Institutionalizing Participatory, Client‐Driven Research and Technology Development in Agriculture

Abstract

This article identifies key characteristics of participatory research and development(R&D) in the agricultural sector: it is client‐driven, requires decentralized technology development, devolves to farmers the major responsibility for adaptive testing, and requires institutions and individuals to become accountable for the relevance and quality of technology on offer. Through case study material drawn from Latin America, Asia and Africa, the article then reviews ways by which institutions have responded to these characteristics and raises issues for further elaboration. Steps need to be taken, in particular, to safeguard equity, both between the more and less vocal groups of farmers, and between the requirements of present and future generations (the latter referring particularly to environmental concerns). It is argued that participatory R&D alone is insufficient to deliver innovations relevant to diverse client groups: policy mechanisms are required to define which clients are to participate, whose agendas are to drive the process, and what organizational innovations are needed to move agricultural R&D in these directions.

Smallholder Farmers and Climate Smart Agriculture: Technology and Labor-productivity Constraints amongst Women Smallholders in Malawi

“…In situations where they have limited access to extension, financing, and other support services for adoption of new agricultural productivity-enhancing options, the likelihood of CSA adoption may remain low. We consider that participatory technology development and adaptation approaches are needed to increase the extent of access and utility of CSA practices to women smallholder farmers (Ashby & Sperling, 1995;Gupta, 2013). An analysis of the current situation of men and women farmers (i.e., their current roles, access to resources and technologies, and their decision-making power) is necessary, so that both women and men farmers can better identify the challenges and opportunities they face in relation to climate change adaptation.…”

Agricultural extension policy in Australia: the good, the bad and the misguided

“…The tendency for farmer groups to leave out some sectors of the community is well documented (e.g. Arnaiz 1995;Bebbington, Merrill-Sands and Farrington 1994;Ashby and Sparling 1994;Vanclay and Lawrence 1995). Farmers with greater wealth and larger properties are over-represented in group activities.…”

An evaluation of the use of participatory processes in wide-scale dissemination of research in micro dosing and conservation agriculture in Zimbabwe

“…It has become apparent that there is a greater need to consult with farmers not only about the questions that they wish resolved (Ashby, 1990;Campbell and Sayer, 2003), but also on the manner in which the issues preventing access to various solutions, including technologies, could be resolved (Ashby and Sperling, 1995;Röling and Wagemakers, 1998;Rusike et al, 2006;Twomlow et al, 2008a). The process must be farmer-centred, fully involving the intended beneficiaries from the early stages of problem identification through to technology development and adaptation (Pretty and Hine, 2001;Rusike et al, 2006;Ncube et al, 2007;Twomlow et al, 2008b).…”