Advertisement

Journal of Mountain Science

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 334–346 | Cite as

Reconciling local and global agendas in sustainable development: Participatory research with indigenous Andean communities

  • Robert E. RhoadesEmail author
  • Virginia Nazarea
Article

Abstract

This paper discusses participatory research in the Andes and presents a case study in Cotacachi, Ecuador, where sustainability scientists and indigenous people seek common ground in their respective but drastically different research and social agendas. Participatory research based on Andean experiences pre-dated and inspired much of the later international movement in agriculture, health, and conservation. Andean communities have a long history in demanding that outsiders address the needs of the community as a condition for carrying out scientific or applied activities. What an Andean community, however, sees as relevant may or may not be within the rubric of ‘participatory research’ as it is practiced throughout much of the world. In fact, overzealous participatory researchers are just as bothersome as their predecessors bearing long questionnaires. More important to Andean people is an equitable relationship with researchers and developers in which exchanges of value are made. A distinction between ‘enriching’ and ‘extractive’ research is drawn. In the case of the SANREM project in Cotacachi, Ecuador, scientists carried out enriching research activities of interest to local people as a way to generate social capital for conducting basic research which does not have an obvious, immediate local benefit. The requested research did not have a conventional participatory methodology but provided valuable products (educational opportunity, germplasm, community visualization tools, and information) to the indigenous community in exchange for time and resources to conduct research on more basic natural resource questions. We argue that in the Andean context the key to reconciling the needs of scientists and of local needs is seeking new forms of equitable collaboration which reach beyond the present and now somewhat tired discourse of ‘participation’.

Keywords

Andes indigenous peoples participatory research sustainability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alarcon R. 2001. Biological Monitoring: A Key Tool in Integrated Conservation and Development Projects. In: Rhoades R. and Stallings J. (eds.), Integrated Conservation and Development in Tropical America. Athens, Georgia: SANREM CRSP and CARE-SUBIR.Google Scholar
  2. Ashby J.A. 2003. Introduction: Uniting Science and Participation in the Process of Innovation—Research for Development. In: Pound B., Snapp S., McDougall C. and Braun A. (eds.), Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods: Uniting Science and Participation. London: Earthscan. Pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
  3. Bebbington A. 1994. Theory and Relevance in Indigenous Agriculture: Knowledge, Agency and Organization. In: Booth D. (ed.), Rethinking Social Development. Theory, Research, and Practice. Essex, England: Longman Scientific and Technical Publishers. Pp. 202–225.Google Scholar
  4. Bentley J.W. 1994. Facts, fantasies, and failures of farmer participatory research. Agriculture and Human Values 11(2/3): 140–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Centro Internacional de la Papa 1993. El Agroecosistema Andino: Problemas, Limitaciones, Perspectivas. Lima, Peru: CIP (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  6. Chambers R. 1994a. The origins and practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal. World Development 22(7): 953–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chambers R. 1994b. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Challenges, potentials and paradigm. World Development 22(10):1437–1454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chambers R. and Ghildyal B.P. 1985. Agricultural Research for resource-poor farmers: The Farmer-first-and-Last Model. Agricultural Administration and Extension 20: 1–30.Google Scholar
  9. Cooke B. and Kothari U. (eds.) 2001. Participation: the new tyranny? London, New York: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  10. Ehrhart C. 2004. Who participates and who decides? Balancing science with local community reality. In: Rhoades R.E. (ed.), Bridging Human and Ecological Landscapes: Participatory Research and Sustainable Development in an Andean Agricultural Frontier. Dubuque, Ia.: Kendall/Hunt Publishers. Pp. 315–332.Google Scholar
  11. Freire P. 1968. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: The Seabury Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gray A. 1997. Indigenous Rights and Development. New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  13. Green M. 2000. Participatory development and the appropriation of agency in Southern Tanzania. Critique of Anthropology 20(1):67–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hyslop J. 1990. Inka Settlement Planning. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kumar K. (ed.) 1993. Rapid Appraisal Methods. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.Google Scholar
  16. Mayorga O.H. 2004. Piped Water Systems of Cambugan and Cumavi, Canton Cotacachi: A University Extension Project for the Benefit of Local Communities. Quito: SANREM-Andes.Google Scholar
  17. Moates S. 2003. Reduced Biodiversity in Highland Ecuador. Athens, Georgia: SANREM-Andes.Google Scholar
  18. Nazarea V. 1998. Cultural Memory and Biodiversity. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  19. Neef A. and Neubert D. 2004. Assessing Participation in Agricultural Research Projects: An Analytical Framework. Discussion Paper No. 6. Stuttgart, Germany: University of Hohenheim, Institute of Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences in the Tropics and Subtropics.Google Scholar
  20. Nigh R. 2002. Maya medicine in the biological gaze: biosprospecting research as herbal fetishism. Current Anthropology 43: 451–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Obasi G.O.P. 2002. Emerging sustainability science, the challenge for Africa. Environment 44: 8–19.Google Scholar
  22. Rhoades R.E. 1999. Participatory Watershed Research and Management: Where the Shadow Falls. Gatekeeper Series no. 81. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.Google Scholar
  23. Rhoades R.E. 2006. Development with Identity: Community, Culture and Sustainability in the Andes. Wallingford, U.K.: CABI Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Rhoades R.E. 2004. Bringing sustainability down-to-earth. In: Rhoades R.E. (ed.), Bridging Human and Ecological Landscapes: Participatory Research and Sustainable Development in an Andean Agricultural Frontier. Dubuque, Ia: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Richards P. 1995. Participatory Rural Appraisal: A quick and dirty critique. PLA Notes 24 (Oct): 13–16.Google Scholar
  26. Valladoid J. and Apffel-Marglin F. 2001. Andean cosmovision and the nurturing of biodiversity. In: Grim J. (ed.), Interbeing of Cosmology and Community. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Pp. 639–670.Google Scholar
  27. Warren K.B. and Jackson J.E. 2002. Indigenous Movements: Self-Representation, and the State in Latin America. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  28. Waters-Bayer A. 1994. The ethics of documenting rural people’s knowledge: investigating milk mrketing among Fulani women in Nigeria. In: Scoones I. and Thompson J. (eds.), Beyond Farmer First: Rural People’s Knowledge, Agricultural Research, and Extension Practice. Pp. 144–150.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GeorgiaUSA

Personalised recommendations