Participatory Innovation Development
and Curriculum Development
A PROLINNOVA concept note – Second Draft
Bram Büscher, CIS-VUA
Amsterdam, September/October 2006
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Influencing and institutionalising curriculum development. Some theoretical notes ..................................... 1
Definitions ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
Theory on experiences with curriculum development and institutionalisation ............................................... 2
Changing circumstances ........................................................................................................................... 2
Consequences of the changing circumstances ......................................................................................... 3
3. Participatory curriculum development ........................................................................................................... 4
4. Participatory Innovation Development and curriculum development ............................................................ 5
5. A practical way forward.................................................................................................................................. 7
References ........................................................................................................................................................ 8
1. Introduction
The international PROLINNOVA programme’s main objectives is to promote participatory approaches to farmerled innovation and experimentation in ecologically oriented agriculture and Natural Resource Management
(NRM). As part of this programme, the PROLINNOVA partners have chosen curriculum development and the
integration of Participatory Innovation Development (PID) approaches in higher education systems as one of
its specific areas of attention. This commitment was again emphasised during the programme’s most recent
partners’ meeting in Cambodia in March 2006 where the Centre for International Cooperation of the Vrije
Universiteit Amsterdam, one of the partners in the PROLINNOVA international support team, was asked to
conceptualise this issue further and come up with a concept note including proposed activities. The ensuing
pages are the result of this exercise.
The content of the concept note is as follows. First, a theoretical angle is employed in order to come to grips
with the most important concepts and to learn from previous experiences. Secondly, this theoretical angle is
used to assess and direct the practical elements that would need to be in place in order to institutionalise
PID in educational curricula. In other words, PID and curriculum development are combined in such a way as
to gain from the theoretical experiences with curriculum development as well as the strenghts of the PID
approach. The note ends with a proposed way forward based on two elements: 1) fund-raising for a separate
side-project on curriculum development and PID and 2) the embedment of the side-project within Prolinnova
through discussions over the PROLINNOVA listserve.
2. Influencing and institutionalising curriculum development. Some theoretical notes
Definitions
According to Walker (1990: 5; in Ottevanger 2001) curriculum can be defined as “the content and purpose of
an educational programme together with their organisation”. Curriculum development therefore logically
focusses on the same two aspects of determining the content and purpose of an educational programme
and their organisation. Especially the last part is often forgotten in discussions on the topic and programmes
aimed at curriculum development thus also have to bear in mind that they need to put forward their thoughts
on the organisation of the proposed new educational content and its purpose. In this vein, it is helpful to
make a distinction between the various ways in which the same curriculum can be viewed:
 Intended curriculum: the way it is written down in documents;
 Implemented curriculum: the way it is implemented by the teacher;
 Attained curriculum: the way in which it is received by the student.
Thus besides the intended curriculum, curriculum developers should think about the implemented and
attained curriculum as well, both in terms of content and purpose and organisation. In practice, the
implemented and attained curriculum will always differ somewhat from the intended curriculum, but proper
and well thought through organisation might minimize the differences.
The other concept that needs to be explained in the concept note is that of institutionalisation of the changed
curriculum. According to Fullan (1991; in Ottevanger 2001), this is the last phase in curriculum
implementation and is preceded by initiation and implementation. In implementing educational change, the
1
initiation phase is where the decision is made whether to go ahead with development and implementation of
a new curriculum or not. According to Ottevanger (2001: 33): “change programmes are often initiated
centrally, driven by political factors, and by external agencies, especially if these agencies also provide
funding for such change programmes.” The second phase of curriculum implementation according to Fullan
is the actual implementation itself: putting into practice the envisaged change. Only after this phase comes
continuation or institutionalisation, which means that the change becomes standard practice in that specific
institute. This, however, is a rather formal conceptualisation of the institutionalisation process. Another
definition of institution, one that is more common in political science, is that the concept entails both formal
and informal ‘ways of doing things’ in a more or less structured organisational context. This extended
definition confronts the reader with other, less graspable, issues but ones which are nonetheless very
important to think about when starting curriculum implementation: intercultural communication, organisation
cultures, leadership in organisations, etc. Organisations hereby are then meant as educational institutes,
whereby one has to ex ante be aware that these issues always differ per institute and take a while to
comprehend in their local context. ‘Curriculum implementation and institutionalisation’ are therefore not to be
thought of too lightly!
These definitions are of course rather ‘sterile’ still, and they have to be understood in a context. We therefore
turn to discuss the above concepts in the light of previous experiences of where and how they have been
applied, especially in relation to the issue of change being initiated externally.
Theory on experiences with curriculum development and institutionalisation
Literature on curriculum development and instutitionalisation is extensive and could never be adequately
covered in a short concept note. Hence, in order to narrow down the scope of the literature search, we
looked foremostly on theory describing experiences with curriculum development in developing countries as this is where PROLINNOVA also focusses on - and within the thematic areas of agriculture and Natural
Resource Management.
Changing circumstances
A first important general point stressed in the literature is about the fast changing context(s) in which
agricultural education now finds itself. According to Wallace, the two most important changes have to deal
with how agriculture is currently being looked at and how the traditional concepts of teaching and learning
are changing rapidly. With respect to the first, Wallace states that a systems view has come up over the past
decades which highlights “interrelationships and linkages within broader agricultural knowledge and
Information systems, which are perhaps better termed ‘rural development systems’ (Wallace, 1997: 28).
Moreover, Wallace asserts that “‘Agriculture’ itself is becoming an obsolete term, as the interest in Farming
Systems Research and Development leads to broader concepts of the management of Renewable Natural
Resources, which include notions of sustainable (or Low External Input) agriculture, social (or rural
development) forestry, aquaculture and small-scale fisheries, wildlife conservation and management” (Idem:
28). This last trend is well illustrated by the PROLINNOVA programme itself, as its subtitle reads: ‘PROmoting
Local INNOVAtion in ecologically-oriented agriculture and natural resource management’. The second
important changing circumstance has to do with the nature of teaching and learning in the field of agriculture
and NRM. According to Wallace, this has to do with trends such as ‘soft-systems thinking’, ‘farmer-first
approaches’, “the growth of interest in Indigenous Technical Knowledge” and the idea of ‘learning
organisations’ (Idem). Again, the PROLINNOVA programme illustrates these changes well.
These changing circumstances have lead to a divide in educational ideologies (or educational philosophies)
in which two major contrasting frameworks can be identified: the classical and the participatory models (Van
Crowder, 1997). The classical top-down model of curriculum development is mostly led by ‘experts’ who
believe they have the technical knowledge to device, develop and implement relevant and objective
curricula. Also called the ‘rationalist’ approach to curriculum development, it is product oriented and assumes
that there is a consensus on education objectives, goals and outcomes (Idem). The participatory approach,
in contrast, departs from completely opposite assumptions. It views curricula as subjective and puts more
emphasis on the learning process, rather than the outcome. The participatory approach moreover believes
that the combined knowledge and experiences of professionals and the learners themselves should
determine the curriculum content in a dynamic way, leading to interactive learning processes.
In many developing countries and especially in Africa, much of the literature agrees that there has been a
shift in thinking from the classical to the participatory approach, a shift which reflects thinking in development
more general. In practice, however, current curricula in developing countries are judged to be somewhere in
between these two opposites, whereby adherence to the classical model still seems to be dominant (Taylor,
1999). It seems straightforward then to conclude that participatory approaches must be further strengthened
and developed, but some degree of caution is important here. Although favouring the participatory approach
2
himself, Van Crowder rightly emphasises that the choice between the models is a difficult one, as two
opposing general trends continue to influence the curriculum development process. These are globalisation
on the one hand, and localisation on the other. The first exerts pressures of standardisation so as to facilitate
international connections and exchanges, which has as a consequence the formalisation of education
resembling the classical model. The second pressure of localisation entails decentralisation of authority and
decision-making in curriculum development to lower scale educational units including the active role that
local actors play. This trend fits in neatly with the participatory approach to curriculum development.
It is with these changing circumstances and opposing pressures in mind that all actors aiming to be involved
in curriculum development must very consciously and cautiously reflect on the ‘why’ of their involvement and
on how and where this involvement should be organised and implemented. In doing this, it is vital to take into
account the consequences of the above described changes and pressures so as to distill ingredients for
involvement that are most likely to lead to positive effects.
Consequences of the changing circumstances
Wallace (1997) distinguishes between nine consequences of the above described changing circumstances
or current dilemmas facing agricultural education and training1.

The first is changing patterns of support and provision. Wallace points here at the complex infrastructure
of actors already involved in agricultural education in Africa and how these have influenced and shaped
the field. He concludes that under the pressure of structural adjustment programmes, public sectors
have shrunk considerably, whereas there has continued to be a steady supply of graduates suitable for
work in government. Educational institutes must therefore rethink and redirect their curricula to make
graduates more suitable to the private sector. In addition, other involved actors must also think about
their role in supporting curriculum development and align these with changing circumstances. Although
Wallace does not explicitly delve into the issue of governance, with this point he does hint at it so close
as to warrant a further remark. In governance studies, there is now a general consensus that a shift has
occurred in the last 16 years from a focus on government to governance (Rosenau, 1997). To some this
might sound trivial but the implications have been far reaching. Whereas the primacy of developing
policies, implementing change and issueing directives used to lie foremostly with national governments,
it is now agreed that a multitude of actors perform these roles within the public sphere, including NGOs,
(expert) networks, powerful individuals, private companies, local communities, etc. Most of these are not
directly democratically elected and therefore their accountability structures are often vague, if present at
all. This makes the governing of educational change and development much more difficult and complex.
The more actors on the scene, the more complex structures become and therefore also the ability to
manage changing circumstances and dealing with the above described pressures. One consequence of
this governance trend is that actors themselves must be much more conscious about their ‘added value’
and whether they are not complicating issues more than they are solving. How this relates to the
responsibility of PROLINNOVA partners will be further elaborated below.

The second issue mentioned by Wallace is emerging training needs. Whereas the first point emphasised
the supply side of curriculum development, the demand side is also affected by the changing
circumstances. As Wallace puts it: “In higher- and middle-level institutions, many students now face
uncertain career pathways, which will often mean moving out of traditional ‘product-oriented’ agriculture
into more managerial entrepreneurial or non-agricultural occupations” (Wallace, 1997: 31). As stated
before, the agricultural field has broadened considerably and this impacts also on the career paths of
graduates and therefore necessarily influences curriculum development as well.

Following from this is the third dilemma, namely that the knowledge about these new training needs is
often still lacking. In many countries, labour market studies are either lacking or misguided and this
severely hampers the development of quality information needed for curriculum development.

As such, the fourth issue, that of the continuous reliance on old models of curriculum development, does
not alleviate the problem of new knowledge either. Many actors wanting to do ‘something about the
spreading of certain agricultural knowledge systems or ideas’ come up with the idea of curriculum
development, without knowing much about it. They then often rely on ‘tried and trusted’ models, which
might not be applicable anymore. Again, this is a warning for caution to which will come back later.
1
Wallace specifically focussed on Sub-Sahara Africa, but many of his findings also seem applicable for many other
developing countries.
3

A fifth dilemma is that of the need for staff development. Staff development in educational or training
institutes in developing countries faces many urgent problems, among them a reliance on ‘bureaucratic’
adhoc recruitment instead of selecting on quality; low capacity; more focus on research than on teaching
skills and little means for staff to further develop themselves in cooperation with their own environment
(local communities, etc.). In order to handle the changes and pressures decribed above, investment in
staff development is therefore a very urgent issue.

Another, sixth dilemma comprises problems with donor support. Although familiar to most, problems
such as donor dependency, no coordination between donors, overt focus on the project cycle and
support for the status quo rather than for change remain imperative.

Seventh, Wallace names inflexible systems and lack of linkages. Despite fast changing circumstances,
educational systems, in line with the classical education model, often remain build around ‘etablished
patterns and formal institutions’, with a lack of linkages between the many different actors that have
arisen in the last decades. The consequence of this is a lack of dynamism so needed in the current
international and many local contexts.

The eight dilemma reads the lack of strategic planning and management skills. In order to tackle the
above mentioned challenges, strategic planning and management skills are crucial and especially so on
the level of the education and training institutes themselves. The idea that a general consensus between
all involved actors in the field could emerge is a fallacy (Rosenau, 1997) and therefore management and
leadership skills should be stimulated there where they are most needed.

Lastly, Wallace mentions the need for a coherent policy framework, although this author is not sure
whether investing too much money and energy in this will make any difference. Sure, coordination
between various involved ministries (education, agriculture, economic affairs, etc.) should be enhanced
within countries, but with all the pressures and changes outlined above, the search for one coherent
policy framework, at whatever scale, is a fallacy and the search for it should therefore be avoided.
Rather, managers, staff and other people at key position should be equiped with skills to deal with
outside policy incoherency, so as to create most chances for them to stimulate as coherent as possible
internal curricula without losing the dynamism so needed and demanded in these times.
3. Participatory curriculum development
So, having said all this, what seems to be contemporary consensus on guaranteeing and institutionalising
appropriate development of curricula in developing countries? Within the Centre for International
Cooperation of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (one of the PROLINNOVA partners), there is one section
specialised in educational development. In discussion with two staff members (Ir. Rob Merkus and Dr. Wout
Ottevanger), three general principles arose that should always be kept in mind. These are:
 Curriculum development should always be demand-driven, not externally imposed;
 Curricula should always be relevant to the environment and circumstances of the students;
 Curricula are always evolving. However, managing change must always be such that evolution of
curricula is allowed, without it being unmanageable or confusing to the students.
These principles fit in well with those from the literature on the topic. Naturally considering the participatory
nature of the PROLINNOVA programme, these will hinge closely on the participatory approach to curriculum
development, but with the remarks on the difficulty of choosing between the models in the back of our mind.
Possibly the clearest information guides on what has been termed ‘Participatory Curriculum Development’
(PCD) in developing countries have been developed by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United
Nations (Van Crowder, 1997; Rogers and Taylor, 1998; Taylor 1999). According to Van Crowder (1997: 3),
PCD “recognises that there are philosophical frameworks and internal and external demands that influence
the curriculum development process. It attempts to define the prevailing framework and indentify the
demands in order to be cognizant of their impact on the process. Consistency is sought between internal and
external demands in the final product”. What are then the more important elements of PCD? PCD entails
(Van Crowder, 1997; Rogers and Taylor, 1998; Taylor 1999):


Participation: the start of the curriculum process indentifies stakeholders, tries to bring them together and
involve them throughout the curriculum process. PCD should thus be inherently unhierarchal and nonexclusive;
Being systematic: without being overtly rigid, it relies on strategic and systematic planning by phasing the
curriculum development process in a logical way;
4


Relevancy to local / regional development: despite continuous globalisation pressures, local and regional
development issues must always be included in curricula, in order to be relevant to students;
Curriculum-led change: it is dynamic and change oriented, therefore focusses much more on the
learning process than on the actual content which can continuously change in response to changing
circumstances.
Although the above principles and elements of participatory curriculum development already offer several
levers and guidelines for action, several more practical ideas can also be found in the literature. Madison
Seymour (1991) for instance suggests that interuniversity linkages2 are appropriate for stimulating
agricultural development in developing countries. She defines linkages as ‘planned institutional cooperation’
which include “direct operational ties, arrived at through mutual agreement, providing mutual benefit, and
requiring mutual investment of resources”. The linkage and network among the PROLINNOVA approach has
very similar features and it therefore seems worthwhile focussing further on this issue in the next section.
Madison Seymour does however give several guidelines for effective interuniversity linkages for agricultural
development, namely:






Continuity: commitment between the parties must be long-term;
Congruence of objectives: both institutes must to a more or lesser extent have a shared vision on quality
standards, mission and general educational processes;
Parity: although often unequal in practice, both institutes must try to leave a donor-recipient mentality
behind and work on genuine joint planning and mutual access to resources;
Flexibility: Madison Seymour (1991: 314): “variation in linkage arrangements can overcome constraints
of limited resources and multiple demands. Adaptation and innovation are necessary at personal,
organisational, and financial levels to make linkages work”;
Political support: especially host countries, but also the developed country counterpart governments
must show support and willingness to invest in the relationship;
Accountability: lastly, the involved organisations must be accountable to each other, but also to their
respective direct environments. This could for instance be achieved through outreach activities to local
stakeholders.
Finally, Vargas (2000) points towards another important issue when she tries to develop ‘principles of
educating for a sustainable future’. When talking about sustainable agriculture and NRM, one must
according to Vargas pay attention to and affirm local indigenous knowledge and culture as one principle of
educating for a sustainable future3. In her own words: “recognising the value of both modern knowledge and
traditional workways and lifestyles in a context respectful of local cultures, including traditional conceptions of
authority and cultural expectations, is the key to sustainable development” (Idem: 382). Although she is
overtly positivistic without showing much real proof of sustainability, Vargas is right when she asserts that
when taking indigenous or alternative models of knowledge into account, “education may offer a way to
counteract policies on uninformed sterilisation practices by governments” (Idem: 382), or those of any actor
for that matter. As the knowledge passed on through educational systems is never value free or ‘objective’,
the inclusion of alternative, previously unrecognised knowledge systems such as indigenous knowledge can
enhance “crucial educational processes such as learner engagement, critical thinking, classroom interaction
or teacher initiative” (Jansen, 2005: 378). It is here that the concept of ‘Participatory Innovation Development’
(PID) might offer concrete pathways for PROLINNOVA to get involved into the issue of curriculum development.
4. Participatory Innovation Development and curriculum development
In short, two important lessons from the previous sections should be taken into account when devising
strategies for PROLINNOVA to become involved in the issue of curriculum development: firstly, educational
institutes in developing countries are already burdened with many challenges in terms of capacity, resources
and contradictory pressures from a great number of actors. Secondly, contemporary curriculum development
theory leans towards Participatory Curriculum Development, although one has to take into account that
many institutions in practice still work according to the classical top-down model of curriculum development.
From the first looks of it, this seems to pose a quagmire that is hard to get out of. However, by taking as a
starting point the initiatives and innovations that staff of educational institutes come up with themselves in
order to enhance their curricula, one might be able to develop a positive and productive solution to a
2
By interuniversity linkages Madison Seymour means not only universities in the strict sense of the word, but also
broader learning institutes and training centres.
3 The six principles are (Vargas, 2000: 386-393): 1) adoption of an interdisciplinary approach to education; 2) integration
of sustainable development concepts in the curriculum; 3) affirmation of cultural diversity; 4) inclusion of capacity-building
of pre-service and in-service professionals; 5) teaching on how to create political spaces, especially for the most
vulnerable and 6) promoting research on sustainable development.
5
complex situation. It is here that a link with the concept of ‘Participatory Innovation Development’ needs to be
made, a concept that has already proven its worth in the fields of agriculture and natural resources
management.
What is ‘Participatory Innovation Development’ (PID)? Basically it is an approach to development that builds
on the ingenuity and inventiveness of local farmers in developing solutions to their own problems. In doing so
it differs from its predecessor ‘Participatory Technology Development’ (PTD) in that “innovation in agriculture
and NRM goes far beyond “hard” technologies to “soft” innovations such as new ways of gaining access to
or regulating use of natural resources or new ways of farmer organisation (e.g. for marketing)” (Waters-Bayer
and Van Veldhuizen, 2004: 2). Phrased alternatively, PID takes into account both the technical and the
social and institutional aspects around local innovations as these often go hand in hand. In practice, the PID
process always starts by looking at what farmers are themselves already doing to solve their problems or
improve upon their existing situation. The focus hereby is on jointly identifying which farmers do which things
differently and why. Outsiders and farmers then again jointly describe, analyse and validate the innovation
and start joint experimentation in order to further improve it. The result of PID should be a continuous
participatory innovation development process whereby the different stakeholders continue learning,
innovating and developing as true partners.
If one were to extrapolate the PID approach from agriculture to the field of curriculum development – in effect
becoming PCID (Participatory Curriculum Innovation Development) -, how would one go about this and how
could it deal with the problems associated with current curricula in Africa? In essence, it is a matter of
starting with what people in institutions of higher learning are already trying to do to deal with the pressures –
basically, how they are “innovating” in curriculum development. These innovations can again be stimulated
and improved by joint experimentation between curriculum developers and outsiders. Next, documentation
and exchange about what is already being changed within the universities and colleges could lay the basis
for mutual learning about how this could be done better.
This basic idea of PCID could lay the basis for a constructive new approach to curriculum development in
Africa and as such a way of dealing with the pressures of lack of resources and the many contradictory
demands to education. Moreover, it can as such be a promising way of bridging the ‘formal’ and ‘hidden’
curricula of universities and the ‘exchange’ and ‘practical’ value of a university study. Although by now
somewhat of an outdated concept4, ‘hidden curriculum’ can be useful in analysing the wide range of factors
influencing students’ performance. The hidden curriculum in a university “can be described as the whole of
informal and implicit demands of study and study achievements that are to be met for someone to complete
units of study” (Bergenhenegouwen, 1987: 536). Examples of these informal and implicit demands can be to
show a ‘business-like and detached attitude with respect to the subjects of study’ or the use of ‘professional’
or abstract jargon (Idem). According to Harber, the hidden curriculum is often “a more significant and longlasting form of learning than the knowledge that is packaged into subject labels that appears on the school
timetable” (Harber, 1998: 575). For example, Harber, but also Soudien (1994) write about the hidden
curriculum in South Africa, wherein racial tensions continue to be rampant and very much influencing pupils’
learning environments. By disengaging from this contentious, yet for the students very real hidden
curriculum, Soudien argues that it leaves “the racial common sense imprinted in the South African curriculum
untouched” (Soudien, 1994: 281). The point in general is that by recognising only the formal curriculum,
educators lose out on a great part of students’ ‘learning experience’ and so on opportunities for positively
influencing and enhancing their capacities. In line with PID, it is therefore important to recognise both the
formal technical and informal ‘cultural or social’ innovations in curricula taking place in educational instutes in
developing countries.
In terms of the different values of a curriculum, the exchange value can be described as the “product which
can be exchanged against another product (salary, status, etc.)” (Bergenhenegouwen, 1987: 538). In other
words, the exchange value places emphasis on the ‘countervalue’ of having a degree or having studied at a
particular ‘prestigious’ university, which does not necessarily say something about the practical value of a
curriculum: the value in terms of societal or personal relevance in specific circumstances and/or specific
localities and times. The emphasis in PCID would almost necessarily take the practical value of a curriculum
as its starting point, but must of course not lose sight of the exchange value. In fact, it must be clear that by
laying more emphasis on the practical value of a curriculum, the exhange value is enhanced as well. A task
that could well be stimulated by exchange of learning about local innovations in curriculum development.
4
The notion of hidden curriculum was popularised in the 1960s and 1970s by such influential thinkers on education as
Philip Jackson, Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis and is clearly associated with more emancipatory, socialist streams in
critical pedagogy. Although losing none of its critical potency (Margolis, 2001), the term is currently not used that widely
anymore (De Feiter, educational curriculum specialist CIS, pers. comm.)
6
5. A practical way forward
What then is a practical way forward for the PROLINNOVA partners in combining PID and curriculum
development or ‘PCID’? According to PID logic, one would start with documentation and exchange about
what is already being changed within the universities and colleges, which could then lay the basis for mutual
learning about how this could be done better. An intermediate result of such an exchange may very well be a
kind of booklet on “good practice” in institutionalising PID within agricultural education. This, in turn, could be
used in the further work by the institutions directly involved in the documentation and exchange, as well as
that of other institutions of agricultural education, so stimulating a continuous learning cycle. Each could try
out what appears to be most feasible for that institution, drawing on what was learnt from others, and then a
second round of exchange on these experiences could lead to improved guidelines on PID and curriculum
development.
This potential agenda and its organisation would entail too much work to be funded under the regular
PROLINNOVA programme and would thus warrant the development of a sub-programme on PCID, to be
funded separately. This proposal would need to include the following points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
General introduction into PROLINNOVA and summary of the proposal;
Rationale for PROLINNOVA to be involved in curriculum development;
Overview of the issue of curriculum development (can be taken out of this concept note and expanded);
Combining curriculum development and PID to further conceptualise Participatory Curriculum Innovation
Development (PCID – can also be taken from this concept note but needs to be extended and including
a methodology5);
5. Detailed description of plan of action:
a. First round of documentation and learning exchanges with respect to identification, verification
and stimulation of local innovation in Agricultural curricula;
b. Leading to a ‘booklet of best practices’;
c. Which will be discussed and refined during a second round of documentation and exchange;
d. In turn leading to a booklet with guidelines on ‘Participatory Curriculum Innovation Development’
6. Timeline and budgetting of the plan of action.
7. Conclusion
All of this of course depends on which donor will be approached for this activity and their funding formats.
Two of the possible donors are Canadian CIDA or the Dutch NUFFIC. It is proposed that, once this concept
note is approved by the PROLINNOVA partners, interested parties link up (though email or telemeeting) to
discuss potential funders and how to work out a broader proposal for a sub-programme on PCID. This
proposal could be developed in the coming months and – if all goes very smoothly – the sub-programme
could start in conjunction with the PROLINNOVA partners meeting in March in Senegal. A more conservative
approach is to have a proposal ready for discussion during the International PROLINNOVA partners meeting of
March 2007 in Senegal, where interested parties (including a donor?) can then further fine-tune and
operationalise this important part of the PROLINNOVA programme. Schematically, this is worked out below:
Action plan time frame
Nr
1
2
3
4
What
By whom?
Identification of interested
Send by
parties through the
Bram
PROLINNOVA list-serve
Organise telemeeting to
Bram /
discuss steps forward with
CIS/VUA
respect to developing a larger
proposal and identification of
a donor
Developing and drafting
PCID task
proposal, including contacting force
donor
(facilitated
by
CIS/VUA
Sending around draft
PCID task
proposal PROLINNOVA listforce
By when?
Beginning of
November 2006
Mid-November
Cost involved?
No (regular
PROLINNOVA days /
own time)
No (regular
PROLINNOVA days /
own time)
January /
February 2007
No (regular
PROLINNOVA days /
own time)
Mid-February
2007
No
Related to Amanuel’s comment on the need for methodological approaches that help to institutionalize PID in the
higher learning, which is one of the gray areas that requires broader attention of the PROLINNOVA partners
5
7
5
6
serve
Receiving comments and
redrafting proposal
Organising side event during
PROLINNOVA partners’
meeting to finalise and finetune proposal and start
operationalising the actual
project
PCID task
force
All
interested
parties at
the meeting
Mid March
No
During
PROLINNOVA
partners meeting
end of March
2007
No
References
Bergenhenegouwen, G. (1987). Hidden Curriculum in the University. In: Higher Education, 16: 535-543.
Büscher, B.E. and W.R.S. Critchley (forthcoming). Indigenous Knowledge and Scale: challenges in the
vertical upscaling of local innovations in sustainable land management in Africa. In: Gupta, J. and D.
Huitema (eds.). Multi-Level Environmental Governance: the challenge of Scale. Amsterdam: Institute for
Environmental Studies.
Jansen, J.D. (2005). Targeting Education: The Politics of Performance and the Prospects of ‘Education for
All’. In: International Journal of Educational Development, vol. 25: 368-380.
Fullan, M. (1991). The New Meaning in Educational Change. London: Cassell.
Harber, C. (1998). Desegragation, Racial Conflict and Education for Democracy in the New South Africa: a
Case Study of Institutional Change. In: International Review of Education, 44, 5/6: 569-582.
Madison Seymour, J. (1991). AID University Linkages for Agricultural Development. In: The Journal of Higher
Education, vol. 62, 3: 288-316.
Margolis, E. (2001). The Hidden Curriculum in Higher Education. London: Routledge.
Mutunga, K. and W.R.S. Critchley (2001). Farmers’ Initiatives in Land Husbandry: Promising Technologies
for the Drier Areas of East Africa. Nairobi: Regional Land Management Unit (RELMA).
Ottevanger, W. (2001). Teacher Support Materials as a Catalyst for Science Curriculum Implementation in
Namibia. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis University of Enschede.
Reij, C and A. Waters-Bayer (eds.) (2001). Farmer Innovation in Africa. A Source of Inspiration for
Agricultural Development. London: Earthscan.
Rogers, A. and P. Taylor (1998). Participatory Curriculum Development in Agricultural Education: a Training
Guide. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organisation.
Rosenau, J. N. (1997). Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier. Exploring Governance in a Turbulent World,
Cambridge studies in international relations 53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Soudien, C (1994). Dealing with Racism: Laying Down Patterns for Multiculturalism in South Africa. In:
Interchange, 25, 3: 281-294.
Taylor, P. (1999). Participatory Curriculum Development for Agricultural Education and Training: Experiences
from Vietnam and South Africa. Sustainable Development Department, Food And Agriculture
Organisation of the United Nations. Online: http://www.fao.org/sd/EXdirect/EXan0026.htm.
Van Crowder, L. (1997). A Participatory Approach to Curriculum Development. Sustainable Development
Department, Food And Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Online:
http://www.fao.org/sd/EXdirect/EXan0017.htm.
Vargas, C.M. (2000). Sustainable Development Education: Averting or Mitigating Cultural Collision. In:
International Journal of Educational Development, vol. 20: 377-396.
Wallace, I. (1997). Agricultural Education at the Crossroads: Present Dilemmas and Possible Options for the
Future in Sub-Sahara Africa. In: International Journal of Educational Development, vol. 17, 1: 27-39.
Walker, D. (1990). Fundamentals of Curriculum. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Waters-Bayer, A. and L. Van Veldhuizen (2004). Promoting Local Innovation: Enhancing IK Dynamics and
Links with Scientific Knowledge. IK Notes 76, January 2004. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
8