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.

Humphries, S. J. Gonzales, J. Jimenez and F. Sierra. 2000. Searching for sustainable land use practices in honduras: lessons from a programme of participatory research with hillside farmers. AgREN Network Paper 104. ISBN 0-85003-486-8Participatory Research in Central America (Investigación Participativa en Centroamerica, IPCA) is a project established by the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture, and coordinated through the University of Guelph, Canada, to support farmers in community-based agricultural research in the region. Local agricultural research committees, known by the Spanish acronym CIALs (comités de investigación agricola local), are found in eight Latin American countries at the present time. The IPCA project has been monitoring the development of CIALs in Honduras for the past five years. This paper presents the results of the evaluation to date and considers these in light of current debates around farmer participatory research.The experience of IPCA shows that teaching formal research methods to poor hillside farmers is viable and has served to link farmers to formal-sector researchers in innovative technology development programmes that directly meet users’ needs. Farmers have not only benefited through access to new technologies, but they have also learnt new ways to manage their environments and have been empowered in the process. However, evaluation of the project has shown that unless research has relatively short-term payoffs, farmers are apt to lose interest. Thus, complex research – in particular research involving natural resource management – needs to be framed within the context of social programmes that can provide more immediate benefit to farmers. Technology-led development must be supported by other development initiatives that aim to build social capital as widely as possible across the community.

Cárdenas, J.C. 2003. Rethinking Local Commons Dilemmas: Lessons from Experimental Economics in the Field. A shorter version of this paper was published in Isham, J., T. Kelly and S. Ramaswamy (Eds). Social Capital, Economic Development and the Environment, Edward Elgar Publishing. 2002. Northampton. Related papers in English and SpanishA rather recent development in economics is the formal study of how human groups device ways of governing the coordination of actions that produce externalities without the need of a Leviathan with perfect information and costless ways of enforcing rules, or without the need to individualize the property rights over the resource to allow the invisible hand to coordinate choices and results. Social Capital is one of the terms proposed by leading authors like Putnam (1993) to explain those mechanisms (e.g. norms or rules) that groups use to govern themselves. Self-Governance Institutions has been an alternative notion proposed by others like Ostrom (1990). Or a synonymous, Community Governance (Bowles, 1999) which also conveys the same notion. In general, economic analysis is now recognizing that individuals may put in place selfgoverned material and non-material incentives, which induce changes in behavior from self-oriented actions to group-oriented ones, which may produce social outcomes that are superior than those resulting from the purely selfish and short-sighted behavior of individuals. Usually these institutional arrangements achieve the result of correcting the failures of externalities without the intervention of an external agent or the rearrangement of property rights. In particular, the academic debate over the best prediction about the behavior of people that use a Common-Pool Resource (CPR), and the recommended policy approaches to the CPR dilemma have undergone a very interesting evolution throughout the last 3 decades of the past century, since the emergence of at least two seminal contributions; Garret Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons” (1968) and his reflections on the lack of individual property rights over resources under joint access; and Mancur Olson’s Logic of Collective Action (1965) on the difficulties for large and homogenous groups to achieve the voluntary provision of a public good. The empirical evidence on groups using common-pool resources, dating back for centuries, and still today remaining inconclusive, supports in many cases and rejects in many others the different hypotheses available today. Why in some cases groups succeed collectively in managing a resource for which they have joint access, while in similar situations other groups drive the resource closer to exhaustion and socially undesirable results? Why some individuals do act in these situations according to the theoretical prediction of the homo-economicus while others do not? Further, why do the same individuals do confirm the self-regarding maximizing behavior in competitive market institutions while showing other-regarding preferences under situations that generate outcomes that affect negatively others? The fact that these questions remain unsolved should challenge the way the problem of commons dilemmas is taught and studied in the economics profession, and in how it transpires to policy making debates. However, much of the teaching of this particular problem is done without much of the new theoretical, empirical and experimental contributions that have emerged since Hardin’s tragedy prediction. Today the problem of the commons is still presented to students as a free-rider problem where the individual rationality of those extracting the resource and the lack of private or state ownership of the resource would drive the common-pool to yields that are socially sub-optimal, and eventually to exhaustion. At best, some authors seem to acknowledge the difference in rights and rules between open access and common property. Nevertheless, the introductory level teaching ignores in most cases the possibility of groups devising endogenously institutions for self-management and control, or the possibility of human preferences that involve the welfare or actions of others inducing people to act more cooperative. Further, much of the policy textbook recipes still remain within the two orthodox approaches of assigning individual property rights to the resource (market approach), or transferring all property and control to the government for (state approach) a socially efficient management to emerge. However, a long and rich path has been covered by many social and natural scientists that explore the factors that drive human behavior when facing a CPR dilemma. This paper wants to respond to this concern in two ways. One, by providing in sections 2 and 3 elements from recent advances in the analysis of CPRs that could be easily introduced into the teaching and policy design regarding the social dilemmas arising from the use of commons. In particular, it will highlight the lack of importance given to community governance solutions and the focusing on the state and the market solutions, at least in the teaching and policy design arenas. The second contribution to the concerns mentioned is a set of results (Section 4) from field economic experiments conducted in actual CPR settings in rural locations; the results provide empirical evidence of some of the new developments in the literature, questioning much of the conventional views about these dilemmas and human behavior. Further, the methodological approach of applying experimental economics in the field and in the classroom might bring to the economics profession some lessons and challenges about participatory research and teaching techniques where the participants (villagers or students) become active part of the analysis and not mere subjects that produce data, as usually seen in the conventional literature, teaching and research.

Probst, K. 2002. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: A Promising Concept in Participatory Research? Lessons from two case studies in Honduras (Kommunikation und Beratung Bd. 49), 2002, XII + 220pp., 21 x 14,8 cm, paper, ISBN 3-8236-1386-3.To date in agricultural research, farmer participation in monitoring and evaluation has been limited to assessing technologies, and to consultations on adoption and impacts of innovations. However, participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) may have much more to offer as an approach for regular self-reflection and learning within projects, and it could make a significant contribution in the complex field of participatory research for natural resource management. These were the initial assumptions which formed the starting point for the study documented in this book. Based on action research undertaken in two case study projects in Honduras, this book assesses the potential benefits and limitations of using PM&E in participatory research, and elucidates key conditions for success in its implementation. It contributes to the actual debate on participatory research, the re-orientation of international agricultural research, and adds new aspects to the age-old topic of monitoring and evaluation. This dissertation was supported in part by a small grant from the PRGA.

Pound, B., S. Snapp, C. McDougall and A. Braun (Eds). 2003. Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods: Uniting Science and Participation. Earthscan/IDRC.Management of local resources has a greater chance of a sustainable outcome when there is partnership between local people and external agencies, and agendas relevant to their aspirations and circumstances. Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods analyses and extends this premise to show unequivocally that the process of research for improving natural resource management must incorporate participatory and user-focused approaches, leading to development based on the needs and knowledge of local resource users.Drawing on extensive and highly relevant case studies, this book presents innovative approaches for establishing and sustaining participation and collective decision-making, good practice for research, and challenges for future developments. It covers a wide range of natural resources – including forests and soils, and water and management units such as watersheds and common property areas and provides practical lessons from analysis and meta-analysis of cases from Asia, Africa and Latin America. It offers insights on how to make research participatory while maintaining rigour and high-quality biological science, different forms of participation, and ways to scale up and extend participatory approaches and successful initiatives.This book will be invaluable for those professionally involved in natural resource management for sustainable development, and an essential resource for teachers and students of both the biophysical and social science aspects of natural resource management.

Ashby, J.A., A.R. Braun, T. Gracia, M.P. Guerrero, L.A. Hernandez, C.A. Quiros, J.I. Roa. 2000. Investing in Farmers as Researchers. Experience with Local Agricultural Research committees (CIALs) in Latin America. CIAT Publication No. 318. International Center for Tropical Agriculture. Cali. Colombia. More information...  How CIALs have spread to Armenia

Braun, A.R. and H. Hocdé. 2000. Farmer Participatory Research in Latin America: Four Cases. pp. 32-53 IN: W.W.Stur, P.M. Horne, J.B.Hacker and P.C. Kerridge (Eds.) Working with Farmers: The Key to Adoption of Forage Technologies. ACIAR Publication PR095. 325 pp.Farmer Participatory Research (FPR) emerged in response to limitations of top-down R&D approaches. In Latin America, the principles and concepts of FPR are rooted in earlier participatory research experiences in fields such as education, sociology and health, usually played out within a community-development context. Contributions of Paulo Freire and Orlando Fals Borda are discussed briefly. To analyse these experiences, a typology based on decision-making locus in research, farmers’ and scientists’ roles, and the style of research conducted was used. Three approaches were distinguished: scientist-led, farmer-led and interactive research. Four cases are analysed: (1) Farmer-to-Farmer program, Nicaragua, founded in 1987 by the National Farmers and Ranchers Union (UNAG) based on volunteer farmer-promoters. The focus is on low external-input agriculture. (2) Diagnosis, Investigation and Participation (DIP), formed in 1994 by a multidisciplinary team with linkages to the Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science Faculty at the Autonomous University in Yucatan, Mexico. Their objective is to improve the quality of life of indigenous communities at the forest-agriculture interface through participatory innovation based on local resources. (3) Farmer Experimentation, initiated by PRIAG (Regional Program for Reinforcement of Agronomic Research on Basic Grains) in Central America, in 1991. The objective is to increase the self-reliance of small- and medium-scale producers in generating and disseminating technology. (4) Local agricultural research committees (CIALs), first launched by CIAT in Colombia in 1990, to strengthen rural communities’ capacity as decision-makers and innovators of agricultural solutions and to exert demand on the formal R&D system. The discussion focuses on similarities and differences in the processes, principles, roles and relationships underlying these experiences and key lessons learned.

Jabbar, M.A., M. A. Mohamed Saleem and H. Li-Pun. 2001. Evolution toward transdisciplinarity in technology and resource management research: the case of a project in Ethiopia. pp.167-172. In: Klein, J.T., W Grossssenbacher-Mansuy, R Haberli, A Bill, R W Scholz, M Welti (eds). 'Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem-Solving among Science, Technology and Society'. Birkhauser, Basel, Switzerland.  Among the top ten papers presented at the transdisciplinarity conference, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland, 2000.

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.

Carberry, P.S., Z. Hochman, R.L. McCown et al. 2002. The FARMSCAPE approach to decision support: farmers', advisers', researchers' monitoring, simulation, communication and performance evaluation. Agricultural Systems, 74:141-177.FARMSCAPE (Farmers', Advisers', Researchers', Monitoring, Simulation, Communication And Performance Evaluation) is a program of participatory research with the farming community of northeast Australia. It initially involved research to explore whether farmers and their advisers could gain benefit from tools such as soil characterisation and sampling, climate forecasts and, in particular, simulation modelling. Its current focus is facilitating the implementation of commercial delivery systems for these same tools in order to meet industry demand for their access. This paper presents the story of what was done over the past decade, it provides performance indicators of impact, it reflects on what was learnt over this period and it outlines where this research is likely to head in the future.Over the past 10 years, the FARMSCAPE team employed a Participatory Action Research approach to explore whether farmers could value simulation as a decision support tool for managing their farming system and if so, could it be delivered cost-effectively. Through farmer group engagement, on-farm trials, soil characterisation, monitoring of crops, soils and climate, and sessions to apply the APSIM systems simulator, FARMSCAPE represented a research program on decision support intervention. Initial scepticism by farmers and commercial consultants about the value of APSIM was addressed by testing its performance both against measured data from on-farm trials and against farmers' experiences with past commercial crops. Once this credibility check was passed, simulation sessions usually evolved into participants interactively inquiring of the model the consequence of alternative management options. These `What if' questions using APSIM were contextualised using local climate and soil data and the farmer's actual or proposed management rules.The active participation of farmers and their advisers, and working in the context of their own farming operations, were the key ingredients in the design, implementation and interpretation of the FARMSCAPE approach to decision support. The attraction of the APSIM systems simulator to farmers contemplating change was that it allowed them to explore their own system in a manner equivalent to learning from experience. To achieve this, APSIM had to be credible and flexible. While direct engagement of farmers initially enabled only a limited number of beneficiaries, this approach generated a commercial market for timely and high quality interactions based on soil monitoring and simulation amongst a significant sector of the farming community. Current efforts are therefore focused on the training, support and accreditation of commercial agronomists in the application of the FARMSCAPE approach and tools.

Hagmann, J. R., E. Chuma, K. Murwira, M. Connolly, and P. Ficarelli. 2002. Success factors in integrated natural resource management R&D: lessons from practice. Conservation Ecology 5(2): 29.This paper analyzes integrated natural resource management (INRM) lessons and success factors based on a practical case study over more than 10 years in Zimbabwe. The work was geared toward enhancing the adaptive management capacity of the stakeholders in their resource-use systems. One main result was the development and institutionalization of an approach for participatory and integrated NRM research and extension. The INRM approach described is grounded in a learning paradigm and a combination of theories: the constructivist perspective to development, systemic intervention, and learning process approaches. Participatory action research and experiential learning, in which researchers engage themselves as actors rather than neutral analysts in an R&D process to explore the livelihood system and develop appropriate solutions together with the resource users, has shown high potential. However, this should be guided by a clear strategy, impact orientation, and high-quality process facilitation at different levels. The case study revealed the importance of a “reflective practitioner” approach by all actors. More effective response to the challenges of increasing complexity in NRM requires a shift in thinking from the linearity of research–extension–farmer to alternative, multiple-actor institutional arrangements and innovation systems. To overcome the weak attribution of research outcomes to actual impact, it also suggests an alternative to conventional impact assessment in INRM R&D interventions.

Gündel, S., J. Hancock,. and S. Anderson. 2000. Scaling-up Strategies for Research in Natural Resources Management:A Comparative Review. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute.This review, commissioned by the Department for International Development (DFID) Natural Resources Systems Programme (NRSP) Hillsides Research, had as its objective the identification of appropriate strategies to accelerate uptake of innovations by target farmers, and to provide a framework to guide the formulation of scaling-up mechanisms for these innovations towards the aim of poverty reduction and improvement of livelihoods. The review methodology consisted of key literature consultation, an electronic discussion, a mid-term workshop with various stakeholders (e.g. researchers, NGOs) from Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe and a detailed case study analysis. It was decided to adopt the terms ‘horizontal’ and ‘vertical’ scaling-up as discussed and defined during the ‘Going to Scale Workshop’ (IIRR, 2000). Horizontal scaling-up is the geographical spread to more people and communities within the same sector or stakeholder group, commonly referred to as dissemination. Others refer to it as a scaling-out process across geographical boundaries. Vertical scaling-up is institutional in nature and involves expansion to other sectors/stakeholder groups, from grassroots organizations to policymakers, donors, development institutions and international investors. Furthermore the review is based on the following overarching definition of the objective of scaling-up: "more quality benefits to more people over a wider geographical area more quickly, more equitably and more lastingly" (IIRR, 2000). This definition stresses the importance of a people-centred vision to scaling-up. Furthermore it introduces the quality dimension to the definition without neglecting the quantitative dimension and it highlights the importance of time, equity and sustainability, dimensions which are of particular importance in the natural resources management (NRM) context.Few cases of successful scaling-up were encountered in relation to research, where creating impact has largely resided with the development of traditional uptake material at the end of projects, without taking into account the dimensions mentioned above. The majority of research cases took a narrow perspective to scaling-up and emphasized the existence of knowledge and technologies. They saw the challenge in improving the ways to "get these technologies out" to the target groups over a wider geographical area (horizontal scaling-up). Many of the development-oriented cases acknowledged the multidimensional nature and complexity of scaling-up, and stressed the importance of institutional processes and learning and the need to include a range of stakeholders from different sectors. However, these perceptions should not be seen in isolation and it is important to acknowledge that the transfer and adaptation of existing knowledge, as well as the creation of new knowledge, is important in NRM research. Agreement exists that scaling-up is about creating sustained poverty alleviation and increasing local capacity for innovation on larger scales. The review and case studies showed that there are no simple rules to achieving scaling-up. Attempts focus either on geographical and quantitative dimensions of scaling-up, or on institutional processes. These two are not mutually independent pathways, but synergistic and overlapping. A key finding is that research has to be integrated within wider pro-poor development processes.

deGrassi, A. and P. Rosset. Public research: which public is that? This article is based on the manuscript for Aaron deGrassi and Peter Rosset’s forthcoming book, A New Green Revolution for Africa? Myths and Realities of Agriculture, Technology and Development (Food First Books, 2004).Public research theoretically offers considerably more potential than the corporate, gene-focused approach to generate crops that meet the needs of farmers. But in practice, much public research, especially that undertaken by the world’s international research centres, has also been blinded by the gene. Aaron deGrassi and Peter Rosset assert that farmers need to be returned to centre-stage to re-assume their central role as custodians of the world’s agricultural resources and the directors of research and innovation.

Hagmann, J. E. Chuma, M. Connolly, and K. Murwira. 1997. Propelling change from the bottom-up: Institutional reform in Zimbabwe. IIED Gatekeeper Series. Issue 71.Participatory approaches to extension and innovation development are increasingly being seen as the way forward for agricultural development. Yet the challenges arising when trying to reform conventional government bureaucracies to make all the changes this approach requires are many. This paper describes how just such a reform process was undertaken in Zimbabwe. Scaling-up of this approach through institutionalisation into the agricultural extension department required a complex and multi-pronged strategy. The development of 'learning cases', and the exposure of officers to these case studies helped raise awareness and commitment for change. An informal network of initiatives pursuing participatory development as a lobby group strengthened the influence and brought participatory approaches into mainstream thinking. Once commitment for change had developed in the extension department, operationalisation of participatory extension approaches (PEA) became a major challenge. This reform required substantial changes in the organisational culture, roles, relationships and attitudes of individuals and groups. Changes of that nature are presently being addressed in an organisational development programme which includes a learning process to facilitate behavioural and attitude changes. The paper concludes that institutionalisation and operationalisation of participatory approaches is far more than training of staff in participatory methods. It is a highly complex intervention which requires high commitment of all actors, sound strategies, flexible methodologies, a conducive atmosphere for learning and a focus on human relationships, rather than on technical and formal issues. The lessons learned and steps taken will have resonance and value for any other organisations embarking on a similar journey.

Vernooy, R. and C. McDougall. 2003. Principles for Good Practice in Participatory Research: Reflecting on 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.In previous chapters our colleagues have described their experiences in exploring new conceptual and methodological grounds in participatory research (PR) in natural resource management (NRM), often as a complement to existing (‘traditional’) research from both the natural and social sciences. These explorations are producing new and exciting insights into promising alternatives for the management of natural resource systems, including crops, soils, water, trees and animals. These experiences are also resulting in the innovative adaptation of participatory research approaches. Venturing into this still relatively new research terrain of working for rural transformations, however, raises difficult questions about the research process. Researchers are faced with the challenge of critically assessing the kind(s) of participation and processes appropriate to the different stages of the research cycle. This expansion of the research domain and the new knowledge generated require that researchers must be able to identify what is ‘good practice’ in PR in NRM. While this challenge is starting to be met in some individual research projects, the emergent learning has been somewhat insular. Perhaps because the experience of doing participatory research in one context is not easily compared to another, shared learning between research institutions about ‘what is good practice in PR in NRM’ has been slow. We consider that comparisons and the integration of ideas are necessary elements of identifying good practice. The PRGA (Participatory Research and Gender Analysis) Program and the Natural Resources Institute (NRI) NRM workshop in Chatham, England, created an ideal opportunity to begin such a process of shared learning. In this chapter we draw on the case studies from the Chatham workshop and other literature to generate a number of principles of good practice in PR in NRM and, potentially, beyond this field.1 The intention is that these principles may be useful in the planning and assessment of the rigour of participatory research methodologies. As such, we aim to contribute to the growing interest in the development of appropriate methodologies for monitoring and evaluating participatory research. We argue that this on-going assessment of rigour, and the subsequent refinement of methodologies are integral parts of participatory research.

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.

Gupta, A.K., S. Chokkakula, R. Sinha, K. Patel, S. Muralikrishna and D. Koradia. 2001. Harnessing Wisdom for Managing Watersheds:Honey Bee Perspective on Innovations, Institutions and Policies for Marginal Environments. SRISTI.Household survival in marginal environments such as mountains, dry lands, and flood prone regions requires tremendous creativity. As was noted in Alice in Wonderland, you have to move very fast and work very hard even to remain where you are. The choice for large number of households is to sustain the livelihood support systems such as the catchments, biodiversity, other natural resources, etc., in a manner that they do not get trapped in downward spiral of erosion of resources, self-esteem, and of course, economic opportunities. The fact that despite various odds, including lack of policy support, so many communities and individuals manage not only to conserve resources but also augment them is something that this monograph is all about. The Honey Bee perspective builds upon what poor people are rich in i.e. their knowledge, creative potential, and institutional heritage. The discourse on participation often is restricted to the concept of either physical participation in terms of labour or social participation in implementation of externally designed policies and programmes. In this study, we draw attention to the scope of intellectual, moral, and institutional participation of local communities in reconceptualizing the watershed approach and implementation process. The greatest irony of watershed projects is that they founder after they are ‘handed over’ to the people by the project implementation authorities. If the watershed projects are designed, owned and implemented by the people, why should the question of handing over arise at all. Unless we, the external facilitators, learn to participate in peoples’ own plans, the possibility of building upon peoples’ knowledge is very remote. It is extremely opportune that international and national institutions are recognizing the need for incorporating indigenous knowledge and institutional heritage in the design and implementation of modern watershed projects. This blending of traditional knowledge and contemporary innovations developed by people without outsiders help will not take place unless we understand the policy and institutional context of technology generation and diffusion for rainfed, mountain, and dry regions. The macro policy and the framework for organizing incentives to ensure peoples’ participation in design and implementation of watershed are discussed in part one. In part two of the paper we critique the formal models of technology development and transfer. We argue that technology development process in highly ecologically heterogeneous environments cannot take place in the classical lab to land framework. The last part three deals with the framework for institution building in watersheds. In part four, we provide illustrations of more than fifty technological and institutional innovations from Himalayan region as well as western Indian dry regions.

Harrington, L. J. White, P. Grace, D. Hodson, A.D. Hartkamp, C. Vaughan and C. Meisner. 2002. Delivering the Goods: Scaling out Results of Natural Resource Management Research. Special Feature on Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM). Conservation Ecology 5(2).To help integrated natural resource management (INRM) research "deliver the goods" for many of the world's poor over a large area and in a timely manner, the authors suggest a problem-solving approach that facilitates the scaling out of relevant agricultural practices. They propose seven ways to foster scaling out: (1) develop more attractive practices and technologies through participatory research (2) balance supply-driven approaches with resource user demands, (3) use feedback to redefine the research agenda, (4) encourage support groups and networks for information sharing, (5) facilitate negotiation among stakeholders, (6) inform policy change and institutional development, and (7) make sensible use of information management tools, including models and geographic information systems (GIS). They also draw on experiences in Mesoamerica, South Asia, and southern Africa to describe useful information management tools, including site similarity analyses, the linking of simulation models with GIS, and the use of farmer and land type categories.

Guijt, I., Berdegue, J.A. and Loevinsohn, M. 2000. Deepening the Basis of Rural Resource Management. Proceedings of a workshop, February 16-18 2000, The Hague. ISNAR and RIMISP (Red Internacional de Metodologia de Investigaciones de Sistemas de Produccion,. 222pp. Also published in 2002 as a  Special Issue of Agricultural Systems: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.