Difference between revisions of "AR ESA phase2 participatory-research-design-training Oct2016"
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==Agenda== | ==Agenda== | ||
'''<u>Day 1</u>''' (3 October, 2016) | '''<u>Day 1</u>''' (3 October, 2016) | ||
− | * [http://www.slideshare.net/africa-rising/the-new-agronomy-and-new-research-methods | + | * [http://www.slideshare.net/africa-rising/the-new-agronomy-and-new-research-methods Recent thinking in systems research and implications for research designs] – R. Coe (click to download presentation)</span> |
− | * [http://www.slideshare.net/africa-rising/sustainable-intensification-indicator-framework | + | * [http://www.slideshare.net/africa-rising/sustainable-intensification-indicator-framework Africa RISING sustainable intensification framework] – P. Grabowski (click to download presentation)</span> |
* Practical session – looking at different data sets that participants submitted to the trainer | * Practical session – looking at different data sets that participants submitted to the trainer | ||
'''<u>Day 2</u>''' (4 October, 2016) | '''<u>Day 2</u>''' (4 October, 2016) | ||
* [http://www.slideshare.net/africa-rising/the-new-agronomy-and-new-research-methods| Approaches to analysis and the sort of results that can be generated] - R. Coe (click to download presentation) | * [http://www.slideshare.net/africa-rising/the-new-agronomy-and-new-research-methods| 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? | + | * Group work – causal loops in system analysis? (see photos of the sample causal loops developed by groups below)</span> |
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
* Brainstorming in 3 groups on research design issues that are challenging/problematic/confusing | * Brainstorming in 3 groups on research design issues that are challenging/problematic/confusing | ||
− | <u>'''Feedback from group B:'''</u> | + | <u>'''Feedback from group B:'''</u><br/> |
− | '''Discussion focus:''' Assessing farmer preferences concerning new practices (how are preferences connected to decisions) | + | |
− | + | <br/> | |
− | + | '''Discussion focus:'''<br/> | |
− | + | Assessing farmer preferences concerning new practices (how are preferences connected to decisions)<br/> | |
− | + | *. What level of experience (length and scale/intensity) is needed for farmers to evaluate a practice?<br/> | |
− | + | ::- From observing a demo to practicing it over many years or | |
− | + | ::- Working on a 10x10 m plot over 1 ha?<br/> | |
− | + | ||
− | + | <br/> | |
− | + | *. 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<br/> | |
− | + | ||
− | + | <br/> | |
− | + | *. Who is doing the assessing, how are they chosen? | |
− | + | ::- Random selection? | |
− | + | ::- What do the choices represent?<br/> | |
− | + | ||
− | + | <br/> | |
− | + | *. What is the connection between an expressed preferences and decision making – Irmgard’s FIAT vs Mercedes example<br/> | |
− | + | ||
− | + | <br/> | |
− | + | *. When should assessment be relative and when absolute<br/> | |
− | + | ||
− | <u>'''Tools'''</u> | + | <br/> |
− | 1. Farmers’ participatory research | + | *. Where do you assess preferences from?<br/> |
+ | ::- Under a tree? | ||
+ | ::- At the site? | ||
+ | <br/> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <br/> | ||
+ | * How do we avoid biasness in the assessment of preferences? | ||
+ | ::- Farmers may tell what you want to hear.<br/> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <br/> | ||
+ | *. 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? | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <br/> | ||
+ | <u>'''Tools'''</u><br/> | ||
+ | 1. Farmers’ participatory research<br/> | ||
* Group level | * Group level | ||
* Individual level | * Individual level | ||
− | 2. Surveys | + | 2. Surveys<br/> |
− | 3. Ranking and ratings | + | 3. Ranking and ratings<br/> |
− | 4. Observations | + | 4. Observations<br/> |
− | <u>'''Feedback from group C'''</u> | + | <br/> |
− | '''Discussion focus:''' Baselines, controls and farmer practice | + | <u>'''Feedback from group C'''</u><br/> |
+ | '''Discussion focus:''' Baselines, controls and farmer practice<br/> | ||
− | '''Baseline''' | + | '''Baseline'''<br/> |
* Questionnaire- to get overall picture of circumstances | * Questionnaire- to get overall picture of circumstances | ||
* Pretest with rigor and consistency and (thoroughness) and refine quest | * Pretest with rigor and consistency and (thoroughness) and refine quest | ||
Line 71: | Line 93: | ||
* Integrate bio and social/ quantitative and qualitative | * Integrate bio and social/ quantitative and qualitative | ||
* Use baseline info from previous when avail (How can we promote this?) | * Use baseline info from previous when avail (How can we promote this?) | ||
− | * Consider sensitive questions | + | * Consider sensitive questions<br/> |
− | '''Control''' | + | |
+ | <br/> | ||
+ | '''Control'''<br/> | ||
* Well-tied to objectives | * 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 | * 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 | ||
+ | <br/> | ||
+ | |||
− | '''Farmer Practice''' | + | '''Farmer Practice'''<br/> |
* Normal/ average way of doing something. | * Normal/ average way of doing something. | ||
* Equilibrium (after others have had their impact e.g. NGOs) state without our intervention | * Equilibrium (after others have had their impact e.g. NGOs) state without our intervention |
Latest revision as of 03:14, 11 December 2018
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