroded slopes used by farmers with limited access to resources. It was difficult to make progress on these degraded sites: maize generally performed very poorly on the steep slopes, and without nitrogen fertiliser the legume-based technologies were not very productive. In flatter areas and valleys the Sesbania sesban inter-crop system produced the highest yields, but the drawback of this system was that it required the highest investment in terms of labour. We believe that it is important for researchers and farm advisors to have a long-term commitment to working with farm communities, particularly for problematic areas such as the eroded, degraded sites and small land holdings typified by the Songani watershed in Southern Malawi. Our findings indicate that there is considerable scope for using participatory research methods to develop more appropriate technologies. These two case studies show how farmers’ input can be incorporated regularly into the early stages of research. Policy makers may need to be drawn into this work as well, as there appear to be no easy answers to the problems posed by degraded sites. Dissemination of ‘best bet’ technologies for other, better-endowed sites may also benefit from policy interventions.

Gündel, S. 1998. Participatory Innovation Development and Diffusion: Adoption and adaption of introduced legumes in the traditional slash-and-burn peasant farming system in Yucatan, Mexico. Begleitprogramm Tropenökologie, GTZ, Eschborn, Germany.

Gachengo, C., C.A. Palm, E. Adams, K.E. Giller, R.J. Delve, and G. Cadisch. 1998. Organic Resource Database. TSBF 1998 Annual Report. TSBF, Nairobi.The purpose of the Organic Resource Database (ORD) is to:- collate existing data on plant quality characteristics such as chemical and physical attributes, decomposition behavior in soils and animal feed value- allow users to compare their data with comparable literature data- provide input data for soil decomposition and nutrient cycling models- provide guidelines for a minimal dataset to characterize plant quality- provide decision tools to identify best use options for these organic materials as soil amendments- identify relationships between plant quality parameters and environmental conditions- allow the user to add new dataThe main species covered are tropical legumes. Plant materials are separated into the different plant components, (e.g. leaves, stems, whole shoots, roots) accounting for much of the variation found among data for the same species. To provide a fair basis of comparison between different datasets methods for some critical quality parameters, like polyphenols, are given.The database is aimed at researchers, extensionists, NGOs and ultimately farmers.

Hern√°ndez, L.A. 1999. Logistic Regression for Analysis of Preference. An application for Excel. v. 7. CD-Rom.CIAT, Cali, Colombia. ISBN:958-694-027-6"Preference Ranking" is a tool that explains decisions of acceptance or rejection by identifying the criteria used to select one technology option over another. The preference ranking analysis is based on logistic regression. It facilitates data management and makes it possible to simulate the criteria for acceptance of a technology. The software consists of a matrix in Excel 7.0 for Windows. The user only needs to input field data into an existing file containing the frequency of each technology and its ranking order. When the user has finished this process, the software conducts the analysis automatically. For each technology option, the application produces a ranking order, frequency, probability, and cumulative probability. A graph is generated for each technology option which shows the cumulative probability versus ranking order, and statistical differences (slope m, standard deviation SE, and coefficient of correlation r2). A higher slope with a positive intercept indicates a greater degree of acceptance within the highest ranked options. A higher slope but with a negative intercept indicates rejection, and probability of acceptance for the lowest ranking options. Comparison of acceptance levels across technologies and statistics are also shown. Manual with diskette. The manual contains 22 p. 28 x 21.5 cm. Also available in Spanish.

van de Fliert, E. and A.R. Braun. 1998. Farmer Field School for Integrated Crop Management of Sweetpotato: Field Guides and Technical Manual. CIP/UPWARD.Sweetpotato cultivation can be highly profitable for farmers. When market prices are high, farmers' profits double or triple compared to those from growing rice. The relatively high yield and low production costs contribute to this profitability, but unfortunately, in many places in the world sweetpotato prices fluctuate widely. The marketing system may also limit farmers' profits, particularly when middlemen are involved who make contracts with farmers to buy the standing crop. Because farmers rarely know how to estimate the yield of the unharvested crop and are not fully aware of the prevailing prices at wider distribution markets, they are at a disadvantage in price negotiations with the trader and usually accept the offer with little discussion. Most farmers believe that profit is determined more by their luck in making a sale agreement with the trader than by the yield of the crop. Highly fluctuating prices and a weak bargaining position influences farmers’ attitudes towards sweetpotato cultivation because it provides little incentive to produce high yields. Nevertheless, comparison of yields and profits obtained by farmers in Indonesia showed a tendency for farmers who produced higher yields to earn higher profits. This suggests that farmers can increase profits by increasing their yields through better crop management, and by learning to estimate what the yield is likely to be before entering into negotiations with a trader. How can farmers’ knowledge and skills be developed so that they can improve their crop management and business capacities? In the activities described in this guidebook, farmers analyze the relative importance of the sweetpotato enterprise and its constraints. Integrated Crop Management is presented as an alternative to tackle the constraints, and the Farner Field School as a way to learn about ICM.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Farvar, M. T., Nguinguiri, J. C. & Ndangang, V. A.: Co-management of Natural Resources: Organising, Negotiating and Learning-by-Doing. GTZ and IUCN, Kasparek Verlag, Heidelberg (Germany), 2000.

Ashby, J, J. Beltran, T. Gracia, M. Guerrero, C. Quiros, J. Roa, C. Trujillo and F. Escobar. 1993. Cartillas para Comites de Investigacion Agricola Local 1-13/. Primers for Local Agricultural Research Committees 1-13 (translated by A. Braun). CIAT, Cali, Colombia.