Document(s) 11 of 15

Introduction

Since embracing participatory methods in the 1990s, scientists at international and national agricultural research centres and a variety of natural resource management (NRM) agencies have encountered both successes and failures. Innovations have been identified, as well as pitfalls, among the panoply of participatory methods available. The early days of debate for and against the participation of farmers, residents and local land users in research have given way to more grounded discussions about appropriate approaches and specific methods for particular circumstances.

The examples presented in this volume illustrate how far the debate has matured. Rather than advocating one ‘brand’ of participatory research over another, researchers are innovating and experimenting to match the methods and the situation. They are also working to bring the insights of everyday practice in the field back into the design of new technologies and future research practices, protocols, structures and strategies.

Researchers are not asking if participatory methods should be used, but rather when and how, and which type of method, in combination with which traditional research tools.

The experience and insights of the participants at the Chatham workshop complement those of prior meetings and publications focused on the challenges and potentials of participatory research in practice, targeting technology generation for sustainable agriculture and NRM. This effort is part of a decades-long conversation between social scientists, biological scientists, farmers and forest dwellers on the possibilities for a collaborative science of agriculture, forestry and watersheds (Buck et al, 1998). It is also part of a wider movement to support people’s ability to envision, choose and create their own futures. The contributors to this volume have touched upon several recent developments in

the field of participatory research that warrant further attention from individuals and organizations engaged in sustainable agriculture and NRM. Promising trends include:

• A focus on the ethics and power relations involved in participatory research approaches.
• A call for more accountability, standards of practice, codes of conduct and constructive critique among practitioners of participatory research.
• An exploration of research on the process of participation under uneven relations of power, including conflict resolution.
• A shift from participation in technology transfer to collaborative science.
• A creative proliferation of hybrid methods, mixing quantitative and qualitative analysis, and social and biological approaches.
• The experimental combination of geographic information systems (GIS), remote sensing, maps, models and participation.
• A serious effort to scale up, from farm to landscape level, participatory research and an exploration of regional and national applications (Landcare, adaptive co-management, and future-visioning).
• A willingness to place research questions and results in their social and historical context.
• Attempts to link specific practices and information to broader meaning, including interpretations of history and visions of the future, through scenarios and other integrative tools for negotiation and planning.

For the purpose of this discussion I have grouped these points under four themes: (1) ethics and standards; (2) collaborative science; (3) context; (4) scales and vision.

Ethics, standards and professional peers

The experiences and reflections of the contributors to this volume pose several questions about our options and responsibilities in the practice of participatory research. Perhaps the most significant development in this field in the last decade is the recognition that participatory research can be done well or not, and that it matters. Beyond the mere presence or absence of participatory methods, the character and quality of participatory research can affect the health and well-being of people and ecosystems. There can be serious social, economic and ecological consequences of participatory research done badly. Even a good participatory process does not guarantee successful production, conservation and empowerment outcomes. Just as with the choice of research designs within a more traditional set of options, the wrong approach – otherwise well implemented – can lead to problems.

The question of professional standards and accountability, while seemingly mundane, even petty, is crucial to improving the process and the results of participatory research. Most participatory field research in agriculture, forestry and conservation in the 1980s and early 1990s focused on rapid appraisals for

research or development planning, and over time increasingly involved participatory surveys (quantitative, qualitative and combined) to characterize farmers, landscapes and agroecosystems, and to develop and evaluate new technologies. During the decade since the mid-1990s researchers have gained more experience with the design and management of on-site experiments or sampling and monitoring programmes in partnership with rural people. Many of these researchers have been careful to be less ‘extractive’, raise fewer expectations and ensure that benefits for poor people follow their involvement and investment in the participatory process. However, most of the documented cases of on-farm technology trials have involved farmers in controlled experiments designed by outside researchers.

Across all of these sub-fields, the publication of results and process has been complicated by two key differences: (1) contrasting research paradigms in rapid appraisal and more long-term experimental approaches; and (2) distinct styles and standards of publications in social process, agroecology and technology generation. Increasingly more collaborative trials have been designed and reported in the literature through such programmes as Comité de Investigación Agrícola Local, or Local Agricultural Research Committees (CIALs) (Braun’s case study in this volume), mother–baby trials (Snapp’s case study in this volume) and adaptive collaborative management (McDougall et al’s case study in this volume). Prior efforts by the Institute for Development Studies and the International Institute for Environment and Development, followed by the Overseas Development Institute agricultural and forestry networks, the Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Collaborative Research Project (SANREM), and the current Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (PRGA) programme have fostered exchanges among peer groups and networks of participatory researchers and extension workers. The literature has begun to reflect this, though publication venues continue to be dispersed, disparate and subscribe to distinct criteria for evidence and research design. This situation often requires researchers to juggle double and multiple standards of data collection, analysis and reporting (Chambers et al, 1989).

Very little has been published in the way of detailed documentation and analysis of locally initiated trials, experiments and surveys, with a few notable exceptions (Richards, 1985; Posey and Balee, 1989; Scoones and Thompson 1994). The combination of any sort of trial, experiment or survey with historical documentation and analysis is even less common (see Rhoades, 2001; Nazarea, 1999; Schmink, 1999; Flora, 2001 for some of the best examples). Most reporting of rural people’s production and conservation science has been

limited to descriptions of existing and/or traditional practice as an accomplished fact. Within forest and wildlife management, rural people’s knowledge has been increasingly recognized by outsiders, only to be cast as ‘timeless and unconscious ecological wisdom’ or as remnants of ‘traditional’ practice.

Does this mean that only a few researchers have addressed any of these points that seem so simple and based on common sense? On the contrary, thousands of field workers continue to conduct isolated, undocumented research within extension and development programmes in forestry, agriculture and conservation. Likewise, social, ecological and production researchers throughout the world often participate in community organization and institutional innovation to improve their research and attune it to local conditions. However, outside of a small network of participatory researchers neither group is likely to report even the fact itself, let alone the process.

The need to join research and development endeavours is particularly crucial in the rapidly growing number of wildlife management projects that address complex relationships between people and wildlife through separate programmes of biological research and public relations (local and international). Social research and management programmes in this context are often couched in terms of social engineering to achieve conservation objectives. The ecology embedded in local society and the cultural threads that run through the surrounding ecosystems are seldom documented in a collaborative research context for use in planning, technology design and management decisions in conservation projects. While the field is just now emerging, Janis Alcorn (1995), among others, has pioneered social and participatory research in conservation biology, based on local knowledge of wildlife, habitats and surrounding ecosystems.

Beyond the research and development dichotomy we face a series of institutional divides along social/biological, production/conservation and government/non-governmental organization (NGO) lines, which constitute substantial barriers to shared knowledge. The existing institutional structure encourages silence on work at the boundaries between research, development and participation by those who actually know the territory best. As long as the more integrative work is submerged it is also inaccessible to review, constructive criticism and progressive improvement through collective learning and innovation.

Alternatively, we can make the most of opportunities to link these cycles of research and development, social process and technology innovation, to stop spinning our wheels and get somewhere. The potential to link participatory research experience in agriculture and resource management to conservation research also constitutes a major opportunity. And finally, there is a practical need for carefully documented examples that demonstrate how the application of participatory approaches has made a positive contribution to poor people’s lives, in order to convince doubting politicians and support those who encourage participation.

Some of our best data and insights are transmitted through stories, a professional oral tradition, and through the skills of our trades. The challenge

will be to distinguish significant stories from mere anecdotes (Rocheleau, 1991, 1998) and to combine them with a classification and description of possible field methods and data analysis tools. From these we need to build a coherent, larger body of shared knowledge and practice accessible (at least in part) to our various domains of science, practice and critique, including those of rural people.

From participatory technology transfer to collaborative science

A second and related change, echoed in this volume, involves a shift in focus as well as intent, from technology transfer to collaborative science, which encompasses a sea change in social relations and scientific practice. The first step is to move from extractive to interactive modes of information collection and use, but to effect real change it will be important to go beyond simply sharing existing information or joint collection of new data to deal with knowledge in the broader sense. Researchers will need to move from extractive to interactive modes of information gathering, which is treated by several authors in this volume.

It is crucial to move beyond information to a focus on knowledge and a respect for multiple approaches to knowing and learning, and to information storage, transmission and testing. This requires a careful re-evaluation and customized design of the full range of scientific practice, from framing questions to interpreting and applying results. This endeavour requires us to recognize that science lives in practice. We need to work in the borderlands between science and practice, research and development, experience and experiment, as epitomized by Stroud (case study in this volume), in previous works by Paul Richards (1985), and in on-going work by Rhoades (2001), Nazarea (1999), Flora (2001), Schmink (1999) and others.

The varieties of collaboration in field experiments

As already demonstrated by the CIAL, adaptive collaborative management, participatory action research (PAR), mother–baby trials and other experiences summarized in the text, there are many productive ways to arrange collaborative field research. The following list clusters the variety of collaborative experiences into six major categories that can be used to respond to a wide range of research questions, mandates and conditions:

• Researcher-designed and -managed trials, usually on-station or special plots. Land users are consulted and their problems are addressed, but their resources, management practices and evaluation are not part of the research design.
• Researcher-designed and -managed trials, on site, in local people’s work and production sites, whether individual or shared space. Land users are consulted, their problems are addressed and they evaluate the results. There

is little involvement of land users’ management, since all labour and material inputs are planned and paid for by the research institution.

• Researcher-designed and user-managed trials, on-site. This is the same as the case above, with the difference that land users’ resources and management are included in the trial, their evaluation and feedback are continuous, and land users’ performance and judgement are part of the trial.
• Joint design and management of on-site technology and land use testing by researcher and land users. Local people and outside researcher(s) collaborate in the design of these broad experiments and confer on management decisions. Land users’ management and decision-making are explicitly treated as experimental variables, their feedback and evaluation are high priorities in the research endeavour, and they consciously evaluate their own and researchers’ decisions.
• Experiments designed and managed by land users, with outside researcher(s) consulting. Outside researcher(s) enter into on-going experiments as occasional consultants or regular collaborators, and document results and/or process. Researchers may or may not alter experimental design.
• Experiments designed and managed by land users, not necessarily under the usual scientific paradigm or formal experimental protocol. With permission, and perhaps in collaboration, outside researchers observe and document existing experiments and on-going innovation. Outsiders and land users also produce documents for local review, revision and use (Rocheleau, 1991).

The example illustrated assumes several types of institutions operating at different scales, engaged in shared activities, playing complementary roles at a single field site. The roles and capabilities of the various actors could also be integrated at a regional scale, rather than a single site. In either case the model links several types of institutions and activities in a broader process of research and action. The editors and contributors to this volume have advanced this agenda. Yet much work remains to be done to share and learn from our collective experience and to improve the quality of both process and results in participatory research, whether conducted by research, development, conservation, extension or multipurpose agencies.

Global and local ‘positioning’ systems

One of our major remaining frontiers lies in the continued cultivation of institutional and intellectual niches for these processes of learning across cultures as well as across disciplines and across research and development lines. There is a small but growing body of literature

that treats local science and practice as the latest expression of a continuing process of learning and discovery, and provides some basis for comparison and synthesis of experience across places and paradigms.

As we attempt to situate ourselves – and our science – in the field, we encounter a series of difficult larger questions involving both procedure and principle. There is a tendency to want to write down and to count everything that is seen and spoken and to test within one paradigm what is known and claimed by any group of people, anywhere. While professional scientists may find mutually intelligible and acceptable ways to explore and test knowledge with farmers and land users, there is no reason to assume that the process of verification and validation will always belong to one science. We should not expect that all ‘ethno science’ will be tested and judged on the basis of one set of criteria and processes from a single ‘formal’ science, or that ‘timeless wisdom’ will come from indigenous knowledge and all innovations will come from modern scientific invention.

The adage that ‘all politics is local’ can be applied to science as well: all science is local. What many of us have come to regard as the scientific method is perhaps better framed as a scientific method. What is arguably a very robust and successful model is not the only or always the best way to acquire, test and apply knowledge about the world. The challenge is to respect multiple ways of learning and knowing, and to get beyond the limitations of a single, dominant paradigm, without simply surrendering all standards or romanticizing any science that is not ‘modern’. The point is to clearly state our assumptions and our criteria and to be willing to incorporate or at least to add on, to try out, or to learn from other systems of knowledge acquisition, storage, testing and application.

The work of Robert Chambers, Gordon Conway, Janice Jiggins, Robert Rhoades, and more recently Jacqueline Ashby and Louise Sperling has brought participatory research into the mainstream of agricultural research. They have brought farmers, their knowledge and their judgements into the formal research enterprise, from their neighbours’ fields to community meetings to the research station. The work of Sieglinde Snapp (mother–baby structure of nested trials and observation, see Snapp et al, 2002) and the Promoting Local Innovation (PROLINNOVA) programme under the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR) have brought synergistic designs to combine the more freestyle experimentation by farmers with the more controlled and widely replicated experiments of research stations and researcher-led farm trials.

One crucial challenge at this point is to take the parallel, socially focused, study of existing farmer practices beyond strictly ethnographic or cultural studies or the descriptive classification of traditional or indigenous farming systems as candidates for ‘development’ and technology transfer. The fast pace of change affecting farmers and their lands requires that we study with and for, and not just about farmers. Even when we are studying about farmers and what they do, we need to involve them as co-researchers and not just as subjects of a scientific inquiry. This is particularly crucial when we begin to analyse the effects of changes in larger social and economic contexts on the everyday realities of rural farmers, their responses to change and their options for the future.

Pioneering work that is tangentially addressed in this volume include adaptive collaborative management approaches under development at the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), human and ecological landscape innovations with SANREM and the Landcare movement facilitated by the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) and others (Garrity et al, 2002; Rhoades, 2001). Much as the researchers that share their experiences in this volume have brought farmers into partnerships to study their farms, technologies and landscapes, we need to bring people as partners into the study of themselves, as actors, decision-makers, and knowledge-makers.

Context: sedentary science in place or a science situated in time and space

Initially the international agricultural centres of the CGIAR targeted specific grain and root crops and studied food production processes as something out of time and place, not in the context of rural people as food producers and consumers, or in the context of their places. The debates during the founding period of the CGIAR system focused on the relationship between rural farming people and agricultural production on the one hand and growing populations of urban and industrial consumers on the other. A distinct bias towards urban and industrial development gave way to a conscious decision to focus on the food supply at national and international levels rather than the food producers and consumers at the local level. It was that decision that led to a focus on the super-grains of the Green Revolution, the neglect of social and ecological context, and the failure to address smallholders in ‘marginal’ environments.

Carl Sauer, a geographer and lifelong student of rural culture, land use and landscape, urged the CGIAR founders to centre the research mission on the needs and knowledge of farmers. He advised them to incorporate the full range of species, products, sites and services in complex farming systems rather than increasing the yield of a few grain crops to provide an impoverished if plentiful diet of rice, wheat and a few other major grains to a growing urban population. He argued for nesting the mission of international agricultural research within a vision of the past and future that put rural peoples and their landscapes in the centre, rather than relegating them to serve the interests of urbanization and industrialization.

Recently we have seen a resurgence of interest in complex social and ecological systems, of landscapes and livelihoods, in place, which has broadened the research agenda of international agricultural centres to include farming systems, NRM research, and even studies of community, property, equity and governance. We also need to recognize that many people are mobile and that places are being re-configured in larger processes of industrialization and urbanization, whether in forests, established agricultural regions, or in rural fringe neighbourhoods of metropolitan areas (see Livelihoods Analysis in Conroy and Rangnekar’s case study in this volume). The issue can no longer be cast as a choice between rural and urban populations or food producers versus consumers. Throughout the world, longstanding, established farming communities, and the ecologies they both create and inhabit, are locked in close encounters with highways, Free Trade Zone factories, and volatile land markets. They are being transformed by changing race, class and gender relations, and a re-definition of links between production, consumption, location, identity and ecology. Not only does context matter, researchers need to address rapid and complex shifts in the temporal, spatial and cultural context of field problems and their investigation.

So which context and categories make sense? Time or Space, Land or People? Should we study changes in places, in products, or in people’s life circumstances? Based on the lessons of history in our own field, we need to study each of these elements in complex contexts to do an honest job of sustainable agriculture, conservation and natural resource management research. Sauer advocated a research approach that was not just a study of farming systems, but about and for farmers as people. Many participatory researchers have returned to this perspective.

To this they have added studying with people, about themselves, their places, their production systems and their possible futures, including their relationship to urbanization and industrialization.

Temporal context

Connecting what’s past, what’s present, what’s next

Memories of history and visions of the future constitute one of the major frontiers of participatory research in sustainable agriculture and NRM. People’s interpretation and analysis of history – short- and long-term – informs their sense about current trends and alternative trajectories into the future. These projections in time, both backward and forward, put current events and trends in context.

Individual life histories and community and environmental histories can help to better explain the complex origins of present conditions. Prior experience may also help to formulate coping strategies and solutions to new and recurring problems (Feldstein and Jiggins, 1994). Insight into historical context is valuable whether the topic of concern is drought, famine and famine response, the history of employment and migration related to deforestation, the changing gender division of land and labour with the introduction of new crops, or changes in land distribution related to new irrigation technologies.

Some practitioners of participatory rural appraisal (PRA), as well as land use researchers have used individual and community histories as well as archival information to make sense of trajectories of environmental and technological change and their relationship to social, economic and political change (Thomas-Slayter et al, 1995; Tiffen et al, 1993; Rocheleau, 1994; Slocum et al, 1995; Showers, 1995; Rhoades, 2001). There is ample scope to expand this kind of inquiry in participatory research on agriculture, biodiversity and resource management.

Spatial context

The rise of a keen interest in localities, regions, space and place has focused attention on spatial relationships in agricultural, resource management and conservation research. The creative combination of mapping-as-usual and participatory mapping in GIS can provide a valid vehicle and format for spatially organized social and ecological information, across scales, and can make them mutually intelligible through various formats of visualization. Janice Jiggins (pers comm, 2002) notes that Landsat images and other remote sensing images, including aerial photographs have been used for decades in participatory resource mapping and management. The images can be transposed into land use classifications and natural resource classifications in GIS formats. Regardless of formal ‘literacy’ many people are able to spot their own homes, fields, water points, and grazing and gathering areas in such images.

Jiggins summarizes several new developments that considerably extend the use of such images and allow for more dynamic analysis of current trends and alternative futures:

• Transposition of the GIS into Multi Agent Modelling software allows images to become the surface over which the agents interact. The consequences over sequential time periods can then be transposed back into GIS format, so that the consequences are apparent in a ‘real’ landscape.
• Development of the Multi Agent Modelling rules of behaviour and context boundaries is conducted together with those whose context/behaviour/rules are modelled. Rhodora Gonzalez is using these techniques with fisher communities, municipalities and mayors, in the shrimp fisheries/mangrove coasts in the Philippines.
• With the introduction of a ‘gaming’ element, the multi-agent programme represents the modelled landscape on the surface of wooden blocks. The ‘actors’ in the Multi Agent system can become real players in a simulation game, with family choices, assets, credit options, etc at their disposal. As the game progresses through sequential decision time periods, the blocks can be rearranged to show impacts on land use and natural resources, also on communities. The decisions made are taken to be the ‘rules’ which actually govern behaviour. The rules are then fed back into the Multi Agent system, and extrapolated over more seasons to reveal the consequences, and over larger areas.¹

Jiggins acknowledges that ‘this tool does not necessarily allow for the emergence of institutions and rules that might lead to other outcomes’. This model also does not allow for the biological dynamic presumably stimulated by the interactions and consequences simulated. It does allow a platform for dialogue to be constructed, that feeds a learning process that encourages ‘emergence’. She concludes that: ‘these techniques are fun, powerful and productive. The methods are fairly robust and appropriate for agriculture, biodiversity conservation and resource management.’

Beyond scaling up: crossing scales and envisioning futures

The processes described in several contributions to this volume reach beyond single scales and simple categories to link plot, household, community, region and nation with fields, farms, landscapes and regional ecosystems. What is implied in a number of the case studies is the need for information, in fact for very extensive and robust data sets to facilitate iterative analysis between local and larger systems. Moreover, the kind of data sets and the types of analyses could be specifically designed to better enable processes of interactive analysis, exploration and simulation for negotiation and planning. While the negotiation and planning processes may not be considered research, the nature of the research to inform and fuel such a process is necessarily different from research that is intended to produce a single, fixed technological result.

The need to address processes of analysis and negotiation within and between scales can be seen in the interactions between large and smallholder

farms or between commercial forest plantations and smallholder farmers and gatherers. What are the implications – for smallholders and landless people – of changes in largeholder and commercial systems? For example, the CIFOR forest plantation research team evaluates the social and ecological impact of timber and pulp plantation practices on various groups of people, beyond the direct participants in plantation production. Based on a variety of data collection methods, they analyse the effects on displaced users and residents, current employees, neighbours of timber and pulp plantations, and residents, producers, processors and resource managers living with the regional effects of changes in plantation location, markets and management.

Similar studies in agroforestry and agriculture could use local and regional technology and land use change scenarios to simulate the interactions of change at different scales and under different conditions. We could consider the likely effect on different kinds of farms, ecosystems or groups of people. For example, the introduction of a specific new cash crop into large-scale, commercial farms might result in widespread or selective migration and displacement as well as changes in land use/cover in place. To do justice to this question we would also need to follow individual people and families through history, across places and, in a virtual sense, into possible futures.

The latter could involve anything from stories and maps to quantitative and/or visual computer models and would utilize the imaginations as well as the experience of both professional scientists and people from the affected (or potentially affected) groups. For example CIFOR’s use of scenarios in the Adaptive Collaborative Management Program could allow for more comprehensive analysis along these lines. There is also scope to incorporate oral histories of individual lives, households, and communities, including employment and migration, as well as oral histories of landscapes, ecosystems, production systems and markets. The extensive use of history as well as future visioning methodologies is illustrated by Robert Rhoades, Virginia Nazarea, Maricel Piniero, Cornelia Butler Flora, Galo Ramon Valarezo and others in the Ecuadorean Andes (Rhoades, 2001; Borrini-Feyerabend’s case study in this volume). The application of this kind of multi-method participatory research at farm and landscape scale and its extrapolation to regional and national agricultural, forestry, conservation and land use planning is a major challenge and opportunity for participatory research in the international and national research centres.

Perhaps the single most necessary and intriguing innovation in this field is the design of research to produce robust and malleable data sets that can be used for simulation and negotiation by diverse groups in a democratic format, for environmental, social and production planning. The process and the results could apply within or across several categories and scales of organization: farm household, community, municipality, region and nation, as well as research and development agency, project, or landscape, watershed and ecosystem.

Participatory research in agriculture and resource management, as we have developed it in the academy and CGIAR system, has served two very distinct purposes: social facilitation of technology transfer and innovation; and social, economic and environmental dimensions of technology change. The latter has

included a focus on the unevenly distributed and distinct consequences of technology and land use change among different groups of people and on distinct elements of surrounding ecosystems. A subset of participatory researchers has addressed social relations of power based on gender, race, class, nationality and other dimensions of identity and difference as forces that shape production systems and ecologies, as well as their social consequences. There is still far more scope to broaden our treatment of culture and politics, to better link these domains to our studies of the biophysical and production dimensions of human ecologies, and to produce results in a format appropriate for planning and negotiations.

Whether we work within the technology transfer paradigm or the more explicitly political and critical perspectives, we need to further explore what it means to work with and for people, rather than just study and write about them, or dream up new technologies and new rules for them. Maps, numbers, stories and pictures from field experience can recount our empirical observations, analyses and evaluations, and enrich our reflections on process. When creatively combined in simulations and scenarios these multimedia results can mediate encounters between different sciences and enable discussions among distinct groups, including researchers, with interests at stake in production, conservation and resource management decisions.

Conclusion

The experiences, analyses and reflections in this volume show how far we have come since the beginnings of participatory approaches to research in agriculture, resource management and rural livelihoods. The case study and

summary chapters provide a comprehensive overview of the state of the art, with an emphasis on current best practice and on-going innovations to mix scientific rigour with effective and equitable participation. The frontiers of innovation described in some chapters as well as the gaps in coverage within the volume illuminate the way forward in this expanding field. The future lies in a continuation of the best work already in progress, as well as careful and concerted efforts to address five key points: better understanding of people’s own short- and long-term goals and their visions of the future; data sets and techniques for use in negotiations and planning processes to define and choose among possible futures; development of practices that allow scientists to work with people to incorporate multiple perspectives into design of production and resource management policy and practice; analytical and process innovations to allow for democratic negotiations and collaboration across scales, from individual to international contexts; and finally, the most neglected as well as the most critical point, to work creatively at the interface between rural land use and livelihood changes and processes of urbanization and industrialization. To realize this vision of participation we may need to expand from a focus on the role of various people in research to a broader focus on the role of research in rural people’s lives, and in socially just and viable human ecologies.

Note

1. Jiggins cites Stanislas Boissau sboissau@fpt.vn or sboissau@hotmail.com as a contact on this point. She notes that he is working with these tools in Vietnam.

References

Alcorn, J B (1995) ‘Indigenous Peoples and Conservation’, in Ehrenfeld D, Readings from Conservation Biology: The Social Dimension, Blackwell Science, Cambridge

Batterbury, S, Forsyth, T and Thomson, K (1997) ‘Environmental Transformations in developing countries: Hybrid research and Democratic Policy’, The Geographical Journal 163(2):126–132

Buck, L, Lassoie, J and Fernandes, E (eds) (1998) Agroforestry in Sustainable Agricultural Systems, CRC Publishers, Boca Raton, FL

Chambers, R, Pacey, A and Thrupp, L A (eds) (1989) Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research, Intermediate Technology Publications, London

Feldstein, H S and Jiggins, J (1994) Tools for the Field: Methodologies Handbook for Gender Analysis in Agriculture, Kumarian Press, West Hartford, CT

Fernandez, M (1994) ‘Women’s Agricultural Production Committees and the Participative-research-action Approach’, in Feldstein, H and Jiggins, J (eds) Tools for the Field: Methodologies Handbook for Gender Analysis and Agriculture, Kumarian Press, West Hartford, Connecticut, pp239–243

Flora, C B (ed) (2001) Interactions between Agroecosystems and Rural Communities, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL

Garrity, D, Amoroso, V B, Koffa, S, Catacutan, D, Buenavista, G, Fay, P and Dar, W (2002) ‘Landcare on the Poverty-Protection Interface in an Asian Watershed’, Conservation Ecology 5(2)

Guijt, I and Shah, M K (eds) (1998) The Myth of Community, Intermediate Technology, London

Nazarea, V D (ed) (1999) Ethnoecology: Situated Knowledge/Located Lives, University of Arizona Press, Tucson

Posey, D and Balee, W (eds) (1989) Resource Management in Amazonia: Indigenous and Folk Strategies, New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York

Rhoades, R E (ed) (2001) Bridging Human and Ecological Landscapes: Participatory Research and Sustainable Development in an Agricultural Frontier, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co, Dubuque, Iowa

Richards, P (1985) Indigenous Agricultural Revolution: Ecology and Food Production in West Africa, Hutchinson, London

Richards, P (1989) ‘Agriculture as a Performance’, in Chambers, R, Pacey, A and Thrupp, L A (eds) Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research, Intermediate Technology, London, pp39–43

Rocheleau, D (1991) ‘Participatory Research in Agroforestry: Learning from Experience and Expanding our Repertoire’, Agroforestry Systems, 9(1)

Rocheleau, D (1994) ‘Participatory Research and the Race to Save the Planet: Questions, Critique, and Lessons from the Field’, Agriculture and Human Values, 11(2/3):4–25

Rocheleau, D (1998) ‘Confronting Complexity, Dealing with Difference: Social Context, Content and Practice in Agroforestry’, in Buck, L, Lassoie, J and Fernandes, E (eds) Agroforestry in Sustainable Agricultural Systems, CRC Publishers, Boca Raton, FL

Schmink, M (1999) ‘Conceptual Framework for Gender and Community-Based Conservation. MERGE Project Case Study No.1’, Center for Tropical Conservation and Development, University of Florida, Gainesville, www.tcd.ufl.edu/merge/case1eng.doc

Scoones, I and Thompson J (eds) (1994) Beyond Farmer First: Rural Peoples’ Knowledge, Agricultural Research, and Extension Practice, Intermediate Technology Publications, London

Showers, K (1995) ‘Gully Erosion in Lesotho and the Development of Historical Environmental Impact Assessment’, Working Paper 201, African Studies Center, Boston University, Boston

Slocum, R, Wichart, L, Rocheleau, D and Thomas-Slayter, B (1995) Power, Process, and Participation: Tools for Change, Intermediate Technology, London

Snapp, S S, Kanyama-Phiri, G, Kamanga, B, Gilbert, R and Wellard, K (2002) ‘Farmer and Researcher Partnerships in Malawi: Developing Soil Fertility Technologies for the Near-term and Far-term’, Experimental Agriculture, 38:411–31

Thomas-Slayter, B, Polestico, R, Esser, A, Taylor, O and Mutua, E (1995) Manual for Socio-Economic and Gender Analysis: Responding to the Development Challenge, Clark University IDCE Program, Worcester, MA

Tiffen, M, Mortimore, M and Gichuki, F (1993) More People, Less Erosion: Environmental Recovery in Kenya, John Wiley, Chichester (Kenya edition published in 1994 by ACTS Press, Nairobi, and the Overseas Development Institute, London)

Document(s) 11 of 15