farm-scale_research_design_Sept2012_reflection-day1

= Developing a R4D approach at farm-level - consultation and writing workshop = Back to the event agenda
 * Info centre break out room, 13-14 September, ILRI Ethiopia **

**Summary**:
 * // There is a real danger in focusing on innovations without looking at the broader enabling/disabling environment... //
 * // It's good that there's flexibility, to adapt to demand, dialogue between supply and demand. It's about a development process that has a research element and responds to demand. //
 * // This approach is good for its gender differentiation, focus on livelihood, grouping of farmers, being a dynamic approach. //
 * // This approach can be questioned for its challenging upscaling potential, lack of site selection criteria, the difficulty of typology and livelihood exercises, lack of time to try out the approach, applicability to other African countries, how to combine typology and participatory problem analysis? //
 * // Why do we go for a typology in the first place? Either as an entry point (to inform quantity of investments for research development) or from an up-scaling perspective (to achieve impact and understand differences of constraints, successes and failures). //

Focus on participatory of research for development: Recommendations/issues from the experiment:
 * Discussion**:
 * 1) Identify and prioritise with stakeholders future scenarios, current strategies, challenges and potential solutions.
 * 2) Develop innovation platforms in order to identify and implement potential solutions.
 * 3) On farm experimentation
 * 4) Evaluate the experiment
 * 5) Determine whether the proposed innovation brought about positive changes in farmers' well-being and if these changes are due to the R&D process (as opposed to other interventions).
 * Organisational arrangements: how can national and international organisations build synergies to promote partner-led processes?
 * Capacity building: how can we ensure proper facilitation and translation (when needed) along the R4D process.
 * Up/Out-scaling: how can this R4D approach go beyond localised impact?

Q: How did you incorporate livelihood in typology strategies? A: We did our livelihood typology and we could go through the 5 steps we presented but we decided not to work with every type of farmers. We determined to a large degree the farmer types you come up with (informed by our purpose). If you have an idea of your purpose, you reduce the problems. --> We could only go and do step 0 but we want to do all five steps.
 * Clarification questions**:

Q: What are the practical implications of this typological approach? How many types will we be focusing on? Are we going to eliminate 40% of them because they are not amenable to what we provide? Will we work with all the types? Then there is a great interaction between types and geography... How to manage this? A: I can't tell you how - it's part of the method development - but we could use these typologies (and segment them in many ways) and look for groups that are similar enough to share common problems and possible solutions.

Q: There are similar experiences. Jens mentioned 'romancizing participatory methods' - what do you mean? A: There is a notion that we have to work together, all collaborate etc. but we usually work in situations where differences between people (rich and poor) are quite big so the idea of local communities working together might be fallacious. --> I always ask about differences between new approaches and older ones. In this case there are new things e.g. with recommendation domains. Livelihoods strategies have been diversified. We should recognize that these approaches are building on the past - even though they could do more so - and we could come up with new approaches.

Q: We are still debating the design etc. to show that R4D will affect change. Where is attribution? How do you attribute it to your process? A: There is, in the research cycle, some ideas for how to do it - but the building blocks we have come up with are not about assessing change but rather about devising strategies to acknowledge diversity.

Q: There is not ONE method that will remain static for all stages of the process. This is an early stage diagnosis and we might use other processes later on. The bottomline is when innovations run off on their own without any full process. A real danger of all our approaches is that we are working in a non-enabling context. The killing factor is one stage up and we have to grapple with that.

Q: We have to do typologies, etc. and that gives an idea that we can control and plan a lot of things. Much innovation research shows that it's out of control, including lots of external factors that can kill or boost processes. We should remain realistic. It's not research FOR development, it's about development in which research plays a role. You should adopt an adaptive approach. --> None of this excludes an adaptive approach. We have been given the luxury to experiment step by step. It may not be explicit. You might also bail out of some steps. <-- It's good that there's flexibility, to adapt to demand, dialogue between supply and demand - there is also a question of steering power around economic demand. --> We're not talking about on farm experimentation but about on farm research.

Q: Is all the effort worthwhile? For whom does the technology fit? We don't need to be too prescriptive about e.g. platforms. We let participants come and go, the platform evolve.

//**Diego's presentation about step 0 of the research:**//

Step 0:
 * Study area
 * Farmer selection
 * Context
 * Livelihoods: we discussed this as it turned out to be a thorny issue
 * Division exercise to let farmers distinguish themselves e.g. are you in an organisation or not, which one etc.?
 * Group work (gender) - group division to ensure female participation
 * General discussion - about e.g. use of water etc. and we came out with six types.
 * Validation (through surveys).

Q: Did you have 'soft' variables in the survey? A: We couldn't do the survey - we didn't have the time.

Q: What were examples of livelihoods strategies? A: We talked about livelihood activities e.g. livestock, crop, horticulture, labour and then we defined them in terms of time allocation and source of income. We used these as broad labels e.g. horticulture people generate most (but not all) of their income and spend most (but not all) of their time on horticulture. This process was structured around e.g. gender division.

Comment: If you're looking to work with farmers, the typology should also include their vision. Their motivations and aspirations make a huge difference in your approach.

Q: What additional info did you get that would not have managed to get through a traditional survey? A: It's mostly a combination of things. It's building on what people value as most important valuables. One of the main aims is to also work with groups and to hear their perspectives. A survey leads you to categorize around what you think is meaningful. --> Yes this would be a very useful exercise but the point of how to scale it remains a thorny issue - what does it mean for a larger area?


 * Positive aspects of this approach**:
 * Gender differentiation
 * Dynamic of the approach, where they want to go
 * Meaningful grouping in the sense of farmers
 * Focus on livelihood, set of issues on livelihood
 * It is always good to have baseline data
 * Negative aspects of this approach**:
 * Scaling issues out
 * Focus better if we take vision and goal from the community farmer
 * There was no differentiation b/n different age group and women and men, old and young
 * No information or criteria for site selection (for selection of Kebele's)
 * To see some key results in the typologies
 * Difficult to understand livelihood and typologies, tools /exercise
 * The concern that we discussed was in step 2 there was a problem...
 * There was no efficient time to work around the approach


 * Comments and suggestion about Negatives and Positives**
 * It is good to have quantitative validation but it is also important to have qualitative validation with certain type of topology esspecially with specific topology
 * We need some type of tools or exercise to have a clear understanding of the different typologies
 * Is it possible to combine the typology and the participatory problem analysis?
 * Will it be applicable if it is adopted in other African countries?
 * If it applies in Ethiopia it will apply for other countries but not sure how we select DAs (that will be the best way to involve farmers)

//As it seemed challenging to discuss the project more in depth, the group stepped back a bit and reflected upon the value of working with a typology.//
 * Why do we need different typologies?**
 * Identify targets
 * Achieve impact
 * To inform quantity of investments (for research development)
 * To identify common problems and types of solutions
 * To understand differences of constraints
 * **Up-scaling**
 * **Entry points**
 * **Assess success and failure**


 * How?**


 * Go to communities, identify future visions and ask farmers to cluster up around ideas and visions
 * Go to farmers, present approaches
 * Complement methods rather than focus on just quantitative or qualitative methods
 * Environment needs to inform the typology