AR_WA_participatory-research-design-training_Jan2017

Accra, Ghana


The aim of the workshop is to help improve the quality and relevance of participatory systems-focused research experiments done in the Africa RISING project through reflecting on what has been tried and seeking improvements in designs for further work.
 * Aims**


 * Overall approach**
 * 1) Examine data and lessons from trials and other research that has been done and identify critical problems and issues arising.
 * 2) Explore options for overcoming those problems
 * 3) Develop updated research approaches, methods and designs that, if implemented, will strengthen future research.

Throughout the workshop we will:
 * Concentrate on the actual research of participants and Africa RISING
 * Build on the shared experience and insights of participants and resource people
 * Be flexible and adaptive, responding to emerging needs and interests.


 * Agenda**
 * Monday – 30 Jan., 2017**
 * 0800-0900 Introductions and expectations (Workshop methods)
 * 0900-0930 Africa RISING project overview (Asamoah)
 * 0930-1000 Systems research (video) and brief discussion
 * 1030-1145 New methods for new agronomy (presentation) and discussion
 * 1145-1230 The sustainable intensification framework (presentation) and discussion
 * 1330-1530 Participants present cases of research for discussion
 * 1600-1700 Participants present cases of research for discussion
 * 1700-1730 Compilation of emerging issues and prioritisation


 * Tuesday – 31 Jan., 2017**
 * 0800-1000 Working groups on key topics
 * 1030-1130 Review of working group output
 * 1130-1230 Design or update research activities
 * 1330-1430 Design or update research activities
 * 1430-1630 Review new designs
 * 1700-1730 Evaluation and closing


 * Note:** all times are flexible and may be updated according to progress.


 * REPORT**

=Africa Rising Ghana research method workshop report= =30-31 January 2017, Accra=

Ric Coe, 1 February 2017

Background
After a workshop for Africa Rising in E and S Africa in Malawi in October 2016, Irmgard Hoeschle-Zeledon and Asamoah Larbi asked me to run something similar for the project in W Africa.

Aims
The aim of the workshop was to help improve the quality and relevance of participatory systems-focused research experiments done in the Africa Rising project through reflecting on what has been tried and seeking improvements in designs for further work.

Overall approach
1. Examine data and lessons from trials and other research that has been done and identify critical problems and issues arising. 2. Explore options for overcoming those problems 3. Develop updated research approaches, methods and designs that, if implemented, will strengthen future research.

What happened
1. Introduction of people and process 2. Introduction of content: 3. Each of these generated substantial discussion and started generating a list of issues to investigate further.
 * Monday morning:**
 * The Africa Rising project theory, structure and expected outputs – a very useful reminder from Asamoah that set the scene for the rest of the workshop.
 * Video on systems research by Fergus Sinclair, recorded at a Humid Tropics conference – a compact summary of doing research from an systems perspective and the RinD model.
 * Presentation on the way that systems and participation paradigms shift research approaches and needs.

4. Four participants presented examples of their work with a focus on data collected and the challenges they face in using it and deciding what to do next. Again, these each generated substantial discussion and raised many questions. Some were dealt with immediately and others added to a list.
 * Monday afternoon**

5. Presentation on the sustainable intensification (SI) framework, followed by discussion. 6. Choosing two working group topics for deeper discussion. Those selected were (a) ISFM research in within the Si and systems frameworks, focusing in the work on Nurudeen (organic and P fertilizer amendments) and Birhanu (using cattle and poultry manure), (b)Doing 'real' transdisciplinary participatory research, focusing on the work of Jean-Baptiste (intercropping cereals and vegetables). Followed by presentation of outputs and discussion
 * Tuesday morning**

7. Several short presentations on topics that had come up (comparative studies on units other than plots, farmers choosing treatments, influence diagrams as a research design tool). 8. Working groups designing the next stage of research for the two cases above 9. A brief look at approaches to analysis of variable data from 'baby trials'. 10. Evaluation and closing
 * Tuesday pm**

Observations and comments
1. All logistics and practical arrangements for the workshop were excellent – that makes it a pleasure to do the work and much easier to concentrate on substance. 2. Participants were fully engaged and hardworking throughout. They were also will to present their work for critique, and joined in the discussion in constructive and non-defensive ways. That made the approach effective and allowed us to discuss the critical points in relation to their research, rather than abstractly or using examples they were not familiar with. 3. Generally the research presented looked competent but conventional, meaning This is not unusual nor is it surprising, given the dominance of these approaches in nearly all university training, in national programs and still in much CGIAR research. 4. Participants generally see the need for moving to systems, participation and SI approaches but keep on coming back to the need for 'replicates', statistical analyse they are familiar with (anova, means separation, 3 years data,…), etc as the basis of good quality and publishable research. Two things might help in this regard: 5. I would recommend that any formal training that is organised be 100% based on participants' own work. With these sorts of novel and complex problems, people often find it very difficult to apply general principles learnt in training to specific cases. This means the distinction between 'training' and 'support' gets blurred. AR might consider trying to establish access to support to these scientists so that they can get regular bits of input. 6. Input and review is more important when designing studies than when analysing data, as weak analysis can be repeated but you are stuck with weak design for a long time. It would help if AR organised more opportunities for discussion and review during planning. This does not necessarily mean face to face meetings. For example, I regularly work with scientists on research design via Skype. It does take two things 7. If AR produced some methods guides that show examples of how to implement SI, RinD, etc then these could be very useful to others and make a general contribution to shifting research paradigms. My group (SSD) already have various things that might be useful and I will try to put a collection together for you. 8. A minor point: some of the data presented was very well prepared, but some was horrible! Data that is not well organised can not be analysed. Basic good use of Excel, for example, is something I would expect every one of these scientists to be competent at.
 * Components rather than systems
 * Biophysical rather than integrated
 * Seeking optima for recommendations rather than generating diversity to match diversity, or information for farmers to take decisions.
 * Farmers as recipients not participants
 * Focus on production rather than on all the dimensions of SI
 * A collection of high quality papers that are examples of the type of research AR is aiming at.
 * Guidelines and examples of analyses that they find challenging ( eg understanding variation between farms, tradeoff at farm level)
 * AR leadership keeping up the pressure to shift the basis of research
 * Access to sympathetic support, not just from someone like me, but from different perspectives to build transdisciplinary nature.