Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Participation, empowerment, and farmer evaluations: A comparative analysis of IPM technology generation in Nicaragua

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The heated debate over the limited impact of integrated pest management (IPM) in Central American agriculture suggests that we need to investigate the mechanisms of IPM technology generation. CATIE/MAG-IPM Nicaragua initiated a comparative study of two prototypic models with tomato farmers in the Sébaco Valley, in 1990–91. I created two ideal types from the literature: the scientist-led and farmer-led models. Each model was represented by three different communities. The study focused on the: 1) technology generation process, 2) IPM technologies and farmer opinion of IPM, 3) forms of participation and empowerment by farmers and scientists, and 4) institutionalization of the two models. The investigation methodology consisted of intensive pre- and post-program interviews, participant observation, and statistical analysis of experimental insect and production variables.

This paper focuses on farmer participation, empowerment, and evaluation of the two models. In the farmer-led model, farmer participation was greater than in the scientist-led model in number of farmers and farm units involved. They achieved five forms of influence, and six out of eight levels of empowerment in the farmer-led model. In the scientistled model, farmers achieved two forms of influence and two out of eight levels of empowerment. Farmer evaluations were varied and complex. In general, farmers in the scientist-led model encouraged CATIE/MAG-IPM to host more meetings and expand farmer involvement. In the farmer-led model the farmers enjoyed the biological information, new technologies, and discussion. They suggested changes for future meetings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adalla, C. B. and A. C. Rola. 1988. “Participatory Verification and Technology Generation of Location Specific IPM Technology in Calamba, Laguna: A Pilot Project.” InFilipino Women in Rice Farming Systems, A. C. Rola, compiler. UPLB, Philippines, March 26. Los Banos: IRRI, pp. 41–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, K. L. 1989. “Modelos de Investigación y Transferencia de Tecnología en Manejo Integrado de Plagas,”Maneno Integrado de Plagas, Revista MIP/CATIE, 13: 65–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, K. L., J. W. Bentley, and R. D. Cave. 1992. “Enhancing Biological Control's Contributions to Integrated Pest Management through Appropriate Levels of Farmer Participation,”Florida Entomologist 75, 1:429–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ardón, M. 1990. “La Investigación Participativa: Una Modelidad Innovadora de Investigación,”El Comunicador: El Zamarano 4: 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ardón, M. and R. Sánchez. 1991. “Participación de Pequeños Agricultores en un Programa de MIP en Repollo.” Departamento de Protección Vegetal, Escuela Agrícola Panamericana, El Zamorano, Honduras.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnstein, S. R. 1969. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,”Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35, 4: 216–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashby, J. A. 1987. “The Effects of Different Types of Farmer Participation on the Management of On-Farm Trails,”Agricultural Administration & Extension 25: 235–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 1986. “Methodology for the Participation of Small Farmers in the Design of On-Farm Trials,”Agricultural Administration 22: 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bendix, R. 1977.Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, pp. 269–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentley, J. W. 1992. “Learning about Biological Pest Control,”ILEIA Newsletter 8, 4: 16–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, S. D. 1986. “Institutional Innovations by Agricultural Researchers.” InConference on Farming Systems Research for Resource-Poor Farmers in East India, Patna, India, 24–28 November.

  • ——. 1989.Resource-Poor Farmer Participation in Research: A Synthesis of Experiences From Nine National Agricultural Research Systems. OFCOR Comparative Study, 3, The Hague, Netherlands: ISNAR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bingen, R. J. and S. V. Poats. 1990.Staff Management Issues in On-Farm Client-Oriented Research. OFCOR Comparative Study, 5, The Hague, Netherlands: ISNAR (International Service for National Agricultural Research).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, C. and L. G. White. 1984.Managing Rural Development with Small Farmer Participation. West Hartford: Kumarian Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckles, D. (ed.) 1993.Gorras y Sombreros: Caminos Hacia la Colaboración entre Técnicos y Campesinos. March 1. México, D. F.: CIMMYT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunch, R. 1982.Dos Mazorcas de Maiz: una guia para el mejoramiento agricola orientado hacia la gente. Oklahoma City: World Neighbors.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buttel, F. H. and I. G. Youngberg. 1984. “Sustainable Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer: Socio-Political Opportunities and Constraints.” InSustainable Agricultural and Integrated Farming Systems, (eds.) T. C. Fridgen, C. Battenfield, and S. L. Edens. East Lansing: Michigan State University, pp. 287–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byerlee, D. and M. Collinson. 1980.Planning Technologies Appropriate to Farmer's-Concepts and Procedures. Mexico: CIMMYT.

    Google Scholar 

  • CATIE. 1990.Guia Para El Manejo Integrado de Plagas Del Cultivo De Tomate, CATIE/MIP. 1st ed. Serie Tecnica, Informe Tecnico, No. 151, Turrialba, Costa Rica: Proyecto Regional de MIP, Programa de Mejoramiento de Cultivos Tropicales.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cernea, M.M., J.K. Coulter, and J.F.A. Russel, (eds.) 1985.Research-Extension-Farmer A Two-Way Continuum for Agricultural Development, Washington, DC: World Bank and UNDP Symposium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R., A. Pacey, and L. A. Thrupp, (eds.) 1989.Farmer First: Farmer innovation and agricultural research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkoway, B. and A. Norsman. 1986. “Empowering Citizens with Disabilities,”Community Development Journal 21: 270–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collinson, M. P. 1982. “Farming Systems Research in Eastern Africa: The Experiences of CIMMYT and Some National Agricultural Research Services,”International Development Paper. No. 3 ed. East Lansing: Michigan State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eng, E., J. Hatch and A. Callan. 1985. “Institutionalizing Social Support Through the Church and into the Community,”Health Education Quarterly 12, 1: 81–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ewell, P. 1990. “Links between On-Farm Research and Extension in Nine Countries.” InMaking the Link: Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer in Developing Countries, (ed.) D. Kaimowitz. Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 151–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 1988.Organization and Management of Field Activities in On-Farm Research: A Review of Experience in Nice Countries. OFCOR Comparative Study, 2, The Hague, Netherlands: ISNAR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fals-Borda, O. 1987. “The Application of Participatory Action-Research in Latin America,”International Sociology 2, 4: 329–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fals-Borda, O. and M. A. Rahman, (ed.). 1991.Action and Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly with Participatory Research. New York: Apex Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrington, J. and A. Martin. 1988.Farmer Participation in Agricultural Research: a review of concepts and practices. Agricultural Administration Unit Occasional Paper, 9, London: Overseas Development Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flora, C. B. 1988. “Farming Systems Approaches to International Technical Cooperation in Agriculture and Rural Life,”Agriculture and Human Values 5, 1/2: 24–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florin, P. R. and A. Wandersman. 1984. “Cognitive Social Learning and Participation in Community Development,”American Journal of Community Psychology 12, 6: 689–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francisco de Souza, J. 1988. “Investigación Participativa, Produccion de Conocimiento y Sujeto Historico,”Cuadernos de Sociología Escuela de Sociología, Universidad Centroamericana, Managua, Nicaragua 55–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzel, S. 1992. “Defining Recommendation Domains,”Journal for Farming Systems Research-Extension 3, 1: 71–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire, P. 1968.Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: The Seabury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galt, D. L. and S. B. Mathema. 1987. “Farmer Participation in Farming Systems Research,”FSSP Networking Paper.

  • Garcia-Padilla, V. and H. Padilla. 1993. “Campaign for Pesticide Free Rice,”ILEIA Newsletter 9, 2: 7–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaventa, J. 1980.Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley. Chicago: University of Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaventa, J. and H. Lewis. 1989.Participatory Education and Grassroots Development: Current Experiences in Appalachia U. S. A. New Market, TN: Highlander Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerschick, T. J., B. A. Israel, and B. Checkoway. 1989.Means of Empowerment in Individuals, Organizations, and Communities: Report on a Retrieval Conference, University of Michigan, 1989, May 8. Program On Conflict Management Alternatives.

  • Giddens, A. 1971.Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: an analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 133–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 1985. “Jurgen Habermas.” InThe Return of Grand Theory in the Human Sciences, (ed.) Q. Skinner. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, pp. 121–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. 1987.Social Theory and Modern Sociology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez, A. 1985. “A Farming Systems Research Approach to Identifying Farmers' Production Problems.” InResearch, Extension, Farmer: A Two-Way Continuum for Agricultural Development, (eds.) M. M. Cemea, J. K. Coulter, and J. F. A. Russell. Washington, DC: World Bank pp. 63–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodell, G. 1984. “Challenges to International Pest Management Research and Extension in the Third World: Do We Really Want IPM to Work?”Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 30, 3: 18–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutierrez, L. M. 1990a. “Developing Methods to Empower Latinos: An Empirical Approach.” Paper presented to the Council on Social Work Education, March.

  • Gutiérrez, L. M. 1990b. “Working with Women of Color. An Empowerment Perspective,”Social Work March: 149–153.

  • Haverkort, B., J. van der Kamp, and A. Waters-Bayer, (eds.). 1991.Joining Farmers' Experiments: Experiences in Participatory Technology Development. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, D. 1993. “Consciousness Raising in Coalitions: A Method of Inquiry for Emancipatory Nursing Research,” School of Nursing, University of Michigan, (manuscript).

  • Hildebrand, P. E. 1981. “Motivating Small Farmers, Scientists and Technicians to Accept Change,”Agricultural Administration 8: 375–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 1979. “Summary of the Sondeo Methodology Used by ICTA.” Guatemala: ICTA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrand, P. E. and F. Poey. 1989.Ensayos Agronomicos en Fincas Segun el Enforque en Sistemas Agropecuarios. Gainesville, FL: Editorial Agropecuaria Latinoamericana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt-Gimenez, E. 1992. “From Peasant to Peasant,”ILEIA Newsletter 8, 2:3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • hooks, b. 1989.Talking Back: Thinking Feminist, Thinking Black. Boston: South End Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horton, D. and D. Prain. 1987. “CIP's Experience with Farmer Participation in On-farm Research.” InTaller para America Latina sobre Investigación de Frijol en Campos de Agricultores, 16–25 February. Cali: CIAT.

    Google Scholar 

  • ILEIA. 1988.Proceedings of ILEIA Workshop on Operational Approaches for Participative Technology Development in Sustainable Agriculture, Leusden: ILEIA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Israel, B. A., M. A. Chesler, B. Baker, E. Wellin, S. Langer, and B. Forderer. 1991. “Environmental Activists Share Knowledge and Experiences: Description and Evaluation of STP Schools at the Highlander Research and Education Center,”PCMA Working Paper Series. 55 Program on Conflict Management Alternatives, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Israel, B. A., B. Checkoway, A. Schulz, and M. Zimmerman. 1993. “Health Education and Community Empowerment: Conceptualizing and Measuring Perceptions of Individual, Organizational, and Community Control,”PCMA Working Paper Series. 23 Program on Conflict Management Alternatives, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaimowitz, D. 1993. “Agricultural Research and Extension in Latin America: The Agenda for the Nineties,”The Rural Sociologist 13, 1: 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaimowitz, D. and D. Vartanian. 1990. “Transferencia de Tecnologia Agropecuaria en Centroamerica: La Extension Traditional y Los Nuevos Enfoques.” InMobilizing Agricultural Tecnology to Meet Central American Challenges, compiler IICA. San Jose, Costa Rica, 1990, March 12. IICA/USAID-ROCAP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaimowitz, D., M. Snyder, and P. Engel. 1990. “Conceptual Framework for Studying the Links between Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer in Developing Countries.” InMaking The Link Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer in Developing Countries, (ed.) D. Kaimowitz. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kieffer, C. H. 1981.The Emergence of Empowerment: The Development of Participatory Competence Among Individuals in Citizen Organizations. Doctoral Dissertation. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • --. 1984. “Citizen Empowerment: A Developmental Perspective,”Studies in Empowerment; Haworth Press , pp. 9–36.

  • Kloppenburg Jr., J. 1991. “Social Theory and the De/Reconstruction of Agricultural Science: Local Knowledge for an Alternative Agriculture,”Rural Sociology 56, 4:519–548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lightfoot, C. 1987. “Indigenous Research and On-farm Trials,”Agricultural Administration 24: 79–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill-Sands, D. and D. Kaimowitz. 1990.The Technology Triangle: Linking Farmers, Technology Transfer Agents, and Agricultural Researchers. Summary Report of an International Workshop held at ISNAR, The Hague, 20–25 November, 1989. United Kingdom: E. P. Lowe Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monterroso, D. 1990. “Metodología para Establecer un Plan de Manejo Integrado de Plagas (MIP) en el Cultivo de Repollo.” InMemorias 4to Congreso Nacional y 3er Congreso Internacional MIP “Humberto Tapia Barquero” (in memoriam), Managua, Nicaragua, Octubre.

  • Nelson, K. C. and D. Gómez. 1991. “Generation and Transfer of IPM Technology: Knowledge, Participation, and Organization.” Paper presented11th Annual Farming Systems Research and Extension Meeting East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, K. C. 1994.Participation and Empowerment: A Comparative Study of IPM Technology Generation in Nicaragua. School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan: Ann Arbor. (dissertation)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nogueira, R. M. 1990. “The Effect of Changes in State Policy and Organization on Agricultural Research and Extension Links: A Latin American Perspective.” InMaking The Link: Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer in Developing Countries, (ed.) D. Kaimowitz. Special Studies in Agriculture Science and Policy, Boulder. Westview Press pp. 75–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. W., E. B. Simons, and H. M. Hays. 1983.Farming Systems in the Nigerian Savanna: Research and Strategies for Development. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakley, P. 1991.Projects with People: The Practice of Participation in Rural Development. Geneva: International Labour Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakley, P. and D. Marsden. 1984.Approaches to Participation in Rural Development. Geneva: International Labour Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Brien, W. E. and C. B. Flora. 1992. “Selling Appropriate Development vs. Selling-Out Rural Communities: Empowerment and Control in Indigenous Knowledge Discourse,”Agriculture and Human Values 9, 2: 95–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • OFCOR. 1989.OFCOR Case Study Reports 1988–89. The Hague, Netherlands: ISNAR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz, R., S. Ruano, H. Juarez, F. Olivet, and A. Meneses. 1991. “A New Model for Technology Transfer in Guatemala: Closing the Gap Between Research and Extension.” OFCR Discussion Paper 2. The Hague: ISNAR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, P. R. 1989. “Environment, Development, and Indigenous Knowledge Systems: A Participatory Action Research Approach to ward Natural Resource Management in Costa Rica's Cocles/Kekoldi Indian Reserve.” Paper in the Department of Sociology, Michigan State University.

  • Perrin, R. K., D. Winkleman, E. R. Moscardi, and J. R. Anderson. 1976.From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendation: An Economics Training Manual. México: CIMMYT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahman, M. A. 1985. “The Theory and Practice of Participatory Action-Research.” InThe Challenge of Social Change, (ed.) O. Fals-Borda. London: Sage Publications, pp. 107–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rappaport, J. 1986. “In Praise of Paradox: A Social Policy of Empowerment Over Prevention.” InRedefining Social Problems, (eds.) E. Seidman and J. Rappaport. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 141–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 1987. “Terms of Empowerment/Exemplars of Prevention: Toward a Theory for Community Psychology,”American Journal of Community Psychology 15, 2: 121–147.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, R. E. and R. H. Booth. 1982. “Farmer-Back-To-Farmer: A Model for Generating Acceptable Agricultural Technology,”Agricultural Administration 11: 127–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritzer, G. 1983. “Max Weber.” InSociological Theory, George Ritzer. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, pp. 121–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrimpf, B. and I. Dziekan. 1989. “Working with Farmers on Natural Crop Protection,”ILEIA Newsletter 4, 3: 23–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, A. and B. A. Israel. 1991. “Empowerment and Empowering Processes: A Theory Development Seminar Series,”PCMA Working Paper Series. 49 Program on Conflict Management Alternatives, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaner, W. W., P. F. Philip, and W. R. Schmehl. 1982.Farming Systems Research and Development. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmonds, N. W. 1985.Farming Systems Research: A Review. Washington, DC: World Bank Technical Paper No. 43.

  • Solomon, B. B. 1976.Black Empowerment: Social Work in Oppressed Communities. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroud, A. 1993.Conducting On-Farm Experiments. Cali, Columbia: Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroup, W. W., P. E. Hildebrand, and C. A. Francis. 1991. “Farmer Participation for More Effective Research in Sustainable Agriculture,”Staff Paper. SP91-32 ed. University of Florida: Food and Resource Economics Department.

  • Tandon, R. 1989.Movement Towards Democratization of Knowledge. New Delhi: Society for Participatory Research in Asia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thrupp, L. A. 1989. “Legitimizing Local Knowledge: From Displacement to Empowerment for Third World People,”Agriculture and Human Values 6, 3: 13–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trigo, E., J. M. Piñero, and J. Ardila V. 1979. “Modelos de Generación Tecnologica en América Latina: Notas para una Evaluación Critica,”Desarrollo Rural en las Américas XI: 85–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tripp, Robert. 1982. “Data Collection, Site Selection, and Farmer Participation in On-Farm Experimentation,”CIMMYT Working Paper 82/1.

  • Tripp, R. and J. Woolley. 1989.The Planning Stage Of On-Farm Research: Identifying Factors for Experimentation. Mexico, D. F. and Cali, Colombia: CIMMYT and CIAT.

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Fliert, E. and Y. T. Winarto. 1993. “From Technological Packages to Ecological Principles,”ILEIA Newsletter 9, 2: 16–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Bosch, R. 1978.The Pesticide Conspiracy. New York: Doubleday and Co., Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vejarano M., G. (ed.). 1983.La Investigación Participativa en América Latina. Pátzcuaro, México: Centro Regional de Educacion de Adultos y Alfabetizacion Funcional para America Latina (CREFAL).

    Google Scholar 

  • West, P. C. 1983. “Collective Adoption of Natural Resource Practices in Developing Nations,”Journal of Rural Sociology 15, 1: 35–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whyte, W. F. (ed.) 1991.Participatory Action Research. Sage Focus Edition, 123, Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, M. A. 1990. “Psychological, Organizational, and Community Empowerment: Directions for Future Research.” InHandbook of Community Psychology, (eds.) J. Rappaport and E. Seidman. Plenum Press.

Download references

Authors
  1. Kristen C. Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

CIES, (Centro de Investigaciones Ecologicas del Sureste, Apdo. Postal No. 63, 29290 San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, MEXICO. (Tel: 011-52-967-8-1884) (willnelson@laneta.igc.apc.org).

Kristen C. Nelson is a Social Science Fellow with the Natural Resources Management Program in Mexico. She works on issues of citizen organizing, social movements, participation, empowerment, knowledge creation, science and technology, and sustainable natural resources management. Currently, she is beginning a comparative study of thirteen research and development projects dedicated to sustainable resource management. The following research was graciously supported by Fulbright, the Organization of American States, and the Nicaraguan IPM project of the Centro Agronómico de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE) and the Ministry of Agriculture (MAG), Nicaragua, with funding provided by the Norwegian Organization for International Aid and Development.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nelson, K.C. Participation, empowerment, and farmer evaluations: A comparative analysis of IPM technology generation in Nicaragua. Agric Hum Values 11, 109–125 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01530452

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01530452

Keywords

Search

Navigation