Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
J. Pretty, I. Guijt, John Thompson, I. Scoones (1995)
Participatory Learning and Action: A trainer's guide
N. Uphoff (1988)
Participatory evaluation of farmer organizations' capacity for development tasksAgricultural Administration and Extension, 30
E. M. Rogers (1995)
Diffusion of Innovations
Gershon Feder, D. Umali (1993)
The adoption of agricultural innovations: A reviewTechnological Forecasting and Social Change, 43
B. Pound, S. Snapp, C. McDougall, A. Braun (2003)
Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods: Uniting Science and Participation
Gershon Feder, R. Just, D. Zilberman (1985)
Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A SurveyEconomic Development and Cultural Change, 33
A. Stroud (2003)
Transforming institutions to achieve innovation in research and development
(1998)
The World Bank Participation Source Book
B. Grandin (1988)
Wealth Ranking in Smallholder Communities: A Field Manual
P. Sanginga, A. Stroud (2006)
Monitoring the Outcomes of Participatory Research in Natural Resources Management Experiences of the African Highlands Initiative
S. Humphries, J. Gonzales, J. Jiménez, F. Sierra (2000)
Searching for sustainable land use practices in Honduras: lessons from a programme of participatory research with hillside farmers.
R. Lidonde (2001)
Gender and participation
C. Okali, J. Sumberg, J. Farrington (1994)
Farmer Participatory Research: Rhetoric and Reality
T. Liao (1994)
Interpreting probability models
A. Braun, G. Thiele, M. Fernández (2000)
Farmer field schools and local agricultural research committees: complementary platforms for integrated decision-making in sustainable agriculture.
D. Selener (1997)
Participatory action research and social change
Adrienne Martin, J. Sherington (1997)
Participatory research methods—Implementation, effectiveness and institutional contextAgricultural Systems, 55
C. Okali, J. Sumberg, John Farington (1994)
Farmer Participatory Research
T. Liao (1994)
Interpreting Probability Models: Logit, Probit, and Other Generalized Linear Models
P. Oakley (1991)
Projects with people : the practice of participation in rural development
Andrea Cornwall (2003)
Whose voices? Whose choices? Reflections on gender and participatory development.World Development, 31
(2003)
Learning with farmer field schoolsMagazine on␣Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture, 19
J. A. Ashby, A. R. Braun, T. Garcia, M. P. Guerrero, L. A. Hernandez, C. A. Quiros, J. I. Roa (2000)
Investing in Farmers as Researchers: Experiences with Local Agricultural Research Committees in Latin America
N. Uphoff, C. Wijayaratna (2000)
Demonstrated Benefits from Social Capital: The Productivity of Farmer Organizations in Gal Oya, Sri LankaWorld Development, 28
J. Pretty, I. Guijt, I. Scoones, John Thompson (1995)
A trainer's guide for participatory learning and action
N. Johnson, N. Lilja, J. Ashby (2003)
Measuring the impact of user participation in agricultural and natural resource management researchAgricultural Systems, 78
J. Pretty (2003)
Social Capital and the Collective Management of ResourcesScience, 302
J. Ashby, L. Sperling (1995)
Institutionalizing Participatory, Client‐Driven Research and Technology Development in AgricultureDevelopment and Change, 26
E. Gabre-Madhin, S. Haggblade (2004)
Successes in African agriculture: Results of an expert surveyWorld Development, 32
D. Selener (1997)
Participatory Action Research and Social Change. Cornell Participatory Action Research Network
(1993)
The Adoption of Agricultural Technology: A Guide for Survey Design
There is increasing interest in farmers’ organizations as an effective approach to farmer participatory research (FPR). Using data from an empirical study of farmers’ research groups (FRGs) in Uganda, this paper examines the patterns of participation in groups and answers questions such as: Who participates? What types of participation? How does participation occur? What are the factors determining participation? Results show that there is no single type of participation, but rather that FPR is a dynamic process with types of participation varying at different stages of the process. Farmers’ participation does not follow the normal adoption curve. Rather, it is characterized by high participation at the initial stages, followed by dramatic decrease and dropping-out, and slow increases toward the end. There is usually significantly higher participation among male farmers at the beginning of the process. However, as FRGs evolve, the proportion of men decreases sharply while the relative proportion of women continues to increase until it dominates the group. The findings do not support the common assumption that groups usually exclude women and the poor. On the contrary, we argue that FRGs are an effective mechanism to provide women and the poor with opportunities to participate in research. However, to be effective, this requires moving beyond head counting to promote more proactive gender and equity perspectives for amplifying the benefits of agricultural research to those who tend to be marginalized or excluded by mainstream development initiatives. This will be critical for making agricultural research more client-oriented and demand-driven.
Agriculture and Human Values – Springer Journals
Published: Nov 22, 2006
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.