Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 11, Issue 2–3, pp 26–37 | Cite as

Farmers and researchers: The road to partnership

  • Deborah Merrill-Sands
  • Marie-Hélène Collion


User participation is a critical ingredient for relevant technology development, whether in agriculture or industry. This has long been recognized in private sector R&D firms. In most public sector agricultural research organizations in developing countries, however, systematic involvement of farmers, especially poor farmers, in research has been weak. These farmers are rarely powerful or well organized enough to bring pressure to bear on government agencies to respond to their needs and priorities. Farmer-responsive research methods, such as on-farm research, farming systems research, and farmer participatory research, have been introduced into research organizations to compensate for the lack of mechanisms for bringing farmers' views into the formulation of research priorities and agendas. The impact of these approaches in achieving this objective, however, has been less than hoped for.

Insufficient attention to the political and institutional dimensions of developing client-responsive research is a major reason for this lack of impact. To bring about permanent change, farmer-responsive research methods need to be reinforced by changes in the balance of power between research and its clients and in the constellation of decisionmakers responsible for formulating research agendas. Participatory planning methods applied at the level of research programs provide new opportunities for involving farmers in decision-making about program priorities and for systematically incorporating information about client's needs. Recent experiments with strengthening farmers' associations and linking them with research organizations suggest new opportunities for increasing farmers' ability to express demand, act as an external pressure group, and serve as viable partners with research organizations.


Participatory Research Research Organization Planning Method Permanent Change External Pressure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ashby, J. (1986). “Methodology for the Participation of Small Farmers in the Design of On-Farm Trials.”Agricultural Administration, vol. 22: 1–19.Google Scholar
  2. Ashby, J. (1990). “Small-farmer participation in the design of technologies.” InAgroecology and Small Farm Development., Altieri, M. and S. Hecht, eds., Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bebbington, A. J. (1991). “Farmer Organizations in Ecuador: Contributions to Farmer First Research and Development.” Gatekeeper series, No. 26. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.Google Scholar
  4. Bebbington, A. J. and J. Farrington. (1992). “The Scope for NGO-Government Interactions in Agricultural Technology Development: An International Overview.” Overseas Development Institute Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension) Network Paper, No. 33. London: ODI.Google Scholar
  5. Biggs, S. (1989). “Resource-Poor Farmer Participation in Research: A Synthesis of Experiences from Nine National Agricultural Research Systems.” OFCOR Comparative Study Paper, No. 3. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research.Google Scholar
  6. Biggs, S. and J. Farrington. (1990). “Farming Systems Research and the Rural Poor: The Historical, Institutional, and Political Context.” Paper prepared for the 10th Annual Association for Farming Systems Research-Extension Symposium, Michigan State University, October 14–17, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. Byrne, K. (1989).A Review of AID Experience: Farming Systems Research and Extension Projects, 1975–1987. Center for Development Information, AID Evaluation Highlights, No. 4. Washington, DC: United States Agency for International Development.Google Scholar
  8. Carroll, T. (1992).Intermediary NGOs: The Supporting Link in Grassroots Development. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.Google Scholar
  9. Chambers, R. (1983).Rural Development: Putting the Last First. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  10. Chambers, R. and J. Jiggins (1987). “Agricultural Research for Resource-Poor Farmers, Part I: Transfer of technology and farming systems research.” Agricultural Administration and Extension 27 (1): 35–52.Google Scholar
  11. Chambers, R., A. Pacey, and L. A. Thrupp. (1989).Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  12. CIAT. (1992). Annual Report Cassava Improvement Program. Cali, Colombia: CIAT.Google Scholar
  13. Collion, M-H. (1992). “Research Institutes and Farmers Organizations: A Partnership and Alternative Funding Mechanism for the Future. A Project Proposal.” The Hague, International Service for National Agricultural Research. Mimeo.Google Scholar
  14. Collion, M-H. and A. Kissi. (1991) “An Approach to Long-Term Program Design: Including priority-setting and human resource allocation.”Working Paper No 37. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research.Google Scholar
  15. Delbecq, A., A. van de Ven, and D. Gustafson. (1975).Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi. Chicago: Scott Foresman.Google Scholar
  16. Delp, P, A. Thesen, J. Motiwalla, and N. Seshadri. (1977). “Systems Tools in Project Planning.” MimeoGoogle Scholar
  17. Dertouzos, M, R. Lester, and R. Solow. (1989).Made in America: Regaining the Productive Edge. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Eponou, T. (1993).Partners in Agricultural Technology: Linking Research and Technology Transfer to Serve Farmers. ISNAR Research Report No. 1. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research.Google Scholar
  19. Esman, M. and N. Uphoff (1984).Local Organizations: Intermediaries in Rural Development. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ewell, P. (1988).Organization and Management of Field Activities in On-Farm Research: A Review of Experiences in Nine Countries.“ OFCOR Discussion Paper No 2. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research.Google Scholar
  21. Farrington, J. and A. J. Bebbington (1993).Reluctant Partners? NGOs and the State in Sustainable Agricultural Development. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Gamser, M. (1988). “Innovation, Technical Assistance, and Development: The Importance of Technology Users.”World Development, vol. 16 (6): 711–721.Google Scholar
  23. GTZ. (1988).ZOPP: An Introduction to the Method. Deutsche gesellschaft fur technische zusammenbeit.Google Scholar
  24. Gubbel, P. (1993). “Peasant Farmer Organizations in Farmer-First Agricultural Development in West Africa: New opportunities and continuing constraints.” ODI Agricultural Administration Network Paper, No. 40. London: Overseas Development Institute.Google Scholar
  25. Harrington, L. (1991). “Setting Research Priorities: Concepts and Applications to On-Farm Adaptive Research.“ Paper presented at the Training Course in Agricultural Research Operations, Department of Agriculture, Bangkok, Thailand, July 3–10, 1991.Google Scholar
  26. Haugerud, A. and M. Collinson. (1990). “Plants, Genes, and People: Improving the Relevance of Plant Breeding in Africa.”Experimental Agriculture, vol. 26, pp. 341–362.Google Scholar
  27. Heinemann, E. and S. Biggs. (1985). “Farming Systems Research: An Evolutionary Approach to Implementation.”Journal of Agricultural Economics vol. 36: 59–65.Google Scholar
  28. Heinrich, G. 1993.Strengthening Farmer Participation Through Groups: Experiences and Lessons from Botswana. OFCOR Discussion Paper No 3. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research.Google Scholar
  29. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. (1983).The Change Masters: Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the American Corporation. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  30. Kaimowitz, D. (1988). “Linking Research and Technology Transfer in the Development of Improved Coffee Technologies in Colombia.” ISNAR Staff Note. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research.Google Scholar
  31. Kaimowitz, D. (1992). “Motive Forces: External Pressure and the Dynamics of Technology Systems.” Linkages Discussion Paper, No. 11. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research.Google Scholar
  32. Kean, S. & L. Singogo. (1988).Zambia: A case study of the organization and management of the Adaptive Research Planning Team (ARPT), Ministry of Agriculture and Water Development. OFCOR Case Study, No. 1. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research.Google Scholar
  33. Merrill-Sands, D. and D. Kaimowitz with K. Sayce and S. Chater. (1990).The Technology Triangle: Linking Farmers, Technology Transfer Agents, and Agricultural Researchers. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research.Google Scholar
  34. Merrill-Sands, D. and J. McAllister. (1988). “Strengthening the Integration of On-Farm Client-Oriented Research and Experiment Station Research in National Agricultural Systems.” OFCOR Comparative Study Paper, No. 1. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research.Google Scholar
  35. Merrill-Sands, D., P. Ewell, S. Biggs, and J. McAllister (1989). “Issues in Institutionalizing On-Farm Client-Oriented Research: A Review of Experiences from Nine National Agricultural Research Systems.”Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, vol. 28, no. 3/4, July–December, 1989, pp. 279–300.Google Scholar
  36. Merrill-Sands, D., S. Biggs, R. J. Bingen, P. Ewell, J. McAllister, and S. Poats (1991). “Institutional Considerations in Strengthening On-Farm Client-Oriented Research in National Agricultural Research Systems: Lessons from a Nine-Country Study.”Experimental Agriculture. Vol. 27: 343–373.Google Scholar
  37. Negassa A., B. Tolessa, S. Franzel, G. Gemechu, and L. Dadi. (1991). “The Introduction of an Early Maturing Maize (Zea Mays) Variety to a Mid-Altitude Farming System in Ethiopia.”Experimental Agriculture vol. (27), pp. 375–383.Google Scholar
  38. Norman, D. (1980).The Farming Systems Approach: Relevancy for the Small Farmer. Rural Development Paper, No. 5. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  39. Norman, D. and M. Collinson. (1985). “Farming systems approach to research in theory and practice.” InAgricultural Systems Research for Developing Countries. J. Remenyi, ed., Canberra: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR).Google Scholar
  40. Norman, D., D. Baker, G. Heinrich, and F. Worman. (1988). “Technology Development and Farmer Groups: Experiences from Botswana.”Experimental Agriculture 24: 321–331.Google Scholar
  41. Peters, T. and R. Waterman. (1984).In Search Of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best Run Companies. New York: Warner Books.Google Scholar
  42. Piniero, M. and E. Trigo. (1983). “Social Articulation and Technical Change.” InTechnical Change and Social Conflict in Agriculture: Latin American Perspectives. M. Piniero and E. Trigo, eds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  43. Rhodes, R. and R. Booth. (1982).Farmer-Back-To-Farmer: A Model for Generating Acceptable Agricultural Technology. Social Science Department Working Paper 982: Lima, Peru: Centro Internacional de la Papa.Google Scholar
  44. Richards, P. (1985).Indigenous Agricultural Revolution. London: Hutchingson and Co.Google Scholar
  45. Röling, N. (1989). “Why Farmers Matter: The Role of User Participation in Technology Development and Delivery.” Paper presented at the International Workshop “Making the Link Between Agricultural Research and Technology Users”. International Service for National Agricultural Research, The Hague, Netherlands, November 20–25, 1989.Google Scholar
  46. Röling, N. (1990). “The Agricultural Research-Technology Transfer Interface: A Knowledge Systems Perspective.” InMaking the Link: Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer in Developing Countries. D. Kaimowitz, ed., Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  47. Röling, N. and M. Fernandez (1990). “Farmers' Technology Criteria and Institutional Assumptions: Exploring Mis-Anticipation for Points of Leverage.” Paper presented at the 10th Annual AFSRE (Association for Farming Systems Research and Extension) Symposium, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, October 14–17, 1990.Google Scholar
  48. Romanoff, S. (1993). “Farmers' Organization, Research, and Diffusion of Technology.” InSocial Science Research for Agricultural Technology Development. K. A. Dvorak, ed., Wallingford, U.K.: CAB International.Google Scholar
  49. Ruano, S. and A. Fumagall. (1988).Guatemala: Organización y manejo de la investigación en finca en el instituto de ciencia y tecnología agrícolas (ICTA). OFCOR Case Study, No. 2. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research.Google Scholar
  50. Sims, H. and D. Leonard (1990). “The Political Economy of the Development and Transfer of Agricultural Technologies.” InMaking the Link: Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer in Developing Countries. D. Kaimowitz, ed., Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  51. Soliz, R., P. Espinoza, and V. Cardoso. (1989).Ecuador: Un estudio de caso de la organizacion y manejo del programma de investigacion en finca de productores (PIP) en el Instituto de Investogaciones Agropecuarias. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research.Google Scholar
  52. Souder, W. (1980). “Promoting an Effective R&D/Marketing Interface.”International Journal of Research Management. Vol. 23 (1):10–15.Google Scholar
  53. Sperling, L. and J. Ashby. (1992). “Institutionalizing participatory, client-driven, research and technology development in agriculture.” Discussion paper presented at the CGIAR meeting of social scientists, August 17–20, 1992, International Service for National Agricultural Research, The Hague, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  54. Sperling, L., M. Loevinsohn, and B. Ntambovura. (forthcoming). “Rethinking the Farmers' Role in Plant Breeding: Local Bean Experts and On-Station Selection in Rwanda.”Experimental Agriculture. Google Scholar
  55. Stavis, B. (1978) “Agricultural Research and Extension in China.”World Development, vol. 6: 631–645.Google Scholar
  56. Tripp, R. (1991). “The Limitations of On-Farm Research.” InPlanned Change in Farming Systems: Progress in On-Farm Research. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. A Co-Publication with Sayce Publishing, Exeter UK.Google Scholar
  57. von Hippel, E. (1978). “Users as Innovators.”Technology Review (January 1978).Google Scholar
  58. Wellard, K., J. Farrington, and P. Davies. (1990). “The State, Voluntary Agencies, and Agricultural Technology in Marginal Areas.” Agricultural Administration Network Paper No. 15. London: Overseas Development Institute.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deborah Merrill-Sands
  • Marie-Hélène Collion

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations