- Home
- About us
- ILAC Activities
- Resources
- ILAC Publications
- ILAC Briefs
- ILAC Sourcebook
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Chapter 6: Introduction Part 2
- Chapter 7: Innovation histories
- Chapter 9: Culture study as a tool for change
- Chapter 12: Collaborative agreements
- Chapter 13: Facilitation as a foundation skill for ILAC
- Chapter 14: Learning alliances
- Chapter 15: Institutional histories
- Chapter 16: Engaging Scientists through Institutional Histories
- Chapter 18: Horizontal evaluation
- Chapter 19: Appreciative inquiry
- Part 3 - Cases and experiences
- Part 4 - Challenges and strategies
- About the authors
- Glossary
- References
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Presentations by ILAC Team
- Working Papers
- Journal Articles
- Newsletter
- Reports
- ILAC Library
- Tools and methods for M&E
- Appreciative inquiry
- Biophysical measurements
- Case study
- Content analysis
- Contribution analysis
- Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Creative expression
- Diaries, journals and logs
- Dreams realised or visioning
- Expert review
- GIS mapping
- Graphing results
- Group assessment
- Historical trends and timelines
- Horizontal evaluation
- Impact evaluation
- Benefit-cost methods
- Case studies
- Cost-effectiveness analysis
- Counterfactual Impact Evaluation (CIE)
- Difference-in-difference
- Econometric methods
- Ex-post comparison of project beneficiaries with a control group
- Instrumental variables
- Integrated partial indicators
- Mathematical programming
- Modified peer review
- Partial indicators of impact
- Patent analysis
- Pipeline comparison
- Production function approach
- Propensity score matching
- Quasi-experimental design, involving the use of matched control and project groups
- Randomization
- Rapid assessment or review, conducted ex post
- Regression discontinuity design
- Simulation method
- User surveys
- Impact flow diagram
- Innovation histories
- Institutional history
- Institutional linkage diagram
- Interviews
- Learning alliances
- Learning-oriented evaluation
- M&E Frameworks
- M&E wheel (or "spider web")
- Mapping (sketch)
- Matrix scoring
- Most significant change
- Net-Map
- Non-random sampling
- Observation
- Outcome mapping
- Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis
- Participatory methods
- Performance indicators
- Photographs and video
- Problem and objectives trees
- Random sampling
- Ranking and pocket charts
- Rapid appraisal methods
- Relative scales or ladders
- Rich pictures (or mind maps)
- SWOT
- Seasonal calendars
- Semantic differentials
- Social mapping or well-being ranking
- Sociograms
- Stakeholder analysis
- Survey
- Systems (or inputs-outputs) diagram
- Theory-Based Evaluation
- Transects
- Evaluation studies and reports
- Evaluating capacity development
- Partnership
- Seminars
- Video Room
- Links to other sites
- E-learning courses
- ILAC Publications
- Contact
- Blog
Measuring the impact of user participation in agricultural and natural resource management research
Sun, 08/31/2008 - 12:52 — Cristina Sette
Publication Type:
Journal ArticleSource:
Agricultural Systems, Volume 78, p.287-306 (2003)URL:
http://www.prgaprogram.org/External%20Review%20Web/Other%20Publications/PRGA/agr_sys_Johnson.pdfKeywords:
Agricultural and natural resource management; Evaluation; Impact; participatory researchAbstract:
Persistent poverty and environmental degradation demand a constant effort to improve
the effectiveness and impact of agricultural and natural resource management research.
Participatory research methods have developed as a way to help researchers better target their work towards the needs and constraints of specific stakeholder groups. Participatory research may also strengthen the capacity of participants to initiate a continuous process of innovation. The capacity of farmers and other end users of technologies to innovate may be particularly important in poor, marginal environments where conditions are highly variable. This paper assesses the impact of using participatory methods in three agricultural research projects which have a natural resource management focus. Mixed methods are used to assess technological, economic, human, and social impacts and the cost implications of incorporating beneficiaries into the research process. User participation was found to influence priorities and practices within and beyond the specific projects studied. Participation led to more relevant technologies and greater economic impacts, especially when participation was early in the research process. Impacts on farmer capacity were high when farmers worked intensively with researchers over a period of time. Use of participatory methods changes research costs. When farmers took over tasks that were previously done by researchers, some of the research costs were transferred to farmers. When participatory methods were combined with conventional on-farm research, there were also start-up costs, because researchers and farmers needed to learn new research methods. However these additional one-time costs were not significant in terms of total research costs.
Notes:
copyright
Sublibrary:
Evaluation
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page