Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T13:09:06.412Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGES OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH AND GENDER ANALYSIS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2008

NINA LILJA  and
JOHN DIXON
NINA LILJA*
Affiliation:
CGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation (PRGA Program), A.A. 6713, Cali, Colombia
JOHN DIXON
Affiliation:
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Apdo. Postal 6-641, 06600 Mexico, DF, Mexico
*
†Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Since the Green Revolution, the public-sector's agricultural research strategy for increasing food crop productivity has been explicitly based on the premise that technology can cross political and agro-climatic boundaries, primarily through the ‘training and visit’ system of extension (also known as ‘transfer of technology’ and the ‘pipeline’ model). Today, a different strategy is emerging. Efforts to develop the necessary institutional capacity for more client-oriented participatory research, particularly in plant breeding, are now a central part of the public-sector agricultural research strategy. Greater use of participatory and gender-analysis approaches in agricultural research has significant conceptual and methodological implications for impact assessment and institutional learning.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , January 2008 , pp. 3 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adesina, A. and Djato, K. K. (1997). Relative efficiency of women as farm managers: profit function analysis in Côte d'Ivoire. Agricultural Economics 16 (1): 47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alston, J. M. (1995). Science Under Scarcity: Principles and Practice for Agricultural Research Evaluation and Priority Setting. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Appleton, H. E. and Hill, C. L. M. (1994). Gender and indigenous knowledge in various organizations. Indigenous Knowledge & Development 2 (3) (Special issue): 8–11.Google Scholar
Ashby, J. A. (1996). What do we mean by participatory research in agriculture? In New Frontiers in Participatory Research and Gender Analysis. Proceedings of the International Seminar on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (PRGA), 9–14 September 1996, Cali, Colombia, 15–22. Cali, Colombia: Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT).Google Scholar
Ashby, J. (2003). Introduction: Uniting science and participation in the process of innovation – research for development. In Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods, Uniting Science and Participation (Eds Pound, B., Snapp, S., McDougall, C. and Braun, A.). London, UK: Earthscan, and Ottawa, Canada: IDRC.Google Scholar
Baser, H. (1988). Technology, Women, and Farming Systems. Ottawa, Canada: Agriculture Canada.Google Scholar
Baur, H. and Kradi, C. (2001). Integrating participatory research methods in a public agricultural research organization: a partially successful experience in Morocco. ODI/AgREN Network Paper No. 109.Google Scholar
Bellon, M. R., Berthaud, J., Smale, M., Aguirre, J. A., Taba, S., Aragon, F., Diaz, J. and Castro, H. (2003). Participatory landrace selection for on-farm conservation: an example from the Central Valleys of Oaxaca, Mexico. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 50: 401–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biggs, S. and Smith, S. (2003). Paradox of learning in project cycle management and the role of organizational culture. World Development 31 (10): 1743–1757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boserup, E. (1970). Woman's Role in Economic Development. New York: St Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Brennan, J. P. and Byerlee, D. (1991). The rate of crop varietal replacement on farms: measures and empirical results for wheat. Plant Varieties and Seeds 4: 99–106.Google Scholar
Buvinić, M. and Mehra, R. (1990). Women and agricultural development. In Agricultural Development in the Third World (2nd Edn), 290–308 (Eds Eicher, C. K. and Staats, J. M.). Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Campilan, D., Prain, G. and Bagalanon, C. L. (1999). Evaluation from the inside: participatory evaluation of agricultural research in The Philippines. Knowledge, Technology and Policy 11 (4): 114–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carney, J. A. (1998). Women's land rights in Gambian irrigated rice schemes: constraints and opportunities. Agriculture and Human Values 15: 325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceccarelli, S., Grando, S., Singh, M., Michael, M., Shikho, A., Al Issam, M., Al Saleh, A., Kaleonjy, G., Al Ghanem, S. M., Al Hasam, A. L., Dalla, H., Basha, S. and Basha, T. (2000). A methodological study on participatory barley plant breeding: I. Selection phase. Euphythica 111: 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceccarelli, S., Grando, S., Bailey, E., Amri, A., El-Felah, M., Nassif, F., Rezqui, S. and Yahyaoui, A. (2001). Farmer participation in barley breeding in Syria, Morocco and Tunisia. Euphytica 122: 521–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceccarelli, S., Grando, S., Tutwiler, R., Baha, J., Martini, A. M., Salahieh, H., Goodchild, A. and Michael, M. (2003). A methodological study on participatory plant breeding. II Response to selection. Euphytica 133: 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cernea, M. M. and Kassam, A. H. (2006). Researching the Culture in Agri-Culture: Social Research for International Development. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.Google Scholar
Chambers, R. G. (1988). Applied Production Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cromwell, E., Kambewa, P., Mwanza, R. and Chirwa, R. (2001). Impact assessment using participatory approaches: Starter pack and sustainable agriculture in Malawi. ODI/AgREN Network Paper No. 112.Google Scholar
Dalton, T. (2004). A household hedonic model of rice traits: economic values from farmers in West Africa. Agricultural Economics 31 (2/3): 149–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, T. and Guei, R. (2003). Productivity gains from rice genetic enhancements in West Africa: countries and ecologies. World Development 31 (2): 359–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, T., Lilja, N., Johnson, N. and Howeler, R. (2005). Impact of participatory natural resource management research in cassava-based cropping systems in Vietnam and Thailand. Working Document No. 23 (revised). Cali, Colombia: CGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (PRGA Program).Google Scholar
de Jager, A., Onduru, D. and Walaga, C. (2004). Facilitated learning in soil fertility management: Assessing potentials of low-external-input technologies in East African farming systems. Agricultural Systems 79 (2): 205–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dey, J. (1985). Women in African rice farming systems. In Women in Rice Farming. Proceedings of a conference on women in rice farming systems, Manila, Philippines, September 1983, 419–444. Brookfield, VT: Gower.Google Scholar
Dixon, J., Gulliver, A. and Gibbon, D. (2001). Farming Systems and Poverty: Improving Farmers’ Livelihoods in a Changing World. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Dixon, J., Nally, L., Aquino, P., Kosina, P., la Rovere, R. and Hellin, J. (2006). Centenary Review: Adoption and economic impact of improved wheat varieties in developing countries. Journal of Agricultural Science Cambridge 144: 489–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorward, P., Galpin, M. and Shepherd, D. (2003). Participatory farm management methods for assessing the suitability of potential innovations. A case study on green manuring options for tomato producers in Ghana. Agricultural Systems 75 (1): 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doss, C. R. (1999). Twenty-five Years of Research on Women Farmers in Africa: Lessons and Implications for Agricultural Research Institutions. With an annotated bibliography. CIMMYT Economics Program Paper No. 99-02. Mexico, DF: CIMMYT.Google Scholar
Douthwaite, B. (2002). Enabling Innovation: A Practical Guide to Understanding and Fostering Technological Change. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
Due, J. M., Sikaponde, E. and Magayane, F. (1991). Does the T and V extension system assist female-headed households? Some evidence from Zambia. Eastern Africa Economic Review 7 (1): 69–75.Google Scholar
Ellis, F. (2000). Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evenson, R. E. and Gollin, D. (Eds) (2002). Crop Variety Improvement and Its Effect on Productivity: The Impact of International Research. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar
Farrington, J. (1988). Farmer participatory research: editorial introduction. Experimental Agriculture 24 (3): 269–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrington, J., Thirtle, C. and Henderson, S. (1997). Methodologies for monitoring and evaluating agricultural and natural resources research. Agricultural Systems 55 (2): 273–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, A. J., Yoganand, B., Sulaiman, R. V. and Clark, N. G. , N. G. (Eds) (2004). Innovations in Innovation: Reflections on Partnership, Institutions and Learning. Patancheru and New Delhi: Crop Post-Harvest Programme (CPHP), International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), and National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research (NCAP/ICAR).Google Scholar
Heckman, J. (1979). Sample selection bias as specification error. Econometrica 47: 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, C. (2004). Preview: Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2004. ISAAA Briefs No. 32. Ithaca, NY: ISAAA.Google Scholar
James, C. (2005). Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2005. ISAAA Briefs No. 34. Ithaca, NY: ISAAA.Google Scholar
Jewett, S. (2000). Unequal knowledges in Jharkhand, India: de-romanticizing women's agroecological expertise. Development and Change 31 (5): 961–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, N., Lilja, N. and Ashby, J. A. (2003). Measuring the impact of user participation in agricultural and natural resource management research. Agricultural Systems 78: 287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, N., Lilja, N., Ashby, J. A. and Garcia, J. A. (2004). The practice of participatory research in natural resource management research. Natural Resources Forum 28: 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, C. (1983). The mobilization of women's labor for cash crop production: a game theoretic approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 65 (5): 1049–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joshi, K. D. and Witcombe, J. R. (2003). The impact of participatory plant breeding (PPB) on landrace diversity: A case study for high-altitude rice in Nepal. Euphytica 134 (1): 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kassam, A. H. (2006). Receptivity to social research by the CGIAR. Experimental Agriculture 42: 217–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kassam, A. H., Gregersen, H. M., Ferreres, E., Javier, E. Q., Harwood, R. R., De Janvry, A. and Cernea, M. M. (2004). A framework for enhancing and guarding the relevance and quality of science: the case of the CGIAR. Experimental Agriculture 40: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristjanson, P., Place, F., Franzel, S. and Thornton, P. K. (2002). Assessing research impact on poverty: the importance of farmers’ perspectives. Agricultural Systems 72 (1): 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lantican, M. A., Dubin, M. J. and Morris, M. L. (2005). Impacts of International Wheat Breeding Research in the Developing World, 1988–2002. Mexico, DF: CIMMYT.Google Scholar
Lilja, N. and Aw-Hassan, A. (2003). Benefits and costs of participatory barley breeding in Syria. Background paper for poster presented at the 25th International Conference of IAAE, Durban, South Africa, 16–22 August 2003.Google Scholar
Lilja, N. and Bellon, M. (2006). Participatory Research Projects at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT). Cali, Colombia: CGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (PRGA Program), and Mexico, DF: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT).Google Scholar
Lilja, N. and Dalton, T. (1997). Developing African public goods: rice varietal selection in Côte d'Ivoire. A discussion paper presented at the organized symposium, American Agricultural Economics meeting, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Lilja, N. and Sanders, J. H. (1998). Welfare impacts of technological change on women in Mali. Agricultural Economics 19 (1–2): 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maredia, M, Byerlee, D. and Pee, P. (1998). Impacts of food crop improvements in Africa. SPAAR Occasional Paper Series No. 1. Washington, DC: SPAAR.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R., Agle, B. and Wood, D. (1997). Towards theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review 22 (4): 853–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, M. L. and Bellon, M. R. (2004). Participatory plant breeding research: opportunities and challenges for the international crop improvement system. Euphytica 136: 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okali, C., Sumberg, J. E. and Farrington, J. (1994). Farmer Participatory Research: Rhetoric and Reality. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onduru, D. D., de Jager, A., Van Der Werf, E. and Diop, J. M. (2002). Participatory on-farm comparative assessment of organic and conventional farmers’ practices in Kenya. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture 19 (4): 295–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortiz, O., Garrett, K. A., Heath, J. J., Orrego, R. and Nelson, R. J. (2004). Management of potato late blight in the Peruvian highlands: evaluating the benefits of farmer field schools and farmer participatory research. Plant Disease 88 (5): 565–571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pingali, P. L. (2001). Milestones in Impact Assessment Research in the CGIAR, 1970–1999. Mexico, DF: Standing Panel on Impact Assessment, Technical Advisory Committee of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research.Google Scholar
Pingali, P. (2007). Will the gene revolution reach the poor? – Lessons from the Green Revolution. Mansholt Lecture, Wageningen University, 26 January 2007.Google Scholar
Pretty, J. (1994). Alternative systems of inquiry for sustainable agriculture. IDS Bulletin 25: 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quisumbing, A. R. (1995). Gender differences in agricultural productivity: a survey of empirical evidence. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 5. Rome, Italy: IFPRI (available at http://www.ifpri.org/divs/fcnd/dp/dp05.htm).Google Scholar
Raitzer, D., Kelley, T. and Gregersen, H. (2005). Donor demands for evidence of research impact – the case of the CGIAR. [Abstract] In New Avenues in Impact Assessment of Participatory Research and Gender Analysis. Summary proceedings of the Impact Assessment Workshop, CIMMYT Headquarters, Texcoco, Mexico, October 19–21, 2005 (Eds N. Lilja, J. Dixon, G. Manners, R. La Rovere, J. Hellin and H. S. Feldstein.), 19–20. Cali, Colombia: CGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation, and Texcoco, Mexico: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center.Google Scholar
Rhoades, R. E. (2005). Seeking half our brains: reflections on the social context of interdisciplinary research and development. In Understanding Culture in Agriculture (Eds Cernea, M. and Kassam, A..). Oxford, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar
Richards, P. (1995). Participatory rural appraisal: a quick and dirty critique. PLA Notes No. 24, 13–16. London, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development.Google Scholar
Saito, K. A. and Weidermann, C. J. (1990). Agricultural extension for women farmers in Africa. World Bank Discussion Papers No. 103. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
Scoones, I. and Thompson, J. (Eds) (1994). Beyond Farmer First: Rural People's Knowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension Practice. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smale, M., Bellon, M. R., Manuel Rosas, I., Mendoza, J., Solano, A. M., Martinez, R., Ramirez, A. and Berthaud, J. (2003). The economic costs and benefits of a participatory project to conserve maize landraces on farms in Oaxaco, Mexico. Agricultural Economics 29: 265–275.Google Scholar
Snapp, S. S., Freeman, H. A., Simtowe, F. and Rohrbach, D. D. (2002). Sustainable soil management options for Malawi: can smallholder farmers grow more legumes? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 91 (1/3): 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, E. (1993). Ongoing and participative evaluation: purpose, design and role in the evaluation of a large-scale R&D programme. Research Evaluation 3 (2): 75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waibel, H. and Zilberman, D. (Eds) (2007). International Research on Natural Resource Management: Advances in Impact Assessment. FAO and CAB International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WARDA (West Africa Rice Development Association) (1999). Participatory Varietal Selection: The Spark That Lit a Flame. Bouaké, Côte d'Ivoire: WARDA.Google Scholar
WARDA (West Africa Rice Development Association) (2000). Participatory Varietal Selection: The Flame Spreads Into 2000. Bouaké, Côte d'Ivoire: WARDA.Google Scholar
WARDA (West Africa Rice Development Association) (2001). Rice Interspecific Hybridization Project: Research Highlights 2000. Bouaké, Côte d'Ivoire: WARDA.Google Scholar
WARDA (West Africa Rice Development Association) (2002). Participatory Varietal Selection: Beyond The Flame. Bouaké, Côte d'Ivoire: WARDA.Google Scholar
Webb, P. (1989). Intrahousehold decisionmaking and resource control: the effects of rice commercialization in West Africa. IFPRI Working Papers on Commercialization of Agriculture and Nutrition No. 3. Washington, DC: IFPRI.Google Scholar
Weltzein, E., Smith, M. E., Meitzner, L. S. and Sperling, L. (2000). Technical and Institutional Issues in Participatory Plant Breeding from the Perspective of Formal Plant Breeding. A Global Analysis of Issues, Results and Current Experience. Cali, Colombia: CGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (PRGA Program).Google Scholar
Witcombe, J. R. and Virk, D. S. (2001). Number of crosses and population size for participatory and classical plant breeding. Euphytica 122: 451–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witcombe, J. R., Joshi, A., Joshi, K. D. and Sthapit, B. R. (1996). Farmer participatory crop improvement. I. Varietal selection and breeding methods and their impact on biodiversity. Experimental Agriculture 32: 445–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witcombe, J. R., Petre, R., Jones, S. and Joshi, A. (1999). Farmer participatory crop improvement. IV The spread and impact of a rice variety identified by participatory varietal selection. Experimental Agriculture 35: 471–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witcombe, J. R., Joshi, K. D., Rana, R. B. and Virk, D. S. (2001). Increasing genetic diversity by participatory varietal selection in high potential production systems in Nepal and India. Euphytica 122 (3): 575–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar