L.

{Yr

2 . ‘ , ‘ . , , . . r n.
» .u:~: . V .t. . ‘ . 3"... o
r. :5. o - ’ . 2-
.: 7.2 w l -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ix .3).
«lilti-

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.....001xw..§ < , . . . ltfl! ‘\ I ‘ (31‘ ‘
‘ . ~ -,

,. n3". .rhxzxrna

 

THE-‘5‘"

MICHlGAN TATE UNIVERSITY UBRAR ES

Ill!!! “1W2!llIIINIH!!!"IIHIIHIIIIIIHIHIU l

s
l
1 3 1 Is! 01037 9950

 

 

 

 

I

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

The Evolving Paradigm in Agricultural Research and
Extension - A Comparative Analysis in Nepal and
Thailand

presented by

Devendra Bajgain

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. d . Resource Development -
egreein

 

 

Urban Studies

[@415

’ Major professol

November 17, 1993
[)ate

 

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Eq ual Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

 

 

LIBRARY
Mlehlgen State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove thie checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU le An Afllrmetlve Action/Equal Opportunity Inetltulon
Wm:

THE EVOLVING PARADIGM IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
EXTENSION - A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS IN NEPAL AND THAILAND

By

Devendra Bajgain

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in Partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Resource Development

1993

ABSTRACT

THE EVOLVING PARADIGM IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
EXTENSION - A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS IN NEPAL AND THAILAND

By

Devendra Bajgain

This study focuses on both conceptual and empirical aspects of the new
systemic paradigm in agricultural research and extension. First, based on an extensive
review of literature, the following six defining features or conceptual characteristics
of the new systemic paradigm were identified: (1) systematic descriptions and analysis
of the components of the farm and the linkages among them; (2) farm client
partnership with researchers and extensionists; (3) collaborative multidisciplinary
research; (4) environmental and common property integrity; (5) gender integration;
and (6) sustainability considerations. Then, a field study was conducted to empirically
test the extent to which the above six key conceptual dimensions of the new systemic
paradigm have been operationalized by several farming systems research (FSR)
organizations in Nepal and Thailand.

A survey of FSR programs of four organizations -- Central Farming Systems
and Outreach Research Division (CFSORD) and Pakhribas Agricultural Center
(PAC) in Nepal, and Farming Systems Research Institute (FSRI) and Khon Kaen
University (KKU) Farming Systems Research Project (FSRP) in Thailand was

conducted. Program documents and reports were also collected and a content

analysis was made of the identified key variables. Both qualitative and quantitative
data analyses have been performed.

The results showed that all four FSR programs studied fit the ideal model of
the new systemic paradigm only partially; but none of them totally fit the model. The
actual situations in all four FSR programs seemed to partially fit the following four
characteristics: (i) systematic description and analysis of the components of the farm
and the linkages among them; (ii) farm client partnership with researchers and
extensionists; (iii) collaborative multidisciplinary research; (iv) sustainability
considerations. None of the actual situations in the four FSR programs seemed to
include the other two variables: (v) environmental and common property integrity
and (vi) gender integration.

These findings suggest that the new systemic paradigm in agricultural research
and extension is struggling to emerge. It is unfolding gradually. However, the six
conceptual dimensions of the new paradigm identified in this study seem to be

workable dimensions of the paradigm.

Dedicated to my beloved parents:

Pashupati Nath Bajgain
and
Punya Devi Bajgain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to many individuals and organizations for their generous support
and contribution to the completion of this study. First of all, I would like to express
my heartfelt gratitude, deepest appreciation and sincere thanks to Dr. George H.
Axinn, my advisor and the chairperson of my doctoral guidance committee. Without
his insightful advice, encouragement, and endless support, this dissertation could not
have been completed within the set time-frame.

Special gratitude is extended to Dr. Pat Barnes-McConnell, member of my
dissertation committee, for serving as my caretaker advisor when Dr. Axinn was in
India, and for providing valuable comments and suggestions for this study. Sincere
thanks and appreciation are extended to the other members of the committee: Dr.
Frank A. Fear, Dr. Milton H. Steinmueller and Dr. John H- Schweitzer for their
constant encouragement and invaluable suggestions. Their contributions through
academic guidance and training, professional advice and enthusiastic support are also
gratefully acknowledged. C

I am very grateful to Ms. Prapassara Nilagupta for her help in establishing
initial contacts and arrangements in Thailand as well as for her constant help and
encouragement during the dissertation writing period. Special appreciation and

thanks are extended to Dr. Sirirat Nilagupta for her efforts and help in making

ii

necessary arrangements and contacts for field research in Thailand as well as for her
care and concerns during my stay in Thailand.

I would like to express my sincere appreciation and thanks to Mrs. Nancy W.
Axinn for the editorial help and for her encouragement right from the inception of
this study. Sincere thanks are also extended to Mr. Puma Chhetri and Mr. Man B.
Thapa for their help and encouragement.

I am also indebted to Dr. Ampol Senanarong of Thai-Department of
Agriculture, Dr. Aran Patanothai, Mr. Vidhaya Treloges and Ms. Lori Pommerenke
of Khon Kaen University, Mr. Rasamee Kirithaveep of Farming Systems Research
Institute in Thailand, Mr. Surachit Phuphak of Suphanburi Farming Systems Research
and Development Office, Dr. Ramesh Khadka of Pakhribas Agricultural Center in
Nepal, and Mr. Bhola Man Singh Basnet and Dr. B. B. Mathema of Nepal
Agricultural Research Council for their help in making necessary arrangements and
providing useful information during the field research. Sincere thanks are extended
to the respondents -- the staff members of the four FSR programs who spared their
valuable time for interview and provided crucial information for this study.

Many of my friends and colleagues too numerous to be mentioned individually,
helped me one way or another. I am thankful to each one of them.

The author wishes to acknowledge the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations (FAQ) at Rome, Italy for providing financial support for field
research in Thailand. Special thanks are extended to Dr. John Dixon for arranging

FAO-support as well as for his constructive suggestions during the proposal stage.

iii

I would like to express my special thanks to my fiancee Pramada for her
constant encouragement, inspiration and patience, especially during this dissertation
preparation period.

Finally, I am deeply indebted to my parents Pashupati N ath and Punya Devi,
for their constant love, support, encouragement and sacrifices; and to my brother

Udhab, and my sisters Tara and Uttara for their inspiration, love and understanding.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES ............................................. vii
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES ................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................ xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................... xii
CHAPTER Title
I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Statement of the Problem ......................... 2
1.2 Rationale of the Study ............................ 4
1.3 Objectives of the Study ........................... 6
1.4 Conceptualization of the New Paradigm .............. 6
1.5 Organization of the Dissertation ................... 11
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Farming Systems Research (FSR) Movement .......... 13
2.2 Conceptual Characteristics and Relevancy of the New
Systemic Paradigm ............................. 17
III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
3.1 Study Design .................................. 31
3.2 Operational Definitions and Measures of the Key
Variables .................................... 33
3.3 Selection of Research Sites ....................... 37
3.4 Data Collection Instruments ...................... 37
3.5 Data Collection Process .......................... 38
3.6 Data Analysis Approach ......................... 39

IV.

VI.

VII.

DESCRIPTION OF THE CASES

Page

4.1 FSRE in Nepal - General Background ............... 41
4.1.(a) Central Farming Systems and Outreach
Research Division (CFSORD) .............. 42
4.1.(b) Pakhribas Agricultural Center (PAC) ......... 45
4.2 FSRE in Thailand - General Background ............. 49
42(3) Farming Systems Research Institute (FSRI) . . . . 49
4.2.(b) Khon Kaen University (KKU)- Farming
Systems Research Project (FSRP) ............ 54
ANALYSIS OF THE CASES ............................... 58
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS ............. 83
RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Recommendations for Policy Implication ............. 92
7.2 Recommendations for Future Research .............. 95
APPENDICES
A. Responses of Individual Staff Members of Four FSR
Organizations to Questions Regarding Components
and Linkages Studied .......................... 97
B. The Extent of Participation, Involvement and Influence
of Farm Client with Researchers, from Researchers’
Point of View ................................ 100
C. The Extent of Participation, Involvement and Influence
of Extension Workers, from Researchers’ Point of View . 105
D. Variety of Different Scientific Disciplines Actively
Represented in FSR Stages ...................... 109
E. Technology Selection System and Criteria ........... 111
F. Data Gathering Guide (Used in the Field Study) ...... 114
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................... 121

Table

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Response (Mean Value) of Individual Staff Members of Four
FSR Organizations to Questions Regarding Components and
Linkages Studies .................................... 60

The Extent of Participation, Involvement and Influence of Farm
Client with Researchers, from Researchers’ Point of View ..... 64

The Extent of Participation, Involvement and Influence of
Extension Worker in Technology Development and Evaluation,
from Researchers’ Point of View ........................ 65

Responses of Individual Staff Members Regarding the
Extent of the Inclusion of EIA in Research Documents ....... 71

The Extent to which "Environmental Protection Measures"
(e.g. Common Property Resources) are Considered in the
Research Performed Under the FSR Programs ............. 73

An Assessment On the Extent to Which Linkages Between
Farming System and Components of the Near Environment
are Described and Analyzed in the Research ............... 73

A General Assessment On the Trend Towards Environmental
Awareness and Consideration During the Last 2 - 3 Years . . . . 74

Total Number and Percentage of Female Research
Scientists in the FSR Organizations Studied ................ 76

Responses of Individual Staff Members Regarding

Percentage of Female Farmers Included in the
Research Process and Activities ......................... 77

vii

Table Page

Table 10. A General Assessment On the Trend Towards Gender
Integration in Agricultural Research/Extension

During the Last 2 - 3 Years ............................ 77
Table 11. Presence of Sustainability-Oriented Practices Under
the FSR Programs ................................... 81

Table 12. The Degree of Fit of the Four FSR Programs in Terms of
the Ideal Model of the New Systemic Paradigm ............. 9O

viii

Table

Table 13.

Table 14.

Table 15.

Table 16.

Table 17.

Table 18.

Table 19.

Table 20.

LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES

Page

Responses of Individual Staff Members of Four FSR
Organizations to Questions Regarding Components
and Linkages Studied ................................. 97

Responses (Mean Value) of Individual Staff Members of
FSR Organizations (by Cormtry) to Questions Regarding
Components and Linkages Studied ....................... 98

Responses (Mean Value) of Individual Staff Members of
FSR Organizations (by Country) to Questions Regarding
Components and Linkages (Major Categories) Studied ........ 99

The Extent of Participation, Involvement and Influence
of Farm Client with Researchers, from Researchers’
Point of View - Nepal-CFSORD Case ................... 100

The Extent of Participation, Involvement and Influence
of Farm Client with Researchers, from Researchers’
Point of View - Nepal-PAC Case ....................... 101

The Extent of Participation, Involvement and Influence

of Farm Client with Researchers, from Researchers’
Point of View - Thailand-FSRI Case .................... 102

The Extent of Participation, Involvement and Influence
of Farm Client with Researchers, from Researchers’
Point of View - Thailand-KKU-FSRP Case ............... 103

The Extent of Participation, Involvement and Influence
of Farm Client with Researchers, from Researchers’
Point of View (Cormtrywise Presentation) ................ 104

Table

Table 21.

Table 22.

Table 23.

Table 24.

Table 25.

Table 26.

Table 27.

Table 28.

Table 29.

Page

The Extent of Participation, Involvement and Influence
of Extension Workers, from Researchers’ Point of View -
Nepal-CFSORD Case ............................... 105

The Extent of Participation, Involvement and Influence
of Extension Workers, from Researchers’ Point of View -
Nepal-PAC Case ................................... 106

The Extent of Participation, Involvement and Influence
of Extension Workers, from Researchers’ Point of View -
Thailand-FSR] Case ................................ 107

The Extent of Participation, Involvement and Influence
of Extension Workers, from Researchers’ Point of View -
Countryw'se Presentation ............................. 108

Variety of Different Scientific Disciplines Actively
Represented in FSR Stages - Nepal Cases-
CFSORD and PAC ................................. 109

Variety of Different Scientific Disciplines Actively
Represented in FSR Stages - Thailand Cases-
FSRI and KKU-FSRP ............................... 110

Presence of Technology Selection System, and On-Farm
Technology Trail ................................... 111

Criteria Used to Compare Alternative Technology-
Nepal Cases - CFSORD and PAC ...................... 112

Criteria Used to Compare Alternative Technology-
Tbailand Cases - FSRI and KKU-FSRP .................. 113

Figure

Figure 1.

Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.

Figure 6.

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Organizational Structure of CFSORD .................... 44
Organizational Structure of PAC ........................ 46
Map Showing PAC’s Research Command Area ............. 48
Organizational Structure of FSRI ........................ 51
Map Showing Locations of FSDROs in Thailand ............ 52
Organizational Structure of KKU-FSRP ................... 56

CFSORD:

CSP:
DOA:
EIA:
FSDRO:
FSIR:
FSP:
FSR:
FSRE:
FSRDD:
FSRI:

FSWG:

IARC:

ICP:

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Agro-Ecosystems Analysis

Agro-Forestry Systems

Central Farming Systems and Outreach Research Division
Cropping Systems Program

Department of Agriculture

Environmental Impact Assessment

Farming Systems Development Research Office
Farming Systems and Interdisciplinary Research
Farming Systems Perspective

Farming Systems Research

Farming Systems Research and Extension

Farming Systems Research and Development Division
Farming Systems Research Institute

Farming Systems Working Group

Fiscal Year

International Agricultural Research Center

Integrated Cereals Project

xii

IDRC:
IRRI:

IPM:

KKU-FSRP:

KU:

MOA:

MOAC:

MUA:

NARC:

NARC:

NARES:

NARS:

ORP:

PAC:

PSU:

ODA:

USAID:

International Development Research Council
International Rice Research Institute

Integrated Pest Management

Khon Kaen University

Khon Kaen University-Farming Systems Research Project
Kasetsart University

Ministry of Agriculture

Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives

Ministry of University Affairs

National Agriculture Research Center

Nepal Agricultural Research Council

National Agricultural Research and Extension System
National Agricultural Research System

Outreach Research Program

Pakhribas Agricultural Center

Prince of Songkhla University

Overseas Development Administration

United States Agency for International Development

xiii

I. INTRODUCTION

This research involves: (1) conceptualizing a new systemic’ paradigm2 for
agricultural research and extension in terms of its key defining characteristics and (2)
empirical testing of the conceptualization.

Based on an extensive review of literature, the following six key defining
features or conceptual characteristics of the new paradigm were identified: (i)
systematic description and analysis of the components of the farm and the linkages
among them; (ii) farm client partnership with researchers and extensionists; (iii)
collaborative multidisciplinary research; (iv) environmental and common property
integrity; (v) gender integration; and (vi) sustainability considerations.

An empirical study has then been conducted to compare the extent to which
this current conceptualization fits the actual situations in formal farming systems
research (FSR) organizations in Nepal and Thailand. More specifically, using the
case study approach, four FSR programs (two from each country) have been studied

in terms of the extent to which they have introduced, organized and applied the

 

’ The term "systemic" in this dissertation is used synonymously with "systematic" or dealing with
the significant components of the whole system being described.

2 The term "paradigm" in conjunction with the word "new” or "systemic” is used in this dissertation
to refer to a fundamental model or scheme that systematically conceptualizes the variables and issues
relating to agricultural research and extension in terms of changing views, needs and requirements.

1

above six key defining dimensions of the new systemic paradigm.

1.1 Statement of the Problem:

The highly specialized or commodity-focused and productivity-centered
agricultural research and extension systems have had a significant positive impact on
total world food production. However, a number of problems related to
environmental degradation, unsustainable production and socioeconomic disparity
have emerged. The realization is increasing that some of the progress in agricultural
productivity is being achieved at the cost of long-term degradation of biophysical
environments. Thus, the prevailing reductionist, positivist, commodity-focused, and
productivity-centered paradigm in agricultural research and technology transfer is
becoming inadequate. Literature abounds explaining the drawbacks of the
conventional models of technology transfer (e.g. the "top-down" centralized model)
that have been used in many developing countries (Axinn, 1988; Chambers and
Jiggins, 1987; Norman, 1986; Rogers, 1986; Roling, 1990; Whyte, 1986; Whyte, 1991).

Moreover, as pointed out by Axinn (1991a), the researcher-oriented paradigm
has basically focused on large-scale, high-input, specialized, market-oriented
commercial agriculture. The small-scale farmers who are responsible for the bulk of
food production in most developing countries have been relatively neglected. Coward
(1987) notes that the production increases based on intensive inputs have increasingly
been ecologically and economically unsustainable over time. Further, as agriculture

involves complex interactions between farming, environmental, socio-economic,

3

cultural, political and technological systems, the potential of the positivist, reductionist
approach -- one discipline at a time-may have run its course.

The prevailing paradigm is not sufficient to: i) consider the mixed-farming
needs of the vast majority of small-scale resource poor farmers worldwide; ii) deal
with the concepts of complexity and environmental diversity of farming systems; iii)
comprehend the emerging environmental problems and issues of ecological stability
and sustainability of production; and iv) deal with the interconnectedness of these
needs, concepts, problems and issues. In this context, several scholars including
Axinn (1991a); Bawden (1991); Coward (1987); Dahlberg (1986); and Wilson and
Morren ( 1990) have clearly indicated an urgent need for development and application
of a new systemic paradigm for agricultural research which identifies, analyzes, and
comprehends the complexity and diversity of the ecological and socioeconomic
conditions of farming clients.

The need for a new paradigm to deal with the above indicated problems,
challenges, and changing needs has encouraged creative thinking and restructuring
of agricultural research and extension systems in several countries. Moreover, the
need is increasingly recognized as post-green revolution problems are recognized. A
new paradigm based on a systems approach to include whole farming systems and
their relationships to their environments may be needed. This new paradigm in
agriculture research and extension is emerging throughout the world. For example,
farming systems research-extension (FSRE) which is based on systems approaches is

being developed and applied in many parts of the world. The Association for

4

Farming Systems Research/Extension (global) and the Asian Farming Systems
Association are each publishing journals.

In this context of its early development, it is important to conceptualize the
defining dimensions or characteristics of the new paradigm and to test how the
conceptualization fits real world situations. This study of farming systems research

and extension (FSRE) is a step toward these endeavors.

1.2 Rationale of the Stug:

Since the new systemic paradigm is in an evolving stage, it is dynamic and has
been defined, organized and applied in many different ways in different places. For
example, although a systems approach is applied to FSRE, there are various models
of FSRE, and components and criteria vary from place to place. Models of systems
approaches to agriculture research and extension are being developed, applied and
modified differently among Asian, African, European, Latin American and North
American countries. A systems approach is also applied to agro-forestry systems
(AFS) and agro-ecosystems analysis (AEA). In some countries, a new systemic
approach for the application of science to agriculture is being developed which
considers wholeness of the systems, environmental components, ecological stability
and sustainability aspects of production, and participative, collaborative multi-
disciplinary research systems.

Using the "episystemic" concept for systems thinking and practice in

agriculture, "systems agriculture" has been developed at Hawkesbury College at the

5

University of Western Sydney in Australia. The essence of the Hawkesbury systems
agriculture approach is the notion of the creation of "action researching systems" in
which people collaborate to critically explore complex problematic situations with the
aim of creating change that is socially desirable, culturally feasible, and ethically
defensible (Bawden, 1991).

Conceptualization and identification of broadly applicable key components of
the new systemic paradigm is the essence of this dissertation. Data from the field
compares the extent to which the new paradigm has been introduced, organized and
applied in various parts of the world. This study includes a comparative analysis of
the new paradigm in agricultural research and extension in Nepal and in Thailand.

The study identifies and compares the components and criteria included, as
well as institutional settings and strategies used for introducing, developing and
applying the new paradigm in the two countries. Therefore, the findings can serve
further development and improved application of the paradigm in these countries.
The institutional characteristics which are identified in this study may be useful for
future scholars to understand the institutionalization process over time. The findings
may also be useful in introducing, organizing, and implementing farming systems
approaches in other countries to better meet the needs of small scale mixed farming
families and thus reduce rural poverty.

In sum, this study attempts to make both conceptual and empirical

contributions.

1.3 Ohm ' of the SM:

The general objective of this study is to conceptualize a new systemic
paradigm for agricultural research and extension, and to determine the extent to
which it has been understood, experimented with, and implemented in formal
organizations in Nepal and Thailand.

The specific objectives are:

(1) To define the new concept in terms of its most significant variables.

(2) To describe and analyze the performance dimensions of the paradigm among
organizations in the two countries.

(3) To compare organizations with regard to such characteristics as the extent to

which they have operationalized various components of the new paradigm.

1.4 W601: of the New Par—81mm:

As the post-green revolution problems are increasingly recognized in many

 

countries, the highly specialized, commodity-focused and productivity-centered
agricultural research and extension paradigm is becoming inadequate. Axinn (1991b)
suggests there is a growing need for confronting widespread environmental problems
and achieving ecological sustainability. There is also a need to maximize agriculture’s
internal resources to ensure affordable and sustainable gains in agricultural
productivity with the implementation of new approaches. A new paradigm which
includes whole agriculture systems and their relationships to their environments is

emerging across the globe.

7

Traditionally, agricultural research and extension (i.e. agricultural technology
generation and diffusion) have been organized separately. The essence of the new
paradigm is a systems approach which includes participative, collaborative action
research systems (Bawden, 1991) and involves a three-way team of farmers,
researchers (from different disciplines) and extension workers (Axinn, 1991a). By
involving farming clients as active participants and partners in research, extension,
and information exchange processes, the new paradigm combines these two concepts
(i.e. generation of technology and transfer of technology) and treats them as an
integrated function.

The new paradigm posits that if farmers are to benefit, agricultural research
must be farmer-oriented rather than researcher-oriented. It recognizes the need for
a shift from "technology push" to responding to "farmer needs" (Conway, 1987).
Here, the major concern is to conduct the entire research in farmers’ fields involving
farmers in the whole research process. This system not only avoids the "yield gap"
(between research station and farmers’ fields) but also promotes farmer-desired
technological innovation and its transmission.

In the systemic paradigm, farming clients are not viewed as passive receivers
of expert knowledge or technology developed by researchers. The role of researchers
and extension workers changes from that assumption (which is most often found in
"top-down" organizations). The new paradigm recognizes that the top.down
"packaged" technology transfer system is inappropriate for sustainable evolution of

agricultural technologies. The new approach, by integrating farmers into the whole

8

research system and incorporating their criteria for judging technologies, not only
greatly increases the probability for the adoption of new technologies, but makes the
need of a separate technology transfer function less necessary. The systemic
paradigm focuses on technology evolution and adoption, not just technology transfer.
Here, the extensionist serves as a "carrier" of information and "facilitator" who will
link client groups with researchers.

In other words, extension’s primary function becomes "networking" to help
achieve communication, awareness, coordination and cooperation between
researchers, farming clients and relevant agencies. The networking between these
groups contributes to problem identification, research program development and
implementation. The new paradigm is also "centered on local governance" (Coward,
1987) and emphasizes the strategy of local empowerment. It creates ways for farmers
to have substantial impact and control on the entire research system.

One of the major benefits of the new paradigm is that it eliminates the
‘separate’ traditional top-down technology transfer mode] by merging the technology
generation and diffusion process together. By the time a technology is developed, it
is already known, understood, experimented and experienced by farmers, both men
and women. Because technological innovation is based on farmers’ needs and
criteria, farmers play an active role as problem identifiers, collaborators (in the
research process), and experimenters, testers and evaluators of technological
innovation. The traditional role of extensionists is technology transfer, diffusing

researcher-oriented and research-station-developed technological innovation to

9

farming clients. Here it changes to a role of networking and building collaborative
relationships between farmers and researchers.

The new paradigm has the potential to contribute not only to rural-agricultural
development but also to a more balanced urbanization in developing countries.
Users of the paradigm may contribute to rural family livelihood by improving
diversification and sustained productivity of small, mixed farms. This can strengthen
rural-urban linkages, such as the flow of production surplus, labor utilization and
income distribution.

In some developing countries, contemporary problems of rural-urban migration
have been mitigated by the lack of an appropriate agricultural research system to
address the problem of production in small, mixed farms -- practiced for survival by
the majority of rural people. The large number of rural people who migrate to urban
centers tend to be those who could not solve these problems. The commodity-
focussed and productivity-centered paradigm in agricultural research has tended to
provide benefit only to large scale, commercial farmers. This contributed to
encouraging more small scale farmers to join the stream of rural-urban migration to
big cities. The new systemic paradigm has the potential to reverse this trend by
focussing on improving and sustaining production of small, mixed farms and thus
creating profit and employment for rural people -- thereby reducing the need for
migration to cities for employment and survival. In other words, since the new
paradigm is oriented towards diversification, sustainability, equity and redistributive

objectives, implementation of the new paradigm might lead to more balanced

10

urbanization in some countries.

Moreover, the new paradigm has the potential to:

(1) recognize that consumption needs of the vast majority of small-scale farmers may
be more appropriate goals than production targets;

(2) realize that improvements in diversified farming systems can be made in order to
improve the consumption and production system of small-scale farmers and also to
sustain ecological diversity;

(3) realize the need to maintain long-term production at a desired level as well as
sustain ecological diversity;

(4) recognize that current agricultural practices as well as misuse of common property
resources may have long-term negative impacts on biophysical environments; and
(5) recognize that women do much of the work on the world’s farms, and therefore
include gender roles and activities in analyzing the farming systems and especially in
generating and implementing technological innovations.

The new paradigm differs from the prevailing approaches in a number of
respects, but particularly in its capacity to comprehend the complexity and diversity
of the whole farming system, including environmental and sustainability factors. As
pointed out by Bawden (1991), the systemic ideal is for strategies of intervention that
lead to improvements to whole systems and to their relationships with their
environments. The new paradigm embraces the notions of wholeness, participative
research with built-in technology development and transfer systems, integration of

common property resources and environmental integrity, awareness of gender

11

involvement, and focuses on the issues of stability and sustainability.

Based on an extensive review of relevant literature, the following six key
conceptual characteristics or defining dimensions of the new paradigm have been
identified as: i) systematic description and analysis of the components of the farm and
the linkages among them; ii) farm client partnership with researchers and
extensionists which usually includes on-farm activity; iii) collaborative multi-
disciplinary research; iv) environmental and common property integrity; v) gender
integration; and vi) sustainability considerations. These six components are identified
here as a means of capturing "wholeness" of the systemic paradigm. These are also
used as variables for the empirical part of this study which looks at how nearly the

actual situations fit the conceptual dimensions indicated above.

1.5 043% tion of the Dissertation:

Chapter one of this dissertation has included introductory information,
statement of the problem, rationale of the study, the objectives of the study and the
conceptual definition of the new paradigm. Chapter two reviews literature on the
farming systems research (FSR) movement as well as on the key defining dimensions
or conceptual characteristics and relevancy of the new paradigm. Chapter three
describes the research design and methods including: study design, operational
definitions and measures of the key variables, selections of research sites, data
collection instruments, data collection process, and data analysis approach.

Chapter four presents descriptions of the four FSR cases. First, the chapter

12
presents a general background of FSRE in Nepal and in Thailand. Then, it describes

the four FSR organizations/programs studied for this dissertation: Central Farming
Systems and Outreach Research Division (CFSORD), Pakhrrbas Agricultural Center
(PAC), Farming Systems Research Institute (FSRI) and Khon Kaen University-
F arming Systems Research Project (KKU-FSRP). Chapter five presents an analysis
and discussion of the findings regarding these four cases.

Chapter six includes the summary, conclusions and limitations. Chapter seven

contains implications for policy and recommendations for future research.

II. LITERATUREREVIEW

The objective of this chapter is to present the essence and conceptual details
of the new paradigm as well as to generate information for operational definitions
and measures of the six key variables for empirical testing.

This chapter is divided into two sections. The first section of this chapter
reviews literature on the farming systems research (FSR) movement. As the
empirical part of this study focuses on several FSRE programs, reviewing literature
on FSR movement seem very relevant here. The second section reviews literature
on the conceptual characteristics and relevancy of the new systemic paradigm. The
focus is on further clarification of the six key conceptual characteristics or defining
dimensions of the new paradigm identified in Chapter 1, which have been treated as

the major variables in the empirical part of this study.

ems Research R Movement:
FSR is a part of a long history of rural development movements. It arrived
on the scene after production campaigns to promote "modern agriculture", the
community development movement and integrated rural development (Tripp, 1991).

The shift of emphasis toward farming systems and farmer participation began

13

14
to develop in the 19603 in various areas of the developing world (Whyte, 1991).

However, FSR as a strategy for conducting agricultural research began in the mid-
1970s. The FSRE approach stemmed from the realization that: (i) the commodity
improvement approach was not sufficient to increase peasant productivity, and thus,
mixed cropping and intercropping had to be considered (Flora, 1992) especially for
making small-farm agriculture more efficient; (ii) more Green Revolutions were not
in prospect; and (iii) innovations proposed by agricultural researchers for extension
were, rather often, simply not adopted or were adopted only in a partial or modified
form (Simmonds, 1985). Moreover, as indicated by Tripp (1991), marked inefficiency
in planned agricultural change became one of the principle reasons for the growth
and development of the FSR movement. Research efforts in many parts of the world
began to emphasize the complexity of local farming systems and the need to
understand farmers’ criteria in adopting or rejecting new technology (Tripp, 1991).

According to Flora (1992), although the origins and the emphases were
different, based on the setting in which FSRE approach evolved, it was marked by
a broad approach to identify potentials and limitations, with emphasis on the system
rather than a single commodity. Further, concern was directed to limited resource .
farmers rather than large-scale commodity producers. In Asia, where land is a
limiting factor, agronomists led the cropping systems approach, seeking to use the
biological potential of the farm to increase total productivity on a given land area
(Flora, 1992; Harwood, 1979). In Africa, climatic uncertainties led to increasing

appreciation of complex strategies of risk reduction based on farmer knowledge

15

(Norman, 1971). And in Latin America, where peasants were more market oriented,
a growing appreciation of peasant strategies to avoid market risk forced a radical
rethinking of the development and extension of agricultural technology (Hildebrand,
1976; Flora, 1992).

Several concepts are included as key ideas in organizing and conducting FSR.
For example, Merrill-Sands listed several key concepts in FSR: "(i) FSR is farmer-
oriented, (ii) FSR is systems-oriented, (iii) FSR is a problem-solving approach, (iv)
FSR is interdisciplinary, (v) FSR complements mainstream commodity and
disciplinary agricultural research; it does not replace it, (vi) FSR tests technology in
on-farm trails, and (vii) FSR provides feedback from farmers" (Merrill-Sands,
1986:89-91).

Tripp (1991) indicate that since the appearance of FSR in the mid-19703 as
a strategy for conducting agricultural research,it has been taken up in various forms
by international research organizations, donor agricultural programs and projects, and
national agricultural research systems. Although the FSR principles and purposes
(e.g. systems orientation, focus on resource-poor farmers, interdisciplinarity, farmer
participation, on-farm activities) generally remain common, the methods used to
pursue the goals differed greatly (Hildebrand and Waugh, 1986; Tripp et al. 1991).
Additionally, the term "farming systems" was applied to several different activities
being developed around the world (Hildebrand and Waugh, 1986). Consequently,
various terms and synonyms have been used for institutional trademarking or other

reasons. Plucknett et al. (1986:3) wrote: "there is a serious need for clarification and

16

standardization of FSR terms, and the coinage of new terms should be avoided".
Several other FSR scholars (e.g. Beets, 1990; Merrill-Sands, 1986; Simmonds 1985)
have also expressed this need for clarification and standardization of FSR terms and
concepts in order to avoid misconceptions and misinterpretations.

In recent years, several scholars (e.g. Axinn, 19913; Gibbon, 1992; Norman,
1980; Plucknett et al. 1986; Tripp, 1991; Tripp et al. 1991) have recognized that the
principles and practice of the systems approach, e.g. FSRE, are being gradually
accepted into research and development systems. However, they also rightly point
out that an important step forward has been the evolutionary development of the
concepts and approach and the embracing of new directions and emphases. In other
words, further clarification and conceptual characterization of systems elements (of
the evolving paradigm) and their practical application in real world situations is
essential.

In this regard, based on an extensive review of literature, this study in Chapter
1 identified the following as key conceptual characteristics of the emerging systemic
paradigm for agricultural research and extension: (1) systematic descriptions and
analysis of the components of the farm and the linkages among them; (2) farm client
partnership with researchers and extensionists; (3) collaborative multidisciplinary
research; (4) environmental and common property integrity; (5) gender integration;
and (6) sustainability considerations. Literature reviewed in the following section of
this chapter focuses on further definition and clarification of these six key

characteristics of the new paradigm.

17

2.2 Comm Characteristics and Relevang of the New Sys_temic Par__a_drgm' :

This section presents literature review related to the six conceptual
characteristics of the new paradigm -- key variables of the empirical part of this
study:

(1) Systematic Description and Analysis of the Components of the Farm and the
Linkages Among Them:

Systems approach involves "studying a system as an entity made up of all its
components and their interrelationships, together with relationships between the
system and its environment" (Beets, 1990:727). Thus, in systems approach oriented
research in agriculture -- FSR -- application of the systems perspective to the study
of a farm (i.e. treating farms as integrated whole systems) seems obvious.

As indicated by Shaner et al. (1982), in order to search for ways to improve
a system’s functioning, thorough study and analysis of the major components of the
system and the links both among the components within the system and between the
system and its environment are crucial. The obvious rationale is that "we need to
understand the existing system before attempting to improve upon or change it"
(Castillo, 1992:16). Moreover, system-level analysis and synthesis of farming systems
interactions can provide insights for assessing the sustainability of farming systems as
well as ideas for sustainable farming system development.

As small-holder farms have quite complex systems, and diverse environments

(Chambers et al., 1989), the determinants of such farming systems, according to Beets

18
(1990) include: (i) physical (climate, soil, topography, physical structure); (ii)
biological (crops, livestock, weeds, pests, diseases); (iii) endogenous (family
composition, health and nutrition, education, food preferences, risk aversion,
attitudes/goals gender relations); and (iv) exogenous (population, tenure, off-farm
opportunities, social infrastructure, credit, markets, prices, technology, input supply,
extension, savings opportunities/factors).

The literature indicates that utilization of a systems approach in agricultural
research begins with a high quality description and systematic analysis of the
complexity of farming systems covering all relevant components (e.g. plant, animal,
the human) and their linkages. Then, based on understanding the whole system such
descriptions and analysis can help FSR practitioners to structure research and
development strategies for those systems (Axinn 1991; Axinn, 1991a; Beets, 1990;
McDowell and Hildebrand, 1986; Norman 1986; Shaner et al., 1982; Simmonds, 1985;
Temple, 1986).

The need to consider the human component in describing and analyzing
farming systems is constantly stressed by FSR scholars and practitioners. Moreover,
several scholars (e.g. G. Axinn 1991a; N. Axinn, 1990; Castillo, 1992; Plucknett et al.,
1986; Poats, 1990) have indicated that women’s role in farming need to be analyzed
in order to develop a more accurate picture of farming systems and to formulate
appropriate and effective research objectives.

This study attempted to determine the extent to which the FSR programs have

studied -- described and analyzed -- the following farming components and linkages:

19
(i) crops (grain crops, fruit crops, vegetable crops); (ii) livestock; (iii) people (by
gender and age); (iv) inputs (credit, input price, input availability, labor price and
availability); (v) outputs (output price, market, marketing channels); (vi) internal
linkages (internal flow of materials and services), (vii) external linkages (flow of
materials and services from off the farm); and (viii) consumption pattern and

production data.

(2) Farm Client Partnership with Researchers and Extensionists:

A growing literature on systems approaches and participatory methodological
innovations attest that if agricultural research is to be relevant to local farming needs
and sustainability, a partnership between farmers, researchers and extensionists in the
entire research process is of absolute necessity (Axinn, 1991a; Rhoades, 1989;
Chambers et al. 1989; Galt and Mathema, 1986; Norman 1980).

Moreover, the proponents of FSR contend that the farmer/researcher
partnership is needed because much of the "top-down" research in experiment
stations has not given sufficient attention to the relevance of a technology in terms
of the goals and resources of small farmers (Eicher, 1980). According to Flora
(1988), a farming systems approach, based on diagnosis of what farmers actually do
and why they do it and building on the strengths of the indigenous farming systems,
will influence the research conducted, the problems that research addresses, and the
mechanisms used in research and extension through the use of multidisciplinary teams

which include farm families as key players. Reorienting research so that farmers are

20
viewed as clients was identified by Norman (1980) as a defining feature of FSRE

(Baker, 1992).

Many scholars point out that conventional research cannot meet the needs of
resource-poor farmers (Chambers, 1989; F arrington and Martin, 1987; Rhoades and
Booth, 1982; Richards, 1985). Various approaches are evolving world-wide to include
farming clients as partners in the research and extension process and activities.
Examples of such approaches include: the "farmer-first-and—last" approach
(Chambers, 1983; Chambers and Ghildyal, 1985); the "farmer-back-to-farmer"
approach ( Rhoades and Booth, 1982; Rhoades and Potts, 1985); the "indigenous
agricultural revolution approach" (Richards, 1985); and farmer participatory research
(Farrington and Martin, 1987).

Although these participatory methodological innovations were derived and
presented under different labels, all models seem to call for methodological reversals
in agricultural research. The reversal notion specifies a shift away from a technology
supply orientation and hypothesis deduction model to an emphasis on indigenous
farmer knowledge, innovative behavior and farmer experimentation (Baker, 1991;
Frankenberger and Coyle, 1992). As indicated by Rhoades (1989) and
Frankenberger and Coyle (1992), many advocates of these models feel that farmer
knowledge, inventiveness, and experimentation have long been undervalued, and that
agricultural scientists should be partners with farmers in the research and extension
process. Chambers et al. (1989), write that research should be based on problem

analysis and the priorities of farmers, with farmers being the central experimenters.

21

"The partnership between researchers and farmers is seen as the critical component
of participation that enables cost-effective design, implementation and dissemination
of technology and that builds on indigenous technical knowledge - new technology-
developing systems" (Sriskandarajah et al., 19915).

This study attempts to determine the extent of farm client partnership with
researchers and extensionists by measuring the extent of participation, involvement
and influence (see 5.2 for definitions) of farmers and extensionists in the following
aspects of the FSR process: (i) problem identification; (ii) inclusion of indigenous
knowledge; (iii) technology selection; (iv) execution of the research; and (v)

evaluation of the findings.

(3) Collaborative Multidisciplinary Research:

From a review of relevant literature, a unanimous agreement is apparent
among advocates of the systems research approach (e.g. FSR) about the need and
relevancy of multidisciplinary involvement in the research effort. Multidisciplinarity
has been widely used in the current literature as one of the most distinguishing
characteristics of systems research -- FSR.

For example, Hildebrand and Waugh (1986) indicate that the use of scientists
and technicians from multiple disciplines as a means of understanding the farm as an
entire system is one of the basic requirements for FSR. Many other scholars (e.g.
Axinn, 1991a; Axinn, 1988; Norman, 1980; Temple 1986; Wilson and Morren, 1990)

present similar conceptual rationale for collaborative multidisciplinary research in

22

FSR. Indeed, a concern with farming systems necessarily envisions the participation
of various disciplines in the research effort (Tripp et al., 1991).

As indicated by Temple (1986), the disciplines which need to be included in
the team may vary from country to country, and from agricultural system to
agricultural system. However, (as also described by Beets, 1990) considering the
smallholder farming system which generally consists of the household and other
integrated sub-systems: crops (grain, vegetable and fruit crops), livestock (many
kinds), and off-farm land (which provides fuelwood, construction materials), the basic
requirement would be to include specialists from social science, agro-biological
science, animal science, home science, economics and extension disciplines.

In addition involvement of systems science (for systems interaction modeling)
and environmental science would also be essential. Axinn (1991a) states that FSRE
must demonstrate application of systems science in the generation, storage, retrieval,
and dissemination of relevant technological, economic, and social knowledge. The
need for involvement of environmental science in systems research (e.g. FSR) has
increasingly been discussed in recent literature.

Moreover, considering the sustainability aspect, Oram (1988) indicates that
ecology, climatology, geography, ecophysiology, soil science, and other resource-based
disciplines must play greater roles in sustainable agricultural research and
development.

Literature indicates that achieving multidisciplinarity has been difficult, and

many FSR efforts are still dominated by either social or biological scientists (Tripp

23
et a1. 1991; Chambers and Jiggins, 1986).

As indicated by Oram (1988), most work toward agricultural sustainability
suffers from the lack of systematic integration of knowledge from different scientific
and socioeconomic disciplines. Oram further adds that a conceptual framework to
integrate different disciplines and to enable them to interact effectively is needed.
According to Temple (1986), one of the most important concepts of systems research
is that the disciplinary scientists working on a problem, who must be highly trained
in their own disciplines, do not work in isolation. They must be trained to interact
with one another on a team.

In this study, the extent of multidisciplinary research in four FSR programs is
determined by the variety of different scientific disciplines actively represented in the
following four stages: (i) deciding which data would be collected, (ii) the field work,

(iii) data analysis, and (iv) reports of findings and recommendations.

(4) Environmental and Common Property Integrity:

The literature indicates that environmental degradation (e.g. erosion,
salinization) and over exploitation of common property resources for forage/fodder,
firewood, and fishing are causing serious threats to smallholder farming systems in
many developing countries. According to Beets (1990), the best example of stress on
the environment affecting productivity and sustainability is loss of soil through
erosion. As common property resources are non-exclusive in ownership and rival in

consumption (Tietinberg, 1988), they are abused. As indicated by Wallace (1983),

24

even when people do not overconsume a commonly owned resource, they often
consume the wrong mix of products from such a resource. A popular article "the
Tragedy of the Commons" by Hardin (1968), depicts the depleting situations of
common property resources and urges for their protection.

The concern for sustainability in agricultural systems increasingly demands
both rational use of common property resources and environmental protection.
"Agricultural production is dependent on natural resources and environmental
conditions, and therefore relies on the sound use of resources, environmental
protection and ecological improvement" (Likangmin, 1991:192). Future challenges
to FSRE will be in rehabilitation and renewal of degraded environments, livelihood
enrichment through diversification and common property resource utilization, and
conservation of nature and biodiversity (Lightfoot and Pullin, 1991).

Developing and implementing a variety of viable research and extension
activities which are likely to have positive impacts on common property resources and
environmental/ecological sustainability (National Research Council, 1993) is an area
of significant need and opportunity for FSR. Consistent with systems ideals, FSR
needs to operationalize the concern for the larger environment of each farming
system, including common property resources, and integrating environmental impact
assessment into the program.

In this study, "environmental and common property integrity" in FSR programs
is measured by: (i) the use of some type of environmental impact assessment (EIA)

as an important decision criterion for technology evaluation; (ii) the extent of the

25

inclusion of EIA in research documents; (iii) the extent to which ’environmental
protection measures’ are considered in the research performed; and (iv) the extent
to which linkages between farming systems and components of the near environment

are described and analyzed in the research.

(5) Gender Integration:

The new systemic paradigm recognizes the human component (i.e. the men,
women and children on the farm) as an important part of the system to be included
in the analysis of farming systems. As the human component is one of the key
components of systems research in agriculture, the relevancy and need for gender
integration follow automatically because many farm activities in developing countries
are performed by female farmers.

For example, Shinawatra et al. (1987), in their study in Chiang Mai, Thailand,
found that woman participate almost as equally as men in labor exchange, planting
and harvesting of most crops, and they take more responsibility than men in feeding
pigs and poultry. According to Kaul and Ali (1992), women in Africa contribute up
to 70 percent of the labor involved in food production and nearly 100 percent in rural
food processing. "Much of the agricultural production activities of South Asia involve
women, frequently in a sex sequential productive pattern (men plow, women
transplant, men harvest, women handle the post harvest work)" (Axinn and Axinn,
1993:11-12). Gibbon (1992), points out that more than 50 percent of the rural

farming population are women. Thus, there is need to incorporate gender in

26
agricultural research.

Recent literature discusses gender issues and illustrates the rationale for
gender integration. For example, Axinn ( 1991a), writes:

"If the research is to be relevant to the needs and interests of farming

people, so that they will adopt it and use its findings, and if the

technologies it generates are found sustainable by those people in their
environment, then researchers must take into account which farm
people perform which tasks ..................... If women have responsibility for

seed selection and storage, for example, then agricultural scientists who

ignore women’s perspectives on which seed to select and how to store

it are merely reducing the probability that anything they find will

actually be utilized by farmers in their region" (Axinn, 1991a:73).

Axinn and Axinn (1993), argue that agricultural development activities are
more likely to be sustainable if they transcend the gender barrier to tap the
indigenous knowledge of peasant women.

It seems clear that women are an integral part of many farming systems. As
the systems approaches treat farming systems as whole systems, the requirement for
taking gender into consideration in describing and analyzing farming systems is very
important. Indeed, active involvement of adequate number of experienced women
farmers in the entire research process -- problem diagnosis, and technology selection,
generation and evaluation is crucial in FSR programs. As pointed out by Poats
(1990), "gender integration" for FSRE translates into involving women as
collaborating farmers and using gender as an analytical variable in on-farm technology
development.

Moreover, according to Poats (1990), there is a strong positive relationship

between effectively reaching female farmers and having female professionals in the

27
ranks of the National Agricultural Research and Extension Systems (NARES). This

may also apply in FSRE. Having an adequate number of female scientists in FSR
organizations can result in effective involvement of female farmers in FSR activities.
Poats (1990:1), with several examples, writes: "for FSRE in particular, there are
distinct benefits to the effectiveness and efficiency in reaching farmers and developing
technology that result from engaging female professionals in on-farm research
activities".

Therefore, it seems clear that integration of gender (as measured by the
number and proportion of female scientists and female farmers) is essential in
systems approach-oriented programs, such as FSRE. With this perspective, this study
conceptualized and included "gender integration" as an important variable of the new
paradigm, and attempted to measure the extent of its inclusion by: total number and
proportion of female scientists in the FSR organizations studied, and percentage of

female farmers participating in FSR activities.

(6) Sustainability Consideration:

There is widespread agreement among agricultural scientists on the
importance of sustainability as an objective for research (Harrington, 1992).
Sustainability concerns and considerations have been increasingly emphasized in the
principles and conceptual objectives of the emerging systems approaches including
FSRE. But, as ‘sustainability’ and sustainable agricultural development have been

conceptualized and defined in numerous ways ( Harrington, 1992; National Research

28

Council, 1993; Sriskandarajah et al., 1991), a problem for operationalization of the
concept in real settings arises. Moreover, as pointed out by Axinn and Axinn (1993),
sustainability is a temporal, holistic concept. Further, a focus on sustainable
agriculture must have a systems perspective at different levels and varying scales
(Castillo, 1992). As indicated by Sriskandarajah et al. (1991), although sustainable
agriculture is often synonymous with low-input agriculture which involves maintaining
production and profits without excessive use of purchased inputs, the need for an
additional focus on ecological sustainability is increasingly stressed by scholars and
practitioners in recent years. In other words, sustainable agriculture must also take
into account the environment and its system (Sriskandarajah et al., 1991); it must
encourage the regeneration of the ecosystem and enhance the quality of environment
for future generations (J odha, 1990). Ecological sustainability is crucial in achieving
sustainable improvements in the quality of agricultural systems (National Research
Council, 1993).

For the purposes of this study, the presence of research and extension
activities in current FSR programs which encourage sustainable agroecosystems is
basically conceptualized as "sustainability considerations". More specifically,
sustainability considerations are defined in this study as inclusion of efforts for
development, promotion and utilization of ecologically and economically sustainable
inputs and farming practices in order to maintain long-term production at a desired
level and sustain ecological diversity and other important aspects of the eco-system

as well.

29

Also, as indicated by Dicks (1992), viable research and extension efforts are
needed to promote sustainable agricultural practices in order to reduce the
environmental damage caused by extant agricultural production processes and by
natural forces. A recent publication of the National Research Council (1993) points
out that an appropriate mixture of land uses and management strategies are needed
in order to encourage and maintain the long term health and productivity of
agroecosystems. The indigenous resource management techniques and systems
developed and practiced by peasant farmers--men and women, which were often
dismissed as primitive in the past are increasingly being recognized as sustainable
strategies (Axinn and Axinn, 1993; National Research Council, 1993). Research and
extension efforts on the use of integrated (e.g. livestock cum crop) farming, mixed-
cropping, agro-forestry system, integrated pest management system, bio-inoculum,
green manures, compost and other viable resource management techniques and
sustainable land use systems could be initiated and implemented by FSR programs.
These techniques and farming practices are widely recognized in the literature to
have implications for improving both productivity and sustainability of farming
systems (Beets, 1990; Harwood, 1979; Jones and Wallace, 1986; Mackay, 1989;
National Research Council, 1993).

In this context, "sustainability considerations" are assessed in this study by:
(a) the presence of research/extension efforts for application of indigenous
knowledge, practices and resources/inputs; (b) the presence of such system linkage

research/extension activities as: i) integrated pest management (IPM) system, ii) bio-

30

fertilizers/inoculum, iii) green manuring, and iv) compost making and use; (c) the
presence of such interdisciplinary research/extension efforts as: i) integrated (e.g.
livestock cum crop) farming system, ii) mixed-cropping system, iii) inter-cropping
system, and iv) agro-forestry system; and (d) considerations of water and fuelwood
factors in the system.

The literature review presented in this chapter covered the FSR movement
and focussed on clarifying the six defining conceptual characteristics (identified in
Chapter 1) of the new paradigm in agricultural research and extension. The next
chapter -- Chapter 3, describes the research design and methods used in this study

for empirical testing of the current conceptualization.

III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The previous two chapters conceptualized the new paradigm for agricultural
research and extension by reviewing the literature to identify and describe the six key
conceptual characteristics. This chapter describes the research design and methods
used in the empirical part of this study, including operational definitions and
measures of the key variables’. The chapter then, proceeds with discussion about
selection of research sites, data collection instruments, data collection process and the

data analysis approach.

3.1 W:

The research was carried on in six phases:
(1) Identification and clarification of the critical variables in the new paradigm.
(2) Preliminary identification of systems-approach-oriented, agricultural research
organizations in Nepal and in Thailand through literature review and correspondence.
From this, a list of potential cases were identified.

(3) From the list of potential cases, the following four agricultural research

 

’ The six conceptual characteristics of the new systemic paradigm for agricultural research and
extension identified in Chapter 1 are treated as key variables for the empirical part of this study.

31

32

organizations with FSR programs were selected:

Nepal:

(i) Central Farming Systems and Outreach Research Div'mon (CFSORD)
[A division of the Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), Ministry of
Agriculture (MOA)].

(ii) Pakhribas Agricultural Center (PAC)

[An agricultural research and resources center, funded by the British
Government through Overseas Development Administration (ODA).
Currently, its work is increasingly coordinated with the MOA’s departments,
particularly with NARC].

Thailand:

(i) Farming Systems Research Institute (FSRI)
[A division of the Department of Agriculture (DOA), Ministry of Agriculture
and Cooperatives (MOAC)].

(ii) Khon Kaen University (KKU)- Farming Systems Research Project (FSRP)
[KKU is under the Ministry of University Affairs (MUA)]

These four organizations fall under two different categories of agricultural

research organizations: (i) straight-line-organizations of the Ministry of Agriculture -

- CFSORD in Nepal and FSRI in Thailand; and (ii) outside of the line-Ministry of

Agriculture -- PAC in Nepal and KKU-FSRP in Thailand.

(4) Funding support for the field study was explored with different international

organizations. Financial support for the field data collection in Thailand was received

from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAQ) at Rome,

Italy.

(5) Data collection was carried out through a detailed survey of the FSR programs

in the four selected agricultural research organizations.

Information for describing the four cases in terms of their initial and current

33

organizational structure, staffing pattern, command area, program objectives and
implementation strategies, etc. was derived basically from the program documents
and other relevant published reports. Data obtained from interview responses of
research personnel and key informants in the four FSR programs were utilized to test
the extent to which the six key conceptual dimensions of the new paradigm have been
implemented by these four FSR organizations.

(6) The final phase involved data processing and analysis, and the preparation of this

document.

3.2 erational Definitions and Measures of the K_ey Variables:

For the purpose of this dissertation research, an ideal model of the new
systemic paradigm for agricultural research and extension is described as having the
six conceptual characteristics described below. These are the key variables of this
study. The larger the number of these variables which are being implemented by the
selected agricultural research programs which have called themselves "farming
systems" programs, the more these programs are considered to have applied the new
paradigm.

The operational definitions and measures of the key variables are given below.
The variables were assessed by interviewing the research staff (of the selected FSR

programs) and reviewing (content analysis) available relevant documents.

(1) Systematic Description and Analysis of the Components of the Farm and the
Linkages Among Them:

This variable is defined as the extent to which the description and analysis of

34

farming systems include all of the significant components: plant, animal and human;
relevant items within each of these components; and linkages among these
components.

This variable is measured in this study by: (a) the variety of farming systems
components and linkages described and analyzed by the program staff and considered
in the research process; and (b) inclusion of both consumption patterns and
production data.

(2) Farm Client Partnership with Researchers and Extensionists:

This variable is defined as the extent of participation, involvement and
influence of farming clients (both male and female farmers) in the following aspects
of the FSR process: (i) problem identification; (ii) inclusion of indigenous knowledge;
(iii) technology selection (i.e. deciding on type of technology to be studied); (iv)
execution of the research; and (v) evaluation of the findings.

‘Farm client partnership’ is measured by the extent of participation,
involvement and influence of farmers in each of the above aspects of the FSR
program.

(3) Collaborative Multi-d'mciplinary Research:

This variable is defined as the active involvement of researchers from different
scientific disciplines potentially including: plant science, animal science, social science,
engineering science, home science, environmental science and systems science in the
entire process.

‘Multi-disciplinary research’ is measured by the variety of different scientific

35

disciplines actively represented in the following four stages: (i) deciding which data
would be collected, (ii) collecting data from the field, (iii) data analysis, and (iv)
reports of findings and recommendations.

(4) Environmental and Common Property Integrity:

This variable is defined as concern with the larger near environment of each
farm, including common property resources, and integration of some type of
environmental impact assessment system in the program.

‘Environmental and common property integrity’ is measured by: (a) use of
some type of environmental impact assessment (EIA) as an important decision
criteria for technology evaluation; (b) the extent of the inclusion of EIA in research
documents; (c) the extent to which "environmental protection measures" (e.g.
protection of common property resources) are considered in the research performed;
and (d) the extent to which linkages between farming systems and components of the
near environment are described and analyzed in the research.

(5) Gender Integration:

Gender integration is defined as concern for and active involvement of female
farmers, researchers and extensionists in all aspects of the FSR process.

‘Gender integration’ is measured by: (a) total number and proportion of
female scientists in the FSR organization studied; (b) percentage of female farmers
participating in FSR activities.

(6) Sustainability Considerations:

Sustainability considerations are defined in this study as inclusion of efforts for

36

development, promotion and utilization of ecologically and economically sustainable
inputs and farming practices in order to maintain long-term production at a desired
level and sustain ecological diversity and other important aspects of the eco-system.

‘Sustainability considerations’ are assessed by: (a) the presence of
research/extension efforts for application of indigenous knowledge, practices and
resources/inputs; (b) the presence of such system linkage research/extension activities
as: i) integrated pest management (IPM) system, ii) bio-fertilizers/inoculum, iii) green
manuring, and iv) compost making and use; (c) the presence of such interdisciplinary
research/extension efforts as: i) integrated (e.g. livestock cum crop) farming system,
ii) mixed-cropping system, iii) inter-cropping system, and iv) agro-forestry system; and
(d) considerations of water and fuelwood factors in the system.

Here, it is important to mention that the other five variables described above
are also associated with and represent the "sustainability" concept. Moreover, as can
be found in related literature, this study also recognizes that the sustainability
component is difficult to measure. In this context, indirect measures, most of which
generally represent the considerations of the "biological" aspect of sustainability, are
used in this study. The main reason for including this "sustainability considerations"
variable (in addition to the other five variables) separately in this study is for
estimation of the extent sustainability is considered by the selected FSR programs.
Here, the focus is on assessing whether the researchers are concerned about
sustainability (based on the above indirect indicators), but not on measuring how

sustainable the existing efforts are (in terms of time frame). The latter concern is

37

beyond the scope of this study.

3.3 Selection of Research Sites:
The criteria used for the selection of the research sites included:
(1) availability of programs which are reputed (or named) as FSR, as part of the
agricultural research systems in the country;
(2) accessibility to the author (researcher); and

(3) author’s familiarity with the countries and languages.

3.4 Data Collection Instruments:

This study is based on both primary and secondary data. The case study
approach, which included content analysis of relevant publications and field
observation, was combined with research instruments to generate the data. An
unstructured questionnaire was used to collect data from research personnel and key
informants in the selected FSR programs in each country. Observation of the on-
farm technology development process was also made. Photographs/slides were taken
(e.g. of the existing cropping patterns, farming methods, livestock) in the field.

Data from secondary sources like program manual, annual plans, progress
reports, research proposals, and other relevant documents were collected. A content

analysis was made for the identified key variables.

38
3.5 Data Collection Process:

The data were collected from interviews with research personnel of the
selected organizations, interviews with other personnel, and reports, records, and
other relevant documents.

Sampling of respondents was not done; all FSR staff (both male and female)
who were available during the set period of field study were interviewed. An attempt
was made to interview as many staff as possible. Governed by the standard policy
and procedures set by the University Committee on Research Involving Human
Subjects (UCRIHS), personnel identifiable characteristics such as age, sex, position
of the respondents were not explored in this dissertation research.

All the data in Nepal were collected by the author himself. In the case of
Thailand, the data were collected by the author with the help of a local person
(research assistant) who had good translating skill and interviewing experience. The
local research assistant was provided with an intensive orientation. Interviewing the
related FSR program personnel (e.g. researchers) and key informants was done by
the author with translation assistance as required. Field visits and observations of on-
farm research and farmers’ fields were also made to gather relevant information.

In addition to interviewing the central level research staff of the selected FSR
programs, regional/local site office staff were also interviewed at the Naldung/Kavre
FSR site in Nepal-CFSORD, and the Suphanburi FSR Development Office and the
Khon Kaen FSR Development Office in FSRI, Thailand. Relevant office documents

and reports were also consulted.

39
3.6 Data ' roach:

Both qualitative and quantitative data analyses have been performed.
Descriptive statistics such as percentages, means and frequencies are used.
Descriptive information are also presented qualitatively. Maps and figures have also

been used for illustration and explanation.

IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE CASES

In order to determine the extent of evolution and application of the new
systemic paradigm in agricultural research and extension, as described in Chapter 3,
the empirical part of this research concentrated on the following two FSRE cases
from Nepal and two from Thailand:

Nepal:
(1) Central Farming Systems and Outreach Research Division (CFSORD)

CFSORD is a division of the Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC)
under the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA).

(2) Pakhribas Agricultural Center (PAC)
PAC is funded by the British Government through Overseas Development
Administration (ODA). PAC’s work is increasingly coordinated with the
MOA’s departments, particularly with NARC.

Thailand:
(1) Farming Systems Research Institute (FSRI)

FSRI is a division of the Department of Agriculture (DOA) under the
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC).

(2) Khon Kaen University (KKU)- Farming Systems Research Project (FSRP)

KKU is under the Ministry of University Affairs (MUA). KKU-FSRP has
been basically supported by international organizations/foundations.

Readers should note that these FSR organizations are relatively young. And

40

41

their organizational structures (e.g. name, organizational chart) have been evolving
and changing rapidly over time -- as might have been expected with a new paradigm.

The first section of this chapter presents a general background of FSRE in the
Nepal and in Thailand. The second section describes the above four FSR programs

studied in these countries.

4.1 FSRE in Nepal - General Background:

F SRE approach oriented models of different types have existed in Nepal since
the late 1970s. The Agronomy Division under the Department of Agriculture
initiated the Cropping Systems Program (CSP) in 1977 with support from the USAID
funded Integrated Cereals Project. The basic objective of the program was to
develop technology for the mixed systems of small-scale, resource-poor farmers,
particularly in the agroecologically marginal hill regions. A standardized sequence
of on-farm experiments and socioeconomic monitoring were carried out in six
selected zones by interdisciplinary teams of five to twelve technicians and assistants
(Ewell, 1988).

In 1985, the Farming Systems Research and Development Division (FSRDD)
was formed through reorganization of the CSP. The FSRDD was formed as one of
the divisions of the National Agricultural Research and Services Center (NARSC)
under the Ministry of Agriculture. With the transition from "cropping systems
research" to "farming systems research", research on livestock and agro-forestry

(forestry and horticultural crops) were added. According to FSRDD Report (1987),

42

the main objective of the FSRDD was to help increase farm production and income
by developing a farming system research approach for the welfare of small-scale
resource poor farmers. The Division aimed to meet this objective through the
integration of research being done on the different components of Nepalese farming
systems, e.g. crops, livestock, horticulture and agroforestry.

During the FY 1989/90, the organizational structure of NARSC was modified
as the National Agricultural Research Center (NARC) [this name was again changed
to "Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC) during the FY 1990/91]. The
Outreach Unit of NARC was merged with FSRDD to form the Central Farming

Systems and Outreach Research Division (CFSORD).

4.1.(a) Central Farming Systems and Outreach Research Division (CFSORD):
Since its establishment in 1985, the F SRDD continued and expanded the scope
of the work initiated by the previous systems program. It also continued working at
the following five FSR sites which more or less represent the mid-hills of each of the
five development regions of the country (FSRDD, 1988):
(1) Khandbari Farming Systems Research Site (Sankhuwa Sabha District)
(2) Naldung Farming Systems Research Site (Kavre District)
(3) Pumdi Bhumdi Farming Systems research Site (Kaski District)
(4) Kotjahari Farming Systems Research Site (Rukum District)
(5) Baitadi Farming Systems Research Site (Baitadi District)
According to FSRDD’s Annual Report (1988), during the first two years, 1985-

1986, activities were focussed on developing methodology, known as Samuhik

43

Bhraman for setting research priorities and facilitating cooperative on-farm research.
"Samuhik Bhraman" refers to a multidisciplinary group visit to FSR sites to closely
interact with farmers, define their priorities and then plan and design a future
research program with FSP" (FSRDD, 1988:1).

By FY 1989/90, as an effort to institutionalize the FSR approach, the FSRDD
also started supporting and coordinating the farming systems based outreach program
carried out by the 19m and hill research stations in their command areas.

In 1990, the outreach unit of the NARC was merged into the FSRDD and the
CFSORD was created (see Figure 1 for the organizational structure of CFSORD).
Since then, the CF SORD increasingly focussed toward supporting and coordinating
outreach research programs (ORP) with a farnring systems perspective (FSP)
implemented by research stations in their specified command areas (Panth, 1991).

Work in the five FSR sites as well as support to research stations for their
outreach programs continued even after the structural change of FSRDD to
CFSORD during the FY 1990/91.

The CFSORD’s core staff included: Division Chief, Agronomist, Soil Scientist,
Agricultural Development Officer, Site coordinator and Junior Technician; a few US
Peace Corps volunteers with relevant background (e.g. horticulture, animal science)
were also involved. For example, as reported in CFSORD Annual Report (1991),
during the FY 1990/91, there were total of 20 staff, which included: one Division
Chief, five agronomists, one Soil Scientist, one Agricultural Development Officer, five

site coordinators, five junior technicians (one Site Coordinator and one Junior

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 Nepal Agricultural Research
Council (NARC)
Central Fanning Systems and
Outreach Research Division
(CFSORD)
Khandbari Naldung Pumdi Bhum ' Kotjahari C Baitadi
FSR Site FSR Site FSR Site FSR Site FSR Site
(Sankhuwa Sabha (Kavre District) (Kaski District) (Rukum District) (Baitadi District)
District)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. Organizational Structure of CF SORD.

Source: Derived from general description presented in the report: W
lag/91 ). Central Farming Systems and Outreach Research Division, Nepal
Agricultural Research Council, Khumaltar, Nepal.

45

Technician at each of the five FSR site offices) and two US Peace Corps volunteers
(one Horticulturist at N aldung FSR site and one animal scientist at Khandbari FSR

site).

4.1.(b) Pakhribas Agricultural Center (PAC):

Pakhribas Agricultural Center (PAC), principally funded by the Overseas
Development Administration (ODA) of the British government, and established in
1972 is a multidisciplinary regional agricultural research center for the eastern hills
of Nepal. The Center offers technical expertise in agronomy, horticulture, livestock,
forestry and pasture, veterinary, seed technology, extension research, training, and
socioeconomics. It introduces and develops technologies suitable for local
environments, especially in the eastern hills region. The Center has both on-station
and on-farm research programs, and research with a farming systems perspective is
considerably emphasized. "A farming systems research perspective has been well
established at PAC and the importance being accorded to this concept is seen in the
growing number of interdisciplinary research activities. Nearly all PAC’s sections
have implemented a number of interdisciplinary activities and trials which address the
problem of the major farming systems in the eastern hills in a more holistic way"
(PAC - Annual Report, 1990: 13-14).

As illustrated in Figure 2 below, PAC has a range of specialist sections,
including a Farming Systems and Interdisciplinary Research (FSIR) Section. As
descnhed in the PAC Annual Report (1990/91), these sections combine their

expertise to form interdisciplinary working groups to address priority problem areas

46

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overseas Development
Administration (ODA)
Nepal Agricultural
/ Research Council (NARC)
Pakhribas Agricultural
Center (PAC)
Sections of PAC:
1
Agronomy Horticulture fumiimsimd | Livestock
Forestry and Seed . . Veterinary
Puma Technology I Tm“ I Investigation
[OuueechProgrem ] [Soda-Economics ] Extensionkeseereh lnformetionService
Figure 2. Organizational Structure of PAC.
Source: Derived from general description presented in: final Resmch Work
13er Summm, 1990/ 1991. Pakhribas Agricultural Center, Dhankuta,

Nepal.

47

such as farming systems, low-input alternative technologies, women’s development,
and fodder production in the dry season. The FSIR Section focuses on promoting
collaborative studies between specialist sections in order to develop appropriate
technologies for the eastern hills. The Section also provides technical support to the
Outreach Research Section in implementing multidisciplinary programs. With the
help of an FSR Adviser (expatriate), the Section has also conducted farming systems
studies and systems demonstration activities as well as provided support for various
working groups, including its Farming System Working Group (FSWG).

During FY 1990/91, "the research program at PAC went through a period of
review, consolidation and re-focusing. Research activities were re-oriented to a
revised set of project objectives which more clearly define the role of the Center in
developing technologies for the eastern hills. The revised objectives address the
issues of: (i) equity - ensuring that the needs and problems of disadvantaged groups
and resource-poor farmers are addressed; (ii) sustainable production - that all
technologies developed should be within the resource capacity of the eastern hill
farmers; and (iii) institutional development - strengthening the ability of local
institutions to carry out development activities using PAC generated technologies"
(PAC, 1991:iv). PAC is now integrated into the government’s national research
system. It has a regional mandate to serve as the research and resource center under
the NARC for the eleven hill districts of eastern Nepal, an area of 2.2 million
hectares encompassing more than 252,000 farming households (Chand et. al., in

Shrestha and Shrestha, 1992). PAC’s research command area is shown in Figure 3.

48

"X
\‘
. T \.
\. ‘
II .
l
SOLUKHUMBU ./
/
SANKHUNASABHA TAPLEJUNG l N
_/
~"\
\ letter-1
e‘ l. _ r' s ____ f.‘ '
‘\ ”_‘1 c. Mrs ‘ J
‘ | M I .
s. .'-’ o .\ ‘0 “Mr-rt . ' . 1.3).,“ I, /
“HALD’iUNGA r' """pueel mire-rs. ‘4 -.._ W '. .
M‘m —' KHOTANG BHOJPUR '. .3." as .............
4' s .
.-" unclear "6 - j TERHATHUH W
\ v e DIV-fl . Iletur \,.-
‘ Chum film. w "w" 9|.”th -
0 "" 1......3'“ PANCHTHAR x“
M .
' I 'DHAgKutA l '3“, ”
I':"“"' ' Tw""‘

'. In“!

 
 

m
1. ma-

WMM as — --"-
l .

mm g) o
a momma ®
4. PAC. 5
s. WAN was 0
I. ”WM“ #-

1. “sewerage
cum-rd“ h\\\\\\\

Figure 3. Map Showing PAC’s Research Command Area.

Source: Annual Report: 1990 - 1991. Pakhn’bas Agricultural Center, Dhankuta,
Nepal. July 1991.

49
4.2 FSRE in Thailand - General Backgrormd:

In Thailand, FSR has been conducted for over 20 years. The organizations
actively involved in FSR are the Farming Systems Research Institute (FSRI) of the
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC) and Universities with faculties of
agriculture: Chiang Mai University, Khon Kaen University, Kasetsart University, and
Prince of Songkhla University. With the Ford Foundation support, Chiang Mai and
Khon Kaen Universities started their cropping systems programs in 1969 and 1975
respectively. Chiang Mai University focussed on cropping systems for irrigated areas,
while drier rainfed cropping systems were the emphasis of Khon Kaen University.
In 1976, the Rice Division of the Department of Agriculture (DOA/MOAC) launched
a joint program with Kasetsart University (KU) on rice-based cropping systems with
assistance from International Development Research Council (IDRC) and IRRI.
With support from the French government, Prince of Songkhla University (PSU) also
started a FSR project in 1982. Since 1982, when the DOA was reorganized under
the Thai/World Bank National Agricultural Research Project, FSRI was established

in order to incorporate FSR into the national agricultural research system.

4.2.(a) Farming Systems Research Institute (FSRI):

The Farming Systems Research Institute (FSRI) was established in 1982 as a
result of the reorganization of DOA. "The role of the FSRI is to conduct on-farm
interdisciplinary research, integrating specific discipline-based recommendations into

a whole farm system, and feeding back problems identified on the farm to

50

appropriate commodity research institutes or disciplinary research sections"
(Charoenwatana, 1992). The FSRI also has a unique research role of its own,
particularly in examining specific cropping patterns and integrated farming. The
FSRI activities have been also expanded to include crop-animal integration as well
(Charoenwatana, 1992).

As illustrated in Figure 4, the FSRI has four main sections -- administration,
monitoring and evaluation, training and technical group, and seven regional offices.
Each regional office, known as Farming Systems Development Research Office
(FSDRO) has two main divisions -- Administration and Technical. The
Administration Division consists of three sections: Correspondence Section, Account
Section, and Store and Equipment Section. The Technical Division is composed of
four major research sections, namely, Rainfed Farming Systems Research, Irrigated
Farming Systems Research, Agro-Climatology Research, and Soil and Water
Management Research. The number of staff by specific disciplinary fields4 (e.g.
agronorrrists, soil scientists, economists) varied among the seven FSDROs. A list of
the seven FSDROs (regional offices) is presented below: (Please also see Figures 4
and 5):

(1) Chiang Mai Farming Systems Development Research Office (Upper Northern
Region):

This FSR regional office covers nine provinces: Chiang Mai, Chiang Rai,

Lampang, Lamphun, Maehongson, Phayao, Tak, Nan and Phrae.

 

4 The data regarding the exact number of staff by scientific disciplines at the seven FSDROs were
not readily available during the author’s field visit, and thus not reported here.

51

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Department of
Agnculture (DOA)
Farmin S s
Researgh mu (F SRI)

I 1
Administration -
Section 5%?“

Monitorin & Evaluation - -
5...... 8 tea-‘2'.“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l l I l 1

itsenuloke Su herfiun Prechinburi

‘ C ’ Khon Kaen Ubonrechthani Petthel ‘ urech
FSD FSDRO FS R0 FSDRO FSDRO FSDRO FSDRO ‘ FSDRO

FSDRO = Farming Systems Development Research Office
‘ = Proposed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4. Organizational Structure of FSRI.

Source: Farming Systems Research Institute's Brochure, 1991. FSRI, Bangkok,
Thailand.

Figure 5.

Source:

52

   

  
   
      
   

*
Chiangmai

 
    

Ubonrachthani
Suphanbun

r inbufl

Res.lns

' Map Showing Locations of Farming Systems Development Research

Offices (PSRDOs) in Thailand.

Farming Systems Research Institute’s Brochure, 1991. Bangkok,
Thailand.

53

(2) Phitsanulok Farming Systems Development Research Office (Lower Northern
Region):

This office covers eight provinces: Phitsanulok, Uttaradit, Phichit, Sukhothai,
Phetchabun, Kampaengpet, N akorn Sawan and Uthaithani.
(3) Khon Kaen Farming Systems Development Research Office (Upper Northeastern
Region):

This regional office covers nine provinces: Khon Kaen, Udonthani, Nong Khai,
Loei, Chaiyaphum, Sakon Nakorn, Mahasarakham, Kalasin and Nakorn Phanom.

(4) Ubonratchathani Farming Systems Development Research Office (Lower
Northeastern Region):

This FSR office covers eight provinces: Ubonratchathani, Mukdaharn, Nakorn
Ratchasima, Roi Ed, Surin, Buriram, Srisaket and Yasothorn.
(5) Suphanburi Farming Systems Development Research Office (Central Region):
This FSR regional office covers twelve provinces: Suphanburi, Kanchanaburi,
Phetburi, Samut Sakorn, Samut Songkram, Nakorn Pathom, Ratchburi, Ang Thong,
Singburi, Chainat, Ayuthaya and Nonthaburi.
(6) Prachinburi Farming Systems Development Research Office (Eastern Region):
This office covers eleven provinces: Prachinburi, Lopburi, Saraburi, Nakorn
N ayok, Chachoengsao, Cholburi, Rayong, Chantaburi, Trat, Samut Prakarn and
Pathumthani.
(7) Phattalung Farming Systems Development Research Office (Southern Region):
This regional office covers fifteen provinces: Phattalung, Prachuabkirikhan,

Chumpon, Ranong, Suratthani, Phangnga, Krabi, Phuket, Nakorn Sri Thammarat,

54

Trang, Satun, Songkhla, Pattani, Yala and N arathiwat.

4.2.(b) Khon Kaen University (KKU) - Farming Systems Research Project (FSRP):

Khon Kaen University (KKU) is one of the pioneering institutions in FSR in
Thailand. Work began in 1975 with the initiation of a Ford Foundation supported
Cropping Systems Project (CSP) aiming at developing cropping systems for rainfed
cultivated areas of Northeast Thailand. A multidisciplinary team approach was used,
employing the concepts and methodology of farming systems research as they evolved
(Patanothai, 1985). For example, the project adopted the concepts of human ecology
and agroecosystems analysis to improve cross-disciplinary knowledge of the research
team from a highly specialized to an interdisciplinary perspective.

In 1984, with financial assistance from the USAID, the project was expanded
into a FSR Project; the scope was expanded to include the animal subsystem and
broader participation of researchers from both natural science and social science
disciplines (Charoenwatana, 1992). Later, the activities of the KKU-FSRP included:
conducting both area based and technology based research, studying well established
existing technologies as well as conducting specific studies and training (KKU-FSRP
Report, 1989). As explained by Charoenwatana (1992), KKU has been playing an
important role in spreading the FSR approach in Thailand and in incorporating
additional concepts and methodologies, including human ecology, agroecosystems
analysis, rapid rural appraisal (RRA), and anthropological study of farmers’ practices

into FSR.

55

Since KKU is primarily an education and research institution with no direct
responsibility for area development, the KKU-FSRP usually focuses on generating
appropriate agricultural technologies, FSR methodologies and information to be
utilized by relevant action agencies. According to the KKU-FSRP Report (1989), the
objectives of the KKU-FSRP included:

"(1) To develop and test farming technologies and define the type of farm

systems and environments where the technologies will be suitable and

beneficial.

(2) To derive classificatory information on agroecosystems and farming

systems, their environments, and in terms of the types of problems and

opportunities they have and how they allow or constrain various types of
technological solutions.

(3) To develop and test methodologies for doing (1) and (2) and to put these

in a form that can be used by action agencies and applied in the field.

(4) To promote training and communications with action agencies so that (1)

and (2), and (3) are widely applied in Northeast Thailand and where

appropriate elsewhere in the country" (KKU-FSRP, 1989:1).

The KKU-FSRP utilizes an interdisciplinary team approach involving
researchers from crop, animal, and social science disciplines. More specifically, as
illustrated in Figure 4 above, the project draws research personnel from various
relevant divisions of KKU -- Crop Science, Soil Science, Animal Science, Social

Science, and Econonrics.

56

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Khon Kaen University
(KKU)
FSR Advisory
Board
FSR Budget FSR FSR FSR Project
Administrative Research Project Coordinating
Committee Personnel Committee
Crop Science Soil Science Animal Science Social Science Econonlrics
Division of KKU Division of KKU Division of KKU Division of KKU Division of KKU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6. Organizational Structure of KKU-FSRP.

Source: Derived from general description presented in the report: m f W rk f r
1988 n R r h Pl f rFY 1989. Farming Systems Research Project,
Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.

57
Regarding the organizational structure of the KKU-FSRP, the project has: a

FSR Advisory Board, a Budget Administrative Committee, a Project Coordinating
Committee, and a Research Team/Group (see Figure 6 above).

This chapter is a description of the four FSR cases investigated for this study.
Chapter 5, presents analysis of the four cases in terms of the extent to which these

FSR programs have implemented the six conceptual characteristics of the new

paradigm.

V. ANALYSIS OF THE CASES

This chapter presents analysis of the four FSR cases in terms of the extent to
which they have implemented the following six conceptual characteristics of the new
paradigm:

(i) Systematic description and analysis of the components of the farm and the
linkages among them

(ii) Farm client partnership with researchers and extensionists

(iii) Collaborative multidisciplinary research

(iv) Environmental and common property integrity

(v) Gender integration

(vi) Sustainability considerations

These six conceptual variables were examined in the case studies, with a logic
that the larger the number of these variables which are implemented in the research
programs, the more these programs are likely to have applied the new paradigm.

This chapter is organized with analysis of data and discussion of findings for
each of the six variables of the new paradigm. As stated in Chapter 3, the data for
this part of the study were obtained from the responses of the research staff of the

FSR programs studied; some data were also derived from content analysis of relevant

58

59
published reports.

The respondents were staff members (research staff) of the FSR programs
studied. In general, they were mid-career professionals with BS and MS (few with
Ph. D.) degrees, mostly in agricultural science (e.g. crop, soil, livestock disciplines)
and some in social science (e.g. sociology, economics). Sampling was not done, since
all staff members (research/professional staff) who were available during the course
of field study were interviewed irrespective of their sex, age and years of experience
in the FSR program. The number of FSR staff interviewed were: 9 from CFSORD,

9 from PAC, 10 from FSRI and 9 from KKU-FSRP.

5.1 wwmatic Descripg'on and Anmg of the Components of the Farm and the
Lr_n_kagg' Among Them:

Analysis:

As any systems understanding starts from qualitative enumeration of
components and their interaction (Simmonds, 1985), description and analysis of the
internal and external components of the farm and the linkages among them are
crucial if any research is to be classified as FSR. This research attempted, by
interviewing researchers from the four programs described above, to determine the
extent to which the analyses of farming systems conducted by each of these programs
include all of the significant components (i.e. plant, animal and human) and linkages
among them. In addition, the extent of inclusion of both consumption patterns and
production data by these FSR programs was also assessed.

Responses of individual staff members regarding analysis of these farming

60

systems components and linkages are summarized (using mean value) in Table 1

below (derived from Appendix A—Table 13). Responses of staff members regarding

detailed relevant items (within each farming component and linkages) of their

research are presented in Appendix A-Table 14. Detail sub-item and major category

mean values of responses by county are estimated and presented in Appendix A-

Tables 15 and 16.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1. Responses (Mean Value“) of Individual Staff Members of Four
FSR Organizations to Questions Regarding Components and
Linkages Studied.
(Mean Value)‘
— — —— — =$=flg===
Nepal- Nepal- Thailand— Thailand-
Farmrng Components CFSORD PAC FSRI KKU-FSRP
and (n=9) (n=9) (n=10) (n=9)
Linkages es No Yes No Yes No Yes No
A. Crops 9 - 9 - 8.7 1.3 8 1
B. Livestock 9 - 9 - 8 2 8 -
C. People 4 5 4 5 5.5 4.5 8 1
D. Inputs 6 3 7 2 8 2 8 1 I
E Outputs 7.7 1.3 8 1 8.7 1.3 7.7 1 3
F. Internal Linkages 6.5 2.5 6.5 2.5 7 3 8 1
G. External Linkages 7.5 1.5 8 1 8.5 1.5 9 -
H. Consumption
Patterns and 9 - 9 - 10 - 9 -
Production Data I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ Derived from Appendix A-Table 13, by adding up the response values of all sub-items (e.g.,
grain crops, fruit crops and vegetable crops under the major category of "crops" as listed in
Appendix A-Table 13) under each major category of components and linkages and then
dividing the total value by the number of sub-items.

61

In general, as shown in Table 1 above, all of these components seemed to be
included in the analysis of farming systems in all four FSR programs studied.
However, the extent of inclusion of some components such as crops and livestock in
the analysis was reported to be relatively higher than other components like credit
and people by gender and age (see Appendix A Table 14).

As illustrated in Appendix A-Table 13, all the four FSR programs included
plants/crops -- grain crops, fruit crops and vegetable crops in their analysis of farming
systems. The animal/livestock component was also given relatively high priority by
all four programs studied. The KKU-FSRP case included people -- by gender and
by age -- in the analysis, more frequently than the other three cases. Among the
other three cases, the FSRI case also seemed to have placed relatively more
emphasis on gender analysis than either of the Nepal cases (i.e., CFSORD and PAC).
But in terms of considering analysis of people by age, the FSRI case also appeared
to have low emphasis (see Appendix A-Table 13). All four programs studied have
included consumption patterns and production data in the current farming systems

analysis (see Table 1 above).

Discussion:

It seems apparent that all four FSR programs have placed an increased
emphasis on the systems approach rather than on a single commodity. But the
integration of the human component -- analysis of people by sex and age -- is yet to

be emphasized in FSR programs in Nepal, and in FSR program under DOA in

62
Thailand. Since FSR must include people of both genders (Axinn, 1991a; Castillo,

1992; Poats, 1990), inclusion of the human component in farming systems analysis is
absolutely necessary. Analysis by gender can provide FSR practitioners with a more
accurate picture about the roles of local women and men in farm activities. And such
information could be very useful in framing gender sensitive FSR objectives and
activities in order to appropriately and efficiently reach the total farmer clientele.
Analysis by age can help FSR practitioners in assessing the availability and
composition of existing agricultural labor force as well as in labor force forecasting
for the future. In sum, without describing and analyzing the human component, an
accurate picture of farming systems can not be obtained, and consequently, the

appropriateness and effectiveness of FSR activities will be hampered.

5.2 Farm Client Partnership with Researchers and Extensionists:
Analysis:

Today, there is a general recognition that to be successful and meaningful FSR
must involve farmers in all research activities -- problem diagnosis, technology
selection, research execution and technology evaluation. In this regard, in order to
determine the extent of farm client partnership with researchers‘, the research staff
from the four programs were asked to provide their assessment of the extent of

participation, involvement, and influence of farming clients in each of the following

 

5 The term "researchers" is used in this dissertation to refer to the research staff (i.e., the
individual staff members who are involved in research activities) of the FSR programs studied.

63
aspects of the FSR process:

a) Problem identification

b) Inclusion of indigenous knowledge

c) Technology selection (deciding on type of technology to be studied)

d) Execution of the research

e) Evaluation of the findings

For this research purpose, farmers’ m was defined as participation
of farmers through attending local/regional meetings, or observing the events and
activities organized by the FSR staff without contributing significant input. Farmers’
involvement was defined as involvement of farmers in events and thus, providing
appropriate inputs in the decision making process, or by assuming significant
responsibilities in relevant activities. And farmers’ influence was defined as influence
of farmers on the final decisions in activities related to problem identification,
technology selection and generation, and technology evaluation.

Table 2 below (derived from Appendix B-Tables 16, 17, 18 and 19) presents
a mean value for participation, involvement and influence of farmers in each of the
four research programs based on researchers’ response. As shown in Table 2,
farmers’ participation was reported to be relatively high in all four cases studied. But
their actual involvement tends to be less. And the score for farmers’ influence in
final decisions relevant to the given activities appeared even lower than the scores
given for their involvement in all four cases studied. In other words, the general

trend is in decreasing order from participation, to involvement, to influence (see

64

Table 2 below). Countrywise estimation (of researchers’ responses) and
interpretation of results also follow the same trend (see Appendix B-Table 20).

In addition, the research staff were also asked to provide their assessment of
extension workers’ participation, involvement and influence in the entire process of
technology selection, research execution and evaluation. In this regard, the author

learned that none of the four organizations had their own extension unit; extension

Table 2. The Extent of Participation, Involvement and Influence of Farm
Client with Researchers, from Researchers’ Point of View:

1=VeryLow; 2=Low; 3=High; 4=VeryHigh

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
  

 

P = Participation; Inv = Involvement; Inf = Influence (Mean Value)‘
Nepal- Nepal- Thailand- 'Ilmfland—
Activity CFSORD PAC FSRI KKU-FSRP
(n=9) (n=9) (n=10) (n=9)
P Inv Inf P Inv Inf P Inv Inf P Inv Inf
a) Problem
Identification 3.4 3.1 2.2 3.3 2.7 2.3 3.0 2.7 21 3.7 3.2 24
b) Inclusion of
Indigenous 3.4 28 2.3 3.1 2.3 2.1 2.9 2.7 2.4 3.7 3.2 2.7
lKnowledge
c) Technology
Selection
(Bedding on 3.2 27 2.3 2.8 2.3 2.1 2.5 2.5 2.2 3.2 2.7 2.2
Type of
Technology to
be Studied)
d) Execution of
the Research 3.6 3.6 2.8 33 3.0 2.2 2.7 2.5 2.3 3.4 2.7 2.0
e) Evaluation of
the Findin 28 2.8 2.2 2.9 2.8 2.9 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.7 3.2 2.4
p ——=&==—d—=

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

‘ Derived from Appendix B-Tables l6 (CFSORD Case), 17 (PAC Case), 18 (FSRI Case), and 19 (KKU-FSRP
Case) by multiplying the number of responses for each item with the originally assigned/selected (by respondent)
corresponding value of preference (i.e., 1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = high and 4 = very high) and then dividing the
obtained value by the number of respondents in each case.

65

service is generally provided through a separate extension division under DOA. In

this context, the FSR research staff were asked to provide their assessment of the

participation, involvement and influence of the extension staff of the DOA-Extension

Table 3.

The Extent of Participation, Involvement, and Influence of
Extension Workers in Technology Development and Evaluation
from Researchers’ Point of View:

1=VeryLow; 2=Low; 3=High; 4=VeryHigh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P = Participation; Inv = Involvement; Inf = Influence (Mean Value)‘
Nepal- Nepal- 'Ihailand” -
Activity CFSORD PAC FSRI
(n=9) (n=9) (n=7r“
P Inv Inf P Inv Inf P Inv Inf
a) Problem Identification 2.6 2.3 2.1 2.7 2.1 1.9 3.3 3.0 2.4
b) Inclusion of Indigenous
Knowledge 2.7 2.3 2.1 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.9 2.9 2.6
c) Technology Selection
(Deciding on Type of 2.2 2.2 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.9 2.9 2.3
Technology to be Studied)
d) Execution of the 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.3 1.9 1.9 2.9 2.9 2.4
Research [I
I e) Evaluation of the Findings 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.2 1.9 1.7 3.3 3.1 2.4 "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ Derived from Appendix C-Tables 21 (CFSORD case), 22 (PAC case), and 23 (FSRI case),
by multiplying the number of responses for each item with the originally assigned/selected (by
respondent) corresponding value of preference (i.e., 1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = high and 4
=very high) and then dividing the obtained value by the number of respondents in each case.

“ The staff members of KKU-FSRP interviewed felt that this item/question was not
applicable to them (and thus KKU-FSRP case is not reported in this table) because there was
no extension unit under KKU-FSRP. Moreover, the staff members also felt that they do not
have adequate experience of working with the extension workers of the DOA, MOA in order
to comment on their performance as asked in this study.

“‘ Three of the FSRI staff interviewed did not response to this particular question.

66

Division. Participation, involvement and influence of extension workers

were also defined similarly to the farmers’ case above. Responses of the FSR
research staff are presented in Table 3 below (derived from Appendix C-Tables 21,
22 and 23).

As illustrated by the mean value(s) of the research staffs’ responses to
questions in Table 3 below, the influence of extension workers in various activities
during the technology selection and development process was found to be relatively
lower than their involvement and participation in all four cases studied. As in
farmers’ case above, the general trend here is also in a decreasing order -- from
participation to involvement to influence. In other words, the level of extensionists’
actual involvement was considered to be lower than their participation . And the
level of their influence in the given activities was reported to be even less -- lower
than their involvement. Basically, countrywise estimation (of researchers’ responses)
and interpretation of results also follow the same trend (see Appendix C-Table 24).

In conclusion, the low scores for ‘influence’ in both farmers’ and extension
workers’ cases may imply that the researchers (i.e., the research staff of the FSR
programs) still dominate in deciding the type of technology to be generated as well

as the research process to be employed for technology generation.

D'ncusm’on:
These findings imply that although researchers have a general tendency to

inform farmers and extension workers and secure their participation in research

67

activities and process, final decisions about selection, generation and evaluation of
technologies are made by the researchers. However, the limited involvement and
influence of extension workers may perhaps be due to the lack of proper
coordination mechanisms, as extension personnel were not part of the FSR
organizations but personnel of a separate organization -- the Extension Division
under DOA.

It seems that a change in the attitudes of researchers as to the potential value
and relevancy of farmers’ contributions is needed. Because "many NARS scientists .....
have difficulty acceding to local farmers’ views" (Baker, 1991:128). Chambers
(1989) suggests that certain types of behavioral dispositions are required to put
farmers first or to build real partnerships with farmers. Consistent with systems
ideals, researchers need to realize that new technologies that have both relevance to
local farming needs and sustainability can only be developed by involving farmer
clientele as full partners in the entire research process.

Also, a change in the attitude of researchers as to the potential value and
relevancy of extension workers’ contrlbutions is needed. "The staff of research
institutions tend to think of themselves as superior to extension people, and are not
noted for treating extensionists as professional partners" (Axinn, 1991a:76). The
value of having extension workers who know the local clientele participate could be
stressed and research scientists could learn to accept them as partners instead of

feeling superior to them (and farmers).

68

5.3 Collaborative Multi-D_rsc_rplrpary’ ' ' Research:
Analys'u:

As mentioned in Chapter 3, "collaborative multidisciplinary research" was
defined in this study as: active involvement of researchers from different scientific
disciplines potentially including: plant science, animal science, social science,
engineering science, home science, environmental science and systems science in the
entire process. This component was measured by the number or variety of different
scientific disciplines actively represented in the following four stages: (i) in deciding
which data would be gathered, (ii) collecting data from the field, (iii) data analysis,
and (iv) reports of findings and recommendations.

As presented in Appendix D-Table 25, multidisciplinary teams were involved
in the first two phases (deciding what data to gather as well as during actual data
gathering) in both Nepal cases, i.e. CFSORD and PAC. Both these cases utilized
Samuhik Bhraman (group trek) in collecting data. The Samuhik Bhraman team in
CFSORD case included representatives from the following disciplinary fields:
agronomy, horticulture, soil science, plant pathology, entomology, animal science,
social science, extension and economics. During the first and second stages, PAC
basically included representatives from its major sections including: Agronomy,
Horticulture, Forestry and Pasture, Livestock, Socioeconomics, Veterinary, Seed
Technology and Outreach Research.

In both Thai cases also, multidisciplinary teams were involved in the first two

stages (see Appendix D- Table 26). The major disciplines represented in the case

69

of KKU - FSRP team were: crop science, soil science, social science, economics, plant
protection, animal science and agro-climatology. In case of FSRI, the disciplines
represented were: crop science, animal science, soil science, social science, plant
protection, extension, economics and climatology/environmental science.

In all four cases, the research staff interviewed indicated that the number of
scientific disciplines included tended to be less in the third and fourth stages (data
analysis, and reports of findings and recommendations) than the previous two stages
(deciding on type of data and data gathering). (See Appendix D-Tables 25 and 26).
During the third and fourth stages, domination of agro-biological science was obvious.
And social science input during these phases tended to be less. This was also
confirmed from the content analysis of the relevant published reports.

It was also noted that there was no involvement of systems science, home
science or engineering science in all four cases. Both Nepal cases also did not have
representatives from environmental science. Although both Thai cases included
environmental science during the first two phases, there was no representation of this
discipline during the third and fourth stages. (See Appendix D-Tables 25 and 26).
Discussion:

The above findings suggest that while there was a multidisciplinary focus
during initial stages, the focus tended to become more specialized in later stages.
The social science input (as reflected in the reports of findings and recommendations)
is typically weak. In general, FSR efforts are dominated by agro-biological science.

This indicates a lack of appropriate linkages between disciplines. As systems

70

scientists were not involved in the FSR team this resulted in lack of adequate work
on syntheses of farming systems interactions and systems modeling. The absence of
environmental scientists in the FSR teams in Nepal, and the lack of representation
of environmental science beyond the initial stages in Thailand might be one of the
reasons for the lack of formal environmental impact assessment, and low integration
of environmental and common property resources in the current FSR programs in
both countries.

As all four FSR programs also utilized inter-departmental staff (e.g.
extensionists from the Department of Extension), the issues of extra work load and
financial reward which impact on the effectiveness of the multidisciplinary team may
seem apparent. Appropriate institutional mechanisms and reward systems are
needed to develop and maintain effective linkages between the various disciplines.

Disciplinary scientists must also be trained to interact with one another on a team.

5.4 Environmental and Common Prom Integrm" .

As discussed in Chapter 3, "environmental and common property integrity" was
defined for the purpose of this study as: concern with the larger near environment
of each farm, including common property resources, and integration of some type of
environmental impact assessment (EIA) system in the FSR program. And this
variable was measured by: (a) presence of technology selection system, and on farm
technology trials; (b) use of some type of EIA as an important decision criteria for

technology evaluation; (c) the extent of the inclusion of EIA in research documents;

71

(d) the extent to which "environment protection measures" (e.g. protection of
common property resources) are considered in the research performed; and (e) the
extent to which linkages between farming systems and components of the near
environment are described and analyzed in the research.

As illustrated in Appendix E- Table 27, all the organizations studied in both
the countries had a technology evaluation system, and conducted on-farm technology
trials as well.

Regarding the use of some form of EIA as decision criteria for technology
selection, none of the four FSR programs studied utilized such criteria. Although the
BIA concept has been admired and considered informally by the farming systems
researchers in both countries, none of the four program studied have utilized EIA as
a direct decision criteria for technology evaluation. As illustrated in Table 4 below,
the extent of the inclusion of EIA in research documents was found to be low in all
cases. However, among the four cases, the KKU-FSRP staff more than the others,
seemed to feel they had included EIA in research documents.

Table 4. Responses of Individual Staff Members Regarding the Extent

of the Inclusion of EIA in Research Documents:

1=VeryLow 2=Low 3=High 4=VeryHigh

 

Nepal— Nepal— Thailand- Thailand-
CFSORD PAC FSRI KKU-FSRP
(n=9) (n=9) (n=10) (n=9)
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 l 2 3 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

72

As presented in Appendix E—Tables 28 and 29, the most important criteria
used to compare alternative technology in all four cases was "high yield". Other
criteria considered by the researchers included: suitability of technology in the local
farming systems and socioeconomic conditions; short duration and compatibility with
the existing cropping system; low input requirement, high post harvest grain quality
and good taste; and market price and marketability. EIA as such was not a major
criterion, but the protection of natural environment was emphasized in all cases
through reduced use of chemical inputs, and through increased use of local (non-
chemical) inputs and conservation oriented improved practices (see Appendix E-
Tables 28 and 29).

Regarding the extent to which environmental protection measures (e.g.
common property resources) are considered in the research performed under the
FSR program, all the four organizations reported to have low performance (see
Table 5 below). However, as reported in Appendix E-Table 29, some relevant work,
such as assessment of land quality (assessment of damage to the quality of soil), soil
erosion control and correction of salinity problems were performed in Northeast
Thailand by KKU-FSRP. PAC livestock unit has monitored the overgrazing problem
in natural pasture lands. According to some researchers at FSRI, the environmental
component is still difficult to incorporate into research projects due to current policy
as well as budget constraints.

Furthermore, as shown in Table'6 below, the extent to which linkages between

the farming system and components of the near environment are both described and

73

 

 

Table 5. The Extent to which "Environmental Protection Measures" (e.g.,
Common Property Resources) are Considered in the Research
Performed Under the FSR programs:
1=VeryLow 2=Low 3=High 4=VeryHigh
Nepal- Nepal- Thailand- Thailand-
CFSORD PAC FSRI KKU-FSRP
(n=9) (n=9) (n=10) (n=9)
1 2 3 4 l 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1 8 - - 2 6 1 - 4 6 - - l 5 3 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

analyzed in the research appeared to be low in both Nepal cases. Although the FSRI

case also did not put significant emphasis on this aspect, it seemed to have relatively

better consideration of it than either of the Nepal cases. The KKU-FSRP reported

relatively high consideration of the linkage between farms and their near environment

(see Table 6 below).

 

 

 

Table 6. An Assessment on the Extent to Which Linkages Between
Farming System and Components of the Near Environment are
Described and Analyzed in the Research:
1=VeryLow 2=Low 3=High 4=VeryHigh
Nepal- Nepal- Thailand— Thailand-
(FSORD PAC FSRI KKU-FSRP
(n=9) (n=9) (n=10) (n=9)
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 l 2 3 4 l 2 3 4
1 5 4 - - 4 4 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Generally, as portrayed by Tables 4, 5 and 6 above, the (current) focus of FSR

74

programs on "environmental and common property integrity" seems to be relatively
low. However, as illustrated in Table 7, all the researchers interviewed in both
countries indicated that the trend towards environmental awareness and consideration

is increasing (but with a slow pace) during the last 2 - 3 years.

Table 7. A General Assessment on the Trend Towards Environmental
Awareness and Consideration During the Last 2 - 3 Years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 = Trend in a 2 = About the 3 = An Increasing 4 = An Increasing
Decreasing Same Trend but at 3 Trend at a
Order Trend Slow Pace Rapid Pace

Nepal— Nepal- Thailand— Thailand-
CFSORD PAC FSRI KKU-FSRP
(n=9) (n=9) (n=10) (n=9)
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 l 2 3 4
- - 9 - - - 9 - - - 10 - - - 9 -
Discmsion:

It seems that the philosophy of integrating environmental and common
property resources into FSR is generally greeted with enthusiasm but in practice
there is a lack of appropriate strategies and institutional mechanisms to accomplish
such integration.

As the concern for sustainability in agricultural systems increasingly demands
both rational use of common property resources and environmental protection, the
use of an environmental impact assessment (EIA) as criterion for technology

selection, and the consideration of environmental protection measures in FSR seems

75

crucial. The lack of EIA and the low consideration of environmental protection
measures in FSR in the present context, clearly indicate that work on integrating
environmental components is still at an early stage. There is a crucial need and
significant opportunity for an active involvement of environmental scientists in the
entire FSR process.

Simplistic use of physical yield criterion for technology evaluation is inadequate
as it fails to take account of the environmental component, and often ignores
sustainability issues. More appropriate evaluative criteria involving considerations of
environmental and common property resources are needed for research and

extension activities.

5.5 Gender Integgtion:
Analysis:

"Gender integration" is defined here as the concern for and thus active
involvement of female farmers, researchers and extensionists in all aspects of the
agricultural research/extension process. This component was measured by: (a) total
number and proportion of female scientists in the FSR organizations studied; and (b)
percentage of female farmers participating in FSR activities and process.

As also reported in 5.3 above, the author learned that none of the four FSR
organizations studied had their own extension unit. Thus, the question regarding the
number of female extension workers did not apply in any of the cases.

As portrayed in Table 8 below, the number and percentage of female research

76
scientists were reported to be 0 (0%) in CFSORD, 5 (8%) in PAC, 2 (22%) in FSRI,

and 19 (33%) in KKU-FSRP.

Table 8. Total Number and Percentage of Female Research Scientists in
the FSR Organization Studied:

 

 

F = Female M = Male T = Total
(Number and Percentage) (Number and Percentage) Number
Nepal- Ncpal— 1mm- “runne-
CFSORD PAC FSRI KKU-FSRP
F M T F M T F M T F M T
Research-
Scientists o 20 20' 5 60 65" 2 7 9c 19 38 57"
0% rows 8% 92% m 78% 33% 67%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a = Data for the FY 1990 - 1991 (including the five FSR sites).
(Source: CFSORD - Annual Report for the FY 1990/91).

b = Data for the FY 1990 - 1991.
(Source: PAC - Annual Report for the FY 1990/91).

c = Data for the FY 1991 - 1992 (for FSRI central office only).
(Source: Interview with the Director of FSRI).

d = Data for the FY 1988 - 1989.
(Source: KKU-FSRP’s Report, 1989).

Regarding the percentage of female farmers included in the research process
and activities (e.g. on-farm research), it was reported to be 11% in CFSORD, 19 %
in PAC, 17.5 % in FSRI, and 13 % in KKU-FSRP (see Table 9 below). Considering
the fact (as demonstrated in several references) that women in both Nepal and
Thailand have the major responsibility for most areas of agricultural production, these
data seem to indicate a low integration of the gender component in all four FSR

programs studied.

77

 

 

Table 9. Responses of FSR Staff Regarding Percentage of Female
Farmers Included in the Research Activities (e.g. On-Farm
Research):
F = Female M = Male (Percentage)
Nepal- Nepal- Thailand- Thailand-
CFSORD PAC FSRI KKU-FSRP
(n=9) (n=9) (n=10) (n=9)
F M F M F M F M
Farmers 11 % 89 % 19 % 81 % 17.5 % 83.5 % 30 % 70 %

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTE: The percentage figures presented in the table reflect the average value of the total
scores for each case, which was estimated by: (i) adding all the responses (percentages) for
each case (e.g., 9 responses for CFSORD); and then (ii) by dividing the total score (obtained
value) by the number of respondents (e.g. n = 9 in case CFSORD).

However, as illustrated in Table 10 below, all the researchers interviewed in
both countries indicated that the trend towards gender integration in the agricultural

research process has increased (but at a slow pace) during the last 2 to 3 years.

 

Table 10. A General Assessment On the Trend Towards Gender
Integration in Agricultural Research Process During the Last 2 -
3 Years.

1 = Trend in a 2 = About the 3 = An Increasing 4 = An Increasing
Decreasing Same Trend but at Trend at a
Order Trend a Slow Pace Rapid Pace

Nepal- Ncpal- Thailand- Thailand-
CFSORD PAC FSRI KKU-FSRP
(n=9) (n=9) (n=10) (n=9)
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 l 2 3 4 l 2 3 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

78
Discussion:

These findings may imply that there is still passive resistance to gender
integration in FSR programs. But as more than 50 percent of the rural farming
population are women and the majority of farming activities are performed by women
(see literature review in Chapter 2), the relevancy for gender integration into FSR
seems absolutely necessary. The absence or low number and proportion of female
scientists in FSR programs may raise concerns over the effectiveness of FSRE (as
also indicated by Poats, 1990) in reaching the total farmer clientele and the efficient
use of available human resources. Also the indigenous lmowledge of women farmers
(especially related to sustainability, e.g. IPM) could strengthen systems research.

Recognition of and attention to gender issues by FSR managers will need to
increase in order to appropriately and efficiently reach the total farmer clientele.
Without involving women as collaborating farmers and without using gender as an
important analytical variable in on-farm technology development, systems ideals and

underlying objectives of FSRE will remain incomplete.

5.6 Sustainabm Considerations:
Analysis:

As mentioned in Chapter 3, "sustainability considerations" are defined in this
study as the inclusion of research/extension efforts in FSR programs for development,
promotion and utilization of ecologically and economically sustainable inputs and

farming practices in order to maintain long-term production at a desired level and

79

sustain ecological diversity and other important aspects of the coo-system. This
component was assessed by:

(a) presence of research/extension efforts for application of indigenous

knowledge, practices and resources/inputs;

(b) presence of such system linkage research/extension activities as: i)

integrated pest management (IPM) system, ii) bio-fertilizers/inoculum, iii)

green manuring, and iv) compost making and use;

(c) presence of such interdisciplinary research/extension efforts as: i)

integrated (e.g. livestock cum crop) farming system, ii) mixed-cropping system,

iii) inter-cropping system, and iv) agro-forestry system; and

(d) considerations of water and fuelwood factors in the system.

Readers should note that the above are indirect measures, most of which
generally represent the considerations of the "biological" aspect of sustainability. As
indicated in 3.1 (Chapter 3), these indirect measures are employed in this study
because: firstly, growing numbers of literature suggest that the sustainability concept
is difficult to measure directly. Secondly, although the other five variables and their
measures included in this study are also associated with the sustainability concept,
these measures (a - d above) can provide an estimation of the extent of
considerations of the biological aspect of sustainability by the FSR programs.

As portrayed in Table 11 below, all four FSR programs studied seemed to
have considered all of the above activities. However, the extent to which these

activities are operationalized varies. For example, consideration of water and

80

fuelwood factors in the system appeared to be relatively low in all four cases.
Relatively low focus on green manuring activities was also noticed in all programs,
except in the case of CFSORD. In all four cases, very high priority was given to
research/extension efforts to use indigenous knowledge, practices and resources. In
all cases, relatively high priority was also given to include interdisciplinary research
efforts, such as mixed-cropping, inter-cropping and integrated (e.g. livestock cum
crop) farming. The use of bio-inoculum and compost were also emphasized in all
cases. The agro-forestry systems were also considered important in all four cases,
and more importantly in Nepal cases. IPM system was also present in all four cases,
but comparatively low emphasis was given to IPM by PAC. However, PAC has

initiated some work on the use of local herbal insecticides. (See Table 11, below).

81

Table 11. Presence of Sustainability-Oriented Practices Under FSR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Programs:
Presence of Efl'orts/ Nepal- Nepal- Thailand— Thailand- ll
Activities CFSORD PAC FSRI KKU-FSRP
(n=9) (n=9) (n=10) (n=9)
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
1. Presence of
research/extension efforts
for application of 9 - 9 - 10 - 9 -
indigenous knowledge,
practices, resources/inputs
2. Presence of such
systems linkage
research/extension
activities as:
a) Integrated pest 7 2 5 4 8 2 7 2
management system;
b) Bio-inoculum 8 1 8 1 10 - 9 - I
c) Green manuring; 7 2 5 4 5 5 5 4
d) Compost making & use 9 - 9 - 7 3 9 -
e) Others: Use of local
herbal insecticides - - 6 3 - - - -
3. Presence of such
interdisciplinary research]
extension efforts as: "
a) Integrated (e.g. 9 - 9 - 9 1 9 -
livestock cum crop)
farming system;
b) Mixed-cropping system; 9 - 9 - 10 - 9 -
c) Inter-cropping system; 9 - 9 - 10 - 8 14“
d) Agro-forestry system 9 - 9 - 7 3 7 2
4. Considerations of water
and fuelwood factors in 3‘ 6 3’ 6 2‘ 8 4‘ 5
I! the system

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“ N o specific/direct focus, but some indirect consideration only.

82
Discussion:

The current focus of FSR programs towards: (i) developing, promoting and
utilizing indigenous knowledge, inputs and farming practices, (ii) interdisciplinary
research/extension activities such as integrated farming, mixed-cropping, inter-
cropping, agro-forestry system, and (iii) systems linkage research/extension activities,
such as IPM, bio-inoculum, composting, green manuring is certainly encouraging.
Because such activities and practices are known to have implications for both
improving productivity and sustainablity of farming systems they are often recognized
as very useful for encouraging agroecosystems and enhancing the quality of
environment.

However, the low or absence of considerations of water and fuelwood factors
in FSR indicate that awareness of the need and value of these factors in the system
is still to be recognized among FSR practitioners. As the water and fuelwood factors
are not only closely associated with the sustainability aspect, but also have
implications for women’s work loads in developing countries, integration of these

factors into FSR is crucial.

VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS

The objective of this chapter is to summarize the four cases in order to
estimate the emergence of the "new" systemic paradigm in agricultural research and
extension in Nepal and in Thailand. The conclusions are based on the extent to
which the six conceptual characteristics -- defining variables of the new paradigm are
included/implemented by the FSR programs studied in the two countries.

The chapter is organized with a summary of findings and conclusion for each
of the six defining variables of the new paradigm. Then a general conclusion is
presented. Limitations of this study are discussed at the end of the chapter.

(1) Systematic Descriptions and Analysis ofthe Components ofthe Farm and the
Linkages Among Them:
Summary of Findings:

The analysis of farming systems in all four cases studied included several
farming components -- crops (grains, fruits and vegetables), livestock, the human (age
and sex), inputs and outputs as well as linkages among these components (internal
and external linkages). However, the extent of inclusion of the human component,
i.e. analysis of people by age and sex appeared to be relatively low in all cases except

the KKU-FSRP case. All four programs studied included consumption patterns and

83

84

production data in their current farming systems analysis.
Conclusion:

Based on the assessment of these findings, one can conclude that all four cases
have partially included the variable -- systemic descriptions and analysis of the

components of the farm and the linkages among them -- as defined in this study.

(2) Farm Client Partnership with Researchers and Extensionists:
Summary of Findings:

Regarding the ‘farm client partnership’ which was defined as participation,
involvement and influence of farmers in research activities -- problem diagnosis,
technology selection, research execution and evaluation -- the involvement and
influence remained low in all four cases studied. The involvement and influence of
extension workers (from the Extension Division of DOA) was also reported to be low
in all four cases. Participation of farmers by attendance in the local agricultural
meetings and activities organized by the FSR program staff was considered to be
relatively high in all cases.

Conclusion:

The actual situations found in all four cases do not seem to fit with the ideal
definition of the variable -- farm client partnership with researchers and extensionists
-- as defined and conceptualized in this study. However, considering the relatively
high participation of farmers in relevant meetings and activities organized by the FSR
program staff, one may say that the actual situations slightly fit the conceptual

description of this variable.

85
(3) Collaborative Mimi-disciplinary Research:
Summary of Findings:

The extent of application of "collaborative multidisciplinary research" system
in the FSR programs was measured by the variety of different scientific disciplines
actively represented in the following four stages: (i) deciding which data would be
collected, (ii) collecting data from the field, (iii) data analysis, and (iv) reports of
findings and recommendations. In all four cases, the major disciplines represented
in the first two stages (deciding what types of data to gather and in collecting data
from the field) included: plant/crop science, animal science, social science and
economics. The FSRI and KKU-FSRP also included representatives from
environmental science, but neither of the Nepal cases included this discipline. In all
four cases, neither system science nor engineering science nor home science were
represented in the team. In general, the research teams seemed to be dominated by
agro-biological scientists.

In all four cases studied, the number of scientific disciplines represented
tended to be less in the third and fourth stages (data analysis, and reports of findings
and recommendations). This is also confirmed from the content analysis of the
relevant published reports. Although the social science discipline is represented
during the third and fourth stages, the extent of analyses, findings and
recommendations related to this discipline is relatively low in most cases. Similar
observation is made about the representation of animal science disciplines in both

Thai cases.

86
Conclusion:
Based on the assessment of the above findings, it is concluded that the actual
situations found in all four FSR programs partially fit the conceptual definition of the

variable -- collaborative multidisciplinary research -- as defined in this study.

(4) Environmental and Common Property Integrity:
Summary of Finding:

No significant emphasis regarding the environmental and common property
integrity was given by the FSR programs studied. The most important criterion used
to compare alternative technology in all four programs was ‘high yield’. Additionally,
although the concept of environmental impact assessment (EIA) has been admired
and considered informally in all four programs, EIA has not been utilized as an
important formal decision criterion for any finding or recommendation in any of
them. Environmental protection measures were not considered in the research
performed. Furthermore, the extent to which linkages between the farming system
and components of the near environment are described and analyzed in the research
also appeared to be low in all cases, except in KKU-FSRP.

However, an increasing trend (but at a slow pace) towards environmental
awareness and considerations during the last 2-3 years was reported in all cases. A
general emphasis on protection of natural environment through reduced use of
chemical inputs, and through increased use of local (non-chemical) inputs and

conservation oriented improved practices was noted in all cases.

87
Conclusion:

On the basis of these findings, one can infer that these FSR programs are not
integrating environmental and common property components into their research and
extension systems. However, the existing attempts to intensify nonchemical-local
inputs and to reduce the use of extemal-chemical inputs by the FSR programs in
both countries may indicate a general concern towards protecting the natural

environment as well as a concern for limited resource farmers.

(5) Gender Integration:
Summary of Finding:

The number and percentage of female scientists in all four organizations
appeared to be extremely low. There were no female scientists in CFSORD. Among
the four cases, the KKU-FSRP had the highest number (19) and percentage (33%)
of female scientists. The proportion of female farmers included in the research
activities also appeared to be low (less than 20%) in all four cases studied.
Conclusion:

Based on the above findings, the actual situations of all four cases studied do
not fit the ideal definition of the variable -- gender integration-- as operationalized

in this study.

(6) Sustainability Considerations:

Summary of Finding:

Sustainability considerations were assessed by using "indirect indicators such

88

as: (a) the presence of research/extension efforts for application of indigenous
knowledge, practices and resources/inputs; (b) the presence of such system linkage
research/extension activities as: i) integrated pest management (IPM) system, ii) bio-
inoculum, iii) green manuring, and iv) compost making and use; (c) the presence of
such interdisciplinary research/extension efforts as: i) integrated (e.g. livestock cum
crop) farming system, ii) mixed-cropping system, iii) inter-cropping system, and iv)
agro-forestry system; and (d) considerations of water and fuelwood factors in the
system under the FSR programs studied. In this regard, all four programs were
reported to have considered all these efforts and activities to lesser or greater degree.
Among these efforts, staff of all four programs reported placing a high emphasis on
research/extension efforts for application of indigenous knowledge, practices and
inputs as well as on interdisciplinary research/extension efforts. And systems linkage
research/extension activities were also considered in all four programs. But
consideration of water and fuelwood factors in the system appeared to be relatively
low in all four cases.
Conclusion:

Based on these findings, it seems apparent that the actual situations in all four
cases only partially fit the ideal definition of the variable-sustainability considerations

«as operationalized in this study.

89
General Conclusion:

Overall, one can conclude that all four FSR programs partially fit the ideal
model of the new systemic paradigm conceptualized in this study, but none of them
totally fit the model. Table 12 below presents a summary regarding the degree of fit
of the four FSR programs in terms of the ideal model. The actual situations in all
four FSR programs seemed to have partial fit with the conceptual definitions (used
in this study) of the following four variables: (i) systematic description and analysis
of the components of the farm and the linkages among them; (ii) farm client
partnership with researchers and extensionists; (iii) collaborative multidisciplinary
research; (iv) sustainability considerations. The actual situations in all the four FSR
programs did not seem to fit the conceptual definitions of the two variables --
environmental and common property integrity and gender integration.

These findings suggest that the new systemic paradigm in agricultural research
and extension is struggling to emerge. It is unfolding gradually.

However, the six conceptual dimensions of the new paradigm identified in this
study seem to be workable dimensions of the paradigm. Thus, replication of the
empirical testing of all the six dimensions is recommended in other regions of the

world.

90

Table 12. The Degree of Fit of the Four FSR Programs in Terms of the
Ideal model of the new systemic Paradigm:

 

 

NF = No Fit PF = Partial Fit TF = Total Fit
Key Variables of the Nepal. Nepal. nmnr. Thaiand-
New Systemic crisoru) PAC FSRI KKU-FSRP
Wen

NFPFTFNFPFTFNFPFTFNFPFTF

 

(1) Systematic
description and
analysis of the X X X X
components of the [j
farm and the linkages
among them.

 

(2) Farm client
partnership with X X X X
researchers and
extensionists.

 

(3) Collaborative i
mum-disciplinary X X X X
research.

 

(4) Environmental and
Common Property X X X X

Integrity.

(5) Gender X X X X
Integration.

 

 

(6) Sustainability X X X X
considerations.
H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Limitations of the Study:

While the conceptualization of a new paradigm for agricultural research and
extension and the empirical testing of that conceptualization in this dissertation could
provide useful insights for understanding the essence and practical implications of a
systems approach for agricultural development, several limitations of this study can
be noted:

(1) Due to time and financial constraints, this study concentrated in only two

91

countries in Asia. A broader comparative study involving several countries from
different continents (e.g. Africa, Latin America, Europe, North America) would have
been more useful in the present context of development and application of the
systemic paradigm.

(2) It seems important to explore both researchers’ (FSR staff) and farming clients’
perspectives on the implementation of the new paradigm. But due to time
constraints, this research concentrated only on FSR staff. Farmers’ perspectives were
not studied.

(3) There rrright be a relationship between the age, sex, position, number of years in
service or academic background of respondents and their responses to survey
questions. But this study did not explore the personal characteristics of the
respondents.

(4) This study is only an early attempt in conceptualization and empirical testing of
the various dimensions of the new paradigm. More studies may be needed to further

refine this conceptualization.

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter is divided into two sections. The first section presents
recommendations for policy implications. The second section includes

recommendations for future research.

7.1 Recommendations for Polig Implications:

If FSR policy makers, administrators and managers would like to implement
FSR programs which fit the conceptualization used in this study, then based on the
findings as well as observation and personal impression of the author, the following
recommendations are made. Readers should note that implementation of these
recommendations may require certain organizational and administrative changes in
the current FSR organizations/programs.
(1) More emphasis and effort needs to be directed toward systematic description and
analysis of the human component. As the human component is an integral part of
a farming system, such analysis is crucial in FSR. Analysis of people by age and sex
can provide indications of labor force composition and availability as well as of the
composition of household/farming decision-makers by gender. Addition of staff
representing social science, home science and systems science and thus providing

enough time and manpower to carry out such analyses and modeling tasks are

92

93

suggested.
(2) The low influence of farmers (and high influence of researchers in final-decision
making) in all four cases clearly indicates that FSR programs need to develop more
appropriate and efficient methods for including farmers as decision-making partners
in the research and extension processes. Real changes in the attitudes and
orientation of researchers towards their clients and their needs are prerequisites for
building a viable farm-client partnership with researchers. A reliable institutional
mechanism to establish net-working and partnership between farmers, researchers
and extensionists is needed. A change of attitude on the parts of both researchers
and extensionists as to the potential value of farmers’ contributions is essential.
Moreover, as all four FSR organizations studied did not have their own
extension unit, and as involvement and influence of extensionists from separate
departments (Department of Extension) was apparently low in all cases, formation
of a extension unit within the FSR organization may be worth considering. This may
help achieve better involvement, cooperation and contrlhution of extensionists in FSR
activities and process. The attitude of research scientists toward extension also needs
to be changed, i.e., they need to learn to treat extensionists as professional partners.
(3) All necessary systems components are not presently being addressed by FSR
programs, especially in analysis and reports of findings and recommendations. So,
integration of more disciplines into the research and extension process and activities
will be required by F SR programs to incorporate various farming systems

components. Involvement of systems science and formation of a "systems modeling"

94

group to analyze the data and produce "models" of the system is recommended.
Integration of other disciplines such as environmental science, home science, and
engineering science in the entire FSR process also seems essential.

(4) The findings indicated that work on integrating environmental and common
property resources components is still at an early stage and much remains to be done
by FSR programs. Awareness of the need for, and value of, environmental impact
assessment (EIA) in FSR should be created among FSR practitioners. EIA needs
to be considered as an important criterion for technology selection. More formal
methods of assessing environmental impacts, and policy mandates to integrate the
environmental component into FSR should be developed and implemented.

(5) The results of this study indicate a low integration of gender in FSR programs.
Policies are needed to include gender variables while gathering and analyzing farming
systems data as well as when designing FSR projects. Possibly a quota system or
target goals for hiring female scientists as well as mandatory requirements for
involving female farmers in FSR activities may be useful. When female scientists are
in short supply within FSR organizations, short-term needs can be met through
temporary contracts of female professionals from agricultural universities. The FSRE
personnel need to intensify their efforts to understand and integrate female farmers
into FSR activities. Male scientists need training to appreciate what women scientists
can contribute and what women farmers know and do. Increased emphasis for
gender integration is crucial, as the majority of farm activities in both of these

countries (and in most developing countries) are performed by women.

95
(6) The findings also indicated that all FSR programs have ignored water and

fuelwood factors in the system. As these factors are crucial and closely associated
with the sustainability aspect as well as with women’s work loads, especially in
developing nations like Nepal, development and implementation of appropriate

efforts and strategies to integrate these factors into FSR is suggested.

7.2 Recommendations for Future Research:

In recent years, much has been written about the evolution and increased
application of the new systemic paradigm in agricultural research (e.g. FSRE, AFS,
ABA), and the concept has been increasingly discussed at a wide range of seminars
and forums. However, studies of the extent of practical application of the various
systems elements of the new paradigm in current research organizations are relatively
limited. This is one of the few studies about how nearly the real world situations fit
the potentials of the new paradigm. Moreover, while the identification and
conceptual definitions of the six key defining characteristics of the new systemic
paradigm in this study may contribute in clarifying the essence and details of the
systemic paradigm, further testing of this conceptualization in different regions is
needed.

Since this study is limited in scope, more extensive studies would be desirable.
The following are recommendations for future research:

(1) Considering the regional variations and their implications, replication of the

empirical part of this research is needed in Africa, Latin America, Europe and North

96
America.

(2) Research on how effectively sustainability concerns are incorporated in the
existing systems approach-oriented agricultural research programs (e.g. FSRE) might
be useful.

(3) Study of the issues in institutionalizing a systems research approach (e.g. FSR) in
the existing national agricultural research system would be valuable.

(4) Study to examine the detailed nature and extent of participation of different
disciplines in actual research work is needed to identify ways to increase this.

(5) Research is recommended to examine the constraints which limited wider use of
systems (e.g. FSRE) methods, or caused implementation to be less than ideal.

(6) Studies producing substantive research results about farming systems interactions,
and analysis of impact of systems research (e.g. FSR) on farm level over time may
be useful.

(7) Studies of the impact of FSR projects on the larger agricultural research systems

of which they are a part would also be valuable.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

RESPONSES OF INDIVIDUAL STAFF MEMBERS OF FOUR FSR
ORGANIZATIONS TO QUESTIONS REGARDING COMPONENTS AND
LINKAGES STUDIED:

97

Table 13. Responses of Individual Staff Members of Four FSR Organizations to
Questions Regarding Components and Linkages Studied:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nepal- Nepal- Thailand- Thailand-
Farmrng' Components CFSORD PAC TERI KKU-FSRP

(n =9) (n =9) (n=10) (n=9)

I Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
A gene:
i) Grain Crops 9 - 9 - 10 - 9 -
ii) Fruit Crops 9 - 9 - 9 1 8 1
iii) Vegetable Crops 9 - 9 - 7 3 7 2
B. Livestock: 9 - 9 - 8 2 9 -
C. People:
i) By Gender 3 6 6 3 7 3 9 -
ii) By Age 5 4 2 7 4 6 2
D. name:
i) Credit 3 6 7 2 5 5 7 2
ii) Input Price 7 2 7 2 9 1 8 1
iii) Input Availability 7 2 7 2 9 1 8 1
iv) Labor Price & 7 2 7 2 9 1 9 -
Availability
E. Outputs:
i) Output Price 7 2 7 2 10 - 9 -
ii) Market 8 1 8 1 8 2 7 2 1'
iii) Marketing Channels 8 1 9 - 8 2 7 2
F. mull—names:
a) Internal Flow of Materials 8 1 8 1 8 2 9 -
b) Internal Flow of Services 5 4 5 4 6 4 7 2
l' G. External pm:

a) Flow of Materials from
Off the Farm 8 1 8 1 8 2 9 -
b) Flow of Services from Off
the Farm 7 2 8 1 9 1 9 -
H. Comumption Patterns
a—“L———— P'“““””‘“‘ 9 ' _9_J__:__i._10_ ' 9 '

 

 

 

 

98

Table 14. Responses (Mean Value)‘ of Individual Staff Members of FSR
Organizations (by Cormtry) to Questions Regarding Components and
Linkages Studied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nepal Thailand Total
Farming Components (n= 18) (n=19) (N =37)

Yes No Yes No Yes No
A. Clog:
1) Grain Crops 18 - 19 - 37 -
ii) Fruit Crops 18 - 17 2 35 2
iii) Vegetable Crops 18 - 14 5 32 5
B. Livestock: 18 - 17 2 35 2
C. People:
(i) By Gender 9 9 16 3 25 12
(ii) By Age 7 11 11 8 18 19
D. Inputs:
(i) Credit 10 8 12 7 22 15
(ii) Input Price 14 4 17 2 31 6
(iii) Input Availability 14 4 17 2 31 6
(iv) Labor Price & Availability 14 4 18 1 32 5
E. Ougppts:
(i) output Price 14 4 19 - 33 4
(ii) Market 16 2 15 4 31 6
(iii) Marketing Channels 17 1 15 4 32 5
F. Internal [mu—km :
(i) Internal Flow of Materials 16 2 17 2 33 4
(ii) Internal Flow of Services 10 8 l3 6 23 14
6. External gm:
(1) Flow of Materials from Off the Farm 16 2 17 2 33 4
(ii) Flow of Services from Off the Farm 15 3 18 1 33 4
H. Consumption Pattern and Production Data: 18 - 18 19 37 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

" Derived from Appendix A-Table 13 above, by adding up the scores (for each item) of two cases for
each country and then dividing the obtained value by two i.e. number of cases in each country). The
'total' value in the table is derived by adding up the scores of two countries.

99
Table 15.

Responses (Mean Value)‘ of Individual Staff Members of FSR
Organizations (by Cormtry) to Questions Regarding Components and
Linkages (Major Categories) Studied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Mean Value)‘
Nepal Thailand
(n=19)
Yes No
17 2
B. Livestock 18 - 17 2
C. People 8 10 13.5 5.5
D. Inputs 13 5 16 3
E. Outputs 16 2 16.5 2.5
F. Internal Linkages 13 5 15 4 28
G. External Linkages 15.5 2.5 17.5 1.5 33
H. Consumption Patterns and 18 - 19 - 37
Production Data =

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

’ Derived from Appendix A- Table 14 above by adding the values/scores of sub items under
each major category (e.g., crops, people, internal linkages) and calculating the mean value (by
dividing the total value by number of sub items) for each category.

APPENDIX B

THE EXTENT OF PARTICIPATION, INVOLVEMENT AND INFLUENCE OF
FARM CLIENT WITH RESEARCHERS, FROM RESEARCHERS’ POINT OF
VIEW:

100

Table 16. The Extent of Participation, Involvement and Influence of Farm Client
With Researchers, from Researchers’ Point of View - Nepal-CFSORD
Case:
1: VeryLow; 2 = Low; 3 = High; 4 = VeryHigh

P = Participation; Inv = Involvement; Inf = Influence
I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Activity Parfidpation Involvement

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1
a) Problem
Identification - - 5 4 - - 8 1 1
b) Inclusion of
Indigenous Knowledge - - 5 4 - 2 7 - -
c) Technology
Selection (Deciding on
Typeof Technology to - 1 5 3 - 3 6 - -
be Studied)
d) Execution of the
Research - - 4 5 - - 4 5 -
e) Evaluation of the
Findings - 3 5 1 1 3 6 - 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

101

Table 17. The Extent of Participation, Involvement and Influence of Farm Client
With Researchers, from Researchers’ Point of View - Nepal-PAC Case:

1=VeryLow; 2=Low; 3=High; 4=VeryHigh

 

 

 

 

 

 

P = Participation; Inv = Involvement; Inf = Influence (n = 9)
Activity Participation Involvement Influence
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
a) Problem
Identification - 1 4 4 - 3 6 - 2 2 5 -
b) Inclusion of
Indigenous - 1 6 2 - 6 3 - l 6 2 -
Knowledge
c) Technology
Selection (Deciding
on Type of - 3 5 1 2 2 5 - 2 4 3 -
Technology to be
Studied)
d) Execution of the
Research - 1 4 4 - 1 7 1 1 3 3 1
e) Evaluation of
the Findings - 1 8 - - 2 7 - - 2 6 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 18.

102

The Extent of Participation, Involvement and Influence of Farm Client

With Researchers, from Researchers’ Point of View - Thailand-FSRI

Case:

1=VeryLow; 2=Low; 3=High; 4=VeryHigh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P = Participation; Inv = Involvement; Inf = Influence (n = 10)
Activity Participation Involvement Influence
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 2 3 4
I a) Problem
Identification - 1 8 1 - 4 5 1 5 3 —
b) Inclusion of
Indigenous 1 2 5 2 - 4 5 1 4 5 -
Knowledge
c) Technology
Selection (Deciding
on Type of 1 4 4 1 - 6 3 1 6 3 -
Technology to be
Studied)
d) Execution of the
Research 1 2 6 l 1 3 6 - 5 4 -
e) Evaluation of
the Findings - 1 6 3 - 1 7 2 2 6 2 ll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

103

Table 19. The Extent of Participation, Involvement and Influence of Farm Client
With Researchers, from Researchers’ Point of View - Thailand-KKU-
FSRP Case:

1=VeryLow; 2=Low; 3=High; 4=VeryHigh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P = Participation; Inv = Involvement; Inf = Influence (n = 9)
4‘
Activity Participation Involvement Influence
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
a) Problem
Identification - - 3 6 - 1 5 3 1 5 1 2
b) Inclusion of
Indigenous - - 3 6 - - 7 2 - 4 4 1
l Knowledge
c) Technology
Selection (Deciding
on Type of - 2 3 4 1 2 5 1 2 4 2 1
Technology to be
Studied) 1
d) Execution of the
Research - 1 3 5 - 3 6 - 2 5 2 -
e) Evaluation of
the Findings - - 3 6 - - 7 2 1 3 5 4:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

104

Table 20. The Extent of Participation, Involvement and Influence of Farm Client
with Researchers, from Researchers’ Point of View (Countrywise
Presentation):

1=VeryLow; 2=Low; 3=High; 4=VeryHigh

 

 

 

 

 

P = Participation; Inv = Involvement; Inf = Influence (Mean Value)‘
Nepal Thailand Total
Activity (n= 18) (n= 19) (N =39)
P Inv Inf P Inv Inf P Inv Inf
a) Problem Identification 3.4 2.9 2.3 3.3 2.9 2.3 3.4 2.9 2.3
b) Inclusion of Indigenous
Knowledge 3.3 2.6 2.2 3.2 2.9 2.5 3.2 2.8 2.4
c) Technology Selection
(Deciding on Type of 3.0 2.5 2.2 2.8 2.6 2.2 2.9 2.5 2.2
Technology to be Studied)
d) Execution of the 3.4 3.3 2.5 3.1 2.6 2.2 3.2 2.9 2.3
Research

 

e) Evaluation of the Findings 2.8 2.8 2.6 3.4 3.2 2.7 3.1 3.0 2.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ Derived from Appendix B - Tables 16, 17, 18 and 19, by multiplying the number of
responses for each item (of each case) with the originally assigned/selected (by respondent)
corresponding value of preference (i.e., 1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = high, and 4 = very high),
and then adding the obtained itemwise value/score of two cases (e.g., CFSORD and PAC)
together and finally dividing the itemwise total score (of each country) by the number of
respondents (e.g., 18 in Nepal’s case).

APPENDIX C

THE EXTENT OF PARTICIPATION, INVOLVEMENT AND INFLUENCE OF
EXTENSION WORKERS, FROM RESEARCI-IERS’ POINT OF VIEW:

105

Table 21. Extent of Participation, Involvement and Influence of Extension
Workers from Researcher’ Point of View - Nepal-CFSORD Case:

1=VeryLow; 2=Low; 3=High; 4=VeryHigh

 

 

 

 

 

 

P = Participation; Inv = Involvement; Inf = Influence (n = 9)
Activity Participation Involvement Influence
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
a) Problem
Identification - 4 5 - 1 4 4 - 1 6 2 -
b) Inclusion of
Indigenous - 4 4 1 1 4 4 - 1 6 2 -
Knowledge
c) Technology
Selection
(Deciding on 1 5 3 - 1 5 3 - 1 7 1 -
Type of
Technology to
be Studied)
d) Execution of
the Research 2 4 3 - 2 5 2 - 1 7 1 -
e) Evaluation
of the Findings 2 4 3 - 2 5 2 - 1 7 1 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

106

Table 22. Extent of Participation, Involvement and Influence of Extennon
Workers from Researcher’ Point of View - Nepal-PAC Case:

1=VeryLow; 2=Low; 3=High; 4=VeryHigh

 

 

 

 

 

 

P = Participation; Inv = Involvement; Inf = Influence (n = 9)
Activity Participation Involvement Influence
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 l 2 3 4

a) Problem

Identification - 4 4 1 1 6 2 - 2 6 1 -

b) Inclusion of

Indigenous - 4 5 - 2 5 2 - 2 5 2 -
i Knowledge

c) Technology

Selection

(Deciding on 1 4 4 - 1 7 1 - 1 7 1 -

Type of

Technology to

be Studied)

d) Execution of

the Research 1 4 4 - 2 6 1 - 2 6 1 -

e) Evaluation

of the Findings 1 5 3 - 3 4 2 - 3 6 - -
H i — _ ‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

107

Table 23. Extent of Participation, Involvement and Influence of Extension
Workers from Researcher’ Point of View - Thailand-FSRI Case:

1=VeryLow; 2=Low; 3=High; 4=VeryHigh

 

 

 

 

 

 

P = Participation; Inv = Involvement; Inf = Influence (n = 7)‘
Activity Participation Involvement Influence
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
a) Problem
Identification - 1 3 3 - 1 5 1 - 4 3 -
1)) Inclusion of
Indigenous - 2 4 1 - 2 4 1 - 4 2 1
Knowledge
c) Technology
Selection
(Deciding on - 2 4 1 - 2 4 1 - 5 2 -
Type of
Technology to
be Studied)
d) Execution of
the Research - 2 4 1 - 1 6 - - 4 3 -
e) Evaluation
of the Findings - 1 3 3 - - 6 1 - 4 3 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ Three of the staff members (of FSRI) interviewed did not response to this question.

108

Table 24. Extent of Participation, Involvement, and Influence of Extension
Workers from Researchers’ Point of View (Countrywise Presentation):

1 = very low; 2 = low; 3 = high; 4 = V317 high)

 

         

 

 

 

 

 

P = Participation; Inv = Involvement; Inf = Influence (Mean Value)‘
Nepal Thailand” Total
Activity (n=18) (n= (N =
P Inv Inf P Inv Inf P Inv Inf
a) Problem Identification 2.6 2.2 2.0 3.3 3.0 2.4 2.8 2.4 2.1
b) Inclusion of Indigenous
Knowledge 2.6 2.2 2.1 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.7 2.4 2.2
c) Technology Selection
(Deciding on Type of 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.9 2.9 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.1
Technology to be Studied)
d) Execution of the 2.2 1.9 1.9 2.9 2.9 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.1
Research
e) Evaluation of the Findings 2.2 1.9 1.8 3.3 3.1 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

’ Derived from Appendix C- Tables 21, 22 and 23 by multiplying the number of responses
for each item (of each case) with the originally assigned/selected (by respondent)
corresponding value of preference (i.e., 1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = high, and 4 = very high),
and then adding the obtained itemwise value/score of two cases (e.g., CFSORD and PAC)
together and finally dividing the itemwise total score (of each country) by the number of
respondents (e.g., 18 in Nepal’s case).

“ Low responses (n=7) in Thai case was due to the fact that the staff members of KKU-
FSRP interviewed felt that this question/item was not applicable to them (and thus KKU-
FSRP case is not reported here). Moreover, three of the staff members (of FSRI)
interviewed did not response to this question.

APPENDIX D

VARIETY OF DIFFERENT SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ACTIVELY
REPRESENTED IN FSR STAGES:

109

 

 

Table 25 . Variety of Different Scientific Disciplines Actively Represented in FSR
Stages - Nepal Cases — CFSORD and PAC:
Variety of Different Scientific
Stages
Nepal—CFSORD Nepal-PAC
(n=9) (n=9)
(a) Deciding which . Agronomy 1. Agronomy
Data to Gather: . Horticulture 2. Horticulture
. Soil Science 3. Livestock

1

2

3

4. Plant Pathology
5. Entomology
6

7

8

9

4. Forestry and Pasture
5. Socioeconomics

 

 

 

 

fifiifi' 'Iie numfir of firscrpimes during fie stages ic) mm are also com the

 

 

4. Animal Science
5. Social Science’

content analysis of the relevant published reports.
‘ The extent of details (analysis, findings and recommendations) is relatively low.

 

. Social Science 6. Veterinary
. Extension 7. Seed Technology
. Economics 8. Outreach Research
. Animal Science
(Wm Team
[Samuhik Bhraman (Group involving the above major
Trek) Team] sections of PAC)
(b) Collecting 1. Agronomy 1. Agronomy
Data from the 2. Horticulture 2. Horticulture
Field: 3. Soil Science 3. Livestock
4. Plant Pathology 4. Forestry and Pasture
5. Entomology 5. Socioeconomics
6. Social Science 6. Veterinary
7. Extension 7. Seed Technology
8. Economics 8. Outreach Research
9. Animal Science
(Mummy-£11 Team)
(Samuhik Bhraman Team)
(c) Data Analysis: 1. Agronomy 1. Agronomy
2. Horticulture 2. Horticulture
3. Soil Science‘ 3. Livestock
4. Animal Science 4. Forestry and Pasture
5. Social Science‘ 5. Socioeconomics‘
(d) Reports of 1. Agronomy 1. Agronomy
Findings and 2. Horticulture 2. Horticulture
Recommendations: 3. Soil Science‘ 3. Livestock

4. Forestry and Pasture
5. Socioeconomics‘

 

 

Table 26.

110

Variety of Different Scientific Disciplines Actively Represented in FSR

Stages - Thailand Cases — FSRI and KKU-FSRP:

Stages Variety of Different Scientific

 

 

Science
(Multidisciplinary team involving
FSRI and DOA’s other
interdivisional staff)

Thailand-FSRI Thailand-KKU—FSRP
(n=10) (n=9)
(a) Deciding which 1. Crop Science 1. Crop Science
Data to Gather: 2. Animal Science 2. Soil Science
3. Soil Science 3. Plant Protection
4. Social Science 4. Economics
5. Plant Protection 5. Animal Science
6. Extension 6. Social Science
7. Economics 7. Agro-Climatology
8. Climatology/Environmental

(Multidisciplinary team
involving KKU’s
interdepartmental staff)

 

 

 

 

 

iifiifi- The numfir of firscrpiines during tie stages (c) ande) are also co rm

 

4. Climatology

content analysis of the relevant published reports.

 

(b) Collecting 1. Crop Science 1. Crop Science
Data from the 2. Animal Science 2. Soil Science
Field: 3. Soil Science 3. Plant Protection
4. Social Science 4. Economics
5. Plant Protection 5. Animal Science
6. Extension 6. Social Science
7. Economics 7. Agro-Climatology
8. Climatology/Environmental
Science (Multidisciplinary team
(Multidisciplinary team involving involving KKU’s
FSRI and DOA’s other interdepartmental staff)
interdivisional staff)
(c) Data Analysis: 1. Crop Science 1. Crop Science
2. Animal Science‘ 2. Animal Science‘
3. Social Science’ 3. Social Science
4. Climatology 4. Economics’
(d) Reports of 1. Crop Science 1. Crop Science
Findings and 2. Animal Science' 2. Animal Science‘
Recommendations: 3. Social Science‘ 3. Social Science

4. Economics‘

 

‘ The extent of details (analysis, findings and recommendations) is relatively low.

 

 

APPENDIX E

TECHNOLOGY SELECTION SYSTEM AND CRITERIA:

111

 

 

 

 

 

Table 27. Presence of Technology Selection System, and On-Farm Technology
Trial:
I Nepal- Nepal- Thailand- Thailand-
CFSORD PAC FSRI KKU-FSRP
(n=9) (n=9) (n=10) (n=9)
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
a) Did they get into
technology selection? 9 - 9 - 10 - 9 - II
b) Did they do on-
I farm technology trial? 9 - 9 - 10 - 9 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 28.
CFSORD and PAC:

112

(What criteria (e.g. EIA?) was used to compare alternative technology?)

Criteria Used to Compare Alternative Technology - Nepal Cases-

 

Nepal-CFSORD
(n =9)

Nepal-PAC
(n =9)

 

1. High yield'loutput.

2. Short duration and compatibility with
existing cropping pattern.

3. Post harvest grain quality and good
taste.

4. High market price and marketability.

However, environmental considerations
are emphasized through increased
utilization of non-chemical-inputs (local
inputs), and through the increased use
of improved conservation practices.

 

5. No formal EIA criteria is used in FSR.

 

1. High yield‘ (grain & Straw).

2. Adaptability to the local farming
systems and socioeconomic conditions.

3. Low input alternative technology.

4. Superior (to local) post-harvest quality
and marketability.

5. EIA is not used as an evaluative
criteria for technology selection. But in
recent years, the focus has been to
encourage: the use of local
inputs/resources (e.g. compost, herbal
insecticides) and conservation oriented
cultural practices.

6. Increased awareness and consideration
for the protection of natural environment
in recent years (e.g. PAC livestock unit is
monitoring the overgrazing problem).

 

 

 

" "High yield" was the highest priority criteria mentioned by all, respondents.

NOTE: The comments presented in this table are the most frequently mentioned by the
respondents (staff members of the FSR programs studied).

Table 29.
FSRI and KKU-FSRP:

113
Criteria Used to Compare Alternative Technology - Thailand Cases-

(What criteria (e.g. EIA?) was used to compare alternative technology?).

 

Thailand-FSRI
(n = 10)

Thailand-KKU-FSRP
(n=9)

 

1. High yield’.

2. Suitability of technology to local
socio-economic condition.

3. Formal EIA criteria is not applied yet.
But emphasis is being placed on

developing and promoting non-chemical,
local inputs and alternative technologies.

4. Impact of cropping pattern on local
natural environment is being considered
to some extent.

5. Environmental component is still
difficult to incorporate into research
projects due to current policies, mandates
and budget constraints.

6. Long term economic growth and
environmental protection is being
focussed in recent years.

 

 

1. High yield‘
(focus on input-output model).

2. Productivity, stability and sustainability. "

3. Environmental concerns are
increasingly emphasized in recent years.
However, EIA has not been utilized as an
evaluative criteria.

4. Effect of technology on environment is
considered to some extent, e.g.
assessment of land quality (damage to
the quality of soil).

 

5. No direct environmental protection
focus in current FSR activities. But
efforts such as, reduced use of chemicals,
promotion of organic fertilizers, manures,
compost making and use, IPM practices,
conservation practices for soil erosion
control, correction of salinity etc. are
being considered.

6. Increased reliance on indigenous inputs
and knowledge system in recent years.

 

‘ "High yield” was the highest priority criteria mentioned by Q respondents.

NOTE: The comments presented in this table are the most frequently mentioned by the
respondents (staff members of the FSR programs studied).

APPENDIX F

DATA GATHERING GUIDE
(USED IN THE FIELD STUDY)

W:

 

I. Mmatic Diem 'on and M} of the Internal and External Commnents of
the Farm and the [1M Amo_ng Them:

(The extent to which the analysis of farming systems include all of the significant
components: plant, animal and human, relevant items within each of these
components, and linkages among these components).

01. What types of farming components are operationalized in the actual research

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

process?
Farming Components Yes No I
IA. Qr_op§: i) Grain Crops 1
ii) Fruit Crops
l iii) Vegetable Crops I
B. Livestock:
I C. m: i) By Gender I
ii) By Age
D. My i) Credit
ii) Input Price
iii) Input Availability
iv) Labor Price & Availability
E. gum: i) Output Price

 

 

 

ii) Market

 

iii) Marketing Channels

 

___L1Lkagg:i) Internal Flow of Materials

 

ii) Internal Flow of Services

 

Agni) Flow of Materials From Off the Farm

 

ii) Flow of Services From off the Farm

 

(Mm
lam

H. Consummon Patterns and Production Data:

 

 

_*

 

114

115
II. Farm Client Partneflp' with Researchers and Extensionists:

Q-2. Extent of participation, involvement, and influence of Mills in each

 

 

 

 

 

 

of the following cases:
(Circle one for each)
(1 =very low; 2 = low; 3 = high; 4 =very high)

Participation Involvement Influence 1
(a) Problem Identification 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
(1)) Inclusion of
Indigenous Knowledge 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
(c) Technology Selection
(DecidingonTypeof 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4"
Technology to be Studied)
(d) Execution of the
Research 123412341234
(e) Evaluation of the
Findings 123412341234—J

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q-3. Enentofparficipafionfinmlvemengandmfluenceofenemimworkersineachof

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the following cases:
(Circle one for each)
(1 = very low; 2 = low; 3 = high; 4 = very high)
— ‘F— A
Participation Involvement Influence
(a) Problem Identification 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
(b) Inclusion of
IndigenousKnowledge 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
in (c) Technology Selection
(DecidingonTypeof 123412341234
Technology to be Studied)
(d) Execution of the
Research 123412341234
(e) Evaluation of the
Findings 123412341234

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 16
III. Collaborative MW. ' ° ' Research:

(Active involvement of researchers from different scientific disciplines
potentially including: plant science, animal science, social science,
environmental science and systems science in the entire process of
technological development).

04. Variety of different scientific disciplines actively represented in the following
FSR Stages:

SL322!“ Varieg of Difierent Scientific
1M ' lines Activey Represented:

(a) Deciding Which Data to Gather:

 

 

 

 

(b) Collecting Data from the Field:

 

 

 

 

(c) Data Analysis:

 

 

 

 

(d) Reports of Findings and

recommendations:

 

 

 

 

117

IV. Environmental and Common mm Integrm" .
Q-5. Use of environmental impact assessment (EIA) as an important (formal)

Q7.

Q9.

deckion criteria for technology selection:
(a) Did they get into technology selection? Yes --- No ---
(b) Did they do on-farm technology trail? Yes --- No ---
(c) What Criteria did they use to compare alternative technology?

e.g. EIA?

 

 

 

Extent of the inchision of EIA in research documents:

(Circle one number)
1 2 3 4
(very low) (low) (high) (very high)

Theextenttowhich'envimnmentalpmtecfionmeasures'(eg.commonproperty
resomces)areconsideredintheresearchperformedunderyom(FSRE)
organm. mu. W.

(Circle one number)
1 2 3 4
(very low) (low) (high) (very high)

 

mum-wt on the extent to which linkages between farming system and
componenamontsofthenearenvhotamdesmhedandanalyzedintheresearch:

(Circle one number)
1 2 3 4
(very low) (low) (high) . (very high)

A general assessment on the trend towards environmental awareness and
consideration during the last 2 -3 years:

(Circle one number)
1 2 3 4
(Trend in it (About the same (An increasing trend (An increasing
increasing order) trend) but at a slow pace) trend at a rapid

Pace)

1 18
V. Gender Integgtion:

(Concern for and thus active involvement of female farmers, researchers and
extensionists in all aspects of the agricultural research/extension process).

Q—lO. Total number and percentage of female research scientists, extensionists in the

 

 

 

FSR organization:
Male
(# and %)
Research
Scientists
Extensionists

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q] 1. Percentage/proportion of female farmers included in the research activities
(e.g. on-farm research):

 

 

 

._=._ F I

Male Female Total

 

Farmers

 

 

 

 

Q-12. A general assessment on the trend towards gender integration in agricultural
researchprocessduringthelastZ-3years:

(Circle one number)
1 2 3 4
(Trend in a (About the same (An increasing trend (An increasing
increasing order) trend) but at a slow pace) trend at a rapid

Pace)

l 19
VI. Sustainabilig Comiderations:

(Inclusion of efforts for development, promotion and utilization of ecologically and
economically sustainable inputs and farming practices in order to maintain long-term
production at a desired level and sustain ecological diversity and other important aspects of

the eco-system as well).

Q-13. Presenceofthefolbwhgefl'orulpracfiwsundertheamentFSREsystemofyom

 

 

organization/program:
Presence of Efforts/Activities: Yes No Remarks
1. Presence of Research/Extension Efforts

for Application of Indigenous
Knowledge, Practices and
Resources/Inputs

 

2. Presence of Such Systems Linkage
Research/Extension Activities As:

(a) Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) System;

 

(b) Bio-Inoculum/Fertilizers;

 

(c) Green Manuring; and

 

(d) Compost Making and Use

 

(d) Others

 

3. Presence of Such Interdisciplinary
Research/Extension Efforts As:

(a) Integrated (e.g. Livestock
Cum Crop) Farming System;

 

 

(b) Mixed-Cropping System;

 

(c) Inter-Cropping System;

 

(d) Agro-Forestry System

 

(e) Others

 

4. Considerations of Water and Fuelwood
Factors in the System

4-

 

 

 

 

g===

 

120

General Information About the FSRE O_rgan_g° flow:
1. Name of the Organization/Program:

 

2. Date of Establishment:

 

 

 

 

 

3. Address:

4. Telephone: Fax:
5. Total Number of Research Personnel:

6. Total Number of Extension Personnel:

 

7. Total Number of Administrative Personnel:

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Axinn, G. H.
1988

 

1991

 

1991a

 

1991b
Axinn, N. W.

1990
Axinn, N. W.

1993

Baker, Doyle
1991

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Guide on Alternative Extension Approaches.
Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

"Second Generation Approaches to Farming Systems Research and
Extension." In C. B. Flora and M. Tomecek (eds.) Farming Sfitems
Research and Extension: Food and Feed - Selected Proceedings of
Kansas State University’s 1986 Farming Systems Research Symposium.
Pp. 1-9.

Manhattan, KA: Kansas State University.

"Potential Contribution of FSRE to Institution Development". Journal
of the Asian Farming Sfitems Association, 1,1:69-78.

"Sustainable Development Reconsidered". Journ_al of Society for
International Development. 1:120-123.

"Involving Women Farmers in FSR/E - Separate Projects vs Integrating
Gender: The South Asia Experience". Tenth Annual Symposium,
Association for Farming Systems Research/Extension (AFSRE).
Michigan State University, East Lansing: AFSRE

and Axinn, G. H.

"Policy Issues in Sustainable Rural Development with Some South
Asian Illustrations". A paper (draft) being prepared for publication.

"Reorientation, Not Reversal: African Farmer-Based Experimentation".
Journal for Farming Sfitems Research-Extension. 2,1:125-145.

121

122

 

1992 "Inability of Farming Systems Research to Deal with Agricultural
Policy". Paper presented at the 12th Annual Farming Systems

Symposium, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, September 13-18,
1992. Pp. 1-19.

Bawden, R. J.
1991 "Systems Thinking and Practice in Agriculture". J ourn_al of DE
Science. 74,7:2362-2373.

 

Beets, W. C.

1990 Raising and Sustaining Productivity of Smallholder Farming Sfitems in

the Tropics: A Handbook of Sustainable Agp‘cultural Development.
Alkmaar, Holand: AgBe Publishing

Castillo, G. T.
1992 "Sustainable Agriculture: in Concept and in Deed". In Agricultural
Administration (Research Extension) Network - (ODI Network Paper
No. 36).

London: Overseas Development Institute (ODI).

CFSORD
1991 Annual Report - FY 199011991 (Report No. 17).

Khumaltar, Nepal: Central Farming Systems and Outreach Research
Division (CFSORD).

Chambers, R.

1983 Rural Development: Putting the La_st First.
New York: Longrnan, Inc.

 

1989 "To Make the Flip: Strategies for Participatory Research and Design
for Undervalued Resource Agriculture". In S. Essers, B. Haverkort, W.
Hiemstra, and C. Rejintes (eds.) Proceedings of the ILEIA Workshop
on Operational Approaches for Participatog Technology Development
in Sustainable Agriculture.
Leusden, The Netherlands: Information Center for Low external Input
and Sustainable Agriculture (ILEIA).

Chambers, R. and Ghildyal, B. P.
1985 "Agriculture Research for Resource-Poor Farmer: The Farmer-First-
and-Last Model". Agricultural Administration. 20:1-30.

123

Chambers, R. and Jiggins, J.
1986 "Agricultural Research for Resource Poor Farmers: A Parsimonious
Paradigm". IDS Discussion Paper No. 220.
Brighton: University of Sussex, Institute of Development Studies (IDS).

 

1987 "Agricultural Research for Resource-Poor Farmers: Transfer-of-
Technology and Farming Systems Research". Agrigulflaj
Administration and Extension. 27:35-52.

Chambers, R., Pacey, A. and Thrupp, L. (eds.)

1989 Farmer First: Farmer innovation and Agg'cultural Research.
London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Charoenwatana, T.
1992 "Regional Roots and Impact of FSR/E in Asia". In Toward A new
Paradi for Farmin S tems Researc ension - Working Paper
Set for the 12th Annual Farming Systems Symposium. Pp. 1-11.
Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI: The Association for
Farming Systems Research/Extension (AFSR/E).

Conway, G. R.

1987 Helping Poor Farmers: A Review of Foundation Activities in Farming

Systems and Agroecosystemg Research and Development. A Report
Prepared for the Mid-Decade Review of the Ford Foundation’s

Programs on Agriculture and Natural Resources.
New York: Ford Foundation.

 

Coward, E. W.

1987 Rural Pover and Resource Management: A Review of Foundation
Activities in Agg'cultural Systems, Land Management. and Water
Management. A Report Prepared for the Mid-decade Review of the
Ford Foundation’s Programs on Agriculture and Natural Resources.
New York: Ford Foundation.

 

 

Dahlberg, K. A. (ed.)

1986 New Directions for mgculture and Agg'cultural Research: Neglected

Dimensions and Emergm g Alternatives.
New Jersey: Rowan & Allanheld Publishers.

 

Dicks, M. R.
1992 "What will be Required to Guarantee the Suitability of US. Agriculture
in the let Century?". American Journal of Alternative Agriculture.
7,4:190-196.

Eicher, C. K.
1980

Ewell, P. T.
1988

Farrington, J.

1987

Flora, C. B.
1988

 

1992

124

"Preface". In The Farming Sfitems Approach: Relevang for the
Small Farmers - MSU Rural Development Paper No. 5.

East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

Organization and Management of Field A_gtivities in On-Farm
Research: A Review of Experience in Nine Countries.

The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research.

and Martin, A. M.
"Farmer Participatory Research: A Review of Concepts and Practices".

In ODI Discussion Paper No. 19.
London: Development Institute (ODI).

"Farming Systems Approaches to International Technical Cooperation

in Agriculture and Rural Life". Agg'culture and Human Values.
1&2:24-34.

"Evaluation and Impact of Global Synthesis and Networking". In
Toward A new Paradigm for Farming Sfitems Researcflflension -
Working Paper Set for the 12th Annual Farming Systems Symposium.
Pp. 2834.

Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI: The Association for
Farming Systems Research/Extension (AFSR/E).

Frankenberger, T. R. and Coyle, P. E.

1992

FSRDD
1987

1988

"Integrating Household Food Security into Farming Systems Research-
Extension". In TovLard A new Paradigm for Farming Sfitems
Research1E_x_tension - Working Paper Set for the 12th Annual Farming
Systems Symposium. Pp. 35-65.

Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI: The Association for
Farming Systems Research/Extension (AFSR/E).

Annual Report - FY 1986187 (Report No. 13).

Khumaltar, Nepal: Farming Systems Research and Development
Division (FSRDD).

Annual Report - FY 1987188 (Report No. 14).
Khumaltar, Nepal: FSRDD.

125

FSRI
1991 Farming Systems Research Institute (FSRI) - Brochure, 1991.
Bangkok: FSRI.

Galt, D. L. and Mathema, S. B.

1986 Farmer Participation in Farming Systems Research - (SERED Report
No. 3).
Khumaltar, Nepal: Socio-Economic Research and Extension Division

(SERED), Department of Agriculture.

 

Gibbon, D.

1992 "Strategies for Incorporating Farming Systems Research and
Development into Institutional Structures and Organizations". In
Institutionalization of Farming Systems Approach to Development -
Proceedings of Technical Discussions. Pp. 133-159.

Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Hardin, G.
1968 "Tragedy of the Commons". Science. 162:1243-1248.
Harrington, L. W.

1992 "Measuring Sustainability: Issues and Alternatives". Journal for Farming

Sfitems Research-Extension. 3,1:1-20.
Harwood, R. R.
1979 Small Farm Development: Understanding and Improving Farming

Sfitems in the Humid Tropics.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Hildebrand, P.
1976 Generating Technology for Traditional Farmers: A Multidisciplinag
Methodology.

Guatemala City: ICI‘A.

Hildebrand, P. and Waugh, R. K.
1986 "Farnring Systems Research and Development". In P. E. Hildebrand

(ed.) Perspectives on Farming Sfitems Research and extension.
Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

J odha, N. S.
1990 "Mountain Agriculture: the Search for Sustainability". Journal for

Farming Sfitems Research-Extension. 1,1:55-75.

126

Jones, R. J. and Wallace, B. J.
1986 "Social Science in Farming Systems Research". In J. R. Jones and B.

J. Wallace (eds.) Social Sciences and Farming Sfitems Research:

Methodological Perspectives on Agg’cultural Development.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc.

 

Kaul, R. N. and Ali, A.
1992 "Gender Issues in African Farming". Journal for Farming Systems
Research-Extension. 3,1:35-46.

KKU-FSRP Report.

1989 Summary of Work for FY 1988 and Research Plan for FY 1989.
Khon Kaen, Thailand: Khon Kaen University-Farming Systems

Research Project (KKU-FSRP).

 

Lightfoot, C. and Pullin, R. S. V.
1991 "Why Asian FSRE Needs Qualitative Methods for Integrating

Agriculture with Aquaculture". Journal of the Asian Farming Systems
Association. 1,2:201-215.

Likangmin
1991 "Developing Ecological Agriculture in let Century China". Journal of
the Asian Farming Systems Association. 1,2:191-200.
Mackay, K. T.
1989 "Sustainable Agricultural Systems Issues for Farming Systems

Research". In S. Sukmana, P. Amir and D. M. Mulyadi (eds.)

Developments in Procedures for Farming Sfitems Research. Bogor:
Agency for Agricultural Research and Development.

McDowell, R. E. and Hildebrand, P. E.
1986 "Prevailing Farming Systems by Regions". In P. E. Hildebrand (ed.)

Perspectives on Farming Sfitems Research and extension.
Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Merrill-Sands, D.
1986 "Farming Systems Research: Clarification of Terms and Concepts".

E_xperimental Agg’culture. 22:87-104

National Research Council

1993 Sustainable Agg'culture and the Environment in the Humid Tr0pics.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Norman, D.
1971

 

1980

 

1986

Oram, P. A.
1988

PAC
1990

1991

Panth, M. P.
1991

127

"Initiating Change in Traditional Agriculture". Agricultural Economics
Journal for Agg'culture. 13,1:31-52.

The Farming Sfitems Approach: Relevangy for the Small Farmers -
MSU Rural Development Paper No. 5.

East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

"Defining A Farming System". In P. E. Hildebrand (ed.) Perspectives

on Farming Systems Research and extension.
Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

"Moving Toward Sustainability: Building the Agroecological
Framework". Environment. 30,9.

Annual Report - 198911990.
Dhankuta, Nepal: Pakhribas Agricultural Center (PAC).

Annual Report: 1990 - 1991.
Dhankuta, Nepal: PAC.

"Forward". In Annual Report - FY 1989/90 (Report No. 16).
Khumaltar, Nepal: Central Farming Systems and Outreach Research
Division (CFSORD).

Patanothai, A.

1985

Plucknett, D.
1986

"Farming Systems Research at Khon Kaen University, Thailand" -
Paper Prepared for the FAO Expert Consultation on Farming Systems
Development at the FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific,
Thailand, July 23-26, 1985.

L., Dillon, J. L. and Vallaeys, G. J.

"Review of Concepts of Farming Systems Research: the What, Why,
and How". In Proceedings of the Workshop on Farming Sfitems
Research.

Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the
Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT).

128

Poats, S. V.
1990 "Female Professionals in Agricultural Research-Extension: Issues and
Alternative Solutions for Managers". Farming Systems Research-
Extension Newsletter. 4:1-3.
Rhoades, R. E.
1989 "The Role of Farmers in the Creation of Agricultural Technology". In

R. Chambers, A. Pacey, and L. A. Thrupp (eds.) Farmer First: Farmer
Innovation and Agg'cultural Research. Pp. 3-9.

London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Rhoades, R. E. and Booth, R. H.
1982 "Farmer-Back-to-Farmer: A Model for Generating Acceptable

Agricultural Technology". m'cultural Administration. 11:127-137.

Rhoades, R. E. and Potts, M. J.

1985 Generating Appropriate Technologies with Small Farmers: The CIP
Approach.
Lima: International Potato Center.
Richards, P.
1985 Indi enous 'cultural Revolution: Ecolo and Food Production in
West Africa.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc.
Rogers, E. M.
1986 "Models of Knowledge Transfer: Critical Perspectives". In G. M. Bea],
W. Dissanayake, and S. Konoshima (eds.), Knowledge Generation,
Exchange and Utilization.
Boulder, Co: Westview Press.
Roling, N. G.
1990 "The Agricultural Research - Technology Transfer Interface: A

Knowledge Systems Perspective". In D. Kaimowitz (ed.), Making the
Li_r_I_k: Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer in Developing
Countries.

Boulder, Co: Westview Press.

Shaner, W. W., Philipp, P. F. and Schmehl, W. R.

1982 Farming Systems Research and Development: Guidelines for

Developing Countries.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

129

Shrestha R. and Shrestha M.
1992 "Women Farmers: How to Involve Them in Agricultural Research (An
Experience of Pakhribas Agricultural Center)". In Toward A new
Paradigm for Farming Sfitems Research1flension - Working Paper
Set for the 12th Annual Farming Systems Symposium. Pp. 259-275.
Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI: The Association for
Farming Systems Research/Extension (AFSR/E).

Shinawatra, B., Tognsiri, B. and Pitackwong, J.

1987 Differential Roles of Men and Women in the Farming Systems of

Amphoe Phroa, Changvyat Chiang Mai, Thailand - (CMU, Agricultural
Economics Research Report No. 18).

Chiang Mai, Thailand: Chiang Mai University (CMU).

Simmonds, N. W.
1985 Farming Systems resesrch: A Review.
Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Sriskandarajah, N., Bawden, R. J. and Packham, R. G.
1991 "Systems Agriculture: A Paradigm for Sustainability". Association for

Farming Systems Research-Extension Newsletter. 2,3:1-5.

Temple, R. S.
1986 "Institution Building for Agricultural Production Systems Research in
Developing Countries." In C. B. Flora and M. Tomecek (eds.)
Farming Systems Research and Extension: Food and Feed - Selected
Proceedings of Kansas State University’s 1986 Farming Systems
Research Symposium. Pp. 26—32.
Manhattan, KA: Kansas State University.

Tietenberg, T.
1988 Environmental and Resource Economics.
Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Co.

Tripp, R.
1991 "The Farming Systems Research Movement and On-Farm Research".
In R. Tripp (ed.) Planned Change in Farming Sfitems: Proggess in On-
Farm Research.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Tripp, R., Anandajayasekeram, Byerlee and Harrington, I..W.
1991 "FSR: Achievements, Deficiencies and Challenges for the 1990s".

Journal of the Asian Farming Sfitems Association. 1,1:259-271.

130

Wallace, M. B.
1983 "Managing Resources That Are Common Property: From Kathmandu

to Capital Hill". Journal of Polig Analfiis and Management. 2,2:220-
237.

Whyte, W. F.
1986 "The Need for a New Strategy". In P. E. Hildebrand (ed.) Perspectives

on Farming Sfitems Research and Extension.
Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

 

1991 Social Theory for Action.
N ewbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Wilson, K. and Morren, G. E. B., Jr.

1990 Systems Approaches for Improvement in Agriculture and Resource

Management.
New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

nrcuran sran UNIV. LIBRQRIES
llHIWI«HIMIHWHHIWIIWWH‘IHWINll
31293010379950