From pdh@u.washington.edu Fri Dec 11 09:16:41 1998 Received: from jason04.u.washington.edu (root@jason04.u.washington.edu [140.142.78.5]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP id JAA27984 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 09:16:40 -0800 Received: from saul3.u.washington.edu (pdh@saul3.u.washington.edu [140.142.83.1]) by jason04.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP id JAA07594; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 09:16:11 -0800 Received: from localhost (pdh@localhost) by saul3.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with SMTP id JAA02030; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 09:16:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 09:16:10 -0800 (PST) From: Department of Zoology To: indknow@u.washington.edu cc: EANTH-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Subject: Workshop - Farmer Participatory Research Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- WORKSHOP ANNOUNCEMENT AND GUIDELINES FOR CASE WRITERS Farmer - Led Participatory Research in Asia: Innovations, Initiatives & Experiences in the Natural Resource Management Context Dates: 8-10 March 1999 Venue: Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India Organisers: Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad Nirma Institute of Management, Ahmedabad Society for Research and Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies and Institutions Sponsors: CGIAR System Wide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation (PRGA Program) Purpose of the Workshop There has been considerable awareness and interest in the recent past, among natural science researchers, social scientists and non-governmental organisations, of methodical advances in participatory research and gender analysis (PRGA). PRGA can be initiated by researchers in either formal or informal systems or by farmers in informal systems. While considerable documentation exists on initiatives taken by formal researchers, very little is known about farmer initiated participatory research. Nor is much known about why, when, how, and on what terms farmers-innovators bring formal researchers into the picture: - What is the contribution of the partners to knowledge and innovation in natural resource management: what are the benefits and how are these shared? - What are the experiences of both formal and informal researchers in going through such a process? - What are the gains of participatory research over conventional research; especially farmer-led participatory research? This workshop seeks to bring together practitioners in the field to share their experiences and explore these and related questions. Who can participate in the workshop? Individuals, institutions, farmers=92groups /farmer-research teams from both formal and informal systems who have been involved in farmer-led participatory research may participate. The experiences should be prepared in the form of case studies of no more than 5,000 words.=20 The twelve best case studies will be selected by an international panel of judges. The decision of the panel will be final. The case writers will be invited to present their cases at the Indian Institute of Management in Ahmedabad, India where the workshop will be held. Two presenters will be invited for each selected case study. At least one of the two will be one of the farmers involved in the farmer-led research. Last date for Submission The case studies should reach us no later that the 15th January 1999 and should be sent via email, where possible, to the address given below in the prescribed form. Each submission should be accompanied with a bio-data, which includes information on relevant personal and professional experience; especially that in the area of participatory research and gender analysis. Criteria for Selection: Writers are encouraged to focus on the participatory nature of the and the gender issues that were considered. The case study should explain clearly the role the farmer played in the process of innovation and describe the kind of participation and collaboration that took place as the process evolved. Cases will be short-listed on the basis of their innovativeness and their significance for other NRM situations. Cases that bring out the links between participatory research methods and its impact on both men and women farmers will receive preferred attention in the selection process. In selecting the cases the panel will seek to choose case studies that represent the diversity of: - NRM sectors: forestry, agriculture, water-shed management, bio-diversity conservation, etc. - Geographical locations in Asia - Level at which the initiative was taken (individual, community and regional) - Methodologies for involving different stakeholders - Farmer-innovators: men/women, tribal groups, older/younger Guidelines for Participation You are requested to send a soft copy of your case in either Microsoft Word or Word Perfect of your case through e-mail. Two hard copies as well as a soft copy on a disc should be sent through the post. The manuscript should be typed in double space, on A-4 size paper, preferably in Times Roman font. Guidelines for preparing the write-ups are attached to this announcement. While sending your case, make sure to provide the following information (to the extent possible) on a separate sheet of paper for each of the persons involved in writing the case: Name: Age: Sex: Occupation: Address for Correspondence: =20 Phone No.: Fax No.: E-mail address: Title of case: Contact Persons: For additional information and clarifications please feel free to contact us at the following addresses. The final manuscript should be mailed to Prof. Brij Kothari. Dr. Brij Kothari Wing 14, Indian Institute of Management Vastrapur Ahmedabad 380 015 Gujarat, India e-mail: brij@iimahd.ernet.in Fax: 91-79-6427896 Ph. Nos.: 91-79-6407241, 6407242 Dr. Astad Pastakia Nirma Institute of Management Sarkhej-Gandhinagar Highway, P.O. Ognaj, Chharodi, Ahmedabad 382 421 e-mail: astadp@ad1.vsnl.net.in Fax.: 91-79-7439916 Ph.Nos.: 91-79-7439911 to 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------- GUIDELINES FOR CASE WRITERS Farmer-Led Participatory Research in Asia: Innovations, Initiatives & Experiences in the Natural Resource Context These guidelines have been developed to cover a wide terrain. Still, some issues in your case may fall outside it. Your case should address as many of the relevant issues as possible. Case writers are, of course, free to maintain the order and manner in which the issues are discussed and integrated. In developing the case, kindly discuss with the various stakeholders and participants, as many of the following points as you see relevant.=20 Overall, the case should illuminate the participation in the research/project at different stages: needs analysis, problem definition, project plan formulation, implementation, on-going/impact evaluation, benefit sharing, institutional (re)arrangements, and so on. The case should bring out why, when, how and on what terms farmers or farmer-innovators (both men and women) brought formal researchers into the picture. Special attention should be given to how the participation process may have been influenced due to the inclusion/exclusion and the nature of participation/non-participation of women. If a particular institution has been involved in significantly different strategies for different natural resource situations, these should be written up as separate cases. If the differences are marginal, then these differences could be highlighted in the same case. 1. Scale of operations 2. Natural resource problem being addressed through Participatory NRM (nature of need and severity of problem) 3. Stakeholders and participants a) Direct b) Indirect Description of the socio-economic and cultural background of the initiators form informal sector (farmers, artisans, veterinary experts, and others) 4. Trigger(s) for action 5. a) What were the various stages of NRM in which PR & GA was tried and found useful? What was the role of different stakeholders (women/men, farmers/non-farmers, NGOs/collectives, scientists, government agents and others) in: i) Diagnosis of problem ii) Problem definition iii) Awareness raising and mobilization iv) Development of micro-plan for action and/or research v) Operationalization of plan vi) Evaluation and monitoring (formative/interim) vii) Impact evaluation (final) b) What differences did participation make to the success or lack of success of the work being reported, in achieving its objectives? Over what time frame? What was the situation before participation was introduced? How did this change as a result? c) What specific efforts were needed to identify and eliminate gender biases and to build a gender perspective into the research and action related to NRM? What differences did using gender analysis make to the success or lack of success of the work in achieving its objectives? What was the timeframe? 6. What were the innovative elements of the methodology(ies) used? 7. Nature of ownership of resource (individual, government, collective, and other) 8. Nature of cohesion for action (individual, family, collective, community, regional, national, transnational, identity oriented such as "indigenous" or "tribal," spiritually/religion-based) 9. What was the time frame for the management of the Natural Resource (episodic, seasonal, on-going, way of life)? In the case of on-going projects, indicate the current status i.e. the extent of completion. 10. What institutional mechanisms were evolved/adopted for: a) Participation of different stakeholders b) Attaining domain consensus c) Implementation d) Mutual monitoring and/or maintaining accountability e) Benefit sharing f) Conflict resolution 12. Nature of direct and indirect benefits: a) individual-material b) individual-non-material c) collective-material d) collective-non-material What were the achievements/outcomes of PR & GA? How did it empower the different stakeholders vis-a-vis themselves (local context) and in relation to the larger context? Specifically, how did it affect the survival or developmental strategies of the local population, including women? How did it contribute to the restoration/ conservation/ sustainable use of the natural resource in question? 13. Efforts at scaling up of: a) Technology b) Institutions c) Approaches 14. Research component (who, when, why, what): a) Objectives b) Methods c) Findings d) Usage (at different stages) 15. Role of local/regional politics in influencing participation 16. What were the resolved and unresolved conflicts and conflict resolution processes? 17. Has this experience been documented before? If so, please give details of the published and/or unpublished reports. .