Challenges and Lessons When Using Farmer Knowledge in Agricultural Research and Development Projects in Africa

Abstract

Farmer participatory research (FPR) approaches are now considered mainstream and are especially applicable for developing appropriate technology options in complex, diverse and risk-prone regions, where local adaptations are crucial. Although the advantages of using farmer knowledge to guide scientific research are numerous and well documented, the challenges and potential pitfalls that befall biophysical researchers, in particular, when using FPR approaches have received much less attention, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. Our experiences show that in certain cases, the methods used to collect farmer knowledge are flawed, leading to inaccurate or incomplete information being gathered. This potentially leads to the development and promotion of unsustainable, unprofitable or socially unacceptable technologies. This paper uses a series of examples to illustrate that discrepancies between farmer and researcher observations may occur because (i) farmers and scientists may not have sufficient insight into the systems complexity, (ii) farmers and scientists use different reference frameworks, and (iii) methodological errors may lead to farmers intentionally or unintentionally providing false or 'desired' information to achieve (short-term) benefits. This paper concludes by providing guidelines to improve the integration of farmer and scientific knowledge in order to develop appropriate technology options that are both environmentally sound and adaptable to local conditions.

Stakeholder participation in agricultural research projects: a conceptual framework for reflection and decision-making

“…Empirical studies show that participatory methods are primarily applied in applied and adaptive stages of agricultural research, i.e., where knowledge is geared towards action (e.g., Cornwall and Jewkes 1995;Weltzien et al 2000;Johnson et al 2004;Lilja and Dixon 2008;van Asten et al 2009). Basic research-i.e., experimental or theoretical research aimed at acquiring knowledge for understanding of certain phenomena without any particular application of the research in view-appears to have less potential for adopting a participatory approach.…”

“…Too many interactions can easily lead to ''participation fatigue'' among stakeholders (e.g., Kanji and Greenwood 2001;Neef 2005). It is also important to provide feedback on research findings to farmers and other local stakeholders in a format they can easily understand (van Asten et al 2009). …”

“…Compensation for stakeholders involved in participatory processes needs to be carefully considered, as it may run counter to the principle that stakeholders should participate voluntarily in the research, rather than being motivated by financial incentives (cf. van Asten et al 2009). …”

“…Research may also enhance stakeholders' awareness about the positive or negative effects certain practices may have on the ecological services of a watershed or on downstream residents. Finally, a participatory project may enable stakeholders to blend their local knowledge with ''expert'' scientific knowledge in a complementary or even synergetic way (Price 2001;Neef et al 2006;Hoffmann et al 2007;van Asten et al 2009). …”

“…Notwithstanding the polarized debate on the value of participation in the 1990s, participatory approaches in international and national research centers have encountered both successes and failures (Bentley 1994;Scoones and Thompson 1994;Lilja et al 2001;Probst 2002;Johnson et al 2004;Lilja and Dixon 2008;van Asten et al 2009). Since the turn of the millennium it has become evident that the claim of ''the more participation, the better'' articulated by the forebears of participatory rural appraisal (PRA) and participatory technology development (PTD) in the 1980s and early 1990s would need to be replaced by a more grounded discussion of the specific potential and shortcomings of participatory and conventional methods in a particular research setting.…”