AR ESA phase2 participatory-research-design-training Oct2016
Africa RISING ESA Phase 2
Participatory Research Design Approaches Training
3 - 4 October, 2016
Lilongwe, Malawi[edit | edit source]
- More photos from the event (click to view)
- ' List of Participants '(click to download)
- This 2-day training preceded the Africa RISING ESA Phase 2 Inception/Review and Planning Meeting
Agenda[edit | edit source]
Day 1 (3 October, 2016)
- Recent thinking in systems research and implications for research designs – R. Coe (click to download presentation)
- Africa RISING sustainable intensification framework – P. Grabowski (click to download presentation)
- Practical session – looking at different data sets that participants submitted to the trainer
Day 2 (4 October, 2016)
- Approaches to analysis and the sort of results that can be generated - R. Coe (click to download presentation)
- Group work – causal loops in system analysis? (see photos of the sample causal loops developed by groups below)
- Brainstorming in 3 groups on research design issues that are challenging/problematic/confusing
Feedback from group B:
Discussion focus:
Assessing farmer preferences concerning new practices (how are preferences connected to decisions)
- . What level of experience (length and scale/intensity) is needed for farmers to evaluate a practice?
- - From observing a demo to practicing it over many years or
- - Working on a 10x10 m plot over 1 ha?
- . When should we aim for overall assessments and when for specific characteristics (affordable, social acceptable, accessible)
- - When to elicit from farmers and when to predefine
- - When to elicit from farmers and when to predefine
- . Who is doing the assessing, how are they chosen?
- - Random selection?
- - What do the choices represent?
- . What is the connection between an expressed preferences and decision making – Irmgard’s FIAT vs Mercedes example
- . When should assessment be relative and when absolute
- . Where do you assess preferences from?
- - Under a tree?
- - At the site?
- How do we avoid biasness in the assessment of preferences?
- - Farmers may tell what you want to hear.
- - Farmers may tell what you want to hear.
- . Who is asking questions on preferences…the donor/scientists vs local farmers
- . How are the preferences expressed?
- - Ratings and rankings on scale/ advantages and disadvantages?
- - Both options may still be bad!
- When should you assess preferences with groups and individuals ?
- - Who decides on this?
- - What are the groups?
Tools
1. Farmers’ participatory research
- Group level
- Individual level
2. Surveys
3. Ranking and ratings
4. Observations
Feedback from group C
Discussion focus: Baselines, controls and farmer practice
Baseline
- Questionnaire- to get overall picture of circumstances
- Pretest with rigor and consistency and (thoroughness) and refine quest
- Build trust with interviewees
- Integrate bio and social/ quantitative and qualitative
- Use baseline info from previous when avail (How can we promote this?)
- Consider sensitive questions
Control
- Well-tied to objectives
- Depending on objective will impact control used e.g. Microfauna – treatment + status quo. Look at existing level in natural setting- control; Nutrition – village no inputs Vs village with inputs. After time- make observations
Farmer Practice
- Normal/ average way of doing something.
- Equilibrium (after others have had their impact e.g. NGOs) state without our intervention