Rapid rural appraisal: A participatory problem formulation method relevant to Australian agriculture

Agricultural Systems 38 (1992) 363-386

Rapid Rural Appraisal: A Participatory Problem Formulation Method Relevant to Australian Agriculture

R. L. I s o n & P. R. A m p t School of Crop Sciences, The University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia (Received 22 July 1991; accepted 10 September 1991)

ABSTRACT Rapid rural appraisal (RRA), a qualitative survey methodology, is being increasingly utilised in Third Worm situations to formulate better the problems and identify opportunities for agricultural research and development. In Australia there have been few recent innovations in research methodologies and in the processes by which agricultural research and development problems are .[brmulated despite the increasing complexi O' (~[" the problems being encountered. Outcomes qf an exploratory RRA and a subsequent topical RRA, .first used in an Australian context in the Forbes Shire, central western NSW, in 1988, are discussed. It is suggested that the concepts which underpin RRA and the range and richness ~?]'outcomes make it a relevant tool for the[ormulation of problems for agricultural research and development in Australia and other developed countries. A model for future agronomic research which has emerged from the RRA experiences and which incorporates RRA is proposed. This model, which .focuses onfarmer participation in the research process, is seen to qO°ergreater potential for sustainable agricultural development in Australia than the increasingly questioned linear 'transfer of technology' model.

INTRODUCTION Rapid rural appraisal (RRA), a qualitative survey methodology, is a process to generate genuine interdisciplinarity in the formulation of problems for 363 Agricultural Systems 0308-521X/92/$05.00 (~ 1992 Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd, England. Printed in Great Britain

364

R. L. Ison, P. R. Ampt

agricultural research and development (R&D). This paper questions the basis of the current agricultural research process and reports on the range of outcomes of two rapid rural appraisals (RRAs) conducted in Australia; conceptual developments from these experiences are drawn on to propose an alternative model for participatory agricultural research and development in Australia. RRAs have been common in Third World situations for some time (Khon Kaen, 1987); an RRA is defined as a systematic but semistructured study carried out in the field by an interdisciplinary team over a short time. It is used as tile starting point for understanding a local situation and is based on information collected in advance, direct observation and semi-structured interviews so as to generate working hypotheses for subsequent action. It is assumed that all relevant questions cannot be identified in advance (Ampt & Ison, 1989a, 1992).

QUESTIONING C U R R E N T APPROACHES TO A G R I C U L T U R A L RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT International agricultural R& D in the period 1975-85 has been classified as being in an 'economic phase' (Rhoades, 1989) because of its focus on farming systems research (FSR) and issues of gender and equity; this phase has not been apparent in Australia. Innovations in international agricultural R& D and concomitant organisational change over the last decade as characterised by FSR, FSR and development (FSR&D), FSR and extension (FSR& E), and more recently 'farmer first and last' approaches (Chambers et al., 1989), have had minimal impact on Australian agricultural R&D. In fact, a conference specially organised to identify Australian comparative advantage in these research approaches, for utilisation in Third World agriculture, failed to identify any such advantage, as evidenced by the lack of project outcomes from that conference (Remenyi, 1985). This conference revealed that despite a long-established tradition of agricultural research in Australia there were few recent innovations in research methodology other than the development of quantitative or simulation modelling. More recently there has been an increased focus on the development of expert systems (e.g. Bishop et al., in press). This has been despite the recognition of the increasing complexity of agricultural problems and the changing nature of agriculture itself (Bawden et al., 1985; Lawrence, 1987; Pearson & Ison, 1992). Australian agricultural R & D thus only fully entered Rhoades' (1989) 'ecological phase (1985-95)' in the late 1980s, facilitated by changing international and national perceptions and events such as the sustainable agriculture conference (Working Papers, 1989) and the publication of

RRA and participatory research

365

Lawrence's (1987) book Capitalism and the Countryside. Furthermore, the international debate surrounding the conceptual validity of the 'transfer of technology' model of research and development (Chambers et al., 1989) is only beginning to be heard in Australia (Russell et al., 1989). The debate is being fostered by farmers (e.g. Martin & Baldwin, in press) and others concerned with the widening gap between research and extension, and the failure of 'technology adoption'. The debate has been increasingly facilitated by the rural industry research corporations (RIRCs), who, having recognised deficiencies in the problem formulation process, have increasingly become the source of major innovations over the last five years (see below).

The transfer of technology model Agricultural research and development in Australia has been largely characterised by a lineal model of technology development which has its roots in reductionist science and the nineteenth-century view that natural science, science for practice, held the key to increased productivity and profit (Richards, 1987). This model has been particularly dominant since the end of the Second World War, in what Rhoades (1989) classified as the 'production stage' in the evolution of agricultural R&D. The lineal model commences with research conducted by specialist researchers, which is then extended by specialist extension officers, to users, usually farmers, who may or may not 'adopt' the technology. This is known as either the 'transfer of technology' or the 'diffusion of innovations' model. Chambers and Jiggins (1987) suggest that the 'normal professionalism' of agricultural science is linked to the transfer of technology model because it (i) is output rather than client orientated; (ii) involves the development of a product by scientists and its ~sale' by extension personnel; (iii) rarely provides feedback to research from farmers; (iv) involves research being carried out on research stations, in greenhouses and in laboratories; and (v) is perpetuated by a hierarchically arranged education system where teaching comes down from above and the knowledge generated is seen as superior to farmers' knowledge.

The 'problem metaphor' There is considerable evidence from research in fields such as education and cognitive psychology that the problem-solving process is in fact cyclical, with a number of stages through which a successful decision-maker or researcher must proceed. Given the complexity of many agricultural problems and the varying perceptions of the 'problem metaphor' (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980), an increasingly essential component of the process is the

366

R. L. lson, P. R. Ampt

formulation of the problem by those involved in 'the problem'--the 'actors'. This is a creative process and consistent with the Popperian view of science, where '... the beginning of an inquiry is not the attempt to solve a problem: it is the problem itself, and it is important to work as hard as possible on the formulation of problems before searching for solutions' (Burgess, 1979). This view accepts (i) that problems do not exist 'out there' and it is only through human social processes that some form of agreement is reached on the nature of 'the problem'; (ii) that problems may be formulated in many apparently different forms but it is only their specific situations that differ: the process for resolving them remains the same; and (iii) rarely are there single 'right' answers to the complex problems confronting agriculture and the environment. As with problem solving, empirical research has shown the 'situated' or 'contextual' nature of learning--human minds develop in social situations and use tools and representational media that culture provides to support, extend and reorganise mental functioning (Pea & Brown, 1990). Based on this research, it is possible to view problem solving, learning and research as the same fundamental process and as requiring similar skills. The basic process is cyclical, iterative (Kolb, 1984; Bawden, 1985) and results in joint learning, by those in the process, as a primary outcome.

Current problem formulation processes This raises the question of how 'problems' are currently formulated for agricultural research in Australia. Some potential avenues are shown in Fig. 1, but it is a subject which until recently has received little attention in Australia (Ampt, 1992) and only recently in the United States (Busch & Lacy, 1983), India (Raman, 1989) and in international agricultural research centres (Biggs, 1989b). The process varies depending on the organisational context, e.g. an individual researcher compared to, say, a group of individuals constituting the board of a rural industry research corporation (Ampt, 1991). Surveys, particularly questionnaire surveys which enable quantitative treatment of data, have been a common feature of the process of problem/ issue identification in (Australian) agricultural economics research (e.g. ABARE surveys of primary industries) but less so in the disciplines involved in production agriculture. Quantitative surveys have a role but also have limitations, particularly in determining what questions should be asked and in subsequently making sense of the data generated. Qualitative surveys have been less common in Australian agriculture but have gained in prominence due to initiatives of the Production Research Advisory Committee of the Australian Wool Research and Development Corporation.

367

RRA and participatory research

SERENDIPITY CONFERENCE/ WORKSHOP~

/ ~

~

INFORMAL INTERACTION

LITERATURE(?)

OBSERVATION SEARCHCONFERENCE FOCUSGROUPS S.W.O.T.ANALYSIS SURVEYS

Fig. 1. Some postulated means of identifying problems for agricultural R & D (SWOT, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats).

These commenced with the use of a modified Delphi procedure to identify temperate pasture research priorities (Wheeler et al., 1987) and have continued to evolve since then (e.g. Wheeler & Corbett, 1989; Delfosse, 1990); these developments are discussed more fully in Ampt (1992).

RAPID R U R A L APPRAISAL IN AUSTRALIA RRA is not a new concept (Biggs, 1989a); it has, however, provided an important conceptual framework for the process of formulating problems and identifying opportunities for research and development in Third World countries (Conway et al., 1987). The rationale for the development of RRA and the main features are summarised in Table 1. RRA was first used in Australia in the Forbes Shire, central western New South Wales, in February 1988 (Ampt, 1992); this initial 'exploratory' RRA (Conway et al., 1987) has been described in terms of process and specific outcomes relating to grassland research (Ampt & Ison, 1989a) and weed, invertebrate and disease pests of pastures (Ampt & Ison, 1992). Ampt and Ison (1989a,b) outline the rationale for, and methods employed in, this initial exploratory RRA, and Ampt and Ison (1992) describe the rationale for, and methods used in, the subsequent 'topical' RRA (Conway et al., 1987) conducted in October/ November 1988. These are summarised in Table 1 in relation to the general features of RRA as now commonly practised in a developing country

R. L. Ison, P. R. Ampt

368

"

>"

~..~

o

,~ ~

~,

-'."~

>,o

I "5

©

L# b 0

--

'~ "~'~

"

"~'~"

~ - ' 1

~'=="

~-~

o~.,

0

Sg 0

.-

.0

0

" o'~ .~-

"--

o

-~ ,£° Z ~_~ ~

~

o z

~.~

-o

~u.

~

~

~~. ~~

.~

%

0

~

._=

i

,....,~'->,,.

~. ~.,_I ~ ' ~ ' -

. ->

_.

oo~=

,.0

,-'

"

0

.E

~

=~ ~.~ ",5 ""

"u

~.-

~

=

~"u

0 0

'~

r-, ,'.r

f~

r~

~s"

-',=-~'~

~

~=--

~

,-

7'-,-.'Z~7 ~

~

...~=

~¢_. o ¢ , ' ~

e-. Q ..~

~..'~

i= >_ .Z..>

>

"~

:

369

R R A and participator), research

,-o

o ~

"~

•~

o ~

~'~ &#

"-

2

~=

~

0

•~

~

~l

~

Z

~ . ~

,~,~

.~.o

~-

•

.-

~- .~~ ~ ~ ~ =~ .~ 2,

~

.~

"~ ~

~ ,

{~

7

..~

~

.E~r~

=~

#

.~ ~"~

- ~ o~

.-

0

-~_~ . ~

0

'-~

".,,~

~ , 2°

-

=

~ ~

~,~

~

o,, ~

370

R. L. Ison, P R. Ampt

ANM I AL SCIENTIST~

SOCIALWORKER ~

SOIL ~ ' - ~ ' ~ SCIENTIST ~

SOCIALECOLOGS IT / ....~

SOCA IL ANTHROPOLOGS IT

( THEEXPLORATORY~ _ ~ RRATEAM / ~ AGRICULTUR EA CLONOMS IT

AGRONOMS IT(3) S

FARMM - ANAGEMENT ECONOMS IT

Fig. 2. Disciplines from which the exploratory RRA team was drawn. context. The basis for the R R A location and organisational context was the 1986 acquisition by the School of Crop Sciences at the University of Sydney of a leased research site 15 km east of Forbes. The central west research unit (CWRU) was established on the site with the intention that it be a research base for the university in the mixed wheat/sheep dryland farming systems of NSW. Research programmes were envisaged for the unit but with increasing research in collaboration with farmers on their properties in a farming systems context (Steiner, 1987; Biggs, 1989b). R R A has rarely been used in a developed country setting but there is increasing interest in its use in the USA (Anon., 1989a), Britain (Annett & Ong, 1989) and in Switzerland (Scheuermier, U., pers. comm., 1990). P R I M A R Y O U T C O M E S OF T H E R A P I D R U R A L A P P R A I S A L S An overview of the main direct or derived outcomes of the Forbes R R A initiative are shown in Fig. 3. It is not the objective of this paper to report in detail all the specific outcomes of these RRAs but to consider the richness of the R R A process in terms of the range of ongoing outcomes and conceptual developments which offer alternatives to the current 'transfer o f technology' model of agricultural R & D. The primary ongoing outcomes were as follows (Fig. 3).

Agronomic problems identified in context The initial exploratory R R A identified a range of issues or problems which varied in their apparent complexity (Fig. 4, Ampt & Ison, 1992). It is useful to

RRA and participatory research Students involved / in RRA /

Interdisciplinary research initiated

~, Topical RRA on problem

/ RRA used in land care

~

group action research

Formation o f a Iocal f grasslandfiocietY

farmer l e a r n i n ~ ~ Enthusiasm as a basis for learning

Other indwiduals 'interested'in RRA

Incorporation/ of RRA techniques into curricula

of intergenerational transfer

Enhanced--~

371

~

/ / The current research / extension model ]uestione d

Acjrodomic problems identified in context

A model for future agronomic research based on the problem solving process

On-farm research proposed

Commissioned to review the c o n c e p t u a l b a s i s of e x t e n s i o n

Fig. 3. An overviewof the main outcomes and activities arising from the Forbes RRAs. view them as a hierarchy of issues as frequently the issues more readily approached by conventional (reductionist) research (Fig. 4) were 'nested' in more complex social and community issues. For example, the R R A team found it useful to distinguish between 'graziers' and 'farmers'. 'Graziers' tended to grow mainly cereal fodder crops and to concentrate on pastures rather than on commercial grain crops. Although most grew some .wheat, depending on prices, many employed share-croppers to do their farming, either because they did not enjoy farming or to avoid the large capital outlay on plant. Graziers tended to have a shorter cropping period (one to two years) and often only grew crops when pastures were becoming weed infested. For 'farmers', on the other hand, sheep were of secondary importance in their cropping system. Sheep provided utility in cleaning wheat stubble, providing a rotation to break soil-borne disease, and were a means by which soil degradation by overcropping was prevented. Pastures were often an afterthought and rarely sown, or if sown were not fertilised or spelled at critical times. 'Farmers' often invested in large-scale modern plant, engaged in share farming and gained satisfaction from operating and maintaining machinery. 'Farmers' were more likely than 'graziers' to practise long-fallowing (commencing in the spring) to (in their view) maximise crop yield potential with often concomitant exacerbated feed shortages for sheep in the summer/autumn feed gap. Farmers held widespread concern about the perceived actual and potential long-term effects of herbicides in their cropping systems (Fig. 4). Farmers felt herbicides were contributing to cleaner stubbles and inhibiting

372

Ampt

R. L. lson, P R.

~, AND COMPACTION),.....~ ~ J ~ . f ~ Contrtbutes to Denitrlfication )w \

Poor-N nutrition ....

7 ntr,o=es de,r, cts

(

/

Oeclin~ngsoiOM \

N U T R ' T ~

/ •

/

/

/

/

/

u~i°n ~

/

;;gniF~;~/iv

Fodder crops

reduce area for pastures

l ~ L A T ~

/

/

)

T I

/

I

Contr,~utes I .,o Ma~

( SUMMER/AUTUMN " ~ ~ FEED GAP j/

hamper estab~isnrnent

Continued use of burning

and clean cultivation contr,but.s to .... ~

T I Long fallow contributes

I

J l

Reluctance to changepra~ces

[

I I

¢l~-a.er stubble ~on~bu~~~.

Production of fodder

I

,

~'R~'~lr)u&lI~I=~I=CT~ ~ -n~-I~;ca~e'ir~¢"- )

Increased reliance on herbicides contributes

]

I

I

~

/

to

OPTIMUM TILLAGE ~PRACTICES& FALLOW) ~_NA

G E~ / "

Fig. 4. Linkages between major agronomic problems or issues identified from the conduct of a topical RRA in the Forbes Shire (source: Ampt & Ison, 1992).

natural pasture regeneration which, when combined with, in their view, lower quality straws in cereal residues, was exacerbating the late summer/ autumn feed gap. Thus the range of agronomic problems identified by the RRAs (Fig. 4) must be considered in relation to individual farmers' values, social and family context, and financial situation. It was evident to team members that at least some of the agronomic problems were not new and that information which would enable them to be alleviated was already available. For example, the problem of poor pasture legume content and establishment, identified in the exploratory RRA, was further explored in the topical RRA (Fig. 5); many of the issues apparently

373

R R A and participatory research Inoculation

Cost-benefit wool fault vs. feed value / persistence

P N antagonism ~ (/

Monitor techniques

~k

~k

~ / Wild radish

Oxalis

Improve soil

seed reserves \ after cropp_ing \

Fertilliser use Renovate existing ~ pastur e s ~ ~ ~ .

Native trefoil Herbicides, ] /weed problems / ~, ~+~ Bla~k/'greyf Cui{ivars

/'/D~t~o , EP~,, ~ . , ~ " ~ - - - - - ~

Continued use of

~

- _~/ ' ~ ' ~ . ~ , ~ ..... ~

oestrogenically high

~ ___r~. l.u.R.r-. . . .

sub-clovers

, / Optimum sowng depth

~

[

~ Variable' farmer experience ~

improve farmer-farmer extension

/

\

Equipment

Establish n e t w o r k s / /

Fig. 5.

/

~Soil~

]

~

~..~IA 15LI~1"-IMI--N,~/

/

/ What is the / cost-Benefit

e.g. Trifolium subterroneum ssp. yennmmum

Red

Establish lucerne

\

/ \

Undersowing

/

Optimum\ ~ density \ ~ Grazing Com~panion management cereal

~ vs. solo establishment ? Farmer innovations

of / o.SignificanCestudies t h e r medics; //competition

Sowing rates and seed placement of cereal and legume

Issues relating to poor legume pasture establishment, a subset of the issue pasture productivity' (see Fig. 4) identified from the RRA.

of'low

associated with this problem were not new and have been the subject of much past research. This gives rise to the next outcome. A 'communication gap' between researchers and producers This was identified by the teams and added weight to the argument that the traditional research-extension-producer model for the transfer of technology had not been successful in achieving adequate awareness or adoption of technologies available or alternatively that the technology was inappropriate to the producers. Further specific outcomes and initiatives have arisen from this issue: (i) The team identified an apparent lack of knowledge and local expertise in pasture establishment and management. Many farmers were, however, enthusiastic about how pastures might be better incorporated in their farming systems (Fig. 5). As a result of this experience, one team member was able to facilitate the formation of a local branch of the Grassland Society of NSW, which in 1989 had an active local committee and had attracted 40 people to its first function. (ii) Two bodies of knowledge, 'folk' or 'farmer' and 'scientific', could be identified. The 'folk' knowledge system was seen to be based on

374

R. L. lson, P. R. Ampt

previous experience acquired over many years, passed from generation to generation and having evolved to the needs of specific areas. It involved integration of all aspects of their knowledge in a holistic way and its description (as in science) was not necessary to its operation. Scientific knowledge was seen as arising from systematic enquiry and generalisation, couched in its own jargon, consciously articulate and claiming universal significance. (iii) Three members of the initial R R A team were subsequently commissioned to review the conceptual basis of extension on behalf of the Production Research Advisory Committee of the Australian Wool Corporation (Russell et al., 1989). These workers continue to explore the notion of 'enthusiasm' or 'systems to create and maintain enthusiasm' as a higher order conceptualisation of extension than its more c o m m o n l y associated metaphors of 'information-rich', 'information-poor' or 'information transfer'. (iv) The outcomes of the RRA, as typified in Fig. 4, convinced the team and relevant members of the School of Crop Sciences that research which recognised the diverse social, biological and economic environments in which producers operate was necessary. Many producers when asked were enthusiastic about possible collaborative on-farm research as described by Steiner (1987). It was recognised that individual farmers and farm families needed to be able to assimilate, integrate and adapt information available to them. The involvement of farmers with researchers in all stages of the research process is one means of achieving this required learning. An alternative model for agronomic research which involves farmers in the research process and which is based on the cyclical, iterative learning model described earlier is thus proposed (Fig. 6). This is seen as an alternative to the linear or 'transfer of technology' model for research.

An alternative model for agronomic research The model proposed in Fig. 6 recognises the relevance and importance of both 'knowledge systems' described above, and is seen as a means of creatively drawing them together to enhance future learning. The stages in the model warrant clarification: (i) Steps 1-3 can be equated to the R R A process (Ampt & Ison, 1989a,b). In the 1988 RRAs farmers were not included in the R R A team despite considerable prior debate about the desirability of their inclusion. The decision not to was based on research by Anderson

RRA and participatory research

375

1. Experiencethe farmi:::ti f°armer ~ 2. Jointly identify

~ ~

problems and opportunities

Innovate \ Re-evaluate

3.Prioritise and refine statements/hypotheses about problems and

opportunities I ~

Action Facilitateaction on other issues

4. Design agronomic context of whole farm and

research in the

'development' issues

from (3)

5. Implementand manage the experiments Fig. 6.

7,

Jointly interpret and extrapolate; draw out relevant concepts

Used in o t h e r s Port°:i?it!ii! at:°a~s

6. Collect data; maintain farmer collaboration

A conceptual model for future agronomic research based on the problem-solving or learning model.

(1984), showing closed communication networks between groups of farmers. As part of the topical RRA, however, farmers were invited to attend a meeting to receive feedback on the authors' findings ~lnd in the ensuing interactive process were able to further clarify or enhance our conclusions. Based on this experience, the authors would now advocate inclusion of local farmers in the RRA team, but as argued by Freedom from Hunger (1989) team member selection would always be a critical stage.

376

R. L. lson, P. R. Ampt

Steps 1 and 2 are consistent with an initial focus on 'rich picturing' at the commencement of the problem-solving process (Checkland, 1981; Bawden et al., 1985; Pearson & Ison, 1987). Kolb's (1984) investigations into the process of experiential learning provide a theoretical basis--these are the initial key experiences undertaken in what Egan and Cowan (1979) describe as a diverging activity in the learning or problem-solving process. Step 3 is involved with converging, identifying and prioritising problems, and opportunities. Relevant during these stages and subsequent stages are the concepts which arise from group theory (Pfeiffer & Jones, 1975; Johnson & Johnson, 1982). As in the Forbes RRAs, it is likely that a hierarchy of problems or opportunities will emerge from any diverging, creative, exploratory process which brings people of different backgrounds together, each capable of seeing problems and sensing opportunities in different ways (i.e. they have different sets of experiences, different learning styles (Kolb, 1984) and so construct the world differently (Kelly, 1970; Bawden & Ison, 1992)). It is thus understandable that team members will be tempted to place different priorities on different issues/opportunities. In this regard four considerations are important: (a) The institutional context of the RRA--this determines the modus operandi of the RRA, the degree to which it is participatory, involving local people and ultimately the nature of the research or development partnership which evolves from the process. For example, the Forbes RRA was mounted by a university School of Crop Sciences with an organisational mandate to educate and research in the area of crop sciences. Problems relevant to the school's organisational mandate were identified, and further refined in the topical RRA, but as outlined above these were usually not the problems of highest priority (to local people) and were often inextricably linked with higher order complex issues. This leads to the second point. (b) Team membership--not only are the personal characteristics and disciplinary background of team members important but also their institutional affiliations and linkages. As shown in Fig. 3, a large range of initiatives continue to be made from the 1988 RRAs. * Members of the teams have taken back issues from the RRA and pursued them or facilitated action through other agencies (e.g. Grassland Society of NSW). It was unfortunate that the social worker member of the exploratory RRA team (and only woman) attached to the local health department resigned from that position shortly after the conduct of the RRA. This precluded feedback of

RRA and participatory research

377

issues relevant to regional health policy and the status of country women (a much neglected area of enquiry) into that organisation. The place which potential team members hold in organisations is also an important consideration. (c) Team-building workshop--conducted prior to staging the RRA which draws on group theory to establish group norms, and thus facilitate genuine interdisciplinary activity, but also to clearly establish the modus operandi of the RRA, to raise issues of institutional linkages and to develop skills in semi-structured interviewing. (d) Techniques for prioritising--this is an area requiring further investigation. Techniques such as ranking (Pretty et al., 1988), sustainability analysis (Craig, 1988), agricultural triage (Craig & Sukapong, 1988), nominal group technique (Delbecq et al., 1975) and force field analysis (Lewin, 1969) could all have a role to play. Alternatively, the main priorities may be so obvious that group consensus is reached very rapidly without reverting to any of these techniques. These four considerations are likely to influence the extent to which action is initiated or facilitated on other, higher order, issues arising from the RRA (Fig. 6). It is an area requiring further methodological development. (ii) Step 4 commences with a set of research hypotheses or issues which may require some refinement into particular hypotheses and projects (e.g. Fig. 5) or warrant further investigation (e.g. by way of quantitative survey, etc.). In the context of this model (and organisation) agronomic research is considered but in the light of other issues derived from the RRA and with attention to the place of agronomic issues in the whole farm or development context (Pearson & Ison, 1987, 1992). Farmer collaboration throughout this process, including their contribution to treatment identification and research design, is likely to provide new insights (see Ashby, 1987; Ashby et al., 1989). (iii) For agronomic research it is possible to envisage Step 5 (Fig, 6) comprising considerable on-farm research using the range of emerging methods for on-farm research (Steiner, 1987; Biggs, 1989b). This stage would warrant greater attention to process and interpersonal skills than has been traditional in farm-based trials in Australian agriculture. Greater attention to role definition, responsibility allocation (e.g. for measurements and cultural practices) and to financial arrangements (if any) would be necessary. Such a process does not preclude investigation in laboratories and glasshouses, but

378

R. L. Ison, P. R. Ampt

the participant farmers should where practicable be party to design and management of such experiments through Steps 4-6. For joint learning to occur maintenance of farmer collaboration is vital (Biggs, 1989b). Such on-station or laboratory research can be envisaged as another learning cycle commencing at Step 4 or 5, thus retaining the investigations in context. (iv) Jointly interpreting data, extrapolating and drawing out relevant concepts (Step 7, Fig. 6): Ashby et al. (1989) have shown the contribution farmers can make not only to trial design but trial interpretation. Processes which bring farmers and scientists together enable meaningful trial results to be established in each other's terms. These often differ. This stage is consistent with learning theory (conceptualisation; Kolb, 1984) and from site or regional experiences relevant concepts must be drawn together with action outcomes for use in other problem situations or organisational contexts. Publication, although remaining important, may be only one means by which this is achieved. Farmer-to-farmer learning, particularly using groups based on adult learning models, are likely to have utility. The learning cycle concludes with action which may involve refining original hypotheses, further re-evaluation of the farm or farmer situation in the light of the 'research' outcomes or farm-level innovations and adjustments (Fig. 6).

OTHER O N G O I N G OUTCOMES FROM THE RRAs

Incorporation of RRA techniques into curricula This has occurred in two of the tertiary institutions from which RRA team members were drawn. In the School of Crop Sciences at the University of Sydney a modified RRA was conducted by final-year agronomy and farm management students in 1989 as part of the courses on agroecosystem analysis and experimentation. Fourteen irrigation farmers on the Lachlan River near Forbes and local extension personnel were interviewed by the students who visited their farms/office. The RRA had several objectives: --introducing students to RRA and its component techniques (e.g. semistructured interviewing); - - t o identify issues or opportunities for improving the situation of these farmers by collaborating on a group report to an appropriate agency, organisation or the farmer(s), and identifying agronomic issues

RRA and participatory research

379

warranting further research, to be conducted as a group research project; and - - f o r students to evaluate their own learning as a result of participating in the R R A and subsequent group and report preparation activities. Three group reports were prepared based on the students' appraisal of the major issues to emerge from the RRA. All students acknowledged, in their own evaluations, the impact of the exercise on their own thinking. Their reports addressed: (a)

Intergenerational succession in farming--all farms visited in the R R A involved male decision-makers but typically the farming family structure contained a middle-aged male with a son or sons. These students concluded that a paradox existed--the younger generation were encouraged to value the freedom and independence of running an enterprise whilst being more or less controlled in their work. This was often a continual source of tension because the offspring (especially sons) were socialised to value family continuity in farming operations. (b) Problems of lucerne marketing in the Forbes district. (c) Directions of change in relation to the Forbes district--arising from the students' perception that the farmers interviewed lacked 'motivation' to change and adapt: a reflection, possibly, of what their education had led them to expect coupled with comparisons with farmers in the neighbouring Macquarie Valley. Topical RRA on problem of intergenerational transfer

As found by the students, a major issue to emerge from the initial exploratory R R A was that of intergenerational transfer. Family support and involvement were identified as an important determinant of stability and financial success. Where conflict between spouses, parents and offspring or siblings existed, the potential for instability had a very real effect on farming practices and planning. The pivotal family relationship (50% of those interviewed) was between father and sons. This issue was taken up by one of the exploratory R R A team members and has resulted in a further topical R R A and an ongoing interdisciplinary research project on intergenerational transfer of the family farm (Gamble et al., 1989). RRA use in land care group action research

R R A techniques have been incorporated into curricula within the Faculty of Agriculture and Rural Development, University of Western Sydney

380

R. L. lson, P. R. Ampt

(Hawkesbury), and students, together with staff, have employed RRA approaches in determining priority issues for land care groups in the Hunter Valley, NSW (Martin et al., 1989). This experience suggests RRA is a potentially useful tool for both exploring directions and monitoring activities of local land care groups which are in danger of dissipating for want of an appropriate modus operandi and operational processes (Burton, 1989).

Uptake by other individuals and agencies in Australia Interest in RRA via distributed reports and informal contacts has occurred. Two specific contacts point to other potential uses for RRA: (a) as a means by which voluntary organisations (e.g. grower bodies) might gauge member needs and thus shape organisational policy; and (b) use by regional administrators (e.g. regional directors of health, agriculture, water resources and soil conservation) as a process to facilitate joint 'institutional learning' and cooperation around jointly identified regional problems. RRA could also be considered at the local level, as for example in defining community health care needs (Carroll, M., pers. comm. 1990). As discussed below, participatory RRA is a useful process for involving local people in the research or problem-solving process.

PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH AND OTHER INITIATIVES The research approach proposed in Fig. 6 is designed to facilitate joint learning, a principal basis of interdisciplinary and ultimately participatory research which is potentially of greater utility than the current linear, demarcated (research-extension-farmer) 'transfer of technology' model. It is important, however, to emphasise what this model is and is not: (i) it is a conceptual model to guide action--it is not a normative model or a seven-step recipe to be followed step by step; in practice the linkages between steps will never be clear and may frequently be nonsequential, therefore (ii) it is not a linear model drawn as a circle. (iii) it is not new but has rarely been articulated; in research by one of the authors (Ampt, 1992) some agronomic researchers have been encountered who 'research' in a process not dissimilar to that proposed. (iv) it is a model with conceptual underpinnings; the important ones are: (a) that it is a systemic, as opposed to systematic, approach to

RRA and participatory research

381

problem solving (Checkland, 1985; Holt & Schoorl, 1989); (b) it incorporates soft and hard systems ideas (Checkland, 1989) and is not confined to the hard systems tradition as is a similar model proposed by McCown (1989); (c) it is based on learning and group theory, and research results of educationalists and cognitive psychologists; and (d) it can be seen as a form of action research, a way of taking action in organisations and communities that is participative and informed by theory. (v) it accepts new findings in science (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984; Maturana & Varela, 1988) about the nature of change, and which view individuals as 'creating their own world of experience' rather than observing some external objective reality. These findings suggest a greater need for research processes which generate a 'common experience' and accept that problems are not 'out there' waiting to be discovered, but that a problem is a problem if there is agreement between people that it is (Martin et al., 1989). In development studies there is a burgeoning literature on participatory research methods (Farrington & Martin, 1988; Amanor, 1989; Chambers et al., 1989; ILEIA, 1989; Waters-Bayer, 1989). Waters-Bayer (1989) argues that 'participatory technology development' (PTD) is essentially about how farmers and scientists are collaborating to generate new ecofarming techniques. Ecofarming has been coined to encapsulate ecologically orientated, organic farming, sustainable agriculture and alternative agriculture, all of which are seen as having in common: (i) the development of land-use systems appropriate to site-specific physical, biological and socioeconomic conditions; (ii) making optimal use of locally available resources, particularly local people; and (iii) achieving productive, long-term sustainability. These developments have led others to modify the initial RRA focus to what they have termed 'participatory rural appraisal' (Anon., 1989b). Arguments similar to those of Waters-Bayer (1989) were made for Australian agriculture by many present at the 1989 conference on sustainable agriculture (Working Papers, 1989); however, few cases of operationalising the expressed needs were presented. In this paper it is argued that RRA has a role to play in Australian agriculture, based on experiences in the Forbes Shire, and judgements about the utility of the outcomes. RRA or PRA is a key component of the model for future agronomic research proposed (Fig. 6); evaluation of RRA (Franzel & Crawford, 1987) has shown its utility in comparison to other survey methods but it is by no means the only problem formulation strategy available. Focus groups (Basch, 1987), ZOPP (GTZ, 1987), an adaptation of USAID's logical framework approach to planning agricultural projects (Schubert et al.,

382

R. L. Ison, P. R. Ampt

1989), and others reviewed in Farrington and Martin (1988) are all likely to have increasing utility in Australia in future. Together with RRA, these approaches respond to Busch's (1984) conviction that democratisation of the problem formulation process is the best way to improve agricultural science.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank all who participated in both RRAs, particularly the farmers of the Forbes Shire, for making these activities such a rich learning experience. This work would not have been possible without financial support from the Australian Meat Research Corporation and the School of Crop Sciences. We also thank Robert Chambers and Craig Pearson for their encouraging interest, Ian Valentine for some early motivation and David Russell for his ever perceptive comments. The authors, however, take full responsibility for the final product.

REFERENCES Amanor, K. (1989). 340 abstracts on farmer participatory research. Network Paper 5, ODI Agricultural Administration Unit, London, 152 pp. Ampt, P. (1992). Rapid rural appraisal for problem identification for agronomic research. MScAgr. thesis, University of Sydney. Ampt, P. R. & Ison, R. L. (1989a). Rapid rural appraisal for the identification of grassland research problems. Proc. XIV Int. Grassland Congress, Nice, pp. 1291-2. Ampt, P. R. & Ison, R. L. (1989b). RRA has a role to play in developed countries. RRA Notes, 5, 22 33. Ampt, P. R. & lson, R. L. (1992). Problem identification for agronomic research: Evaluation of rapid rural appraisal in the Forbes Shire of NSW. In Weed, Invertebrate and Disease Pests of Australian Sheep Pastures, ed. E. S. Delfosse. Australian Wool Corporation/CSIRO, Melbourne. Anderson, A. M. (1984). Information transmission in Australian agricultural extension: Processes and implications. PhD thesis, Macquarie University. Annett, H. & Ong, P. (1989). Rapid appraisal South Sefton (Merseyside) Health Authority. RRA Notes, 7, 37-9. Anon. (1989a). 1988 FSR/E Symposium: Contributions of FSR/E Towards Sustainable Agricultural Systems. FSRE Newsletter, 1, 1-2. Anon. (1989b). An Introduction to Participatory Rural Appraisal for Rural Resources Management. Clark University, Worcester, MA, 23 pp. Ashby, J. A. (1987). The effects of different types of farmer participation on the management of on-farm trials. Agric. Admin. & Exten., 25, 235-52.

RRA and participatory research

383

Ashby, J. A., Quiros, C. & Rivers, Y. (1989). Farmer participation in technology development: Work with crop varieties. In Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research, ed. R. Chambers, A. Pacey & L.A. Thrupp. Intermediate Technology Publications, London, pp. 115-22. Basch, C. E. (1987). Focus group interview: An underutilized research technique for improving theory and practice in health education. Health Education Quarterly, 14, 411-48. Bawden, R. J. (1985). Problem-based learning: An Australian perspective. In Problem-Based Learning in Education for the Professions, ed. D. Boud. HERDSA, Sydney. Bawden, R. J. & Ison, R. L. (1992). The purpose of field crop ecosystems: Social and economic aspects. In FieM Crop Ecosystems, ed. C.J. Pearson. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 11-35. Bawden, R. J., Ison, R. L., Macadam, R. D., Packham, R. G. & Valentine, I. (1985). A research paradigm for systems agriculture. In Farming Systems Research: Australian Expertise for Third World Agriculture, ed. J. V. Remenyi. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Canberra, pp. 31-42. Beebe, J. (1985). Rapid rural appraisal: The critical first step in a farming system approach to research. Farming Systems Support Project Networking Paper No. 5. Belbin, R. M. (1981). Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail. Heinemann, London. Biggs, S. D. (1989a). A multiple source of innovation model of agricultural research and technology promotion. ODI Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension), Network Paper 6, 71 pp. Biggs, S. D. (1989b). Resource-poor farmer participation in research: A synthesis of experiences from nine national agricultural research systems. OFCOR Comparative Study Paper No. 3, ISNAR, The Hague, 37 pp. Bishop, A. L., Waterhouse, B. D. & Lodge, G. M. (in press). Integrated pest management for lucerne pastures. In Weed, Invertebrate and Disease Pests of Australian Sheep Pastures, ed. E.S. Delfosse. Australian Wool Corporation/ CSIRO, Melbourne. Burgess, T. (1979). New ways to learn. J. Royal Soc. Arts, 127, 117-57. Burton, J. (1989). Resource management for sustained productivity. Proc. Ann. Cons Grassland Soc. NSW, 4, 93-5. Busch, L. (1984). Science, technology, agriculture and everyday life. In Research in Rural Sociology and Development: Focus on Agriculture, ed. H.K. Schwarzweller. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp. 289-314. Busch, L. & Lacy, W. B. (1983). Science, Agriculture and the Politics of Research. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Chambers, R. (1983). Rural Development: Putting the Last First. Longman, Harlow, UK. Chambers, R. & Jiggins, J. (1987). Agricultural research for resource-poor farmers. 1: Transfer of technology and farming systems research. Agric. Admin. & Exten., 27, 35-52. Chambers, R., Pacey, A. & Thrupp, L. A. (eds) (1989). Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. Intermediate Technology Publications, London.

384

R. L. Ison, P. R. Ampt

Checkland, P. B. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. John Wiley, London. Checkland, P. B. (1985). From optimizing to learning: A development of systems thinking for the 1990s. J. Opl Res. Soc., 36, 757-67. Checkland, P. B. (1989). Soft systems methodology. In Rational Analysis for a Problematic World, ed. J. Rosenhead. John Wiley, Chichester, pp. 71-100L Conway, G. R., McCracken, J. A. & Pretty, J. A. (1987). Training Notes for Agroecosystem Analysis and Rapid Rural Appraisal. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, 60 pp. Craig, I. A. (1988). Sustainability analysis. Agricultural Development Tools Handbook No. H17. Northeast Rainfed Agricultural Development (NERAD) Project, Khon Kaen, Thailand. Craig, I. A. & Sukapong, C. (1988). Agricultural triage. Agricultural Development Tools Handbook No. H15. Northeast Rainfed Agricultural Development (NERAD) Project, Khon Kaen, Thailand. Delbecq, A. L., Van den Ven, A. H. & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group Techniquesfor Program Planning. Scott, Foresman & Co., Glenview, IL. Delfosse, E. S. (ed.) (1992). Weed, Invertebrate and Disease Pests of Australian Sheep Pastures. Australian Wool Corporation/CSIRO, Melbourne. Egan, G. & Cowan, M. (1979). People in Systems: A Model for Development in the Human-Service Professions and Education. Brooks/Cole Publishers Co., Monterey, CA. Farrington, J. & Martin, A. M. (1988). Farmer participatory research: A review of concepts and recent fieldwork. Agric. Admin. & Exten., 29, 247-64. Franzel, S. & Crawford, E. W. (1987). Comparing formal and informal survey techniques for farming systems research: A case study from Kenya. Agric. Admin. & Exten., 27, 13-33. Freedom from Hunger (1989). Rapid Rural Appraisalfor Project Planning. Mimeo, Freedom from Hunger, San Francisco, 69 pp. Gamble, D. et al. (1989). The Transfer of the Family Farm: A Community Response. Mimeo, University of Western Sydney, Richmond, 25 pp. GTZ (1987). ZOPP Flipcharts--Training Materials for ZOPP Moderators. Deutsche Gesellschaft fiir Technische Zusammenarbeit, Eshborn, 25 pp. Holt, J. E. & Schoorl, D. (1989). Putting ideas into practice. Agric. Systems, 30, 155-71. ILEIA (Information Centre for Low-External-Input and Sustainable Agriculture) (1989). Participatory technology development in sustainable agriculture. Proc. ILEIA Workshop, Leusden, The Netherlands, 67 pp. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, F. P. (1982). Joining Together--Group Theory and Group Skills. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Kelly, G. A. (1970). A brief introduction to personal construct theory. In Perspectives in Personal Construct Theory, ed. D. Bannister. Academic Press, New York. Khon Kaen (1987). Proceedings of the 1985 International Conference on Rapid Rural Appraisal. Khon Kaen University, Thailand. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall, NJ. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 13946. Lawrence, G. (1987). Capitalism and the Countryside: The Rural Crisis in Australia. Pluto Press, Sydney.

RRA and participatory research

385

Lewin, K. (1969). Quasi-stationary social equilibria and the problem of permanent change. In The Planning of Change, ed. W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne & R. Chin. Holt, Rinehart, Winston, New York, pp. 235-8. McCown, R. L. (1989). Adapting farming systems research concepts to Australian research needs. Proc. 5th Australian Agronomy Conference, pp. 221-34. Martin, P., Pinn, J., Woodhill, J. & Wilson, A. (1989). Total catchment management--towards 2000: Perspectives and approaches for community participation. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Experiential Learning. University of Western Sydney, Richmond. Martin, R. J. & Baldwin, R. R. (in press). Farmer-driven research and development. In Weed, Invertebrate and Disease Pests of Australian Sheep Pastures, ed. E. S. Delfosse. Australian Wool Corporation/CSlRO, Melbourne. Maturana, H. R. & Varela, F. J. (1988). The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. New Science Library, Boston, MA. Pea, R. & Brown, J. S. (eds) (1990). Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Pearson, C. J. & lson, R. L. (1987). Agronomy of Grassland Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 169pp. Pearson, C. J. & Ison, R. L. (1991). University education for multiple-goal agriculture in Australia. Agric. Systems, 38, 341-62. Pfeiffer, J. W. & Jones, J. E. (eds) (1975). Annual Handbook for Group Facilitators. University Associates, La Jolla, CA. Pretty, J. N., Craig, I. A. & Chouangcham, P. (1988). Preference ranking. Agricultural Development Tools Handbook No. H1. Northeast Rainfed Agricultural Development (NERAD) Project, Khon Kaen, Thailand. Prigogine, I. & Stengers, I. (1984). Order Out of Chaos: Man's New Dialogue with Nature. Bantam Books, New York. Raman, K. V. (1989). Scientists training and interactions with farmers in India. In Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research, ed. R. Chambers, A. Pacey & L.A. Thrupp. Intermediate Technology Publications, London, pp. 169-74. Remenyi, J. V. (ed.) (1985). Agricultural Systems Research for Developing Countries. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Canberra. Rhoades, R. E. (1989). Evolution of agricultural research and development since 1950: Toward an integrated framework, lIED Sustainable Agriculture Programme, Gatekeeper Series No. SA 12, 19 pp. Richards, S. A. (1987). Higher education for an alternative agriculture: British universities and the need for reform. Biolog. Agric. & Hortic., 5, 347-64. Russell, D. B., Ison, R. L., Gamble, D. R. & Williams, R. K. (1989). A Critical Review of Rural Extension Theory and Practice. AWC/University of Western Sydney, Richmond, 67 pp. Schubert, B., Nagel, U. J., Denning, G. L. & Pingali, P. L. (1989). A logical framework for planning agricultural research programs. Team Consult, Berlin and IRRI, Los Bafios, 27 pp. Steiner, K. G. (1987). On-Farm Experimentation Handbook jor Rural Development Projects. GTZ No. 203, GTZ, Eschborn, FRG, 307 pp. Waters-Bayer, A. (1989). Participatory technology development in ecologicallyoriented agriculture: Some approaches and tools. ODI Agricultural Administration Unit, Network Paper 7, 63 pp.

386

R. L. lson, P. R. Ampt

Wheeler, J. L. & Corbett, J. C. (1989). Criteria for breeding forages of improved feeding value: Results of a Delphi survey. Grass and Forage Sci., 44, 77-83. Wheeler, J. L., Pearson, C. J. & Robards, G. E. (eds) (1987). Temperate Pastures: Their Production, Use and Management. Australian Wool Corporation/ CSIRO, Melbourne. Working Papers (1989). Planning jbr Sustainable Agriculture: Why Plan? Bureau of Rural Resources and Roseworthy Agricultural College, Roseworthy, S. Australia, 127 pp.