National FSA Training
Module 5
Module 5: Research with farmers
Research with farmers
Objectives
At the end of this module participants will understand:
1. Basic concepts used in farmer experimentation
2. Planning for farmer experimentation
3. Approaches to farmer experimentation
Content
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
Introduction
Agricultural and Knowledge Information Systems
5.2.1 Introduction
5.2.2 Key actors in AKIS
5.2.3 Conditions for an effective systems perspective
Farmer participation
On-farm trials
Farmer Field Schools (FFS): an example of organised farmer experimentation
5.5.1 Introduction and key principles
5.5.2 Procedure for starting and guiding a FFS
Farmer Research Groups: another example of organised farmer experimentation
5.6.1 Background
5.6.2 Characteristics of an FRG
5.6.3 Procedure for establishing FRGs
1
National FSA Training
Module 5: Research with farmers
Key terminology
1. Experimentation
Experimentation is a set of procedures by which the best potential new technologies that address
identified constraints or opportunities are tested. Unlike formal experimentation (that is largely
undertaken by researchers) farmer experimentation involves farmer participation at different
levels of testing and often undertaken on farmers fields.
2. On-Farm Experimentation (OFE)
On-farm experimentation is a process whereby technology testing is undertaken on farmers’
field or with farmers’ livestock. Depending on the stage of testing three main categories of onfarm experimentation are identified:
 Researcher managed and researcher implemented
 Researcher managed and farmer implemented
 Farmer managed and farmer implemented.
3. Agro-ecosystem
Agro-ecosystem is a complex agro-socio-economic system that arises from agricultural
interventions in the natural ecosystem (Mettrick1993).
4. Agro-ecosystem analysis
According to Chambers (1997) the agro-ecosystem analysis concept draws on systems and
ecological thinking. It combines analysis of systems and system properties (productivity,
stability, sustainability and equality) with pattern analysis of space (maps, and transects), time
(seasonal calendars and long term trends), flows and relationships (flow, causal, venn and other
diagrams) relative values and decisions (e.g. decision trees).
5. Non-formal education
This is an organised educational activity outside the established formal system, where operated
separately or as a component of a broader activity that is intended to serve identifiable learning
clienteles and learning objectives.
6. Farmer Field School (FFS)
The Farmer Field School is a participatory extension approach that is based on non-formal
education methods. A FFS is conducted for purposes of creating a learning environment
(learning by doing) in which farmers can master and apply specific management skills. The
emphasis is on empowering farmers to implement their own decisions on their own fields.
7. Farmer Research Group (FRG)
In the context of farmer experimentation an FRG consists of a number of participating farmers
who come together to test new agricultural technologies and discuss the relevance of the results
of the tests for adoption. Researchers and extension staff often facilitate the group activities.
8. Agricultural and Knowledge Information System
"A set of agricultural organizations and/or the linkages and interactions between them. These
organizations and individuals are engaged in the generation, transformation, transmission, storage,
retrieval, integration, diffusion and utilisation of knowledge and information. The purpose of AKIS
is to synergistically support decision making, problem solving and innovation in a given country's
agriculture or domain thereof."
2
National FSA Training
5.1
Module 5: Research with farmers
Introduction
Farmers are the ultimate users of outputs of research programmes. In the last few decades
researchers developed technologies which were not appropriate for many farmer situations and
circumstances. As a result impact of research-developed technologies at the farmer level has been
minimal. One of the reasons has been the low level of farmer involvement in agricultural research.
Farmer involvement improves researcher understanding of the farmer circumstances and vice
versa. In the process of involving farmer’s relationships between researchers and farmers are
developed. These relationships start to complement scientific and informal ways of doing things.
This complementarity improves research programmes making them more appropriate and brings
impact. This module tries to describe agricultural knowledge and information systems and focuses
on the relationships and different ways researchers can work with farmers.
5.2
Agricultural Knowledge and Information System (AKIS)
5.2.1
Introduction
The links between agricultural research and technology transfer agents in developing countries are
often a major bottleneck in agricultural technology systems and received inadequate attention in the
past (Sands, 1988). Research and extension should not be seen as separate institutions that must be
linked. Instead, scientists involved in basic, strategic, applied and adaptive research, together with
subject-matter specialists, village-level extension workers and farmers, should be seen as
participants in a single Agricultural Knowledge and Information System (AKIS).
The concept of an AKIS has been discussed by several authors in literature, using a number of
different nomenclatures and definitions (Bunting, 1986; Engel, 1987; Lionberger and Chang, 1970;
Nagel, 1980; Rogers et. al., 1976; Rolling, 1986a and 1988a; Swanson and Claar, 1983). Rolling
(1990) defines AKIS as:
"A set of agricultural organizations and/or the linkages and interactions between them. These
organizations and individuals are engaged in the generation, transformation, transmission,
storage, retrieval, integration, diffusion and utilisation of knowledge and information. The purpose
of AKIS is to synergistically support decision making, problem solving and innovation in a given
country's agriculture or domain thereof."
The goal of the system is to improve the output of the agricultural sector in terms of quantity and
quality to enhance the contribution of that sector to the well being of the population as a whole. The
objectives of the systems are to generate and adopt relevant and effective knowledge and
technologies aimed at a more efficient, equitable and sustainable utilisation of the productive
resources in the agricultural sector.
The concept of an AKIS should be distinguished from that of a Management Information System.
The former is the entire system that produces the knowledge used in agriculture. The latter
evaluates the productivity or other aspects of an enterprise (not necessarily an agricultural one) in
order to help management make decisions. Within an AKIS, the research-technology transfer
interface is an especially important one in determining the performance of the whole system.
5.2.2
Key actors in AKIS
There are 5 key actors in AKIS: research, technology transfer agents, farmers and farmer
organisations, policy makers and other actors. The first, i.e. research, covers the whole spectrum of
scientific inquiry and technology development, from basic to adaptive research. It includes the
work performed by public and private institutes, and organisations that carry out scientific inquiries
3
National FSA Training
Module 5: Research with farmers
in the broadly defined area of agriculture. These institutes and organisations include, among others,
research departments and units of ministries of agriculture, semi-autonomous agricultural research
institutes, commodity boards, agricultural parastatals with research mandates, and university
faculties of agriculture.
Technology transfer agents are all institutional bodies that attempt to:
 Bring research results to farmers in the form of new agricultural technologies and new
information.
 Supply research responding to the needs of farmers regarding production constraints and
feedback on technologies. These include agricultural extension services, commodity boards,
government and parastatal seed production units, and commercial firms. The term "technology
transfer" has a broader coverage than extension in terms of organisations involved, but it refers
only to the dissemination aspects of generating and transferring improved technologies.
Farmers' organisations can simply be defined as those agrarian interest groups with formal
memberships. They vary from traditional or (new) grassroots organisations to more formally
institutionalised (national) farmers' associations.
Policymakers are those individuals in charge of both technology policies and development
instruments such as agricultural pricing, public investments and market regulations. Since decisions
made by policymakers can expand or restrict the technology span available to the country, these
decision-makers are also key actors in the technology systems.
Other actors of the technology development and transfer system who play important roles are:
 Non-governmental organisations (NGO). According to Esman and Uphoff (1984) an NGO can
broadly be defined as international and national, non-profit making, philanthropic and voluntary
bodies who operate through programmes and projects in less developed countries (LDCs).
 Commercial agro-industrial companies.
 Private research firms and foundations
The above key actors of the AKIS are shown in Figure 5.1.
Research
(on-station, on-farm)
Agricultural
policy makers
Extension
Farmers
(including NGO's and farmers’ organisations)
Figure 5.1
Actors in the Agricultural Knowledge and Information System
4
National FSA Training
Module 5: Research with farmers
Each of the indicated actors has its' own specific objectives. These objectives are summarised in
Table 5.1.
Table 5.1
Objectives of key actors
Key actor
Objectives
Research
 To acquire information on the technological needs and
production conditions of farmers and other technology
users
 To disseminate results
 To gain access to more resources (physical, human and
financial)
 To influence/control the research agenda.
 To gain access to information and knowledge when
needed
 To influence the research agenda
 To gain access to information and knowledge needed for
their own programs
 To gain access to more resources (human)
Farmers and farmers' organisations
Extension services and other technology
transfer agents
5.2.3
Conditions for an effective systems perspective
A system perspective means that all actors of the technology system are part of a single AKIS. All
actors share and adhere to a common strategy, which allows them to work toward a shared strategic
goal or mission i.e. to make relevant technologies available to the farmers and the processors of the
system. The basic elements or conditions for a system perspective are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Shared strategic goal: A strategic goal is a desired outcome of the system. These goals are
critical because they serve as unifying elements and determinants of the system's orientation.
They also partially define the organisational strategies and instruments to be used by the
system, and the nature and scope of the resources required.
Synergy: Synergy, or smooth co-operation among the actors or component organisations, is
essential. It is what makes the whole greater than the sum of the parts.
Leadership: Someone must co-ordinate the whole. While each actor is responsible for his/her
own contribution, someone must assume responsibility for the outcome of the totality. It
could be any of the actors identified or an apex body.
Accountability: Each actor of the system should be accountable to the others. Especially
research and technology transfer institutions should be, in one way or another, accountable to
policy makers and farmers or their organisations. They have to account for the resources
available to them in terms of achievement of the technology system.
Active involvement of farmers in the system: Farmers and their organisations should be as
active as the other participants in the system. They should not be seen as passive recipients of
the results of the technology generation and transfer process, as is often the case. They can
initiate, suggest, or be involved in the implementation of decisions, events, or tasks at all levels
of the process.
Effective linkages: Effective linkages are essential for the performance of the system. Without
linkages, the system is an engine without pipes.
5
National FSA Training
5.3
Module 5: Research with farmers
Farmer participation
Farmer participation in agricultural research is a phenomenon that has been developed in the last
two decades. The farming systems approach took the view that farmers were primary clients of
agricultural research and development programmes, and that on-farm research should
incorporate the clients perspective when defining the research agenda (Baker and Norman,
1989, Merril Sands et al. 1989).
Reasons for farmers to participate in research include:
 Provide aid in understanding the system
 Help to choose trial sites
 Can be a source of technology, in that farmers gain access to new technology earlier.
 Farmers’ knowledge and experience incorporated in the choosing or commenting on
treatments.
 Researchers get an ongoing feedback on the performance of treatment applications that can
allow for modifications as the growing season progress. Farmer feedback saves research
time.
 Improves farmers’ capacity and expertise for conducting collaborative research in that they
can assist or completely manage experiments.
 Farmers can assess technology by introducing the researcher to their criteria and put the
results into perspective.
 Can alter conclusions about what farmers will adopt
Literature on farmer participation identifies a typology for describing farmer participation in onfarm experimentation. The main difference in the different modes of participation is based on
the extent of farmer involvement in decision making. Four modes of participation are identified
(Ashby, 1987):
1. Contractual: Researchers hire or borrow land/labour and other services from the farmer. In
this mode of participation researchers dominate decisions. In this approach the role and
participation of farmers is passive. The technologies are designed and developed at research
stations and passed over to farmers in a research managed trial. Multi-locational testing is a
good example of contract participation.
2. Consultative: Researchers consult farmers about farming system, their problems and
possible solutions throughout. After consultation researchers give solutions, plan
experiments and finally gives recommendations. This is slightly different from contract
participation in the sense that researchers consult the farmers about their production
constraints and then develop the solutions. The role of the farmers is that of identifying the
problems but they have no control over the type of solutions. This form of participation is
referred to as “doctor-patient” relationship. This is a typical approach for many research
stations even in Tanzania where researchers plan formal and informal surveys to diagnose
problems. Experiments (solutions) are designed by scientists based on the problems
identified. In most cases the emphasis is largely on adapting technologies from research
shelves to the socio-economic and ecological circumstances
3. Collaborative: Researchers and farmers are partners in the research process and continually
collaborate. In this approach the participation of farmers is more advanced in the sense that
both the farmers and researchers participate in the process as partners. Researchers draw on
farmers’ knowledge and conduct experiments to seek solutions to identified constraints.
Regular meetings between the partners are held to discuss different issues pertaining to the
experiment and results are jointly reviewed.
4. Collegiate: Farmers play the lead role in identification of the content of experimentation
Researchers help farmers to promote indigenous technical knowledge and informal
research. Scientists work to strengthen farmers’ capacity to undertake informal research and
development systems on their own. It also involves making information and services from
6
National FSA Training
Module 5: Research with farmers
the formal research system available. Farmer Research Groups can be singled out as an
example of this form of participation.
Normally the relationship between researchers and farmers begins with either consultative or
contractual. At the collegial stage researchers and farmers are both exchanging knowledge on
equal terms.
5.4
On-farm trials
The major categories of on-farm trials are exploratory, refinement, verification, farmer
experiments and demonstrations. The choice on the type of on-farm trials is usually based on
the purpose of the trial. The following five questions can be used as a guide in the choice of the
type of trial:
 Has the needed technology been identified?
 Has the technology been decided upon but needs preliminary development?
 Has the technology been tried extensively with the farmers?
 Has the technology been developed and tested but needs further trial with farmers?
 Has the technology been verified but not introduced to many farmers?
Answers to the above questions determine the type of on-farm trial that can be used. Below you
find a list of possible on-farm trials.
Exploratory trials:
This type of trial is used when further information about the farming system is needed. They
could be considered as part of a continuing diagnostic stage. The researcher is still searching for
an innovation and needs to explore the situation further by using experimental treatments. The
trial sites are usually few in numbers, relatively area specific, and the trial is largely under
researchers’ management. However, the “add-on” type can be superimposed and be managed
by the farmer. Exploratory trials can be investigative or diagnostic. Trials are simple where the
researcher investigates a problem. However, while conducting an experiment, the researcher
may uncover a new problem, which may need further experimentation to solve.
“Add-on” or “take-off” trial:
The researcher may decide to test one factor in addition to the farmers’ practice (“add-on”) or
remove one or more factors (“take-off”) from a a package of recommendations. This technique
helps to sort out factors that are important to the farmer. The “take-off” design is more complex
than the “add-on” design but can give more information and is less complex than a complete
factorial.
Refinement or adaptation trials:
These trials are conducted when the researcher has an idea of the type of technology to
concentrate on but needs more details on performance in the farmers’ environment thus
“refining” the possibilities. This type of trials has traditionally been done on research stations
but experience has shown that information generated on research stations for environmentally or
management sensitive technology may not be relevant for problems such as weed control or
implement testing. These trials are usually larger, more complicated and require more researcher
supervision than other types of on-farm trials because more treatments and replications are used
at any given site. A factorial treatment arrangement can be used where the researcher is
interested in many effects and interactions. Two types of these trials are:
1. Levels - This type of trial is used to determine a response curve, as with fertiliser, or animal
feeds and/or economics of a certain technology that can be applied at different rates under
given circumstances.
7
National FSA Training
Module 5: Research with farmers
2. Screening - A “Screening” experiment is used to determine which are the “best bets”
treatments to select from a relatively large array of choices. It is used with, for example,
chemicals, varieties, timing of operations and alleviation of a stress (drought, Phosphorus,
Potassium, animal loss in weight).
Verification or validation trials:
These trials are used when the researcher has strong evidence that the technology is more or less
successful, that at a limited number of sites it has performed well, is economic, and farmers like
it. However, the technology needs to be tested over a wide range of farmers’ conditions and
modified according to circumstance before it can be recommended. These trials are usually
simple and have few treatments. There is considerable farmer participation. Economic
evaluation, farmer assessment and systems interactions are important factors to measure.
Farmer experiments:
Technologies are given directly to farmers. Farmers “design” these type of trials (varieties,
forage shrubs, implements). Researchers monitor how the technology is used and collect
extensive site data to help explain results. This type of experiment is useful to verify technology
or to explore how it would work under farmer conditions. Quantifiable data may be difficult to
obtain and it may not work if the technology is too complicated. It is important for the
researcher to consider the learning curve of farmers. Advantages for this type of
experimentation are:
 The farmer may know how to best use the new technology and
 Having the technology completely under farmers’ management may be the best way of
conducting farmer assessments.
Demonstrations:
Demonstrations usually have only one new treatment in a relatively large plot. There is direct
comparison with the farmers’ practice and farmer assessment is still crucial at this stage.
Demonstrations are usually organised by extension agents but implemented by the farmers.
Observations and data can still be taken on the treatment’s performance.
A summary of types of on-farm trials is presented in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2
Types of trials and types of trial management
Trial type
Function
Trial size
Number of sites
Management
Exploratory
investigative simple
factor(s) add-on/takeoff yield loss
Refinement levels
screening
Find causes to
problems and
prioritise problems
Small
Few located
precisely
Greater
researcher
control or shared
To select best level or
types of technology
Potentially
large
Research or
shared
Verification
To test technology on
a larger scale and in a
wider range of
circumstances
To take full advantage
of farmer participation
and to understand ITK
Direct comparison
with the farmer
practice and
demonstrate how to
use the technology
Few
treatments
Few located
precisely or more if
a wider environment
is required
Many
Small
Many
Farmer
One new
treatment
Many
Farmer and
extension
Farmer experiments
Demonstration
8
Farmer or shared
National FSA Training
Module 5: Research with farmers
5.5
Farmer Field Schools (FFS): an example of organised farmer
experimentation
5.5.1
Introduction and key principles
The classical FFS is based on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) for rice in Indonesia and dates
back to 1986. During this time the food security situation in Asia was threatened by an outbreak
of brown plant hopper. Technical recommendations made by formal research had limited
applicability in farmers fields and while research products such as resistant varieties had the
potential for managing pests these were not fully exploited (Braun et al., 2000). There was a
need to find alternative solutions to control losses in rice production.
Later the FFS was also used with a focus on other crops and topics. Around 1995 the FFS was
introduced in Eastern and Southern Africa and is now used in countries such as Zambia,
Zimbabwe, Uganda, and Tanzania. One example of the use of the FFS in Tanzania is the
Mkindo farmer training centre in Mvomero District, Morogoro. The centre runs FFS's for the
rice based farming system.
The FFS with its innovative, participatory learning by discovery approach, is often described as
the success story of the 1990s (FAO, 2000). Although originally developed for IPM purposes it
has provided a people centred learning approach whereby farmers can learn about and
investigate for themselves the costs and benefits of alternative technologies for enhancing farm
productivity. Among other things FFS's were designed to improve farmers analytical and
decision-making skills so that in the long run they could influence policy makers. Sharing this
objective, the key principles of Farmer Field Schools across many countries are the following:
1. Adult non-formal education:
Field Schools assume that farmers already have a wealth of experience, and knowledge. They
also assume that there may be misconceptions and bad habits learned during intensification
programmes (e.g. little knowledge of natural enemies, basic fear of any insect that is seen in the
field, etc). Therefore Field Schools aim to provide basic agro-ecological knowledge and skills,
but in a participatory manner so that farmer experience is integrated into the programme. For
example, while making observations in the field, facilitators may ask farmers for examples of
what natural enemies are, and ask who knows what it might eat. Farmers give their response,
and the facilitator adds his/her knowledge. If there is a disagreement between anyone, the
facilitator and participants will set up simple studies to find the correct answer. Example: In one
Field School farmers discussed whether a certain lady beetle was a predator of pests, or a pest of
the plant. One farmer bet another on their choice. The facilitator showed how to put the lady
beetle in a jar: one jar with the pest prey and the other with leaves only. The result was that the
lady beetle ate the insects and the loser had to carry the winner around the village on his back!
In fact there are two kinds of lady beetles but one type is ‘hairy’ and the other not. Through the
FFS farmers were able to identify this difference.
2. Technical strong facilitator:
An extension staff member of the government, farmers’ organisation, or NGO usually initiates
the FFS. But in all cases the person must have certain skills. Most important is that the person is
skilled at undertaking the enterprise to be learned (e.g. the growing of a crop). In some cases
facilitators lack confidence in undertaking a particular enterprise. For this reason, most FFS
programmes have begun with training field staff (Training of Trainers) in season-long courses
which provide basic technical skills for the enterprise in question. Some people have called this
the “Farmer respect course” in that field staff come to realise how difficult farming is, and why
farmers do not immediately “adopt” “extension or research messages”. Facilitation skills and
group dynamic/group building methods are also included in this session to strengthen the
education process in the FFS. An uncertain facilitator is a poor facilitator. A confident facilitator
9
National FSA Training
Module 5: Research with farmers
can say “I don’t know-let’s find out together” much easier when the inevitable unknown
situation is encountered in the field.
3. Based on crop/livestock phenology and limited in time:
For example a FFS for a crop enterprise will be based on the crop phenology: seedling issues
are studied during the seedling stage, fertiliser issues are discussed during high nutrient demand
stages, and so on. This method allows to use the crop as a teacher, and to ensure that farmers
can immediately use and practice what is being learned. Meeting on a weekly basis means that
farmers are participating in a course for a whole season, but from an administrative/financial
point of view, the same 40 hours as in an intensive one week programme. The education
benefits of meeting when problems are present (learner readiness), and on a recurrent basis have
been studied and shown to be far more effective that intensive courses. Also the courses are
delimited by the enterprise cycle. There is a definite beginning and end. The present system of
many extension programmes of unending two-week cycles removes focus and excitement. Field
schools may extend beyond one season if groups agree, but are rarely effective when less then
the phenological cycle of the enterprise is followed.
4. Group study:
Most FFS's are organised for groups of about 25 persons with common interests that can support
each other, both with their individual experience and strengths, and create a “critical mass”. As
individuals, trying something new is often socially inappropriate (e.g. reducing sprays, cover
crops) but with group support, trying something new becomes acceptable. The number of 25 is
roughly the number that can comfortably work together with one facilitator. Usually these 25
are sub-divided into groups of five persons so that all members can better participate in field
observations, analysis, discussion and presentations.
5. Field School Site:
The Field Schools are always held in the community where farmers live so that they can easily
attend weekly and maintain the Field School studies. The facilitator travels to the site on the day
of the Field School.
6. Building groups:
One of the jobs of the facilitator is to assist the Field School to develop as a support group so
that participants can support one another after the Field School is over. This is done by having
elected officers (head, treasurer, and secretary), and a group identity. The Field School needs its
own name (never the name of the founding organisation!). No hats or shirts are given out. A
budget may be prepared for this but the group should make the design and have their own name
on these. During the season, the Field School includes group-building exercises to build group
trust and coherence. The Field School may also include such activities as long-term planning
(log frames), and proposal writing to find funding for activities groups decide to do together.
Funding may come from a number of sources including from within the group itself, local shop
owners, local governments, NGOs or national programmes.
7. Basic science:
The Field School tries to focus on basic processes through field observations, season-long
research studies hands-on activities. It has been found that when farmers have learned about
basics, combined with their own experiences and needs, they make decisions that are effective.
When farmers have this basic knowledge they are better clients for extension and research
systems because they have more specific questions and demands. They also are able to hold
these systems accountable for their output and benefits. And finally they are able to protect
themselves from dubious sources.
8. Study field (non-risk):
The Field School has a small (usually about 1000 m2) field for group study. This is the core of
the Field Schools. This field is essential for a Field School because farmers can carry out studies
10
National FSA Training
Module 5: Research with farmers
without personal risk allowing them to take management decisions that they might not
otherwise attempt in trials on their own farm. This provides farmers a way of testing a new
method themselves before applying it to their own fields. It also allows for more interesting
research topics such as defoliation simulations in which leaves are removed. The arrangement
for this field varies based on local conditions. Some villages have communal lands that can be
used for free, some villages may request inputs, other areas may request compensation in case
of lower yields in experiments, etc. It is important to remember however that this land is to be
maintained by the group – not by the facilitator alone – and is not a typical “demo-plot” as
traditionally used in many programmes.
9. Test and validate:
The Field School method proposes that no technology will necessarily work in a new location,
and therefore must be tested, validated, and adapted locally. Thus, new technologies are always
tested in comparison with conventional practices. The end result is that beneficial aspects of the
technology under testing are incorporated into existing practices.
10. Hands-on learning activities:
Beside season-long field studies, the Field School also uses other hands on learning activities to
focus on specific concepts. “Zoos” in which insect and disease life cycles can be observed more
easily on potted plants, and controlled testing of pesticide toxicity with chicks are examples of
such activities. These methods also provide ways for farmers to continue studying after the field
School. Farmers are able to use the same methods to help other farmers to learn about the new
technology.
11. Evaluation and certification:
All Field Schools include field based pre- and post-tests for the participants. However it should
be noted that written tests would not be culturally acceptable in many circumstances. This is
mainly because it will be contrary to the participatory, farmer-entered, learning by experience
approach of FFS. Such approach is typical of top-down learning by instruction method. Some
indirect measures can be used for example attendance rate and application of the skills learned
on own fields. Farmers with high attendance rates and who master the field skills learned are
awarded graduation certificates. For many farmers, the Field School is the first time that they
have graduated from any school or received a certificate in recognition of their farming skills, a
point of great pride to many families.
12. A process, not a goal:
It must be remembered that field schools are a method to provide farmers with a learning
environment so that they can achieve the goal of reducing inputs, and increasing yields and
profits. In some programmes the number of Field Schools or expansion of programmes becomes
the overwhelming target and success criteria that quality suffers and the initial goals are not met.
13. “Work self out of a job”:
The facilitator in a Field School attempts to work him/herself out of a job by building the
capacity of the group. Indeed, many Fields Schools take over the job of the facilitator by doing
Farmer to Farmer training and other local activities to strengthen other members of the
community.
14. Follow-up:
All Field Schools normally have at least one follow-up season, the intensity of which will be
determined by the motivation of the Field School participants, time constraints of participants
and facilitator, and to some extent – funding. Follow-up sessions sometimes are known to be as
little as monthly support for farmers to discuss their own problems in implementing specific
aspects of a technology e.g. pest control, to as much as farmers running a complete Field School
for other farmers. Often farmers agree to repeat the Field School process for one more season to
verify findings, or to repeat the process of the Field School on a new enterprise. Some groups
11
National FSA Training
Module 5: Research with farmers
begin to form associations, people’s organisations, and clubs that are officially or unofficially
organised and carry on studying as a group. The facilitator usually becomes less central in the
process if he/she has done a good job, more often providing some technical backstopping and
stimulation for the group.
15. Local funding goal:
Some of the Field School activities focus on future planning and fund raising. There is an
explicit goal for groups to become independent and seek local support separate from national
funding. In some cases this has meant that farmers each bring a bowl of uncooked rice to a
meeting to put together for snack money, or as much as writing a proposal and receiving a
funding grant from government or NGO sources. In national programmes, it is desirable to have
funds available directly to farmers groups that request support for their local activities.
The main characteristic of the FFS is that experimentation is of a holistic type that requires
integrated contextual analysis of the agro-ecosystem pattern, structure, and relations. Based on
the identified key principles the main characteristics of the FFS are shown in Box 5.1 (FAO,
2002).
Box 5.1
Characteristics of the Farmer Field School approach
 Farmer as experts: Farmers learn by doing, that is they carry out for themselves the various
activities that are related to the particular practice they want to study and learn about.
 The field is a primary learning place: All learning is based in the farmers fields.
 Extension workers as facilitators not teachers: The role of the extension worker is very much that of
a facilitator rather than a conventional teacher
 Scientists/subject matter specialists/researchers work with, rather than lecture farmers: Scientists
provide backstopping support to the members of FFS.
 The curriculum is integrated: Crop husbandry, animal husbandry, horticulture, silvi-culture, land
husbandry are considered together with ecology, economics, sociology and education to form a
holistic approach.
 Training follows the seasonal cycle: Training is related to the seasonal cycle of the practice being
investigated.
 Regular group meetings: Group of farmers (20-25 participants) meet at agreed regular intervals.
 Learning materials are learner generated: Farmers generate their own learning materials from
drawing what they observe to the field trials themselves.
 Group Dynamics/team building: Training includes communication skills building, problem solving,
leadership and discussion methods.
5.5.2
Procedure for starting and guiding a FFS
Major prerequisites for conducting a FFS:
1. Trained facilitator: The FFS is largely based on participatory approaches. For this reason
trainer’s attitude and skills need to be re-oriented from being instructors to being
facilitators. An instructor imparts knowledge to farmers who adopt a passive role of merely
receiving information. In contrast a facilitator creates conditions for farmers to learn by
arranging opportunities for farmers to observe and interpret differences in the practice under
investigation to carry out simple tests and exercises and through discussions. The facilitator
encourages farmers to adopt an active role in the learning process.
2. Budget: Adequate budget is required for organising and implementing the FFS. Budgets
with detailed cost of inputs, training and learning materials, refreshments and transport.
3. Curriculum: A flexible curriculum that responds to farmers perceived needs and interests
and stresses the learning of principles rather than ‘recipes’.
12
National FSA Training
Module 5: Research with farmers
Key steps in starting a FFS:
1. Planning:
Issues that need to be fulfilled during the planning phase are often done during the diagnostic
and planning phase of FSR. These issues include consultation with other stakeholders in the
community (e.g. NGO's, extension and research), identification of participants for the FFS, site
selection and problem identification. However, specific to the FFS it is necessary to explain FFS
objectives and processes to communities. It is also important to get commitment for a season
long participation in the school from participants. The FFS facilitator should organise formal or
informal meetings with men and women farmers expected to attend the school. This is
especially important to those farmers where the FFS approach is new. It is important to inform
them what they can expect from the school and what is expected from them (Box 5.2).
Box 5.2
What farmers can expect from the FFS and what is expected from them
 To learn
 To exchange
 To identify
 To test
 To evaluate
 To explain and discuss their findings
Source: FAO, 2000.
2. Conducting a FFS:
A typical FFS consists of 20-25 participants from one community. It is argued that this number
develops a critical mass around which collective action and follow-up activities can be
consolidated after the school activity. FFS participants usually meet on a weekly basis
throughout the crop cycle. A FFS learning cycle involves observation, analysis and action. FFS
can be divided into three main parts:
 Observation: Agro-ecosystem analysis (AESA) and its relevance to the subject under
consideration.
 Analysis: A group dynamic activity in small groups of 4-5 farmers so that all participants are
obliged to participate.
 Action: A special topic that is usually related to specific village-level conditions or
problems.
Various activities such as games, singing, and plays can be used to increase farmers confidence
in expressing their opinion during a training session.
3. Opening and closing ceremonies:
Organising short opening and closing ceremonies is important to impart credibility to the FFS.
Invitation of officials from the ward, division or district level at these ceremonies attaches
importance to the FFS. Awarding of certificates to participants that satisfactorily attended the
school is a good indication of the recognition of the skills that farmers have acquired at the
school. Invitation of non-participating farmers within the village and neighbouring villages at
such a ceremony, especially the closing ceremony, can stimulate interest in the FFS beyond the
immediate participants.
13
National FSA Training
Module 5: Research with farmers
5.6
Farmer Research Groups: another example of organised farmer
experimentation
5.6.1
Background
The concept of Farmer Research Groups was developed in Botswana in 1982 when the
Agricultural Technology Improvement Project (ATIP) started conducting on-farm research with
resources poor farmers (Norman et al., 1989). The goal was to develop improved arable
production technologies and low-cost research-extension methods where the point of departure
was the Farming Systems Approach (FSA) with its commitment to a bottom-up perspective.
Following the experience of FRGs in Botswana, in 1988-89 Zambia initiated village level
participatory research groups known as Village Research Groups (VRG) .The VRG in Zambia
were initiated to run concurrently with an on-farm trial programme. According to Sikana (1994)
the main objectives of the VRG was to clarify farmers’ understanding of the purpose of on-farm
research and to disperse scientists’ misconceptions about the nature of farmer experimentation.
Tanzania started using the FRG approach in the early 1990s in a process to phase out the
‘contact farmer’ approach used in the agricultural research system. FRGs are mainly concerned
with participatory research technology development and are usually complimented by “FarmerResearch Extension Groups” (FREGs) which are mainly concerned with participatory extension
services.
According to Matata et al. (2001) the main objective for Farmer Research Groups is to expand
the range of technologies that could be examined in an on-farm research programme within a
given time period. By involving farmers that operate as groups in technology development and
testing, it is possible to expand the number of technology options that are evaluated in a given
target area and time. Thus FRGs provided for reducing the time constraint that can be
experienced by a research programme in testing and evaluating technologies.
Experiences with FRGs in the Lake Zone, Tanzania showed that FRGs as a research approach
fulfilled the following objectives in research:
1. Technology generation and testing
2. Increased efficiency of manpower and resource use in research
3. Increasing the chances that technology development becomes a shared concern and to
ensure that good technology is actually disseminated.
4. Create pressure/interest groups that will demand research more effectively
The FRG serves as a platform where extension officers, farmers and researchers meet to
develop and test relevant technologies with farmers who are operating under different
conditions. To ensure that this platform functions, it is important to have a group of the same
farmers over the years so that all three parties involved can get used to each other’s language
and habits. The FRG can also be a means to empower farmers. Through an FRG farmers gain
knowledge and increase their acquaintance with research. This in turn can improve farmers
ability to influence the setting of the research agenda more effectively. The FRG approach has
the potential to make research more demand driven and client oriented. The idea and approach
of this type of participatory research has resulted into a change from information extraction by
researchers to a more joint learning process i.e. from a consultative to a collaborative mode of
farmer participation.
5.6.2
Characteristics of an FRG
The number of group members should be limited. Experiences show that between 30and 50
farmers is manageable by the farmers. But groups of 20 farmers are also proper. The size should
be discussed with the members. It is important to consider that often research inputs (such as
14
National FSA Training
Module 5: Research with farmers
seeds, and implements) are limited and can cause problems in the implementation with large
size FRGs. The advantages and disadvantages of a large FRG are indicated in table 5.3.
Table 5.3
Advantages and Disadvantages of a large FRG
Advantage
Disadvantage
Potential to reach many farmers in a given time
period as a result dissemination of technology
could be quick
With many people there is a potential of
accumulating a wealth of knowledge and
experiences that can be shared among group
members.
It is more likely that different farmer categories
are reached
For effective implementation of the group activities a
strong leadership is needed
Farmers may not know each other well enough, which
can cause distrust or jealousy among group members.
Sometimes it can lead into too many differing opinions
among members that are difficult to manage.
There are three main categories of FRGs:
 design groups
 focused-testing groups
 options-testing groups.
All these constitute a continuum in farming systems terms that reflects farmers participation.
Characteristics of the different types of FRGs are summarised in Table 5.4.
Table 5.4
Characteristics of different types of FRGs
Characteristic
Design Groups
Focused-testing
groups
Option-testing groups
Objectives
Farmers involved in
technology design
Increased farmer and
extension involvement
Large scale assessment
Number of Trials
Responsibility for
trial:
Proposal
Selection
Management
Implementation
Quantitative
measures*
Assessment by:
Researcher
Farmer
Group Size
Nature
Selection
1-3
Discuss farmers own
problems
Measure economic
benefits
Farmer assessment
4-6
Researcher
Researcher
Researcher
Researcher/farmer
Most
Researcher
Researcher/farmer
Farmer
Farmer
Intermediate
Researcher
Farmer
Farmer
Farmer
Least
Most
Least
2-3 farmers
Homogeneous
Technical situation
appropriate for design
work
2-3 times a season
Intermediate
Intermediate
10-15 farmers
Homogeneous
Socio-economic situation
for target technology
Least
Most
25-40 farmers
Heterogeneous
Volunteers from village
meeting
Monthly in a season
Monthly in a season
Frequency of
meeting
*Relative to other types of groups.
Source: Norman et al., 1989
15
10-12
National FSA Training
5.6.3
Module 5: Research with farmers
Procedure for establishing a FRG
The purpose and meaning of a FRG should be clearly explained to potential participants. The
process of technology generation and dissemination and the role of FRGs should be introduced.
Three main approaches to establish an FRG can be identified. The choice between the three
depends very much on the advantages and disadvantages of each.
1. An FRG can be established during a debriefing session in the village. The debriefing can be
based on presentation of results of a PRA or other survey on agricultural (crops and
livestock) production constraints. The main advantages of this method are that a varied
selection of farmers is likely to be included. For any properly executed PRA or survey it
involves different groups/types of farmers. Farmers involved in such an exercise can be
personally invited and are more likely to attend the debriefing. The process of group
formation is shortened because the initial steps of group formation are done during the
PRA. Farmers participating in an PRA have gone through the stages of identification and
analysing problems, often in groups and sometimes individually. The main disadvantage
however is that the PRA method is rather time consuming and it often takes time between
the collection of data and presentation of the findings to the villagers. It should be used
when little information is available on the farming system or the area concerned.
2. An FRG can also be established by organising a technology market or a field day. This can
be done at a research station or in a village. The main advantages of this approach is that a
field day normally attracts different categories of farmers. Thus groups of farmers can be
formed based on the specific technologies that farmers are interested in. The process of
establishing an FRG through a technology market is not as time consuming as a PRA and it
can be done in one day. The main disadvantage of this approach however is that there is
neither prioritisation nor identification of constraints at village level. The number of
subscribers can be very large because there no selection criteria for participants are applied.
The number of trials and experiments is also often higher than with the PRA approach. This
may result in difficulties in managing the groups.
3. Establishing an FRG by linking up with an existing group in the village. This approach is
relatively easy to undertake because the group does not need to be created. It is possible to
assess the functioning of the group before linking up with research activities. However,
despite these advantages there are some major issues to consider before linking up research
activities with an existing group. First, the composition of the group needs to be assessed.
Often existing groups are targeted towards a specific group in the village such as women,
youth, economic interest groups, and religious groups. It is important to ensure that the
composition of the group does not exclude participation of some people in research
activities. Second, the objectives of the existing group should be carefully analysed to make
sure that they match or do not conflict with the objectives of the FRG. It is important to
ensure that inclusion of research activities does not result into conflict of interest among
group members.
In short the approach to set up an FRG will depend on the circumstances. A PRA approach can
be considered when:
 There is hardly any knowledge on the farming system,
 There is adequate time and resources for a PRA
A technology market can be considered when:
 There is not much time and/or manpower for a PRA
 Constraints of a farming system are known
 There are sufficient technologies giving a solution to identified constraints
 A technology is in a validation phase
Existing groups can be used when:
16
National FSA Training
Module 5: Research with farmers
 Composition of the group does not exclude some members of the community.
 Objectives of the group do not conflict with those of the FRG.
As with the FFS once the group is formed it is important to have an identity such as a name for
the group. Next the following basic steps are used to structure the FRG:
1. Election of group leaders:
Groups are to be assisted in electing a chairperson and a secretary. The assistance should be in
the form of informing them of the necessary characteristics of good leadership including
personal characteristics that describe a good chairperson and secretary. Define the role and tasks
of these positions. For the secretary it should be clear that he/she has to keep records that serve
as monitoring data for researchers.
2. Establishment of rules and regulations governing the group activities:
These include rules and regulations that will determine group membership, membership fees,
participation in group activities, penalties for not abiding to the rules, and procedures for
electing the leadership. A membership fee should be discussed thoroughly with the FRG
members. Its advantages and disadvantages should be looked into carefully. Attention has to be
paid to ensure that the fee will not constrain or make it impossible for certain groups of farmers
to join the FRG.
3. Membership and membership fees:
Membership to an FRG should be on a voluntary basis. Researchers can advice on the choice of
members. The advice should focus on composition of the groups in that as much as possible
groups should try to involve different categories of farmers in the FRG. The main reason is to
avoid a bias in FRG members towards a certain category of households. By simply asking
interested farmers to join the FRG during a village meeting (community approach) often a bias
is created. Experience from the Lake Zone with a few FRGs shows that cattle owning
households are then over-represented. Criteria that can be used to identify categories of farmers
include location, wealth or resource ownership, sex (women/men), and scale of production
(large or small scale).
It is important in an FRG to decide between closed and open membership to new members. The
question of an open versus a closed group is not simply answered by selecting one of the two
options. There are possibilities in between those two. For example, a choice could be made to
have a core group of farmers who commit themselves for several years. In addition to this,
farmers can join the FRG for a specific trial for a specific period. However, it should be clear
that for research purposes it is necessary to have at least a core group of farmers that
collaborates during several years with research.
In establishing an FRG it is important to ensure that both men and women are involved.
However, deliberate efforts are needed for womens’ participation. Such efforts include:
 Identification of women categories within the target group (for example married women,
women as heads of households).
 Adjustment of the period and timing of meetings so that they fit with women's programmes.
 Where mixed groups (men and women) are likely to hinder participation of women or men
issues can be discussed with separate groups of men and women so that they can feel free to
give their opinion.
 Try not to involve women only in trials with women's crops or tasks. As women are an
integral part of the household they should also be involved in trials dealing with less typical
women's tasks or crops. Discuss with men and women how this involvement should take
place.
 Encourage FRGs to include trials that address typical women's problems and constraints.
17
National FSA Training
Module 5: Research with farmers
4. Selection and introduction of experiments:
The choice of the first trial in the FRG should be done carefully. The strategy should be to start
with a technology that responds to a priority problem of the majority if not all farmers, and
selecting a trial that generates results within a short period of time. With this strategy it is
possible to encourage more farmers to participate in the FRG. In the following years, the choice
of new trials should involve members of the FRG. It should be made clear to the participants of
the FRG that trials are designed on the basis of identified problems. The design, objectives and
the background of the selected trials should be discussed thoroughly with the participants. At
this stage, for each of the trials designed, members of the FRG that are willing and capable of
participating need to be identified.
5. Meetings:
An FRG needs to have regular meetings and should be encouraged to conduct such meetings
even without researchers or extension officers. Issues to be discussed in the meeting include:
 Planning: These meetings are at the start of the agricultural season. The FRG discusses new
trials with members, researchers and extension staff. Participants are selected for each trial.
 Progress of specific trials and exchange of experiences gained from trials
 Problems and possible solutions experienced in execution of different trials
 Priority setting and identification of new researchable problems: This meeting is held after
the agricultural season to evaluate the season (no farmer assessment but uses the outcome of
the farmer assessment). Modifications of trials should be agreed upon and it should be clear
which trial is concluded and which should continue. Farmers can propose new trials for next
season. These proposals should first be discussed within the FRG without researchers being
present. This ensures that when new trials are presented to researchers, they have become a
group concern and are not based on the interests of some individuals. Proposals should then
be prioritised. This can be done individually or in sub-groups according to sex or age.
 Strategies to disseminate concluded technologies to other villagers and to neighbouring
villages
The frequency of general meetings should be decided upon by the members of the FRG.
Experience shows that FRGs meet 3 to 4 times per agricultural season. A guideline could be to
meet at the start of the agricultural season, in the middle and at the end of the trials (crop trials).
Another guideline for planning these meetings could be the schedule of the yearly meetings that
research conducts. An FRG can also organise subgroup meetings. The objectives of these
meetings is to discuss the progress of the trials and to assess whether modifications of the trial
should be made for the next season. The frequency of subgroup meetings can be discussed with
the FRG but depend on the nature and the stage of the trial. Subgroups can meet more
frequently than the overall meeting. However groups should only meet when there is an agenda.
5. Dissemination:
After testing the technologies for some time, at a stage when a technology seems to be
promising in solving the identified problem, the FRG can, if it is within their capacity, start to
disseminate the technology to other interested farmers. But it does not necessarily imply that the
latter should become FRG members. E.g. After 2 years of variety testing of cowpea in a trial
which was Farmer Managed/Farmer Implemented (FMFI) in the Lake Zone, many farmers got
interested in specific varieties in the last project year. Seeds were then distributed to many
farmers in the village to experiment on their own. Initially only those farmers who started with
the trial were FRG members and researchers collaborated with them.
The effectiveness of the group in this respect depends to a great extent on its links with other
organisations, agencies and individuals in the immediate community. Formal linkages should
exist between Farmer Research Groups and Farmer Extension Groups and potentially between
Farmer Extension Groups and other villages, while only informal linkages exist between the
former and the latter. Farmers should not regard the work they do with research as a secret they
have to keep among themselves.
18
National FSA Training
Module 5: Research with farmers
Information/knowledge can be shared as follows:
 field visits to trial sites (among members of same sub-group and between sub-groups)
 field days
 participation in agricultural shows
 demonstrations to neighbours
 sharing seed
 giving information and/or a demonstration during village meetings
 become trainers to other farmers (farmer to farmer training)
It is important to stress dissemination at an early stage once results are promising. It is an
indication of how farmers can organise themselves. The FRG can also use its linkages with
other groups in the village to which they could provide knowledge e.g. a women group, a youth
group.
Farmer Extension Groups (FEG) can play an important role in the dissemination of technology.
FEG members will implement verification trials to assess acceptability of technologies across a
representative choice of farmers. Consequently, the FEG should be composed of various farmer
categories. The number of members can be larger than a FRG because monitoring is not so
intensive as for the other types of trials conducted with FRGs. The FEG is the place where the
first assessment of large scale adoptability of a technology can be done. There is thus a clear
linkage between the FRG and the FEG. Technologies that are promising, respond to constraints
in the farming system and that have been positively assessed by the FRG members should be
introduced by extension staff to the members of the FEG. FEG villages should be in the same
Farming System Zone as the FRG village.
6. Monitoring and evaluation:
FRG activities need to be monitored periodically. FRG have to decide what they want to
monitor and how to do it. The results can be discussed among themselves. Monitoring should
relate to the objectives that the FRG members have set. The importance of monitoring should be
made clear to the FRG i.e. the FRG should know how they can analyse data and how they can
use these. The FRG should never get the feeling that they collect data only for research.
One of the approaches to monitor group activities is through meetings. Activities can also be
monitored through farmer field visits. Through such visits, FRG members get a chance to
exchange experiences from different trials. These field visits can be organised between
subgroup members and also for all the FRG members but not only when visitors are coming to
the village.
From research, monitoring could be done in the following ways:
 The FRG is requested to write minutes of all meetings. They are asked to note at least the
following points: date, number of participants (men/women), subjects discussed, actions
proposed.
 Activity/experimental data should be analysed by research and discussed with the farmers.
 Village Extension Officer in the Farmer Research Groups are required to fill a monthly
monitoring form, which is submitted to the District but equally analysed by the FRG Coordinator (researcher).
 The DRELO and the VEO collect minutes of the meetings.
19
National FSA Training
Module 5: Research with farmers
Exercises
1.
List the various AKIS actors in your home village and specify their roles.
2.
List the type of on-farm trials in your research area in your institute and give reasons
why that/those types were chosen.
3.
Compare and contrast the salient features of FFS and FRG by identifying the strengths
and weaknesses of each approach.
20
National FSA Training
Module 5: Research with farmers
References
Braun, A.R, Thiele G. and Fernandez M. (2000.) Farmer Field Schools and Local Agricultural
Research Committee: Complementary Platforms for Integrated Decision-Making in Sustainable
Agriculture. AgRen No 105.
Campen, W. van (1995). Introduction and reinforcement of participatory approaches in District
Rural Development Programmes: Farming Systems research, extension, natural resources
management and village based planning. Report of a consultancy mission to Bukoba Rural
District, Tanzania. Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam.
Chambers R. (1997). Whose Realize Counts: Putting the First Last. Intermediate Technology
Publication 297.
FAO (2000). Guidelines and References Material on Integrated Soil and Nutrient Management
and Conservation for Farmer Field Schools. Food an Agricultural Organization of the United
Nations.
Kalonge S., M. Kabul and H.J. Of (1995). Farmer participation in farming systems research: the
case of Western Province, Zambia. In: Design, implementation and analysis of on-farm trials.
An assessment of field experiences, June 28-July 2 1993, Arusha, Tanzania. Workshop
proceedings, Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, January 1995.
Kingma K. and J.M. Mafuru (1997). Guidelines FRG: Establishment, Coordination and
Monitoring. Field Note 73. Lake Zone Agricultural Research Institute. ARI-Ukiriguru.
Kingma, K. (1997). Monitoring and on-going evaluation of farmer research groups: Tools used
during 1995 and 1996 season. December, 1997. Field Note 78. Lake Zone Agricultural Research
Institute. ARI-Ukiriguru.
Norman, D.W., J.D. Siebert, E. Modiakgotla and F.D. Worman (1994). Farming systems
research approach. A primer for eastern and southern Africa.
Rolling, N. (1990). The Agricultural Research-Technology Transfer Interface: A Knowledge
Systems Perspective. In: Kaimowitz, D. (ed.). Making the Link: Agricultural research and
technology transfer in developing countries. ISNAR, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Sands, C.M. (1988). The theoretical and empirical basis for analysing agricultural technology
systems. Ph.D. thesis. University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, USA.
Sutherland A. and (1998) ODI Newsletter.
Worman, F. D. Norman and J. Ware-Snyder (Eds.) (1990). Farming Systems Research
Handbook for Botswana, ATIP RP 3. Gabarone: Department of Agricultural Research,
Botswana.
21