Previous - Next
Involvement by FSR (i.e., technology oriented) teams in the dissemination process traditionally has been very limited. This is because extension/development agency staff obviously play the major role in such activities, The FSD approach, on the other hand, emphasises that the FSD team should play certain specialized roles to improve both the efficiency of the research process and the rate of return from the limited research resources,
The FSD team can support dissemination activities by monitoring rates of adoption and the impact of changes resulting from dissemination activities, which can help not only to justify future funding for agricultural development activities but also to provide ideas on future research priorities and, if necessary, indications on adjustments in the policy/support system that to facilitate greater adoption and/or more favourable impact,
5.10. 1 Scheduling Tasks and Key Actors for Dissemination Activities
Within FSD research areas, there may not be a decision to release a particular technology. However, farmers who have been exposed to the idea through trials work, farmer groups, or field days may choose to try to adopt on their own.
To move past the research area into the larger target area, usually the following two decisions are required:
Dissemination at this point usually involves a different set of actors with FSD playing more of a supportive role, Typically, the extension service takes the lead, with government agricultural policy makers playing a lesser or greater part in the effort, However, other government and nongovernment agencies and, not least of all, farmers from
BOX 5.9: POLICY/SUPPORT SYSTEMS SHOULD BE TREATED AS VARIABLES, NOT PARAMETERS
Upton and Dixon 11994] stress the importance of FSD in policy and programme analysis and the critical complementarily between development and dissemination of appropriate technologies and policy/support systems. They cite an FSD exercise in a maize-based system in Haiti [Martinez et al, 1991], in which significantly different responses to nitrogen were found from different types of fertilizer. Consequently, because of these findings, plus a number of demonstrations, it was possible to bring about a change in fertilizer marketing policy as a result of presenting the findings to the appropriate authorities. The state-sponsored agricultural input organization made the more effective type of fertilizer available to farmers. the research area can be involved in this process.
BOX 5.10: KEY TO INTERACTIVE LINKAGES IS COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES
In Botswana, for example, FSD teams have helped in training courses for extension/development agency staff and have helped extension/development agency staff train farmers in row planting via courses and competitions at agricultural shows, Row planting has been recommended officially for many years. These types of collaboration are arranged easily when Regional Coordinating Committees are functioning (see Table 6.2).
5.10.2 Details on the Process of Dissemination
Steps involved at this stage include:
With reference to adoption studies, the increasing need for FSD teams to incorporate a monitoring/feedback activity has been mentioned earlier (see Section 3.7) and an introductory discussion on the methodology for adoption studies is presented later {see Section 10.9). Points to note with reference to adoption studies are:
- Adoption studies, which are still relatively uncommon, have another important unexploited dimension. Assessment of reasons for non-adoption and/or adoption in unanticipated ways provides a potentially fertile area for feeding back relevant research priorities to researchers and information to help those responsible for the policy/support systems. With reference to the latter, such information can involve marketing (i.e., both inputs and output), credit, and extension data, which can indicate how to modify policy/support systems in a way that will improve farmer adoption.
- FSD is often in an ideal position to assess impact of research efforts generally. Because of the sunk costs already incurred in developing and disseminating specific technologies, implementing adoption studies (i.e., preferably with the support or active collaboration of extension/development staff) can yield substantial returns with relatively little additional investment, thereby improving the impact of on-farm research.
With reference to the internal rate of return to research, specific points to note include:
- The issue of the cost effectiveness of research is an important concern of many decision makers. Related to this is an increasing need for accountability in the use of the limited resources available for agricultural research, This alone provides sufficient justification for the implementation of technology adoption studies.
- However, in this type of impact-assessment study, several factors (i.e., research and non-research) need to be considered, including all research inputs used in developing the technology including both station-based and on-farm components, policy issues that may pose a constraint on adoption and yet affect the impact of research assessment, and the effectiveness of the information delivery system (i.e., extension programme).
- In this type of assessment, FSD is likely to be only a collaborator along with station-based researchers, possibly extension staff, and agricultural policy makers.
The objectives of this chapter are to look at some general issues in Implementing FSD. These include:
What factors are important in creating conditions that will encourage an interdisciplinary approach'? Obviously, an important necessary, but not a sufficient, condition is the presence of representatives on the FSD team of more than one discipline -- preferably both technical and social. Although the choice of disciplines represented on FSD teams should be influenced by factors such as the major enterprises in the farming system and the major problems/constraints that are to be addressed (i.e., sometimes related to the mandate of the institution in which the team is located), in fact, more practical constraints such as research resource limitation or staff availability are often the major determinants. Most FSD teams consist of crop-oriented scientists (i.e., particularly agronomists) and agricultural economists. Disciplines sometimes, but not always represented, are animal science and sociology. Representation from other disciplines is often obtained on a part-time basis, as and when required, from thematic researchers.
Multidisciplinary teams obviously enable a multidisciplinary approach (i.e., individuals of different disciplines working independently on the same or different research topics) to be used but they do not, without further action, ensure that an interdisciplinary approach (i.e., individuals of different discipline working together on the same research topic) is adopted. The preconditions for an interdisciplinary approach to work rely heavily on personal characteristics of the team members. The team members must have compatible personalities, have confidence in using the analytical tools of their own disciplines together with a healthy respect for the role of other disciplines, and be willing and able to be team players. Above all, they need to be able to listen, understand, and accept other viewpoints and be prepared, when appropriate, to modify their own views. Finally, whoever the team leader is, it is important that he/she tries to exploit the strong aspects of the team members' personalities and minimize the negative impact of the weak aspects that everyone possesses. On balance, competence and personality rather than a specific discipline? are more important in the selection of a suitable team leader.
It is important to emphasize at this point that, unless these personal characteristics are present, interdisciplinary cooperation will not be possible. The following organizational and activity considerations simply help to create a more formalized structure that will nurture and support interdisciplinary work.
The keys to operating effectively in an interdisciplinary mode are:
With reference to the second point, this does not mean that everyone should contribute equally in all individual activities, but rather, in terms of the overall effort, everyone should play his or her part, Obviously, the roles and skills of specific disciplines and individuals should be taken into account in the apportioning process, For example, the agronomist is likely to take major responsibility for RMRI work, whereas the agricultural economist plays a much more visible role in FMFI type work. Also, one team member may have special administrative or analytical talents that can be exploited constructively for the benefit of the team as a whole.
Strategies that have been found to be important in team building and encouraging interdisciplinary cooperation include the following:
- The work plan that is developed should result not only from discussions between the team members but from interaction with the extension- and development-oriented personnel in the region, station-based researchers, and, of course, farmers.
- Well before the agricultural cycle starts, the following should be written down and agreed to: the objectives; a justification for doing the work: and the approach to be used for each proposed trial, survey, or study, in the work programme. The justification might include a description of how this activity fits into the stages of development of the technology.
- At this stage, someone should be designated to take primary responsibility for the trial, survey, or study.
- Additionally at this time, any special materials for the proposed trial, survey, or study should be obtained; any necessary support from farmers should be enlisted; and agreement should be reached on the data collection procedure and forms that are to be used and on the possible analytical framework for evaluating the results.
- Finally, at this stage, responsibilities for different activities with reference to the specific trial, survey, or study should be apportioned. Some of these activities or responsibilities will be done jointly. A protocol for the list of activities, the name of the person responsible for supervising them, and the expected dates of completion should be drawn up for each trial, survey, or study in the work programme. Such a list is desirable to facilitate communication and to help ensure successful implementation of the work programme. This can be supplemented during the implementation stage by a checklist indicating, by farmer for each trial, the dates on which the various activities were undertaken.
- Analysis and writing up should be done in a timely manner and joint authorship of papers encouraged,
- After approval by the relevant authorities, the results of the work should be distributed in a timely manner to interested institutions and individuals.