field of policy, which aims at the promo-tion of PLA and understanding of factors influencing that effort. The first subsidiary question also relates to the field of policy.
The hypotheses for these questions aim at
obtaining some insight in causality. The questions are descriptive and intend to collect basic information (Potter and Sub-rahmanian, 1988, pp. 21, 22).
Policy area
Research topic
Specific project aim
Question to address aim
Information needed
Methodology
Results
Analysis
Conclusions
The promotion of PLA
The use and viability of a process approach to the design of agricultural development projects, in the context of accountability; making a case for PLA.
Investigate acceptance of the concept of PLA by the designers of agricultural development projects to increase food production and improve landscape stability.
Central question: To what extent can PLA be used for the design and implementation of these agricultural development projects?
Subsidiary questions:
1. What would the effect of PLA be on the economic viability of an agric. dev. project?
2. How would the people affected in the project area react to the opportunity of PLA?
3. What if the people affected were given the opportunity to effect/change the policy by themselves?
Central question: Do 'experts' consider this participatory cooperation and adaptive management viable? From questionnaires and semi-structured interviews.
Subsidiary questions: Q1. How is sustainability affected? From semi-structured interviews, and key papers.
Q2. Would this be regarded as valuable progress? Questionnaires addressed to NGOs?
Participatory surveys. Key papers.
Q3. Is the capacity and infrastructure needed for this available? Focused interviews.
Questionnaires and focused interviews supported by evidence from key papers.
Determine quality standards of accountability and ownership.
Make good summary notes of the information obtained.
Search using key words (Boolean). Organize notes in one reference system.
State findings. Always related to central question.
See literature study, questionnaires and interviews, in the light of the central question.
These must provide a concise answer to the central question.
Legend: PLA: participatory learning and action (Chambers, 1994).
FIGURE 5.2. The research process. Based on Thomas, et al., 1998, pp. 20-22, Finding Out Fast, Sage Publications, in association with the Open University, London, Milton Keynes.
Chapter 5 Researching the Situation to Define Strategies
The respective hypotheses are consid-ered to provide some framework in this regard (ibid., p. 23). The second and third subsidiary questions also relate to the field of policy, and aim at finding an
answer to the question of what would hap-pen if the causal factor of the support of the people in the field to the project, changed.
What is important?
From the above it is concluded that it is important to establish that small-scale subsistence farmer groups indeed want to take part in the effort, initiated by ‘outside agencies’, to achieve a (more) stable land-scape, whilst adopting techniques aimed at protecting the soil and landform and increasing food production.
What are the available choices?
If the enquiry leads to the conclusion that this is so, the collaborative effort should be set in motion. If the situation is uncertain, work should continue in the realization that failure is possible. The subsidiary questions 1-2 and their hypoth-eses (see Table 5.1 above) centre on these possibilities. On the other hand the sub-sidiary question 3 entertains the situation (perhaps unlikely) where subsistence
farmer groups firmly oppose collaboration from outside, whilst being prepared to use PM&E. In that case the matter should be left with them, after they have participated in the design of the project. This poten-tially more difficult situation should be based on an agreement between the
‘owner shareholders’ (see Table 1.2 on page 11 and Table 1.3 on page 14), about what is feasible.
5.2.2 The questionnaire suggested for the research
As indicated in Figure 5.2, the informa-tion needed may be collected from
‘experts’ by means of questionnaires and focused interviews. These are used to con-firm that the world view that ‘bottom-up’
control and participatory management is essential for success, is shared by the
‘experts’ initiating the project.
TABLE 5.1. The research questions and hypotheses.
The questions The hypotheses
Central To what extent are PLA and PM&E taken into account in the design of agri-cultural development projects specifi-cally aimed at improving food security?
The sustainability of an agricultural develop-ment project will be enhanced by attention to downward accountability to and participation by the people directly affected by it.
Subsidiary 1 What would the effect of PM&E be on the economic viability of such agricul-tural development projects?
The economic and social viability of a project will be enhanced if PLA and PM&E are adopted at the design stage.
Subsidiary 2 How would the subsistence farmers in the project area react to the policy of using PLA?
Given the opportunity to participate, the local people affected by the intervention will sup-port it.
Subsidiary 3 What if the subsistence farmers affected by the intervention were given the opportunity to effect/change the policy by themselves, using PM&E?
The people affected by the intervention will wish to participate in the design of the project, provided they see the opportunity for capacity building.
PLA: participatory learning and action; PM&E: participatory monitoring and evaluation.
Finding out what changes are needed
An indicative example of a structured questionnaire, based on this approach is shown in Table 5.2. It attempts to find some answers to ‘what’ questions, basi-cally by ticking boxes. However, as
quan-tification is involved in answering questions about policy (the ‘how’ and
‘what-if’ subsidiary questions), a semi-structured interview-schedule may be use-ful as an adjunct. This schedule might
TABLE 5.2. Example of a questionnaire directed towards assessing the likelihood of obtaining the participation of subsistence farmers in the development project.
Blueprint PLA 1 How would you regard your
approach to the design of agricul-tural development projects?
Yes No Yes No
2 Would you request information from the subsistence farmers affected by the programme?
Yes No Yes No
Technical Social Verbal Written
3 What type of information would this be?
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
4 Would you explain and discuss the project with subsistence farmers at location?
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
5 Would you call public meetings for this purpose?
Yes No Yes No
6 Would you use relatively small groups for focused interviews?
Yes No Yes No
7 Do you regard the concept of accountability to subsistence farmers important?
Yes No Yes No
8 Would you keep the subsistence farmers affected by the project informed about progress and per-formance?
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
9 Would you aim at obtaining their participation in the project?
Yes No
10 To what extent do you consider that their participation is important? Please rank in scale 1 to 5;
1 = low; 5 = high.
1 2 3 4 5
Important to take part in design 2 4 4
Important to take part in imple-mentation
4 6
Important to participate in design and implementation
2 2 4
Chapter 5 Researching the Situation to Define Strategies
contain some standard or open-ended questions. Answers to such questions could provide the interviewer with lines of enquiry that could not have been fore-seen (Thomas et al., 1998, p. 133).
The answers given in the example ques-tionnaire above are fictitious only.
Unforeseen lines of enquiry might be use-ful in this overall context.
The first two questions in Table 5.2 (see page 77) consider the alternatives of a blueprint method, e.g. an intervention and implementation model to achieve change, or alternatively a learning process approach. The conceptual model shown in Figure 3.4 (see page 41), could act as an aid to compare the concept with condi-tions pertaining in the ‘real world’.
The questions 3 to 10 in Table 5.2 con-cern the involvement of local stakeholders in the design and implementation of the project and relate to the second and third
subsidiary questions of Table 5.1 (see page 76).
Answers to the first two questions may be found from the discussions based on the questionnaire and interviews. The use-fulness of the outcome, referred to in the subsidiary questions in Table 5.1, depends on the reaction of the subsistence farmer communities. The times for ‘start’ and
‘finish’ indicated in Table 5.3 are ficti-tious only.
TABLE 5.3. Activities and indicative timings. a
Activity Start Finish Weeks
Expert environment
1 Do feasibility study 02/02/11 04/04/11 9
2 Assess socio-economic environment 02/02/11 07/03/11 5
3 Assess economic resources 07/03/11 04/04/11 4
4 Decide strategy 30/03/11 04/04/11 1
Socio-political environment
5 Assess rural population involved in subsistence agriculture 13/04/11 02/05/11 3 6 Do stakeholder analysis to mobilize local know-how 20/04/11 02/05/11 2 7 Use farmer-led research to contribute to policy, strategy and
design
04/05/11 03/10/11 22
Economic environment
8 Use learning process approach 04/05/11 31/10/11 26
9 Design and implement four-step project 04/05/11 31/10/11 26
10 Contribute to economic growth 17/10/11 NA
System control environment
11 Appreciate model builders’ aspirations for the system 02/02/11 07/02/11 1
12 Define measures of performance 09/02/11 21/02/11 2
13 Monitor activities 1-10 02/02/11
14 Take control action 02/02/11
a. The dates in this table are entirely fictitious. They are stated to contribute to the thinking.
Based on this table a Gantt Chart could be developed. This can be useful for the purpose of comparing projected timings and progress against actually achieved progress.