Lylian Rodríguez1 and John Kornerup Bang2
Abstract
Capacity building for sustainable rural development requires changes to be made in the education of the new generations of technicians and professionals. Farmers should be taken into account for the development of the curriculum as the major need is to find solutions to their problems. They should participate actively in the process as participation has also to be seen from the practical point of view.
There is a long history of overseas training in which the more developed countries offer superior facilities in the form of well-stocked libraries, functioning and well-stocked laboratories and access to experienced scientists. However, the type of training provided is usually inappropriate to the student returning to her or his country. Fortunately, the possibilities for overcoming the lack of facilities in developing countries are growing, not the least due to modern communication technology.
The inappropriateness of the traditional education is in regard to two main areas: the capacity of the agricultural research system to generate relevant technology and thereby provide the needed income for the farmers and the capacity to promote an environmentally sustainable agriculture. In livestock production the research strategy to reach the poorest should be based on small animals, at small (female) farmer level and on the resources that can be produced on farm or in its immediate surroundings.
An evaluation of an innovative educational initiative for master level students in Vietnam was carried out based on these key variables: the Farmer-First-and Last model (FFL) with emphasis on “on-farm research”, focus on Resource Poor Farmers (RPF), flexibility, and origin of research issues, the technology's relevance for RPF; and the participation of the farmers in the research process.
It is concluded that commitment and talent for the task at hand (participatory research with farmers) are some of the most important traits called for in the researcher in order to have a true participation of students and farmers in the development process. The University of Tropical Agriculture Foundation (UTA) is fundamentally a concern to meet these challenges and to create a more relevant approach to agricultural education. It is possible this concern can better be expressed with students employed in NGOs than traditional government research institutions and universities. However, commitment and skills are not static entities and an evaluation of the performance of UTA students pointed at the importance of a real interactive on-farm research process to be important in order to deploy that process' potential of creating commitment and to build capacities in researchers and farmers alike.
Key words: Capacity building, sustainability, higher education, participation, livestock, research
Introduction
Capacity building for sustainable rural development requires changes to be made in the education of the new generations of technicians and professionals. Farmers should be taken into account for the development of the curriculum and participate actively in the process as the major need is to find solutions to their practical problems.
Chambers (1993) has argued for the need for a new professionalism. According to Rogers (1996) “Poor training of agricultural extension staff has been identified as part of the problem of the relative ineffectiveness of much extension in the field.” This applies not only to extension staff, but to agricultural professionals in general. Unfortunately, the training of human resources in agriculture is often not a high priority in the countries' development plans. As a result, curricula and teaching programs are not particularly relevant to the production needs and employment demands of the agricultural sector.
Taylor (1999) mentioned a recent study of agricultural education and training in sub-Saharan Africa (Wallace et al 1996) which indicated that many agricultural education curricula have shortcomings. The study found that many curricula are unresponsive to socio-economic and technological changes in the rural sector and are inappropriate for the local context. Furthermore, many curricula do not involve any form of systematic training needs analysis and often adopt delivery modes and mechanisms that fail to suit the reality of the situation of people working in rural areas. It is likely that this situation extends beyond the sub-Saharan Africa region to many countries throughout the world.
Examples from all over the world can be mentioned and the general problems are:
Pretty (1995) in his book “Regenerating Agriculture”, proposed that governments should provide more support for agriculture through the educational establishment. This could help in the development of human resource capital, and could play a critical role in the training of agricultural professionals for both the government and non-government sectors. But universities and their agricultural faculties are often the most conservative of agricultural organizations. They have generally been slow to adopt innovative ideas, methods and staff development activities. They have remained in the strait-jacket of positivism and modernization, arising partly out of the functional and practical demarcation of research and teaching and the focus on “teaching” rather than learning (Pearson and Ison 1990; Pretty and Chambers 1993; Scoones and Thompson 1994).
The shortcomings of the traditional research strategy
The inappropriate nature of the traditional education relates to the following main points:
The capacity of the agricultural research system to generate relevant technology and thereby provide the needed income for the farmers; and
The capacity to promote an environmentally sustainable agriculture.
Regarding the generation of income it should be recognized that failure of the traditional educational system relates to one specific area of agricultural development. Chambers (1993) identifies three kinds of agriculture: industrial, green revolution and a third risk-prone agriculture of the resource-poor farmers (RPF) mainly of the so called third world. The lack of success in generating relevant technologies and thereby increased incomes is related to the third kind of agriculture in particular.
Rural development includes stakeholders such as:
Usually each of these institutions work separately and the result is not always favorable when poor farmers are the target group. There is also a waste of resources (human, natural and material - money) due to duplication of effort. There should be a strategy to follow which makes it possible for all to work together and thus to be more efficient.
Research could play a very important role in rural development, but research in animal production - with which we are most familiar - has been done mainly on station and mainly on large animals, largely without taking into account how the results of the research can be integrated with the farming system and also without paying attention to the reality of poor farmers. This type of research strategy usually leads to the development of highly intensive production systems requiring imported (from off the farm) inputs and usually with a divorce between the land and the livestock. For the livestock component this means exotic breeds, cereal grains and protein-rich meals; and for the crops high-yield varieties with poor resistance to disease and high use of agrochemicals (fertilizers and pesticides). In this research strategy there is little attention to “recycling”; instead there is pollution and waste of resources.
Research to reach the poorest should be based on the small animals at the poor (female) farmer's level of production and on the resources that can be produced on the farm or its immediate surroundings, which is especially important for women farmers. Todd (1998) on the basis of empirical observations of investment patterns of poor households in which the wife had experienced access to Grameen microcredit for up to ten years found that in terms of livestock, there is an ideal progression, that the women and their families aspire to. It starts small with ducks and chickens; then a few goats are kept for milk or fattening; next a milch cow; then an ox (or buffalo) for ploughing in cooperation with another one-ox (or buffalo) family; then two oxen.
Unfortunately, the “high-technology” and “large animal” strategy continues to be the norm in many developing counties as can be seen from a review of the papers presented in the National Seminar on Animal Sciences and Development to year 2000 (November 26 – 28 1996) sponsored by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of Vietnam (MARD) and the Vietnam Union of Science and Technology Associations (VUSTA). The recommendations in one of the key papers presented in this seminar were:
“The food per capita per year was 368.8 kg in 1995. In Vietnam it is sufficient to have 300 kg per capita per year and the exceeding part can be used as feed for animal production ….
…. From 1996 to 2000, the animal production is oriented to increase the productivity and then product quality in order to meet the goal per capita of 18 kg of dressed meat, 62–70 eggs and 1.1 kg of milk”.
The reports that were presented related to:
Selection, pure breeding and establishment of nuclear stocks of well adapted breeds of pigs with high performance
Determination of suitable crossing formulae among exotic pigs, between exotic and local pigs to give high lean meat percentages in the crosses.
Increasing the lactation milk yield of dairy crossbreed cows from 2600–2800 to 3200–3500 liters.
Appropriate feeding level for HV 85 broiler chicken and CV super M duck having slaughter weight of 2.1–2.2 and 2.6–2.8 kg at 56 days of age.
All of these results met the requirements of development of meat type pigs, commercial poultry and dairy industries (table 1).
Table 1. Analysis of the papers presented at the National Seminar on Animal Sciences and Development to year 2000 (November 26–28, 1996)*
| Item | General papers | Large ruminants | Goats | Pigs | Poultry | Ducks | TOTAL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total papers Presented | 13 | 10 | 3 | 8 | 14 | 6 | 54 |
| On station | 9 | 8 | 2 | 5 | 9 | 4 | 37 |
| On farm | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 10 |
| High tech oriented | 6 | 9 | 5 | 8 | 2 | 30 | |
| Oriented to resource-poor farmers** | 5 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 21 |
| Descriptive | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | ||
| Information technology | 1 | 1 |
* In general the quality of the papers was low and no references were used in any of them
** Papers in which there was an attempt to have the small scale farmers as the target group
When the issue is the generation of an ecologically sustainable agriculture the failure is general. The traditional educational system is focused on high outputs in response to high inputs, and not on the sustainable use of resources (Chambers 1993). Concerning the challenge of meeting the needs of resource poor farmers (RPF), another feature is central according to Chambers. RPF agriculture is characterized by very complex socio-cultural and economic structures and it is there-fore pertinent that the farmers are involved actively both in the definition of the research agenda and in its execution. The first issue will be addressed by ensuring close contact between researcher and farmer so that the ideas and experiences of both are shared and interactions are encouraged. Fulfilment of the second part requires that farmers and the researcher are able to modify the research during the process and are able to build up their capacity to interact. In brief the process should be iterative.
New approaches to learning for new professionals
There is a long history of overseas training in which the more developed countries offer superior facilities in the form of well-stocked libraries, functioning and well-equipped laboratories and access to experienced scientists. However, the type of training provided is usually inappropriate to the student returning to her or his country (Preston 1995) and the frustrations this causes in returning students is a feature that continues to be one of the important causes for the “brain-drain”. Fortunately, the lack of facilities in developing tropical countries is becoming less of a constraint for the following reasons:
Internet services (the electronic highway) are rapidly becoming available in developing countries. According to Pruett and Deane (1998). Internet growth is accelerating faster in developing countries than anywhere else.
Electronic communication (Rodriguez 1998) helps to overcome the limitation of access to: (i) scientists (most of whom can be accessed by e-mail); and (ii) literature (electronically transmitted scientific journals are increasingly available and the use of “scanners” facilitates conversion of printed text into its digital equivalent). Thus face-to-face access to skilled advisers and appropriate literature is no longer a technical limitation. But planners and decision makers can do more to move us faster into the new communication age.
The availability of well-equipped laboratories could also be less of a constraint if it was realized that the most appropriate and “immediate” research required in most tropical developing countries is that done on farms with the dynamic participation of farmers (Participative Farming Systems Research). Biological measurements are more logical in this conditions and a field laboratory (http://www.hcm.fpt.vn/inet/~ecofarm) can easily be set up for students to analyse their own samples.
Experiences in Vietnam
A recent project in Vietnam (begun in 1992), funded by the Swedish International Development Authority (SIDA), and subsequently by the Swedish Agency for Research Collaboration with Developing Countries (SAREC), set the basis for a new approach. Post graduate students were taken from Cambodia, Vietnam, Tanzania, Kenya and Colombia. They were given introductory courses in Sweden (the first course) and at the University of Agriculture, in Ho Chi Minh city, in Vietnam (second course) on the ecological and socioeconomic principles of sustainable live-stock-based agriculture, and carried out their farm-based research in one of the participating developing countries. A fundamental feature of the courses was that participants were given a notebook computer at the start which facilitated their capacity to collect, manage and analyse information and experimental data. The classroom teaching in Vietnam was combined with hands-on exposure to, and participation in the varied smallholder farming systems encountered in the country.
The philosophy behind and experiences leading to the SAREC and UTA courses
Dolberg (1991) pointed out that project design and execution in the area of rural development, and in agriculture generally, classically follow the “blueprint” (topdown) approach. The alternative, non-conventional way is by “learning” (from below or “bottom-up”). An example is given of the results obtained in Bangladesh in the decade from late '70s to late '80s when these two approaches were taken sequentially in a freshwater fish culture component of an integrated rural development project. The “learning” approach involved the use of university students, who used the data for their MSc. theses, to study and research a range of topics related to village fish culture on which it was considered there was insufficient local knowledge. The work was done in villages with the collaboration of the local farmers, landless laborers and extension staff of the Department of Fisheries and the Project's expatriate advisory team. The information that was gained was incorporated into guide books and handouts for use in training and face-to-face discussions with small groups of fish farmers. The “learning” approach proved to be very successful, measured in terms of the expansion of fish farming in the project area. More than 20 students did their research for their MSc thesis in this way and, in addition, several recently graduated, young Bangladesh professionals were involved in on-farm research.
Dolberg (1991) argued that development work in the circumstances of the third type of agriculture (Chambers Ghildyal 1985) cannot be considered only as the simple need for transfer of technology on the assumption that knowledge already exists and only training of and extension to farmers are required. Under these conditions more often, the reverse is the case, and it is the build up of knowledge through farmer-participatory research which leads to more rapid project implementation and greater impact. There is another example from a project in dairy development in the Bolivian “Altiplano” where 36 students received scholarships from the project to conduct their thesis research on topics identified to be important for sound implementation of the project's training and extension activities (Rojas 1995). Considerable increases in milk production resulted.
An applied research program in Colombia instigated in 1986 by a consortium of Farmer Associations, with the aim of developing extension messages for farmers concerning better use of local resources in livestock-based farming systems, provided further justification for the “bottoms up” approach to research and learning. The innovative part was that the research and extension activities served also as a learning opportunity for recently graduated professionals in agriculture. Key features of the program were:
Development of farming systems that made maximum use of locally available resources and which were environmentally friendly.
Research was done on farms with full participation by the farmers in the design and execution of the research
There was no formal course work but strong emphasis on “learning by doing”
Maximum use was made of lap-top computers for processing and dissemination of data and for communication
There were close linkages with peer scientists with proven track records in development of tropical farming systems, farmer-researcher communication and information technology.
Over a period of 8 years some 80 young agricultural professionals benefitted from this programme and interventions were developed with high levels of adoption by the participating farmers.
Transferring the experiences to other countries
In 1992 SIDA approved a project to transfer the above experiences to ecologically fragile zones in selected countries in Asia (Vietnam and Cambodia) and Africa (Tanzania, Kenya and Ethiopia). A number of compromises were made so as to accommodate the training within the norms of a formal MSc course offered by the executing agency (the Swedish Agricultural University (SLU), Uppsala). In the first course (1992–94) students from Vietnam (4), Tanzania (3), Kenya (1), Cambodia (1) and Colombia (4) did:
Formal course work in SLU, Uppsala for the first 9 months
Research for 12 months in one of the participating countries (Vietnam, Tanzania and Colombia)
Thesis preparation in SLU, Sweden for the final 4 months
All students were given laptop computers. The research was on-station with the exception of one student who did his project in a village in Colombia.
In the second course (1994–96) with students from Vietnam, Cambodia, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Nicaragua and Colombia, greater orientation towards farmers and the target countries was achieved by moving the introductory course work to Vietnam (University of Agriculture and Forestry, Ho Chi Minh City) and putting emphasis on closer farmer involvement in the research. A highly successful innovation was when the students spent 2 weeks of their course work in Vietnam participating in a “learning by doing” experience through executing mini-projects, and using their computers to analyse the results, in a pilot ecological farm setting which was also the home in Vietnam of Dr Preston, the principal architect of the project. Examples of that batch's on-farm work can be found in Dolberg and Petersen (eds) (1997).
The obvious success of the mini-projects and a desire on the part of several of the core resource persons to accelerate the transition to a more farm-oriented programme, fully based in Vietnam and with greater emphasis on use of the rapidly developing information technology, gave rise to the initiative to form the University of Tropical Agriculture Foundation (UTA). Funding was secured from the Danish Embassy in Hanoi for a pilot project to test these more radical ideas and the first course managed by UTA began in November 1996.
The mission of UTA
The UTA is fundamentally a concern to create a more relevant approach to agricultural education. The Foundation was established in order to supply appropriate education for tropical conditions. Fundamental to its teaching methods is the idea that students can make a better contribution to development by being provided with guidance and information in their own environments, rather than receiving education in industrialized countries where conditions are vastly different. Simply put, it is believed that the context in which education is set can influence its content although much of the inappropriate training taking place in many universities in developing countries is, admittedly, proof of the opposite. The founders of UTA are international scientists all with established experiences and achievements in tropical countries.
The UTA MSc course curriculum
The overall aim is to develop the students' skills to:
acquire knowledge
identify and understand farmers' researchable problems and how to overcome them
conduct on-farm research with the active participation of the farmers with the aim to do more relevant research and to create commitment among the students and farmers
demonstrate, by “hands on” methodology, the technologies that are likely to lead to more sustainable management of the natural renewable resources
plan, execute, analyse and disseminate the results of a research project
The means include:
Full details are given in Annex 1.
Participatory research with farmers: the UTA experience
The strategy of the UTA Foundation is to increase the involvement of farmers in the research process. However, this is not an easy task as shown by the results of a recent evaluation (Bang 1999) of 17 students from the three MSc courses (the first two SIDA-SAREC courses and the first UTA course). A major constraint proved to be the conflict between the students' deeply rooted, but narrow, concepts of “good data” and the limits these concepts set for the degree to which the students would allow participation by the poorest farmers.
The evaluation focused on three main aspects reflecting an approach that seeks to combine an ecological perspective, focus on resource poor farmers (RPF) and the participation of these farmers in the process of research and extension.
The key variables that were considered were:
The Farmer-First-and Last model (FFL) (with emphasis on “on-farm research”, focus on RPF, flexibility, and origin of research issues.
The technology's relevance for RPF. The proposals of Bunch (1985) were followed in that a technology was evaluated on the base of the following characteristics: that it uses resources that RPF already have, it is low risk, culturally acceptable, labor rather than capital intensive, simple to understand, set up and manage, it has a market available for RPF with sufficient depth and it is safe for an area's ecology.
The participation of the farmers in the research project.
The aspect of participation was given particular attention, as it is emphasised that participation is an ambiguous concept with two fundamental meanings. These are both to be seen as extreme and opposite ends of a continuum, as well as representatives of contrasting logics. This situation is emerging from the particular task of including the view of the insider (in this case the farmer) in a direct way, and not only the outsider's view. Two central concepts within the field of anthropology and social science in general are dealing with the fundamental problem that arises from the fact that the world does not look the same from different perspectives. Anthro-pological research potentially views its object in a way totally different to the way the object views itself. It highlights the risk of basing research on categories completely irrelevant to the context as perceived by the insider (the object of the research, in the present case the farmer).
These two concepts are etic and emic, where the first refers to the perspective of the researcher (the outsider), the second refers to the perspective of the researched (the insider) (Wintrop 1991). Against this background one can logically take three different positions concerning the question of a “right perspective”: the etic, the emic, or, in a certain combination, both of them. The concepts can help our understanding of the various meanings of participation although we limit ourselves to two.
Instrumental participation is when participation is viewed as a way of achieving certain specific targets, the local people participate in the outsiders' project.
Here the insider is used as a source of information in order that the project of the outsider becomes more relevant. Instrumental participation has the capacity to conduct analysis and generate technology based on macro-analytical insights and the experiences of outsiders including, in addition, timely information from the insiders directly involved in a concrete piece of research work. The limitation of instrumental participation consists of the fact that it doesn't include the emic perspective in any direct sense, i.e. any relevance for an insider is always seen and calculated from the etic perspective.
Transformational participation is when participation is viewed as an objective in and of itself and as a means of achieving some higher objective such as self-help and/or sustainability.
Transformational participation addresses the issue of including the emic perspective in a pure sense as it has the insider's participation in all aspects of the pro??cess as its main feature, enabling both a process of capacity building among the farmers and the generation of relevant knowledge and commitment. These aspects are prerequisites for the sustainability of the technology and its lateral spread. The limitation of transformational participation lies in a tendency to overemphasise the emic perspective, in practice corresponding to a “the-farmer-is-always-right” attitude. This is not appropriate both because the views of the farmer tend to be narrow and opportunistic as she or he has to respond to market or other opportunities, and furthermore, it tends to exclude macro-analytic and other experimental insights of the outsider.
Thus the participatory aspect can be said to address two fundamental and partly conflicting objectives; to get the technology to fit the farmers, and to get the farmers to fit the technology (building up capacities, creation of commitment). Furthermore it should ensure that the technology still fits “the surrounding world” (e.g. the market, the environment). This points at the very dynamic character of research and extension work. It emphasises that the process not only has a technical function of generating information and ideas for the technology; but it has also an “educational” function of building up capacities among farmers and, last but not least, a “psychological” function of changing perspectives and creating commitment to the outcome of the research process. This is important to note in order to understand that the research process has its own justification, and demands attention even when the “right” technology (right in terms of fitting socio-economic conditions) has been identified and developed. It is a balance between excellence and the need for people to make their own mistakes in order to grow in understanding and commitment (Bunch 1985).
Within anthropology, social and political science in general, insisting strongly on the etic perspective with reference to scientific rigour and a fundamental endeavour to generalise, can be seen as an acceptable point of view provided the objective of the research is generation of knowledge, and insofar as the perspective is to be applied within a society of researchers. Within the field of development research the situation is, at least on this aspect, very different, as the ultimate aim of the research is generation of knowledge or technology applicable by the representatives (the farmers) of the emic perspective. Thus the emic perspective becomes of crucial importance. The fundamental question at stake is actually whether relevant technology can be generated exclusively on the basis of an etic perspective, and the answer implied in this way of thinking is in a fundamental sense “no”.
The assessment of the participatory performance, was an attempt not only to verify its presence, but, more precisely, to describe its character. This was approached both on the basis of the FFL literature and the discussion above concerning the concept of participation. In the FFL literature the emphasis is on getting the farmers to participate in all phases of the research process (Chambers and Ghildyal 1985). But as pointed out above, there is more than one form of participation, so while there is a point in saying that there has to be participation in all phases of a research process for it to be truly participatory, the specific character of this participation in the various phases still remains to be seen.
Thus we have two dimensions:
The evaluation of the students' work was made according to three types of participation: i.e., none, instrumental or interactive, which were allocated scores of: 0 (none), ½ (instrumental) or 1 (interactive), respectively. This scoring has been applied to the typical main phases of the research process, i.e., diagnosis, identification of issues, design, research, and evaluation.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted in September and October 1998 with 17 present and former students: three from the 1992–1994 SIDA course, 6 from the 1994–1996 SAREC course, and 8 from the 1996–1998 UTA course. For further elaborations of the methodologies of the study see Bang (1999).
Analysis
Overall it was found that 65% of the students performed within a framework of a relevant research topic and research process that represents a combination of an ecological and RPF perspectives and the participation of the farmers as presented in the UTA curriculum. More specifically the following was identified.
Performance of on-farm research
The situation with regard to the students' experiences with on-farm research before and during the courses are summarised in table 2. It can be seen that 82% (14/17) of the students conducted on-farm research for their thesis, and for the majority (71%) it was their first on-farm experience, even though most of those who participated in the courses had previously had many years of work and training as researchers. It is important to acknowledge that the on-farm work is next to compulsory in these courses, which makes the fact that 18% (3 students) did not do onfarm research interesting. How could they avoid it?
Table 2. The students' experiences with on-farm research
| Experience on-farm | No | Yes | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | % | Number | % | Number | % | |
| Prior to the course | 12 | 71 | 5 | 29 | 17 | 100 |
| During the course | 3 | 18 | 14 | 82 | 17 | 100 |
The aspect that they all have in common is that the reason for not doing on-farm research is based on a fear not to get “good enough” data. And this concern about the “good data” was actually a general trend in the group including those who did on-farm research. We shall later see (table 4) that the lowest participatory performance was in the design- and research-phases. It was a general feature that the farmers were not as actively included in these phases as in others, and the reason was a concern about the quality of the data. Thus the design- and research-phases of the on-farm research were generally a copy of the kind of research executed on-station and on experimental farms.
The missing focus on the poorest farmers is an “associate” of the “good data” concern. An example of this was the case of one student, who actively (most students just did not include them) excluded two poor households chosen by the local leaders, due to the data concern. An explicit focus on including poor households in the samples could be identified only for 36% (5/14, excluding the three students without on-farm research.) of the students, leaving 64% without this focus.
In relation to the concern and motivation for on-farm research as contained in the FFL model, this is an expression of a wrong conception of the purpose of the on-farm research. Good data in the FFL perspective might better be presented as proportions, percentages, medians, in clusters, histograms and ratios in relation to factors such as income, gender, location, altitude and distance from market and less as means and standard deviations (Blalock 1960). It is pertinent to mention that these negative implications of the concern for good data should not be confused with the students' ambitions to do a good job, which is evidently positive. What we have at hand is a (mis)understanding of how a good job, or good data, should be understood. It is felt that a far too narrow view of one type of statistics is behind the students' perceptions of “good data” and they do not have a sufficiently imbedded understanding of the much larger methodological toolkit for participatory onfarm work, which had been presented to them during the introductory course at UTA. The point is that different conceptions of “good data” set different potentials for the participation of the farmers in the whole research process. And when the conception of good data is narrowly focussed on (statistically) significant results (which to a great extent could be executed on a research farm) the active participation of the farmers, and especially the poor farmers, becomes less realistic. Thus, in future courses UTA clearly needs to strengthen the students' abilities to understand the role of technology under the very diverse and particular conditions of RPF. Furthermore, on-farm research in this perspective aims at the farmers' participation, not only for the generation of the technology in itself, but also for the generation of capacities and commitment of the farmers, which are likely to grow proportional to the degree the farmers feel they benefit from the research.
All the theses1 showed a very high degree of relevance for RPF. Based on the 7 key characteristics of a technology that fit's RPF as identified by Bunch (see above) a score of 2p for responding, 1p for responding but not completely, and 0p for not responding was allocated for each aspect. On this scale of 14, the average was 12.7. Particularly high (maximum) was the score on the ecological dimension, which was seen as especially important in view of the tendencies of RPF to degrade the environment. One dimension (the market dimension) scored slightly lower than the average and it was found that this is generally an aspect considered the least by the students.
Participatory performance
A strong influence from the course and supervisors on the selection of research issues was identified. In fact the course and supervisor category, counted for 44%, while the two categories to follow (on-going research and farmers and PRA) counted for 26% and 24%, respectively.
Table 3. Participatory performance during the entire research process
| Types of participation | Courses | |||||
| SAREC | UTA | Total | ||||
| Number of students | % | Number of students | % | Number of students | % | |
| None or passive | 1 | 11 | 2 | 25 | 3 | 18 |
| Instrumental | 5 | 56 | 4 | 50 | 9 | 53 |
| Threshold* | 1 | 11 | 2 | 25 | 3 | 18 |
| Transformational | 2 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 12 |
| Total | 9 | 100 | 8 | 100 | 17 | 100 |
This is related to the actual character of the participatory performance which was largely instrumental. Overall, 53% of the students were in this category, with only 12% in the transformational category. When participation in the various research phases was assessed the scores were all close to the level of instrumental participation, as can be seen in table 4
Given the evaluation framework that was applied, the instrumental participatory performance means in practice that there has been an overall good contact with the farmers and their context, and consequently a relatively good, relevant and up-to-date knowledge of the context of the trials, leaving quite some space for feedback from the farmers and modification of the technology and the trial. Furthermore, it has led to an appreciation of the interaction of the technologies with the surrounding world in a broader sense. Thus the concern of getting the technology to fit the farmers and the surrounding world (environment, market) were met in a relatively good way.
Table 4. Participatory performance in the research phases
| Research phases | Number of student scoring points | Average score for the phase | |||||
| 0 | ½ | 1 | |||||
| No of Students | Total point | No of Students | Total point | No of Students | Total point | Total points for the row divided by 17 students | |
| Baseline | 2 | 0 | 7 | 3.5 | 8 | 8 | 11.5/17 = 0.68 |
| Identification of issues | 4 | 0 | 9 | 4.5 | 4 | 4 | 8.5/17 = 0.50 |
| Design | 12 | 0 | 3 | 1.5 | 2 | 2 | 3.5/17 = 0.20 |
| Research | 6 | 0 | 9 | 4.5 | 2 | 2 | 6.5/17 = 0.38 |
| Evaluation | 4 | 0 | 11 | 5.5 | 2 | 2 | 7.5/17 = 0.44 |
| Average | 5.6 | 0 | 7.8 | 3.9 | 3.6 | 3.6 | Grand average: 0.44 |
However, the focus on RPF was almost exclusively etic in perspective, rarely including the emic perspective in any direct sense. Thus the relevance for RPF, as evaluated above, is always relevance for the insider as perceived by the outsider.
It must be remembered that the participation of the farmers in the research process has other objectives than just the provision of information for the insider. A crucial concern is to have a process in which the content of the process and the perspectives of the farmers can merge in order to create commitment and to build up analytical and other capacities of the farmers to ensure the sustainability of the technology along with its possible lateral spread. This also addresses the concern of putting pressure on the farmers to fit the technology.
In fact, a very pressing problem for a substantial number of the students was that they had conducted successful trials which were followed by poor adoption, meaning that the technology as viewed from the emic perspective has not been considered relevant (or was not sufficiently relevant to be adopted). The instrumental nature of the participation as performed by the students had the consequence that the farmers were generally left quite passive, responding to questions, and consequently their perspectives were not allowed to change sufficiently to make the process and their perspectives merge.
Thus, the technology never really became the “property” of the farmers and their commitments remained low putting at risk the sustainability of the technology. Furthermore, this also compromises the potential of building capacities among the farmers and leaving if not the concrete technologies then capacity and commitment and talent to search for other more relevant technologies in order to meet the always changing conditions. This is an aspect that Bunch (1985) identifies as crucial in order to get a sustainable development process going.
Despite the shortcomings of the UTA course, one aim of which was to emphasise the FFL concepts, the overall conclusion (Bang 1999) was that the objectives and approach of UTA were considered to be highly relevant, in the light of the present development policy which stresses the needs and perspectives of the poorer farmers with a strong focus on the environment and opportunities for women. However, the intended beneficiaries will gain little through their participation if the professionals chosen to guide them have no expertise in, or commitment to the subject matter. The actual performance of the students of UTA as identified by this study indicates the potential that the learning process offers in the task of creating the “new” professional, but also subjects of research methodology that needs much more attention in future courses.
Commitment in farmers and students/researchers
Commitment and talent are basic features which must be present if there is to be true participation of students and farmers in the development process. To create commitment in the students is not easy as they have been through a “traditional” educational system which attaches little importance to the role of the farmer in the research process and where on-farm research is viewed as unscientific. Another issue is the influence of the institutions where students come from, which mainly have been the universities and government research institutions. Professionals working with NGOs are more exposed to working with farmers and generally will be more open to new approaches than those coming from universities and state research institutes. These points become apparent when comparisons are made to the students who were the subject of the present study and the students, who were involved in the work in Colombia, Bangladesh and Bolivia referred to in the introduction. Many of the Colombian students worked inside an NGO and in all the three countries the students were younger and therefore less set in traditional academic methodologies than the Vietnamese students of the present study.
Most people working in rural development are familiar with the concepts of participation and participatory approaches. The link between participation and the effectiveness of learning continues to be emphasized (Pretty and Chambers, 1993). Through the process of learning, rural people can improve their capacity to analyse, plan, take action, monitor and evaluate a range of issues and activities (Chambers 1997). Today, particularly with the increasing interest in experimental and learnercentered education, people are encouraged to take responsibility for their own learning. At the same time, there has been some recognition that teachers and trainers jointly should have an input into what should taught as well as how it is taught. Curriculum development, however, still tends to remain the responsibility of a few, an elite group located at the top of a hierarchy. The idea of other stakeholders having a clearly identified role in curriculum development is uncommon.
The farmers' roles in the development of education and training programs is increasingly important because farmers will gain a direct benefit, which is realized either through receiving training themselves or through working with field-level extension staff who have received training (Taylor 1999). It has become apparent from field experience reported here, that participatory curriculum development (PCD) requires resources (both human and material), sensitivity, commitment, talent and, crucially, time. PCD cannot be rushed, but once a PCD approach has been adopted and the process has begun, the possibilities for continued and longterm successful training outcomes are increased. In many countries, farmers in particular have had little or no say in the development of training programs that affect them directly. PCD presents an opportunity for this imbalance to be rectified. Such possibilities for involvement may provide real incentives to anyone who is genuinely committed to participation in curriculum development within agricultural education and training programs.
Conclusion
The objectives and approach of UTA are considered to be highly relevant, as present development policy stresses the needs and perspectives of the poorer farmers with a strong focus on the environment and opportunities for women. However, the intended beneficiaries will gain little through their participation if the professionals chosen to guide them have no commitment or expertise on the subject matter, which need to be technical as well as methodological. The actual performance of the students of UTA as identified by this study indicates the potential that the learning process offers in the task of creating the “new” professional. However, in contrast to the cases from Colombia, Bangladesh and Bolivia referred to in the introduction, the influence of the traditional education system has been stronger and the ability of the students to incorporate appropriate methodologies to reach the poorest farmers lower. We ascribe this to a large degree to the institutions - universities and government research stations - within which the Vietnamese students are working and to their “academic age”. The students in Colombia, Bangladesh and Bolivia were younger and less set in traditional methodologies. Many of the Colombian students worked in NGOs. This institutional comparison could not be pursued in the present study, but it may be an important dimension to have in mind in future studies of this nature and in UTA's future recruitment of students.
References
Bang, J.K. (1999). “Participatory research with farmers: Lessons gained from postgraduate training courses in Vietnam”, Livestock Research for Rural Development, Vol. 11, number 2 (in press)
Blalock, H.M. (1960). Social Statistics, McGrawHill Book Company. London.
Bunch, R. (1985). Two Ears of Corn. A Guide to People-centered Agricultural Improvement, 2nd edition, Oklahoma: World Neighbors.
Chambers, R. (1993). Challenging the Professions. Frontiers for rural development, London: Intermediate Technology Publishers.
Chambers, R. and Ghildyal (1985). Agriculture research for resource-poor farmers: the Farmers-First-and-Last model, Discussion paper No 203, Brighton, England: Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.
Chambers, R. (1997). Whose reality counts? , London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Dolberg, F. (1991). “Adding a learning to a blueprint approach - or what a small amount of flexible money can do”, Livestock Research for Rural Development, Vol. 3, No. 1 (http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/dol131)
Dolberg, F. and Petersen, P.H. (eds.) (1997). Integrated Farming in Human Development, Proceedings of a workshop at Tune Landboskole, March 25 – 29, 1996, Copenhagen, Denmark: DSR Forlag.
National Seminar on Animal Sciences and Development to year 2000 sponsored by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of Vietnam (MARD) and the Vietnam Union of Science and Technology Associations (VUSTA), November 26–28, 1996.
Pearson, C.J. and Ison, R.L. (1990). University education for multiple goal agriculture in Australia. Agricultural Systems. Elsevier.
Preston, T.R. (1995). “Research, extension and training for sustainable farming systems in the tropics”, Livestock Research for Rural Development, Vol. 7, No. 2 (http:/www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/7/2/pre72).
Pretty, J.N. (1995). Regenerating Agriculture: Policies and Practice for Sustainability and Self-Reliance, London, England: Earthscan Publications, 320.
Pretty, J.N. and Chambers (1993). Towards a learning paradigm: new professionalism and institutions for sustainable agriculture, IDS Discussion paper DP 334, Brighton: IDS.
Pruett, Duncan and Deane, J. (1998). The Internet and Poverty, Panos Briefing No. 28, April.
Rodríguez, Lylian (1998). “Experiences in co-operating with women's groups and organizations and the use of electronic communication in on farm research in Vietnam”, in F. Dolberg and P.H. Petersen (eds.) (1999), Women in Agriculture and Modern Communication Technology. Proceedings of a Workshop. Tune Landboskole, March 30 - April 3, 1998, Copenhagen, Denmark: DSR Forlag.
Rojas, Abel (1995). “Research in development project: Local scholarships to students”, in F. Dolberg and P.H. Petersen (eds.) (1995), Proceedings of a seminar: "Agricultural Science for biodiversity and sustainability in developing countries. Tune Landboskole, April 2–7 1995, Copenhagen, Denmark: DSR Forlag.
Rogers, A. (1996). Participatory Training: Using Critical Reflection On Experience in Agricultural Extension Training, FAO Training for Agriculture and Rural Development, Economic and Social Development Series, No. 54.
Scoones, I. and Thompson, J. (1994). Beyond Farmer First, London: IT Publications.
Taylor, P. (1999). Participatory Curriculum Development for Agricultural Education and Training: Experiences from Viet Nam and South Africa. http://www.fao.org/DistanceLearning/Curriculum%20development%20participation.htm
Todd, Helen (1998). “Alleviation of Poverty, What do cows have to do with it?”, Livestock Research for Rural Development, Vol. 10, No. 3 (http:/www.cipav.org/co/lrrd/10/3/todd103)
Winthrop, R.H. (1991). Dictionary of Concepts in Cultural Anthropology, London: Greenwood Press.
Wallace, I., Mulhall, A. & Taylor, P. (1996). Developing a Research Framework for Improved Policies for Agricultural Education and Training in Sub-Saharan Africa, Report of an International Consultation held at Reading, UK, 20–21 March 1996, Reading, UK: Agricultural Extension and Rural Development Department, University of Reading.
Annex 1. The UTA curriculum
The Residential 3-month training course at UTA
The seminars
Basic concepts of sustainable management of natural renewable resources
The practicals
The mini-projects
The course participants work in a team of 3–4 to plan, execute, analyse and present results of a mini-project during the three months of the course. The objective is to train the participants in using the tools needed for carrying our research and development activities that are relevant to the interest of small scale farmers. Selected areas of study are:
Assessment
There is a process of continuos assessment by the course director and coordinator, and by visiting resource persons and the local demonstrators. Assessments are made of the following traits:
The assignments
These are essays written by the students and submitted by e-mail to the facilitators. The topics in the 1996–1998 course were:
| Assignment 1: | The role of farmers in the research process |
| Assignment 2: | An assessment of the book: Regenerating Agriculture; Policies and Practice for Sustainability and Self-Reliance (Jules N Pretty) |
| Assignment 3: | An assessment of the papers: Agricultural Research of resource Poor farmers: a parsimonious paradigm (Robert Chambers and Janice Jiggins); Agricultural Research for Resource poor farmers: The Farmer-First-and-Last-Model (Robert Chambers and B.P. Ghildyal |
Extent and efficiency of using e-mail to report on progress in the research and use of spread sheet for recording of expenditures were components of all the three assignments.
The research project
Identification and execution
The methodology of (PRA in villages and on farms) identifying the research project is presented and discussed by visiting facilitators during the introductory residential course at the UTA campus. On completing the course, the students return to their work place to execute their research projects. They are immediately visited by one of the “facilitators” who assists them in:
The “facilitators” are responsible for face-to-face contacts with the students at their work place, providing advice on the conduct of the research project, analysis of the data, and communication among participants and with external advisers. At least two persons from the group of facilitators visit each student three times during the execution of the research project. The facilitators are chosen on the basis of their ongoing experience in post graduate training and adaptive research in tropical developing countries. They all have basic skills in the use of computers and electronic mail communication.
Research seminar and manuals for farmers
A seminar is held midway through the course (after 12 months) with the objectives of presenting:
The refresher course (one month at UTA)
Objectives
The aims are:
The evaluation of the research project
The evaluation is made according to three elements:
The examination is made in UTA by invited international resource persons based on the following criteria:
Standard of preparation of the draft copies of the research projects
Standard of oral presentation
Level of understanding
How the results relate to:
Improvement of the environment
Written presentation
Ability to defend the research work and answer the questions
Total evaluation of the MSc course
| Item: | Point:s |
|---|---|
| Introductory course | 25 |
| Assignment 1 | 5 |
| Assignment 2 | 5 |
| Research seminar and manual for farmers | 20 |
| Refresher Course | 10 |
| Assignment 3 | 5 |
| Thesis defense | 30 |
| TOTAL | 100 |
The name of the degree:
“Integrated Farming Systems for Sustainable Use of Renewable Natural Resources in the Tropics”
