This article examines differences in the research approaches of farmers and scientists and analyzes how these differences are related to the conditions under which both groups engage in experimental work. Theoretical considerations as well as practical experiences are presented to emphasize the great potential of farmer-researcher collaboration for rural innovation. In the first part of the article, the innovative power of farmer research and experimentation is acknowledged by presenting examples such as crop and animal breeding, development of new production systems, farm equipment, and social innovations. Considering the respective comparative advantages of farmers and scientists, and inspired by theoretical concepts in the fields of knowledge management and innovation processes, we discuss five topics for optimizing the collaboration between farmers and scientists in the field of technological innovation: user orientation, decentralization, informal modes of experimentation, externalization of tacit knowledge, and economic considerations. A better understanding of such issues could help researchers to define their own role in the research process, acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of their own and farmers' research approaches, overcome communication gaps, and find creative solutions for problems that typically occur in the process of participatory technology development.
Many watershed development projects around the world have performed poorly because they failed to take into account the needs, constraints, and practices of local people. Participatory watershed management-in which users help to define problems, set priorities, select technologies and policies, and monitor and evaluate impacts-is expected to improve performance. User participation in watershed management raises new questions for watershed research, including how to design appropriate mechanisms for organizing stakeholders and facilitating collective action. Management of a complex system such as a watershed may also require user participation in the research process itself. An increasing number of watershed research projects are already participatory, however challenges remain to institutionalizing user participation in both watershed management and research.
Objectives There is a lack of comprehensive indexes, which can measure conditions or changes in dento‐facial esthetics before and after treatment. Therefore, the 12‐item Dental Esthetic Screening Index (DESI) was developed and validated. Materials and Methods Reliability was tested by five dental professionals, who evaluated 30 standardized patient photographs baseline and after 14 days. Clinical validation was done on 52 patients before and after restorative treatment. For subjective assessment, patients completed a validated questionnaire before and after treatment. Statistical analysis included inter and intrarater reliability, Wilcoxon test and linear regression analysis. Results The single item analysis identified two weak extraoral items (κ = 0.15; κ = −0.05), that were removed from the DESI. After this modification, both inter‐ (κ = 0.83‐0.86) and intrarater reliability (ICC1‐5 = 0.75‐0.86) were in excellent to good agreement. In the clinical validation, the DESI was significantly lower after restorative treatment (P < .0001). The patients' perception questionnaires showed significant improvement after restorative therapy (P < .0001). A correlation of the DESI and the results of patients' perception questionnaires could be assumed (P < .0001; R2 = 0.32). Conclusions The DESI was found to be a reliable and valid instrument for the quantitative assessment of dento‐facial esthetics. It correlated well with the subjective assessment of the patients. Clinical Significance This comprehensive index would allow for objective quantification of clinical situations, for reliable baseline and outcome assessment in esthetic dentistry. As patients' esthetic feelings and sensations are subjective, this objective index is also proven to be congruent to patients' individual subjective assessment of dento‐facial esthetics.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.