ASSESSING THE NATURE OF PARTICIPATION IN A FARMER RESEARCH GROUP:
THE CASE OF ECUADOR’S PARTICIPATORY BEAN IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
By
Sara E. Jablonski

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies
2012

ABSTRACT
ASSESSING THE NATURE OF PARTICIPATION IN A FARMER RESEARCH GROUP:
THE CASE OF ECUADOR’S PARTICIPATORY BEAN IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
By
Sara E. Jablonski
Traditional strategies toward agricultural research and extension do not always meet
the needs of resource-poor farmers. One approach to increasing the relevance of research to
poor farmers is the use of the local agricultural research committee (or CIAL in Spanish)
methodology. This approach builds communities of inquiry by training farmer groups in formal
research and facilitative leadership, thereby forming collaborative relationships amongst
scientists and farming communities. While CIALs are perceived to be a cost-effective means to
perform adaptive technology testing, many organizations focus on the outcomes and are not
prepared to create or sustain communities of inquiry as suggested by the CIAL methodology.
Research was conducted to explore the consequences of focusing on the outcomes of
the CIAL methodology without investing in the participatory process by studying the case of
Ecuador’s bean breeding CIAL program. Results show that scientists worked consultatively with
select farmers without emphasizing the critical link between CIALs and their communities and
that adoption of improved seed and complementary practices was lower than expected.
Further, results show that there was a lack of information flow between CIALs and their
communities and that farmer expectations of outsider involvement remained unchanged. The
findings suggest that research organizations should consider the extent to which participatory
approaches match their objectives and whether they have the capacity to create and sustain
communities of inquiry before adopting the CIAL methodology.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research would not have been possible if it were not for the support and
contributions of many people. I would first like to thank my advisor, Dr. Kimberly Chung, for her
astute guidance and constant support throughout the research process. In addition, I would like
to thank my committee members Dr. John Kerr and Dr. James Kelly for their direction and
encouragement. I am also grateful to Dr. Murari Suvedi and Dr. Christine Vogt for supporting
me professionally and financially through my research assistanships.
In addition, I would like to thank the Dry Grain Pulses Collaborative Research Support
Program for providing financial support for my travel and other research expenses as well as
the CARRS Department for providing research support funding.
I am immensely grateful to all the faculty and staff in the CARRS Department as well as
my colleagues and friends within the department and throughout the university. You have all
helped make the challenges of going through graduate school surmountable.
Further, my research would not have been possible without the generosity and
companionship offered by my friends and colleagues in Ecuador. The scientists at INIAP as well
as the farmers in my host communities were overwhelmingly warm and welcoming.
Finally, I will remain forever grateful for the constant support of my family. Throughout
my graduate program, my parents, siblings, and in-laws were always there to share my
struggles and my successes while my nieces and nephews were always there to be adorable. I
love them all very much.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND SPANISH WORDS.......................................................................... vi
I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1
II. LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................................
A. Communities of inquiry in farmer participatory research..................................
B. CIALs in Ecuador’s bean breeding program........................................................
C. Cultural and historial context of study area.......................................................

4
5
9
11

III. METHODS........................................................................................................................ 14
A. Data collection..................................................................................................... 15
B. Data analysis........................................................................................................ 17
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............................................................................................. 19
A. What is the nature of participation in Ecuador’s bean breeding CIAL program? 19
B. What is the status of technology adoption in a CIAL program that has not
formed communities of inquiry?.............................................................................. 28
C. What are the implications for technology development?.................................... 32
V. CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................40
APPENDIX A. In-depth interview guides............................................................................... 45
APPENDIX B. Focus group transcript and interview guide................................................... 48
APPENDIX C. Household survey............................................................................................ 50
REFERENCES......................................................................................................................... 52

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Qualitative data collected, by village and role in CIAL................................................. 18

v

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND SPANISH WORDS

Acronyms
CIAL

Local Agricultural Research Committee, or Comité de Investigación
Agrícola Local

CIAT

International Center for Tropical Agriculture, or Centro Internacional de
Agricultura Tropical

FRG

Farmer Research Group

INIAP

National Institute for Agricultural Research, or Instituto Nacional
Autónomo de Investigaciones Agropecuarias

NGO

Non-Governmental Organization

PRONALEG-GA

National Legume and Andean Grain Program, or Programa Nacional de
Leguminosas y Granos Andinos, at INIAP

Spanish words
Ingeniero
Lancha

Title for any professional, including an agronomist
General descriptor for plant problems such as pest and disease damage

vi

I. INTRODUCTION
Traditional strategies toward agricultural research and extension often fail to meet the
needs of resource-poor farmers living in diverse environments (Ceccarelli, Guimaraes, &
Weltzien, 2009; Humphries, Gonzales, Jimenez, & Sierra, 2000; Scoones & Thompson, 1994;
Witcombe, et al., 2005). Farmer participatory research aims to make research more relevant to
poor farmers by inviting them into the formal research process (Chambers, 2008; Okali,
Sumberg, & Farrington, 1994). One approach that has gained attention among international
agricultural research organizations is the local agricultural research committee (or CIAL, by its
acronym in Spanish) methodology (Ashby, et al., 1995). The CIAL methodology relies on building
farmer capacity to conduct adaptive technology testing so that farmers may effectively partner
with and influence the research priorities of the formal agricultural research sector.
At the center of the CIAL methodology is the creation of a community of inquiry
amongst scientists and farmers. A community of inquiry forms when a group of people engage
in systematically and collaboratively addressing an issue of mutual importance (Friedman,
2001). The process is expected to generate an environment in which ideas are shared and
knowledge is generated through respectful, open interactions among participants. With the
CIAL, scientists train farmers in experimental research as well as community engagement and
thus work toward building the capacity of farming communities to perform participatory
research.
The CIAL methodology was originally developed by the International Center for Tropical
Agriculture (CIAT, by its Spanish acronym), an institution that has demonstrated a long-term
commitment to farmer participatory research. In Colombia, CIAT created a large network of
1

CIALs that are credited with improving access to agricultural technology, improving technology
performance, increasing local experimentation, increasing access to credit, and enhancing
social status of marginalized groups (Ashby, et al., 2000; Ashby, et al., 1995). In Ghana, the CIAL
process resulted in a high level of adoption of organic pest management techniques across
communities exposed to the CIAL (Ayenor, Roling, van Huis, Padi, & Obeng-Ofori, 2007). In
Honduras, the CIAL program helped marginalized farmers enhance their financial capital,
experiment with agricultural technology, and engage in collective action (Classen, et al., 2008).
In each of these programs, facilitators focused not only on the technical outcomes but
also on the process of creating and supporting a community of inquiry amongst participants. In
Colombia, the research team enhanced farmer problem-solving and leadership skills through
extensive facilitation (Ashby, et al., 2000; Ashby, et al., 1995). In Honduras, the team engaged in
a long-term process of building farmer capacity for inquiry and promoting an ethic of
inclusiveness within the CIALs (Classen, et al., 2008). In Ghana, scientists devoted significant
time and effort to training the CIAL in experimental research while emphasizing the importance
of disseminating results to the community (Ayenor, et al., 2007). The scientists in these cases
worked simultaneously as facilitators and researchers and were committed to building farmer
research capacity and ensuring that the CIALs worked in service to their communities.
Ashby and colleagues acknowledge that CIALs require a relatively high initial investment
but maintain that their costs quickly diminish within a few years of implementation (Ashby, et
al., 2000). Thus CIALs are often seen as a low-cost way for research programs with limited
extension capacity to meet the needs of resource-poor farmers (Ashby et al., 1995, Ashby et al.,
2000). However, lower costs are contingent upon the success of building communities of
2

inquiry as CIAL members, over time, become more familiar with research methods and less
reliant on outside facilitation. Lower costs are also contingent upon the ability of farmers to
readily understand formal research techniques. In communities where literacy is low and
poverty levels are high, for example, CIALs may require additional investment to strengthen
farmer capacity for performing experimental research (Humphries et al., 2000).
Attracted by the potential to improve the adoption of new technologies, some research
organizations have adopted the CIAL methodology without focusing on the process of building
communities of inquiry. Not giving due attention to the process, however, can have negative
impacts on the ultimate goals of the program. If, for example, CIAL members are not trained to
engage in a process of inquiry, they will continually depend on scientists to conduct research
for them (Ashby, et al., 2000). Further, when CIALs do not engage the rest of their communities
in the research process, the benefits of the research may not extend beyond a small group of
CIAL members (Humphries, et al., 2000).
At present, most published work on CIALs focuses on success stories. Little work details
the consequences of underinvesting in the CIAL process. As such, the purpose of this paper is to
examine a case in which researchers privilege the outcomes of CIAL research over developing a
culture of inquiry within participating communities. Such communities of inquiry are a hallmark
of the CIAL process but are not aspects of traditional agricultural research. This paper uses the
example of the bean breeding program at Ecuador’s national agricultural research institute and
asks: 1) What is the nature of participation in a CIAL program that is primarily focused on
technical outcomes? 2) What is the status of technology adoption under this form of
participation? and 3) What are the implications for technology development?
3

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Communities of inquiry in farmer participatory research
Participatory research has its origins in multiple disciplines including social psychology
(Greenwood & Levin, 1998), community health (Israel, et al., 2008), adult education (Cancian &
Armstead, 2000), organizational learning (Friedman, 2001), and rural development (Chambers,
2008). While the approaches to participatory research vary, they are generally characterized by
a concern for practical outcomes, an acknowledgement of multiple ways of knowing, and a
transformation of the traditional researcher-subject relationship into a co-inquirer relationship
in which subjects become more active participants in the research process (Heron & Reason,
2002; Reason, 2006).
Participatory research is often described using a continuum to illustrate various levels of
participation that are possible in a given project. The exact elements of the continuum vary, but
generally five points on a continuum delineate increasingly higher levels of community
responsibility and ownership in the research: contractual, consultative, collaborative, collegial,
and community-led (Chung & Lounsbury, 2006; Sanginga, Tumwine, & Lilja, 2006). Starting at
the lowest level, in contractual participation, community members are not involved in any
research decisions but instead provide information, land and/or labor to researcher-led
initiatives. In consultative participation, researchers lead the research process and ask
community members their preferences. In collaborative participation, community members
influence research decisions as they work together with researchers. In collegial participation,
community partners and researchers work closely throughout the research process, with

4

researchers serving as facilitators of the community’s research process. In community-led
research, researchers provide information or technology options to a community
independently engaging in research.
When the community members in this model are farmers, the research can be labeled
farmer participatory research. Farmer participatory research (FPR) grew out of the realizations
that conventional agricultural research was not meeting the needs of farmers in developing
countries, especially those living in complex, marginal, and diverse environments (Witcombe, et
al., 2005) and that involving farmers in research could improve research efficiency (Okali, et al.,
1994). In some cases, this awareness was coupled with a recognition that farmers have the
capacity to engage in formal research practices (Chambers, 2008) and that formal knowledge
and farmers’ local knowledge can complement each other (Hoffmann, Probst, & Christinck,
2007).
The extent to which a research program utilizes participatory approaches depends on
the goals of the program (Kerr & Kolavalli, 1999). Witcombe et al. (2005) argue that
participation is not always necessary to meet the needs of farmers if the researchers are aware
of client needs and are able to do adaptive testing under conditions similar to those in farmers’
fields. However, a research program may engage farmers in contractual or consultative
participation when technology development requires utilizing farmer expertise, understanding
highly differentiated farmer preferences, or using farmer labor and/or environments. Further,
when the goals of a research program are to change the culture of interaction between
scientists and farmers and build farmer capacity to do research, researchers may engage

5

farmers in collaborative or collegial participation, whereby farmers become central decisionmakers in the research process (Weltzien, Smith, Meitzner, & Sperling, 2003).
The participatory literature suggests that interactions between researchers and
community partners can change over time as the community partners gain inquiry skills and
experience (Chung & Lounsbury, 2006). While researchers may initially guide the research
process via contractual or consultative participation, more collegial relationships develop as
participants become co-researchers in a community of inquiry. A community of inquiry is a
group of people engaged in systematically and collaboratively addressing an issue of mutual
importance (Friedman, 2001). Within a community of inquiry, a space develops in which
democratic and participative deliberation about the research can occur. In some of the
participatory research literature, this space is referred to as “communicative space” (Reason,
2006). Others have referred to it as “participatory space” (Classen, et al., 2008) or as “cogenerative” space (Greenwood & Levin, 1998). Each of these concepts implies that ideas are
shared and knowledge is generated through interactions amongst group participants.
While creating a community of inquiry involves engagement in actual events and
formation of arenas within which communication occurs (Greenwood & Levin, 1998), it also
refers more broadly to the development of a culture of interaction amongst participants in
which communication is characterized by honesty, trust, and mutual respect (Reason, 2006).
Since these interactions can be affected by experiences and expectations brought in from other
contexts, such as existing power relationships (Cornwall, 2004), creating a community of inquiry
requires a concerted effort to shift power dynamics so that the voices of traditionally
marginalized or subordinate groups are heard and respected (Chambers, 2008).
6

In farmer participatory research, researcher limitations and/or community dynamics
may affect the number and type of farmers that participate so that only the more educated and
wealthier community members enter into communities of inquiry (Adhikari & Goldey, 2010;
Chambers, 1983; Classen, et al., 2008). The needs of the broader community may thus not be
addressed unless more marginalized farmers are intentionally invited to participate. Therefore,
creating a community of inquiry between farmers and scientists requires more than just
collaborative relationships between scientists and a small group of farmers. It also requires
that those creating the community of inquiry welcome and encourage participation by all those
who stand to benefit from the inquiry process (Classen, et al., 2008; Kerr & Kolavalli, 1999).
One approach to farmer participatory research that can create inclusive communities of
inquiry is the farmer research group (Bebbington, Merrill-Sands, & Farrington, 1994). By
promoting collective learning and sharing, farmer research groups can enhance the technology
development and diffusion process, increase farmer access to markets, and build the capacity
of farming communities to engage in inquiry (Ashby & Sperling, 1994; Markelova, MeinzenDick, Hellin, & Dohrn, 2009). While the literature about farmer research groups is abundant, it
tends to either highlight cases where facilitators succeed in creating inclusive communities of
inquiry (Bonny, Prasad, Narayan, & Varughese, 2005; Haggar, Ayala, Díaz, & Reyes, 2001; Palis,
2006) or offers little description of the dynamics amongst research participants (Friis-Hansen &
Duveskog, 2012; Mangan & Mangan, 1998; Steinmaier, 2001). It does not give sufficient
description of cases where the interactions among researchers, farmer research groups, and
their communities are not characteristic of inclusive communities of inquiry.

7

A type of farmer research group associated with success in creating communities of
inquiry is the local agricultural research committee (CIAL). As decentralized sites of agricultural
experimentation, CIALs are an opportunity for farmers to become collaborators in the research
process as they develop relationships with researchers and enhance their inquiry skills. In the
CIAL methodology, four principal members are elected from and by the community to serve as
links between the formal research sector and the remainder of the community. While these
four members most consistently and actively participate in CIAL activities, the technicians
facilitating the CIAL process also encourage other community members to participate (Ashby, et
al., 2000; Ashby, et al., 1995).
The CIAL literature describes programs that create inclusive communities of inquiry with
researchers and farmers. In Colombia, the CIAL facilitation team worked with CIALs to develop
both their problem-solving and leadership skills so that CIAL members learned to identify
research problems in conjunction with their communities (Ashby, et al., 2000; Ashby, et al.,
1995). In Honduras, the CIAL facilitation team integrated marginalized community members
into the inquiry process by enforcing an ethic of inclusiveness in the CIALs and making a longterm commitment to farmer capacity building (Classen, et al., 2008; Humphries, et al., 2000;
Humphries, Jimenez, Sierra, & Gallardo, 2008). CIAL members in this program demonstrated
their increased capacity for inquiry by identifying potential research topics they might explore,
including investigating social relationships in their communities (ASOHCIAL & Classen, 2008). In
Ghana, agronomists and extensionists met frequently with the CIAL members to train them in
experimental research and knowledge transmission. In turn, the CIAL held regular meetings
with the community to share knowledge acquired from experiments (Ayenor, et al., 2007).
8

In each of these CIAL programs, the technicians facilitating the CIAL process successfully
created communities of inquiry amongst researchers and farmers. Yet, the CIAL methodology
does not always succeed in building such communities. Ashby et al. (2000) acknowledge that
elitism may occur in the initial years of CIALs and that conflict in the community or within the
CIAL may make the CIAL methodology ineffective (Ashby, et al., 1995). Further, Humphries et al.
(2000) recognize that community participation in CIALs may be weak when the committees
offer no short-term benefits for participants or when CIAL benefits are captured by community
elites (Classen et al. 2008). Yet, instead of detailing the complexities of these cases, these
authors describe how they modified their programs to extend benefits to the communities. This
paper gives a detailed description of a CIAL program in which the facilitating institution does
not modify its program to build communities of inquiry.

B. CIALs in Ecuador’s bean breeding program
In Ecuador, the National Legume and Andean Grain Program (PRONALEG-GA, by its
Spanish acronym) at the National Institute for Agricultural Research (INIAP, by its Spanish
acronym) performs breeding research to enhance productivity of dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris
L.) throughout the country. The region of study, namely the provinces of Carchí and Imbabura,
is responsible for approximately 25-30% of national dry bean production, with a total of 4,660
hectares planted to the crop in that region in 2011 (INEC, 2012b). Yet, dry bean production in
Ecuador is constrained by multiple pests and diseases that reduce crop productivity (Mooney,
2007, p. 167). The high prevalence of crop pathogens leads farmers to apply multiple pesticides
and fungicides every growing cycle, some of which are highly toxic (Subia, et al., 2007).
9

PRONALEG-GA’s mandate is to enhance crop productivity and reduce agrochemical use by
developing varieties resistant to the diseases that most commonly affect bean producers.
Despite this mandate, PRONALEG-GA has limited resources to meet the diverse needs of
farmers spread across the highly varied range of agroecological conditions under which beans
are produced.
To facilitate the bean improvement process in northern and central Ecuador,
PRONALEG-GA partnered with the Bean/Cowpea Collaborative Research Support Program in
the early 2000’s to implement the CIAL methodology. The research team saw the CIAL
methodology as a way to increase access by small-scale bean producers to high-performing,
locally adapted dry bean varieties. At the beginning of the CIAL formation process, PRONALEGGA selected communities in the bean-growing region of northern Ecuador to identify their
agricultural and community needs. In these communities, beans were identified as an
important part of rural diets and the foundation of the agricultural production system. Amongst
the agricultural problems identified by the communities were low bean yields due to losses
from diseases and poor access to good quality seed (Mazon, 2008).
To address these needs, INIAP began participatory varietal selection and artisanal seed
production of bean varieties through the CIALs. Based on a mix of breeder and farmerdetermined criteria, INIAP bean breeders develop varieties that are adapted to local
agroecological and market conditions. CIAL members participate in the planting of bean
varieties and the subsequent selection of varieties that best meet their criteria. Since
establishing the CIAL program, PRONALEG-GA has released ten improved varieties for farmer
use. In addition to breeding activities, farmers have been involved in trainings about pest and
10

disease management, visits to the national research center, seed fairs, and meetings of the
larger Association of CIALs. INIAP also trains a small number of CIAL members as seed
producers to multiply and disseminate the improved varieties to other farmers in Ecuador’s
bean growing regions. Currently, PRONALEG-GA works with approximately 20 CIALS in three of
the country’s provinces (Mazón, et al., 2008).
Mooney (2007) found that INIAP’s bean breeding program resulted in higher yields of
beans containing disease resistance compared to non-resistant varieties, reduced application of
pesticides, and a positive rate of return on research investments. In addition, INIAP has
documented the fact that farmers participate in the selection of varieties for beans at various
stages of cultivation (Mazón, et al., 2008). However, the nature of interaction amongst
scientists, CIAL members, and farming communities is unknown. Further, beyond yield
improvements and reduced pesticide application, the outcomes that farmers may be
experiencing as a result of their involvement in the research program are not well understood.
This research explores whether Ecuador’s bean breeding CIAL program has succeeded in
creating communities of inquiry amongst farmers and researchers and examines the outcomes
of the participatory nature of this program.

C. Cultural and historical context of study area
It is significant to note that the Chota and Mira Valleys, the region in which much of
INIAP’s CIAL work is concentrated, is demographically distinct from most of the country. Some
have estimated that approximately 97% of the inhabitants of these valleys are Afro-Ecuadorian
(Whitten & Quiroga, 1998), while 7.2% of Ecuador’s population self-reports as Afro-Ecuadorian

11

(INEC, 2012a). African settlement in the Chota and Mira Valleys began when hacienda owners
imported African slaves to the area, starting in the late 1500’s (Whitten & Quiroga, 1998). While
national laws ended slavery in the mid 1850’s, former slaves continued to work as tenant
farmers on the haciendas until the Agrarian Reform and Colonization Law in 1964, which called
for land redistribution and land ownership by former tenant farmers (Blankstein & Zuvekas,
1973).
Currently, Ecuadorian ethnic ideology continues to be founded on the concept of
mestizaje or “ethnic mixing” and upward mobility associated with blanqueamiento or
“whitening” (Rahier, 1998; Whitten & Quiroga, 1998). Latin American governments use the idea
of mestizaje to deny the existence of racial discrimination in their countries by saying races are
mixed rather than segregated (Dulitzky, 2005). Contrary to this conceptualization of race,
discrimination is evident throughout Ecuador. In art and media, black men are stereotyped as
agressive thieves and black women as sexual objects (Rahier, 2003). Afro-Ecuadorians in urban
centers tend to work as maids, porters, traders, and hold other jobs in the informal sector. They
also report being victims of racial profiling in the work force as well as the criminal justice
system (de la Torre, 2005; Rahier, 1998).
At the same time, growing state acknowledgement of a distinct Afro-Ecuadorian identity
has led to the formation of grassroots and state-sponsored organizations supporting AfroEcuadorian political and human rights during the 1990’s (de la Torre, 2005; Traa-Valarezo,
Sanders, Brackelaire, & Rojas, 2004). While these organizations have increased Afro-Ecuadorian
voice in government, de la Torre (2005) argues that the state support of such organizations is
part of a corporatist strategy “to channel and regulate social protest” (p. 65). Rather than being
12

a break from history, de la Torre sees these actions as an extension of the paternalistic systems
established during slavery and perpetuated with the tenant farming system. Jackman (1994)
defines paternalism as “discrimination without the expression of hostility” (p. 10), or, in other
words, a manipulative strategy of benevolence used by a dominant group to maintain another
group in a subordinate position. Under each of these systems in Ecuador, the white and
Mestizo ethnic groups have controlled the transmission of resources to the Afro-Ecuadorian
population, thereby maintaining Afro-Ecuadorian marginalization and nurturing a culture of
dependency.

13

III. METHODS

Overview
This research utilized a qualitative, case study approach. Two of PRONALEG-GA’s CIAL
communities, Atuntaqui and Bolivar (pseudonyms), were selected as cases for this study. Both
were considered by the PRONALEG-GA scientists to be successful CIALS and both were in the
process of conducting participatory varietal selection and seed multiplication at the time of the
study. Both study communities are located in the Chota and Mira Valleys, on the border of the
provinces of Imbabura and Carchi. The principal market crop for many farmers in this region is
beans, which is produced for home consumption and for sale to domestic and Colombian
markets. Farmers also produce other crops including sugar cane, sweet potato, cassava, maize,
sweet pepper, plantain, pigeon pea, and avocado (Mazón, et al., 2008).
A qualitative approach was selected for a number of reasons. First, qualitative research
is particularly useful for exploring topics or perspectives that are not well-documented in the
literature (Patton, 2002). For this study, a qualitative approach was appropriate because there
is little documentation on farmers’ perspectives and experiences with the CIAL methodology in
Ecuador (Mazón, et al., 2008; Mazón, Peralta, & CIAL, 2005). In addition, a qualitative approach
avoids unnecessary assumptions about farmer perspectives and instead allows the various
views of the CIAL experience to emerge through the process of inquiry.
The study was designed to compare perspectives on the CIAL experience from a number
of different viewpoints or roles. Four distinct roles with respect to the CIAL were identified for
this purpose: 1) the scientific staff at PRONALEG-GA and its partner NGOs; 2) CIAL leaders in
14

each community; 3) CIAL members who were not leaders but who were active in their CIAL at
the time of study or were previously active members (or ‘participants’); and 4) community
members who were not engaged with the CIAL or only minimally engaged (or ‘nonparticipants’). Four different data collections techniques were used in each community: indepth interviews, focus groups, participant observation, and surveys. Table 1 shows the details
of the qualitative data collected for this study.

A. Data collection
i. In-depth interviews
In-depth interviews allow researchers to explore in detail the experiences, motives, and
viewpoints of individuals who have knowledge of or experience with a phenomenon of interest
(Hesse-Biber & Leavey, 2006; Rubin & Rubin, 2005). For this study, the purpose of the in-depth
interviews was to hear the perspectivesof different stakeholders on the process and outcomes
of the CIAL program. In each community, in-depth interviews were held with CIAL leaders and
participants (see Table 1). The leaders of each CIAL were identified by PRONALEG-GA.
Participants were identified through conversations with CIAL leaders. In addition, the four
scientists from PRONALEG-GA who ran the CIAL program and five scientists from governmental
and non-governmental institutions who collaborated on the CIAL program were also
interviewed. Interview guides for these interviews are given in Appendix A. Twelve follow-up
interviews were also conducted with interviewees to clarify points covered in the first interview
or to gain greater depth. In total, 40 in-depth interviews were conducted.

15

ii. Focus groups
A focus group is a type of group interview in which open-ended questions are asked in
an interactive group setting. Focus groups are particularly useful when there are gaps between
researchers and subjects in terms of language and culture or when it is desirable to explore the
range of opinions or experiences people have had (Morgan & Krueger, 1993). Essentially, the
interactions among participants provide researchers with an opportunity to hear how subjects
talk about a phenomenon. In addition, the degree of consensus can become clear to the
researcher as the interaction in the group unfolds.
For this study, the purpose of the focus groups was to explore the perceptions of nonparticipating community members about their CIAL and to learn whether or not the program
helped address issues of bean cultivation relevant to the communities. Though most focus
group participants were aware of the CIAL activities going on in their communities, some did
not necessarily connect these activities to the idea of the CIAL nor did they understand the
CIAL’s purpose. The group interaction allowed participants who had a fuller understanding of
the CIAL to help others connect their awareness about what CIAL members were doing with the
idea of the CIAL and thus facilitated discussion on the topic. In one village, Atuntaqui, some
focus group participants had difficulty remembering CIAL activities because they had happened
eight to ten years previously. In this case, the group interaction helped some participants
recollect such activities.
To gain the perspective of community members who had only minimally participated or
not participated in CIAL activities (non-participants), two separate focus groups were conducted
in each community for men and women, totaling 35 participants. Focus group participants
16

were selected randomly from a list of community households. The size of each focus group
ranged from eight to ten participants. The focus group guide can be found in Appendix B.
iii. Participant observation
During the period of data collection, I lived in each of the CIAL villages and observed the
day-to-day life in the village. To the extent possible, I became acquainted with the CIAL
members and was able to observe their bean cultivation practices as well as their relationships
with others in the community. I was also able to observe the nature of the interaction between
scientists and CIAL members during a participatory varietal selection activity. During this
activity, two PRONALEG-GA scientists and four farmers in Atuntaqui evaluated five lines of red
mottled beans to decide which lines would advance to the next planting cycle. For this event I
used a scripting method to record interactions (Le Compte & Schensul, 1999).
iv. Household survey
While the research design was primarily qualitative, short surveys were conducted to
collect information about household characteristics and bean cultivation to supplement the
qualitative data collection. These surveys were administered to all 54 households that
participated in either the interviews or focus groups. The survey can be found in Appendix C.

B. Data analysis
All interviews and focus groups were digitally audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.
The data were then analyzed thematically in three stages. In the first stage, a coding scheme
was developed based on themes that emerged throughout the data collection. The transcripts
were coded for each theme. In the second stage, the coded text for each data collection was
17

extracted into separate documents and summaries were written for every set of coded text. In
the third stage, these thematic summaries were used to create conceptually clustered matrices
to compare the subjects’ perspectives of each theme (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Multiple
matrices were created to analyze specific aspects of each research question by village and by
role played in the CIAL (eg. scientists; CIAL leaders; participants; non-participants). The analysis
of these matrices was conducted by comparing the perspectives on the CIAL by role of each
research participant. In addition, quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS, a statistical
software package.
Table 1. Qualitative data collected, by village and role in CIAL
In-Depth
Interviewees
Initial
Follow-up
Atuntaqui
CIAL Leaders
CIAL Participants
CIAL Non-Participants
Male
Female
Bolivar
CIAL Leaders
CIAL Participants
CIAL Non-Participants
Male
Female
Scientists
TOTALS

3
5

Focus Group
Participants

3
1
8
8

2
9

2
3
10
9

9
28

3
12

35

18

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This paper examines participant perspectives on the norms of participation in Ecuador’s
bean breeding CIAL program. The purpose of this inquiry is to understand the role of the CIAL
process in advancing the development of agricultural technologies for resource-poor
environments. The work focuses on the following research questions:
A.

What is the nature of participation in a CIAL program primarily focused on
technical outcomes?

B.

What is the status of technology adoption under this form of participation?

C.

What are the implications for technology development?

A. What is the nature of participation in Ecuador’s bean breeding CIAL program?
The results of this study indicate that the highly participatory community of inquiry that
is a central aspect of the CIAL methodology is poorly developed in Ecuador’s bean breeding
CIAL program. Specifically, this program is characterized by highly directed forms of
participation within the CIAL as well as a lack of connection between the CIALs and their
communities.
i. Consultative participation
While the CIAL methodology calls for farmers and scientists to collaboratively make
research decisions, the nature of participation in Ecuador’s bean breeding CIAL program is best
characterized as consultative. In consultative participation, professional researchers “consult
with community members on researcher-identified tasks” and community members give advice
regarding these tasks from “their own knowledge and experiences” (Chung & Lounsbury, 2006,
p. 2131). Sanginga et al. (2006) describe consultative participation as a “one-way
19

communication in which researchers dominate the process and make all the decisions” (p. 504).
When participation is consultative, as opposed to collaborative or collegial, farmers do not
become partners in the research process and thus do not take on as many research
responsibilities as called for by the CIAL methodology (Ashby et al., 1995).
Since the central focus of PRONALEG-GA’s CIAL program is bean breeding, the program
naturally framed its work with the CIALs to be about bean improvement. In particular,
PRONALEG-GA adopted the CIAL methodology to select and multiply improved bean varieties
through consultation with farmers. Their view of farmer participation, therefore, did not
necessarily coincide with the wider aims presented in the CIAL literature. Rather, farmer
participation was expected to be consultative in nature.
Scientists and farmers across both villages agreed that the main objective of the CIAL
was to select improved bean varieties. Furthermore, the primary focus of their efforts was on
the technical aspects of bean selection and multiplication. One PRONALEG-GA scientist said,
“We chose the CIAL methodology because it permits us to carry out evaluation of promising
genetic material for new varieties” to arrive at “more certain, safe, and realistic criteria.” Most
farmers also understood the main goal of the CIALs to be improving farmers’ seed. A CIAL
leader in Bolivar, said, “We formed the CIAL with the aim of getting a good seed” because
“INIAP said, ‘With the CIALs what we’re going to do is local agricultural research on beans.” To
complement the varietal selection activities, PRONALEG-GA also trained the CIALs in seed, pest
and disease management, as one scientist explained, to “focus on the topics in which *farmers+
are weak.” The scientists also focused on training CIALs in seed production because, as one
explained,
20

“If you don’t really address the issue of seed, first, to produce seed to maintain the
varietal characteristics and second, that the farmers (the CIAL members and others), use
the seed. . . the work wouldn’t make sense. . . because in one cycle, two cycles, it would
be lost.”
Thus, the scientists' main reasons for engaging in research with farmers were motivated by the
goal of meeting the objectives of the bean breeding program.
In addition to setting the research agenda, the PRONALEG-GA scientists also directed
the research process, usually through a high level of consultation with a few farmers. Most of
the farmers who had direct experience with the PRONALEG-GA scientists, who were primarily
the CIAL leaders, reported on how INIAP asked them to do various activities. For example, a
CIAL leader said that the scientists told him, “Let’s do a trial with this bean” or “‘let’s multiply
this seed in larger quantities.’ They’ve said for example, ‘I’ll bring the seed, you put up the land,
you work it, then you’ll return the seed to us and the production is yours.’” The PRONALEG-GA
scientists also determined the number of participants in CIAL activities. A CIAL leader described
how INIAP made decisions about who participated:
“Many people say, ‘Why didn’t you take us *to a field day+? Why just them?’ But, if the
number is limited, if INIAP says, ‘We need 10,’ we’re not going to take 20. Or if INIAP
says, ‘We need 20,’ we’re not going to take 30. And if they say, ‘We only want to be with
the 3 of the CIAL,’ it’s just the CIAL members.”
Further, scientists and farmers explained how the scientists worked almost exclusively
with CIAL leaders, who were being trained as seed producers. The PRONALEG-GA scientists said
that they only worked with those who demonstrated “good attitudes toward collaboration”
and who “applied technology to get better grain.” One NGO partner said, “We didn’t work with
the rest of the bean producers but rather just those who were seed producers.” A participant in
Bolivar, referring to the participatory varietal selection, said “They *INIAP+ don’t do *the
21

experiments] with everybody, only with two or three people, no more. Last time they only did it
with [the CIAL leader] but not with anybody else.”
Thus, INIAP’s bean breeding program used the CIAL methodology to select improved
bean varieties in consultation with a small number of farmers. The consultative relationship in
this CIAL program is not characteristic of a highly participatory process of inquiry in which
participants are directly involved in making key decisions. In the most successful cases using the
CIAL methodology, facilitators build farmer capacity to address a variety of issues determined
by the community as local priorities, as opposed to consulting with farmers about the technical
objectives of a commodity-specific research program (Ashby, et al., 2000; Ashby, et al., 1995).
When participation is consultative, as opposed to collaborative or empowering, farmers do not
develop the skills to increase their roles in the research process to become collaborative
inquirers with scientists or to engage in independent inquiry (Ashby, et al., 1995; Humphries, et
al., 2000). If facilitators do not focus on building farmer capacity for inquiry, the transition from
consultative participation to scientist facilitation of farmer-led research will not occur,
precluding the cost reduction and scaling up that are reported in some CIAL programs (Ashby,
et al., 2000; Ashby, et al., 1995).
Perhaps as a result of establishing this consultative form of participation, PRONALEG-GA
scientists and farmers in both villages described farmers’ expectation that the scientists
continue to Iead the research process and future CIAL activities. One PRONALEG-GA scientist
said: “If we go to some site, they ask that we don’t leave because they say, ‘No, and now what
do we work with?’” A CIAL leader said, “If there’s not someone who guides us, there’s no
research.” One specific expectation of CIAL members was that INIAP should connect them to
22

the bean seed market. A participant in Bolivar said, “Those from INIAP come, they give you the
seed, but they don’t market it for you. It would be better if. . . they’d say, ‘I have a place where
the farmers can deliver the seed.’” However, a PRONALEG-GA scientist saw these issues not as
INIAP’s responsibility but rather as initiatives that farmers and other partners should address.
He said that farmers, “taking the easy way, are waiting for INIAP to *link farmers to a fair
market]. And that’s not a direct responsibility of INIAP.”
ii. Weak CIAL-community connection
A key component of the CIAL methodology is a strong connection between CIALs and
their communities, whereby information and ideas flows freely into the CIAL and out from the
CIAL to its community. Establishing this connection means that the farmers who stand to
benefit from the CIAL process are welcomed into a community of inquiry. However, the
evidence suggests that Ecuador’s bean-breeding CIAL program has not cultivated a strong
connection between the CIALs and their communities. As a result, the CIALs are not truly
embedded in the community and thus do not encourage broad-based participation.
First, there is evidence that CIAL membership was not representative of the broader
community. One criticism of the CIAL methodology is that it is susceptible to capture by more
educated community members and by those who readily participate in organizations
(Humphries, et al., 2000; Reyes, 2011). In this study, survey results and interview responses
confirm that the CIAL members were not representative of their communities in terms of
education or participation in other organizations. Results of an independent samples t-test
showed that there was a significant difference between the years of education received by the
head of household in CIAL families and non-CIAL families (t(54)=2.70, p=.009). Mean education
23

of CIAL household heads was 7.93 years (sd=2.52) while mean education of non-CIAL household
heads was 5.80 years (sd=2.64). In terms of participation in organizations, CIAL leaders in each
community belonged to at least two other organizations while most participants belonged to at
least one other organization. On the other hand, less than half of non-participants reported
belonging to organizations.
Second, there is evidence in one village that CIAL leadership were not chosen through
democratic or participatory means. Interviews with CIAL leaders and participants show that the
CIAL leaders were elected democratically in Atuntaqui but not in Bolivar. In the original CIAL
methodology, the community elects the CIAL members to represent its interests (Ashby, et al.,
2000). In Atuntaqui, a CIAL leader said, “With the community, a board was elected. At that time
we were 47 participants.” On the other hand, in Bolivar, one CIAL leader explained how she
selected the participants: “I went to gather those who are now members. I told them, ‘Do you
want to form a CIAL?’ And everyone asked me, ‘What’s a CIAL?’ So I told them, ‘I don’t know.
Don’t ask me. But do you want to form a group?’” A participant recounted another version of
how the CIAL in Bolivar formed: “Fewer and fewer of us stayed on [after the initial meeting]. So
. . . we elected amongst ourselves, those of us who remained.” Regardless of which version is
most accurate, the community was not involved in selecting the CIAL members in Bolivar.
Finally, the lack of intentionality on the part of the CIAL in sharing information with the
rest of the community demonstrates a weak connection between CIALs and their communities.
Since the CIAL’s role is to carry out research in service to its community, the CIAL methodology
calls for facilitators to support the process of information exchange between CIALs and their
communities, thereby encouraging CIAL members to take the lead in sharing information with
24

their communities (Ashby, et al., 1995; Ayenor, et al., 2007). Yet, in this study, interviews with
farmers in both villages show that there was little time dedicated to formally sharing
information learned in the CIALs with their communities and that information exchange usually
occurred informally when community members sought out the CIAL members.
Other than the varietal release days held in the CIAL communities at the end of research
cycle, CIAL leaders and participants generally reported sharing information only when
approached by community members. For example, one CIAL leader said, “While the crop is
growing, people have come. They’ve said, ‘Look, señor. I brought this plant from my crop. It’s
like this, it’s this way. What advice can you give me? What can I apply?” One non-participant
added: “To change seeds, we have to go looking for them. It’s not that they offer them to us.”
Further, multiple participants and non-participants in Bolivar reported a total lack of
information exchange between their CIAL and the community. One non-participant said, “Those
who are connected to INIAP, yes, they know how to do things. But they know for themselves
(deepens voice). That’s the problem. They don’t transmit to their neighbors, or to their friends,
or to their family.” One participant said,
“For the community we haven’t done anything yet. No, we’ve just done things
personally because . . . we’re working on our own plots. So it would be a lie to say that
we’re working for the community. We’re for our own future . . . not for the future of the
community because it’s a personal thing.”
In addition, some CIAL leaders and participants described a lack of appreciation for the
knowledge the CIAL members were trying to transmit. One CIAL leader said, “I pass by
someone’s field, I say, ‘Look compañero, your plant is sick. It needs such and such treatment. . .’
And sometimes they don’t listen to me. They might say, ‘I grow my crops my own way, by

25

myself.’” Referring to a recent variety release day in Bolivar, one participant said, “The whole
community was invited. . . but they didn’t go.”
Hence, the results suggest that the CIALS in this study were not firmly embedded in
their communities. Rather, the connection between the CIALs and their communities was weak.
Ashby et al. (1995) maintain that community support of the CIAL is necessary to ensure that
CIALs continue with minimal outside facilitation and focus on research that is relevant to the
community. CIALs gain community support through regular meetings that update the
community on research results and provide a communicative space for voicing opinions about
research priorities. The participatory literature argues that developing habits of collective
interaction and inquiry in communities, rather than focusing attention on only a few
individuals, is the basis of building vibrant communities of inquiry (Greenwood & Levin, 1998).
Thus, emphasizing the interactive aspects of CIAL development encourages a more dynamic
flow of ideas between CIAL members and their communities and helps ensure that the work of
the CIAL remains relevant to the community.
One factor affecting implementation of PRONALEG-GA’s CIAL program was limited
resources. Some scientists that were interviewed expressed frustration that they did not have
sufficient time or resources to develop the CIAL programs more fully. One PRONALEG-GA
scientist lamented that they did not have enough personnel, stating “Sometimes we’re half an
hour or an hour per group per month, and that’s very, very little.” He also commented that
PRONALEG-GA faces a lack of support for social science research from INIAP as well as limited
coordination between the scientists at INIAP’s main research station and those at regional

26

offices. Another suggested that resource problems are more structural: “The new state laws
are making it difficult to invest in agricultural research. We have fewer resources every day.”
The CIAL program was further challenged when the program expanded beyond its
intended size in 2005. PRONALEG-GA originally planned to work with only four to six CIALs, but
it expanded the program when a soccer player from the Chota Valley and the Ministry of
Agriculture showed interest in the CIAL methodology and, as a PRONALEG-GA scientist said,
“gave a mandate to INIAP. . . to amplify its action in the region.” As such, PRONALEG-GA rapidly
expanded its CIAL program from four to approximately 20 communities. With this expansion,
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) provided complementary funding for CIAL activities
and formed a technical roundtable of institutions working in bean production and marketing. A
PRONALEG-GA scientist said that he hoped the other projects would help diffuse the results
from the CIAL communities to other communities but this did not happen. Most of the funding
from these NGOs was short term and has since ended. As a result, PRONALEG-GA has a much
larger CIAL program than it intended but does not have the support or assistance of the partner
NGOs to help organize or keep a presence in these communities. Thus, resources are extremely
limited to support the development of well-functioning CIALs.
In sum, INIAP’s bean breeding CIAL program has not developed active communities of
inquiry comprised of farmers and scientists. Two factors, a singular focus on the technical
aspects of the program as well as a lack of personnel and resources, have created conditions in
which farmer participation is extremely limited. Participation is limited in terms of the roles
that community members play in the research as well as the breadth and diversity of
community members involved. Participation was found to be more consultative in nature, as
27

the scope of the work was set a priori and did not allow for community members to influence
the agenda. In addition, interactions focused on work with few farmers rather than creating
more widespread dialogue with other community members. By focusing on few farmers
without emphasizing the importance of leadership and community engagement, the CIAL
program did not create communicative spaces that encouraged CIAL members to engage with
their communities.

B. What is the status of technology adoption in a CIAL program that has not formed
communities of inquiry?
The evidence from this study indicates that Ecuador’s bean breeding CIAL program has
brought locally adapted, high quality seed to many farmers across the CIAL communities.
Interviews with scientists and farmers in both villages showed that many stakeholders had
positive perceptions of the varieties released through the CIALs. An NGO partner said, “It’s
excellent work, what INIAP does, because it’s releasing new varieties that are specially adapted
to the zone.” In addition, most non-participants interviewed reported that they plant at least
one CIAL-selected variety including Yunguilla, Portilla, Concepción, Paragachi Andino, or Blanco
Fanesquero.
Yet, interviews with scientists and farmers also showed that the technologies promoted
by PRONALEG-GA, including improved seed and the complementary practices of seed quality
and pest and disease management, were not being adopted at the rate scientists expected.
In terms of the seed itself, farmers did not readily purchase the improved seed
produced by the CIALs. When asked if he liked the seed from the CIAL, one non-participant said,

28

“It’s good quality but they tend to sell it at a high price so we prefer to plant what we have.” A
PRONALEG-GA scientist added,
“The bean farmer’s way of thinking (chuckles) is not that he has to buy quality seed. . .
It’s difficult to tell him, ‘Look, Don Enrique, you have to buy quality seed if you want to
have good harvests.’ So he says, ‘Ah, very good, but how much does it cost?’ First is the
price, and sometimes they don’t have *the money+.”
In addition to specifically noting the price of seed as a barrier to adoption, farmers, both
participants and non-participants, suggested other reasons for not adopting the improved seed.
Reasons included negative characteristics of the varieties, low market demand for grain, high
agricultural risk, and lack of access to credit. These reasons will be explored in a later section.
The lack of demand for seed, as described by scientists and farmers, also suggests low
adoption of the pure improved seed. By acknowledging that they planted specific varieties
selected by CIALs, non-participants indicated that they recognized and valued the improved
varieties to some extent. Yet, interviews showed that farmers did not fully adopt the improved
seed because they often replanted pure seed or purchased commercial grain for seed. These
practices indicate low demand for seed. As one participant who was the leader of the
Association of CIALs, which was formed to produce and market seed, said, “I remember that in
one year we had good bean *seed+ production but there was no market. People didn’t want it
at all.”
By planting anything other than pure seed, farmers are practicing partial, rather than
full, adoption because they lose the genetic advantages of improvement with each successive
replanting. While full adoption is the aim of breeders and seed producers, smallholder farmers
often lack the capital to purchase pure seed for every planting. The second-best scenario for
breeders and seed producers is to maintain the genetic advantage of improvement through
29

good seed quality and pest and disease management. Adopting these practices increases crop
productivity, reduces costs of production, and enhances farmer understanding about the
genetic advantage of the improved varieties. Such knowledge thus increases farmer willingness
to pay for pure seed.
Seed quality management includes removing plants from plots that are not of the same
variety as the planted variety and practicing proper seed storage. By learning to maintain seed
quality, farmers can preserve the genetic advantage of their seed over multiple generations. As
one PRONALEG-GA scientist described:
“It could be that this year a farmer received seed from the CIAL. . . excellent harvest. But
he didn’t practice good seed management. Then in the second cycle, because he
replants his seed, his production is going to go down. And in the third he’s going to see
the same [production] as with the variety that he had before.”
Good seed quality management also ensures that seeds will have high germination, allowing
farmers to plant less seeds and, because of the genetic improvement, get higher yield. As one
CIAL leader explained, instead of planting three quintals per hectare, he’s “planting 1.5 quintals.
Half, and the production is higher.” CIAL leaders being trained as seed producers were
especially able to maintain the quality of improved seed because, as a PRONALEG-GA scientist
said, “every three cycles we provide them a quintal of seed.”
Interviews with scientists and farmers in both villages showed that CIAL leaders and
participants adopted new seed quality management practices while non-participants largely did
not. A participant described how he adopted a new seed quality management practice: “In the
plot, some grain always remains [from previous harvests]. . . So you remove the non-uniform
seed, you classify it well.” On the other hand, an NGO partner said that, beyond CIALs, “using
quality seed is still a very theoretical concept for the rest of the bean farming community.”
30

Further, pest and disease management are complementary practices to the improved
seed because they allow farmers to improve the efficiency of agrochemical application. One
CIAL leader said, “Now we know the diseases so that we can apply the appropriate insecticide,
fungicide. We know what to buy. We don’t give away money like we used to before.” Another
CIAL leader added, “You buy cheaper and better chemicals and save on costs. Likewise, you
invest less in chemicals and because of this you also save.” Because the improved varieties are
disease-resistant, distinguishing between different pests and diseases also allows farmers to
easily recognize the genetic resistance, and thus the added value, of the improved varieties.
Interviews with scientists and farmers in both villages showed differences in adoption of
new pest and disease management practices based on relationship to the CIAL. Specifically,
CIAL leaders adopted these practices, while non-participants did not. Among participants the
outcome was more mixed. A participant who learned to distinguish amongst different pests
and diseases said that, at the store, “You say, ‘Give me for this disease, give me for this thing,’
and they give it to you.” A significant factor contributing to the adoption of these practices was
the close relationship between PRONALEG-GA and the CIAL leaders. One CIAL leader said: “*The
scientists] come right away to see the crop to check on any deficiency . . . I give them a call, ‘I
have a problem with this. I want your help.’ So they come, we look at it, and we quickly realize
what the problem is.” Some participants, on the other hand, as well as all of the nonparticipants interviewed, did not adopt these practices. Those who did not took the advice of
agrochemical sellers as opposed to buying chemicals for specific diseases. A participant
explained: “When we go to the store we ask for what is useful at that time. When the bean is
germinating, when it’s flowering, we ask for an insecticide and the ingenieros give it to us.”
31

C. What are the implications for technology development of an underdeveloped community of
inquiry via the CIAL methodology?
Under the current CIAL program, adoption of the new technologies was not as
widespread as scientists hoped; there was limited adoption of pure seed and low adoption of
complementary practices. Furthermore, a focus on consultative interactions as well as limited
participation in the CIAL led to weak connections between the CIALs and their communities. As
such, a strong community of inquiry amongst scientists and farmers did not develop and the
CIALs were not effective at advancing the process of technology development on behalf of
their communities. The results from this work indicate that there were three important ways in
which the CIAL program failed to function as expected: 1) information did not diffuse from the
CIALs to their communities, 2) information did not flow from the communities to their CIALs,
and 3) community expectations of outsider involvement did not change.
i. Limited information diffusion from the CIALs to their communities
In both villages, interviews with scientists and farmers demonstrate that information
about PRONALEG-GA’s technology package failed to diffuse from the CIALs to their
communities. Regarding seed quality management, a PRONALEG-GA scientist reported that the
CIALs learned how to maintain the uniformity of their seed stock to preserve the genetic
advantage of the improved seed. However, this information appears to remain among CIAL
members. As one non-participant said, “The moment that the new seeds arrive they say, ‘You
do it this way.’ But only those who are included in that project know how to do the follow-up.”
In terms of pest and disease management, CIAL leaders and some participants learned
about new practices. For example, one CIAL leader said, “We used to confuse the diseases that
infected the plant. We said ‘Everything is lancha.’ But now, we more or less know how to
32

differentiate” pests and diseases. On the other hand, non-participants did not learn about new
practices. One non-participant said, “We’ve had the problem of not detecting how to protect
the plant because there’s a series of diseases that appear and we don’t have the knowledge.”
As suggested above, the poor diffusion of information was likely due to the CIALs’
limited effort to share information with their communities. Instead of creating venues to
regularly update their communities of CIAL activities, CIAL members usually provided
information only when approached by community members. Also, the resistance of nonparticipants to learn from the CIALs further impeded the process of information exchange as it
inhibited the free flow of information and ideas between the CIALs and their communities.
This limited spread of information is evidence that communities of inquiry did not
develop under the current CIAL program. The resulting knowledge gap between CIALs and their
communities indicates that Ecuador’s bean breeding CIAL program has not served to spread
information as rapidly as expected. This is one possible explanation for why the program does
not have more widespread adoption of improved bean varieties.
ii. Information does not enter the CIAL from the community
Although it is possible that low adoption rates are due to lack of information about the
technology, interviews with scientists and farmers in both villages also suggest that the
promoted technology package was not a good fit for many farmers. While farmers noted price
as the most direct reason for non-adoption, interviews with participants and non-participants
elicited multiple comments about the mismatch between the promoted technologies and
farmer needs and constraints.

33

For example, some participants and non-participants said they did not plant improved
seed because of negative characteristics of the varieties. One non-participant described what
she did not like about Portilla: “It flowers well but what happens is that its pods don’t form
completely. . . At first it looks good but then half of the flowers do not produce pods.” Another
non-participant said, “I don’t plant much Concepción anymore because that one’s really fast. It
stays small if you don’t work it quickly.”
In addition, Almekinders, Thiele, and Daniel (2007) suggest that unwillingness to pay for
improved varieties may be influenced by constraints such as low market prices for consumer
grain and aversion to risk. Although farmers did not present these conditions as direct reasons
for non-adoption, both of these issues appear to be present amongst farmers in this study. A
CIAL leader said, “There’s no certainty in the marketing” of their grain and a non-participant
commented, “After paying to control pests and then receiving poor prices from the
intermediaries, we’re left with nothing.” Farmers in both villages also reported having their
harvests affected by droughts, floods, and multiple pest and disease problems, suggesting the
high risks associated with farming in these communities.
Another factor affecting adoption may be a lack of access to credit to purchase seeds
and agrochemicals. One participant said, “People would need loans, from the bank or the state,
so that all farmers could get good seed. . . On the contrary, it’s difficult. . . For example, I buy
two pounds of seed and then I make my own seed. Why? Because I can’t afford a quintal of
pure seed.” Some non-participant also noted a lack of capital to purchase agrochemicals.
The emergence of multiple reasons for non-adoption suggests that low adoption may be
due to more than just lack of information diffusion. Rather, the emergence of multiple
34

justifications suggests that farmers may have rational reasons to decline adoption. In addition,
the lack of a functioning CIAL in which dialogue readily occurs means there was no place for
these concerns to be vetted. As a result, the extent to which community input was able to
influence the technology development process may have been limited by the absence of a
functioning community of inquiry.
Thus, there is evidence for both a lack of information flowing out of the CIALs as well as
a lack of information flowing into the CIALs. The presence of both conditions suggests that
attempts to implement a CIAL program without due attention to the process of forming a
functioning community of inquiry may be short-sighted. In the technology development process
prescribed by the CIAL methodology, information flows freely amongst scientists, CIAL
members, and other farmers to ensure that the resulting technology is relevant to the target
communities (Ashby, et al., 1995). Without such a flow of information, it is difficult for scientists
and farmers to develop mutual understanding about the advantages and disadvantages of
different technology options so that the technology developed will likely achieve lower than
expected acceptance.
iii. Unchanged community expectations
By working consultatively with few farmers, PRONALEG-GA’s CIAL program privileged
the outcomes of CIAL research over developing a culture of inquiry within participating
communities. As a result, PRONALEG-GA did not succeed in altering farmers’ expectations of
outsider involvement in their communities. By focusing attention on only a few farmers, the
project confirmed farmer expectations that they should be passive recipients in a development
process. For example, a non-participant demonstrated a common community perception of the
35

CIALs. He said, “Over there *in the CIAL+, those at INIAP give seeds to only three people.” While
PRONALEG-GA did provide seed to its seed producers, it was in exchange for their work to
select and multiply new varieties. However, PRONALEG-GA did not make clear its relationship
with seed producers, leading non-participants to assume that it distributed free goods
selectively.
Further, interviews with scientists and farmers demonstrated how PRONALEG-GA’s
manner of working with the CIALs generated envy in CIAL communities and led to disinterest in
the seed itself as well as in CIAL participation. For example, a PRONALEG-GA scientist explained:
“People say, ‘Ah, they only visit with *the CIAL leaders+. Why don’t they visit us?’ And
sometimes this creates a barrier. So, ‘I don’t plant *a CIAL leader’s+ seed simply because he is
the one who gets all the benefits from INIAP.’” Also, various CIAL members reported that
people left their CIALs due to the way that the scientsits focused on seed producers. Two
participants in Atuntaqui left because someone connected with INIAP did not purchase their
grain: “They took the harvest from the three [members of the CIAL] and they did not take ours.
. . So that was what we resented. . . and we separated *from the CIAL+.” He added, “We didn’t
receive any explanation. They just didn’t take it.”
Scientists explain that the technical nature of seed production requires working with
only a small number of people who are capable of meeting the technical and labor-intensive
demands of seed production. However, the resentment generated in this program over the
focused attention on few farmers suggests that there was a lack of communication amongst
scientists and farmers about the purpose of the CIAL. In a true community of inquiry, decisions
are mutually understood amongst participants. If the CIAL program in this case had built a
36

functioning community of inquiry amongst scientists and farmers, resentment over the seed
issue could be avoided, expectations of the role of the scientists might gradually change, and
participation in the CIALs could be maintained.
In addition, some felt that the history of paternalistic relationships between farmers and
outsiders heavily influenced community perceptions of the CIAL work. A PRONALEG-GA
scientist said, "In rural development in our country, paternalism was the common denominator
guiding the actions of governmental and non-governmental organizations, to have farmers
controlled by means of gifts.” Another PRONALEG-GA scientist added that “what we are living
now is the result of that whole form of intervention.” Accordingly, interviews with scientists
and farmers showed that non-participants and some participants expected to receive free
inputs from the scientists. For example, one non-participant said: “How about if *INIAP+ gives
everybody a quintal [of seed] and fungicides?” Further, one PRONALEG-GA scientist explained
how farmers responded to them during the first CIAL meetings:
“When we started to organize the CIALs. . . the first thing the farmers asked . . . was,
‘What are you going to give away? What did you bring to give away?’ And when we
explained that we weren’t going to give away anything but rather that we were going to
work together, the majority of people abandoned the meeting.”
Despite PRONALEG-GA’s intentions to change the nature of interaction between
farmers and scientists, partners continued to perpetuate the culture of paternalism. When
asked whose decision it was to provide the CIAL in Bolivar with chicken manure, an NGO
partner said, “I went, I told them, ‘Look, we’re going to give you something with this money.
How would you feel if we bought you manure?’” Such actions perpetuated the expectations of
CIAL members that they would receive free goods from outsiders.

37

While these external influences affect the extent to which PRONALEG-GA could change
the culture of paternalism in CIAL communities, there is also evidence that some scientists did
not believe strongly in the need to change paternalistic interactions themselves. A CIAL leader
in these Afro-Ecuadorian villages reported that one PRONALEG-GA scientist said that “he
couldn’t help us obtain threshing machines because the Blacks fought amongst ourselves.” In
response to this comment she said, “If I had placed him on a pedestal, that day he fell off
because I think that he. . . never said things from the heart.” The same scientist also said, "It’s
necessary to look for ways to [organize these farmers] if we want to get them out of poverty.”
Chambers (2008) maintains that such attitudes impede auto-development within communities,
as they reinforce the norms of undervaluing farmer knowledge and farmers’ capacity to engage
in research. Accordingly, Chambers (2008) would maintain that changing the culture of
paternalism is critical for creating communities of inquiry in a CIAL program.
Perhaps as a culmination of these factors, multiple scientists and farmers noted that
there was declining interest in the CIALs. Referring to the CIALs, one NGO partner said, “I see
that they’re discouraged, as if they don’t want to meet anymore.” One CIAL leader noted that
there were originally more than 40 people participating in CIAL activities in his community but,
at the time of study, his CIAL consisted of only three people. This CIAL leader also said that, “In
some communities there were CIALs, but they’re not working anymore.” Further, PRONALEGGA scientists reported that very few of the program’s 20 CIALs were active at the time of study.
The fact that PRONALEG-GA has not succeeded in changing farmer expectations of
outsiders shows that the CIAL program has not created conditions in which scientists and
farmers can collaborate to address issues of mutual importance. While the CIAL methodology
38

has allowed PRONALEG-GA to work in consultation with a small group of dedicated farmers, it
has not been able to change the culture of paternalism that is persistent in rural development.
Instead it has generated envy in CIAL communities. In addition, the evidence suggests that
working in this way may have damaged the future work in CIAL communities; farmers feel
disengaged from the CIAL program, disappointed for not receiving the same benefits as the
CIAL leaders, and thus disinterested in participating.
This case illustrates the consequences of putting inordinate emphasis on the technical
aspects of the CIAL research, while ignoring the need to nurture a broader community of
inquiry. The absence of wider interest and engagement in the research leaves the relationship
between scientists and farmers unchanged. As a result, adoption of PRONALEG-GA’s
technologies is less than desired and scientists face declining interest in the CIAL program.
Engaging with farmers in a more participatory manner could establish a more vibrant
community of inquiry and improve farmer commitment to the research process. This in turn
could result in more relevant technology and more integrated solutions to the challenges facing
resource-poor farmers.

39

V. CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of the CIAL methodology is to train farmer groups to engage in inquiry and
to serve as links between the formal research system and their own communities. The CIAL
methodology is not intended to function solely as a system of technology transfer but rather as
a strategy for changing the dynamic of scientist-farmer interactions, transforming relationships
founded on paternalistic tendencies into communities of inquiry. As such, the CIAL
methodology requires that researchers show a commitment to engaging broadly with farming
communities to facilitate the development of a shared culture of inquiry (Ashby, et al., 2000;
ASOHCIAL & Classen, 2008).
This study of Ecuador’s bean breeding program suggests that the CIAL methodology is
not meeting the program’s objectives to select, multiply, and diffuse improved bean varieties.
Results indicated that participation in the CIAL research was limited in terms of the breadth and
scope of farmer engagement. The absence of a functioning community of inquiry in the CIAL
program meant that many who held a stake in the research outcomes were disengaged from
the process of technology development; those who were involved were engaged in only a
limited way. Without an arena to communicate about the new technologies and with focused
attention on few participants, little information was exchanged with the broader community
and interest in the CIAL program declined.
The CIALs in this study did not function like those touted in the literature. In particular,
the CIAL methodology places equal focus on the process of empowering farmers to engage in
inquiry as on pursuing the technical objectives of the scientific work (Ashby, et al., 1995). As a
result, agricultural research organizations that can only pursue the technical objectives of CIAL
40

research might consider whether they have the capacity and motivation to utilize this form of
farmer participatory research. Such organizations may be better served by strategies that can
more efficiently help them achieve their research objectives. For example, if an organization
wishes to do adaptive technology testing and seed multiplication in farmers’ local
environments, contractual and consultative forms of participation may be most appropriate,
whereby farmers are compensated for ranking their preferences and contributing their land
and labor (Witcombe, et al., 2005).
Yet, if research institutions wish to address deeper issues of food insecurity and poverty
and change the culture of paternalism between farmers and scientists, they may aim to use
more collaborative, collegial, or farmer-led approaches to participation. Engaging with farmers
more broadly leads to the formation of communities of inquiry, within which the multiple
stakeholders affected by research outcomes openly consider their capabilities, expectations,
and needs. In communities of inquiry, participants work to build collective power through the
co-creation of practical knowledge (Gaventa & Cornwall, 2008). Even if research institutions
have more technical aims, building communities of inquiry via the CIAL methodology can
enhance both the technology development and adoption processes as farming communities
become more committed to the research process and outcomes.
The participatory research literature emphasizes the complexity of forming communities
of inquiry and the multiple challenges that may arise in the process. Participatory research
practitioners stress the importance of being aware of one’s own biases and being intentional
about choices made throughout the participatory research process in order to achieve research
outcomes (Chiu, 2006; Reason, 2006). They also note that emergent issues that are not
41

explicitly addressed at the start of the project may affect outcomes. One such issue is the
power differential between research practitioners and community members. If not confronted
at the outset, the discrepancy may lead to few positive changes and deteriorating research
relationships (Friedman, 2009). Another emergent issue may be the importance of including
multiple stakeholders. If key stakeholders who influence research decisions are not active
participants in communities of inquiry, they may ultimately discourage participants and cause
projects to fall apart (Chung & Lounsbury, 2006; Todhunter, 2003). Similarly, if more
marginalized community members are not actively engaged in the research process, research
outcomes may fail to benefit these members (Classen, et al., 2008; Humphries, et al., 2000).
Therefore, the participatory research process is often much more complex and difficult
to carry out than may be evident by simply reading about a participatory research methodology
in the literature. Engaging in participatory research requires self-awareness on the part of
facilitators and a deep commitment to community engagement. Engaging in participatory
research is especially difficult when the precedent of scientist-farmer relations is one of
paternalism, whereby farmers have an internalized belief that they are subordinate and
incapable of addressing their own problems without the help of external donors. Such a culture
is counter to the spirit of collaboration needed for the formation of communities of inquiry.
Moreover, if all organizations interacting with target communities do not adopt a participatory
mindset, attempts by one organization to change the culture of paternalism with farmers will
be hindered by organizations that continue to practice paternalistic behaviors.
This paper does not argue for or against a certain approach to participatory research.
Rather, it calls for research institutions to be clear about their objectives and intentional about
42

the methodology chosen to meet those objectives. If a research program decides to engage in
participatory research with farmers, it should consider the level of participation that is
appropriate for its research program, keeping in mind that the process of farmer engagement is
just as important as the technical objectives. In some cases, contractual or consultative
participation may be most appropriate. In other cases, more collaborative or collegial
participation or facilitation of farmer-led research may be desired.
Future research could explore the quality of participation in research programs that
have implemented the CIAL methodology. While this research described a CIAL program that
did not build communities of inquiry, other research programs may have intermediate levels of
success doing so and may provide insight into additional factors that influence the formation of
communities of inquiry via the CIAL methodology. Studying these cases would contribute to a
deeper understanding of when the CIAL methodology can be a viable approach to farmer
participatory research.
Future research in Ecuador should focus on learning whether PRONALEG-GA has the
organizational capacity to engage in more collaborative research with farmers and whether
such engagement is necessary to meet its objectives. Upon making these assessments,
PRONALEG-GA could decide whether to work to expand farmer participation via the CIAL
methodology or to develop alternative approaches to meet its research objectives. Given its
limited resources as well as the importance of including all relevant stakeholders in a
community of inquiry, PRONALEG-GA might consider how to commit partner institutions to
engage more actively in the participatory research process.

43

APPENDICES

44

APPENDIX A. In-depth interview guides

GUIDE FOR IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS WITH CIAL LEADERS
1. Tell me about the CIAL and what it does in this community.
Follow-up questions
•
What is the purpose of the CIAL to you?
•
Can you tell me more about ______ (activity). Probe for details of specific
activities
•
How does the CIAL run? Resources?
2. How have you been involved in the CIAL?
Follow-up questions
•
Tell me about what you do for your CIAL. What roles do you play?
•
Tell me about the CIAL elections? How did they work?
•
Tell me about your work with INIAP scientists. When did you first start to
work with them? What did you do ? …and then what? *step by step to
understand interactions]
•
Aside from the seed work with INIAP, have the CIAL and INIAP done any
other activities together?
3. What’s your opinion of the work of the CIAL?
Follow-up questions
•
What has the CIAL accomplished so far?
•
Do you like working with the CIAL? What do you like about it?
•
Has it benefited people in the community outside the CIAL?
•
What do community members outside the CIAL think of it?
4. What’s working well in the CIAL? What does not work well with the CIAL? *one at a
time to contrast]
Follow-up questions
 How could the program improve?
 What do you think the CIAL should do in the future?
5. Background questions about household characteristics and bean cultivation
(administer survey)

45

GUIDE FOR IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS WITH PARTICIPANTS
1. Tell me about the CIAL and what it does in this community.
Follow-up questions
•
What is the purpose of the CIAL to you?
•
How does the CIAL run? [focus on interaction with members]
2. How have you been involved in the CIAL?
Follow-up questions
•
What CIAL activities are you involved in?
•
Can you tell me more about ______ (activity). Probe for details of specific
activities
•
What did you do ? …and then what? *step by step to understand activity
and interactions with breeders and other members]
•
Aside from the seed work with INIAP have the CIALs done any other activities
together with INIAP?
3. What’s your opinion of the work of the CIAL?
Follow-up questions
•
What has the CIAL accomplished so far?
•
Do you like working with the CIAL? What do you like about it?
•
Are there any benefits to its work for the community? For your household?
4. What works well with the CIAL? What doesn’t work well ? *one at a time, contrast+
Follow-up questions
 How could the program improve? What should it do?
 What needs do you have that you think the program could meet in the future?
5. Background questions about household characteristics and bean cultivation
(administer survey)

46

GUIDE FOR IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS WITH INIAP SCIENTISTS AND NGO PARTNERS INVOLVED IN
PARTICIPATORY BEAN IMPROVEMENT
1. Please give a history of your work doing participatory bean improvement.
Follow-up questions
• Let’s start from the beginning….when did you first begin this work?
• And then what? And then what?
• How do you decide which communities to work in?
• (For INIAP only): Please describe the process of CIAL formation in community X.
• Are the activities that you do in each community different? If so, why?
2. (For INIAP only): I’d like to know how farmers participate in the bean breeding program.
Follow-up questions
• How do they become involved? What is the process?
• At what stages of the breeding program do farmers participate? What do they do?
• How do you incorporate farmer’s knowledge and criteria into the breeding
program?
3. What is important about farmer participation in bean breeding?
Follow-up questions
• What is the underlying purpose of including farmers?
• What have you learned from your experience working with farmers?
• What are some of the strengths of the farmers you collaborate with?
• What are some challenges to working with farmers?
• What is the potential for further incorporating farmer participation in your work?
4. What have been the outcomes of the bean breeding program?
Follow-up questions
• Have you noticed changes in the farmers’ knowledge about the research process
and plant breeding?
• Have farmer incomes increased?
• Are the CIALs used for any other activities outside of the bean breeding program?
• Have you noticed changes in the communities in terms of farmer networking and
collaboration?
• Do you think the farmers have been able to take advantage of other opportunities
not related to plant breeding because of this program? For example, accessing
credit, addressing other community needs?

47

APPENDIX B. Focus group transcript and interview guide

FOCUS GROUP WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS
Transcript:
Good afternoon and welcome to our session. Thank you for taking time to join in this
discussion about bean production and the CIAL____(name of CIAL)______. My name is Sara
Jablonski and I am a student at Michigan State University in the United State. I am trying to
gather information about the experiences of bean farmers in this community.
Today we will be talking about what you have heard about the CIAL in your community and
your opinions about it. We will also discuss the issues you have with bean cultivation on your
land. This information will be used to improve the work that the CIAL does, so that it may
better serve the community. There are no right or wrong answers to any of these questions
because they are asking about your own experiences. Please do not be shy in sharing
information, even if you disagree with what other people in the group are saying. I also ask that
people with differing opinions are respectful of what others have to say.
Before we start, I’m going to give you a few rules to keep in mind. Please speak up, but only
one person should talk at a time. I am audio recording this session and I want to be able to hear
each of your answers clearly. None of your names will be used in any reports of this session so
your responses will remain anonymous. Please feel free to share whatever is on your mind.
Our session will last about one hour and we will not be taking any formal breaks. If you need to
step out for a moment, feel free to do so.

48

GUIDE FOR FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS
1. Tell me what you know about the CIAL in your community.
Follow-up questions
 What activities has the CIAL done?
 What is the purpose of the CIAL to you?
2. Have you participated in CIAL activities?
If so,
 What activities have you done?
 How long, or how many times, did you participate in each of these activities?
If not,
 For what reasons have you not participated?
For both,
 Would you like to participate in more CIAL activities? Why or why not?
3. Have you benefited in any way from the CIAL?
Follow-up questions
 Have you received and planted new varieties from the CIAL?
 Have these varieties grown better?
 Have you received information from CIAL members about new seeds or
cultivation practices?
 Have there been any other benefits to you because of the CIAL?
4. What are your most pressing problems related to bean cultivation ?
 What do you think the CIAL can and should do about them?
5. Background information on household characteristics and bean cultivation
(administer survey)

49

APPENDIX C. Household survey

HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS AND BEAN CULTIVATION INFORMATION SURVEY FOR ALL
COMMUNITY MEMBERS, BOTH CIAL PARTICIPANTS AND NON-PARTICIPANTS
Date of interview: ________________
Data collection ID: example: FGPM1 (focus group with participants, male, subject 1)
1. Household composition
I would like to ask you about the people living in your house (including you).
Gender
Age
(years)

(0=F,
1=M)

Education
(years)

Head of family
Spouse
Children

Other (specify)

2. How much land do you own and have in production?
(# of hectares) _____________
50

Lived with you
in the last 12
months
(0=no, 1=yes)

3. How much land do you rent?
(# of hectares) ____________
4. What portion of your land is planted to beans?
(%) ______________
5. What quantity of beans did you harvest during the last harvest season?
(quintals) _____________
6.
What portion of your last bean harvest
was:
Consumed within the household?

Percentage
(%)

Saved as seed?
Given as a gift?
Sold within the community?
Sold outside the community?
Other ____________________

7. Did you earn income from another source other than your farm in the past year?
(0=No, 1=Yes) ______
8. Did you receive money from anyone outside the community in the past year?
(0=No, 1=Yes) ______
9. Do you have access to credit?
(0=No, 1=Yes) _______

51

REFERENCES

52

REFEERENCES

Adhikari, K. P., & Goldey, P. (2010). Social Capital and its “Downside”: The Impact on Sustainability of
Induced Community-Based Organizations in Nepal. World Development, 38(2), 184-194.
Almekinders, C., Thiele, G., & Danial, D. (2007). Can cultivars from participatory plant breeding improve
seed provision to small-scale farmers? Euphytica, 153(3), 363-372.
Ashby, Braun, A., Gracia, T., Guerrero, M. d. P., Hernandez, L. A., Quiros, C. A., et al. (2000). Investing in
farmers as researchers: Experiences with local agricultural research committees in Latin America.
Cali, Colombia: CIAT.
Ashby, Gracia, T., Guerrero, M. d. P., Quiros, C. A., Roa, J. I., & Beltran, J. A. (1995). Institutionalizing
farmer participation in adaptive technology testing with the 'CIAL' Agricultural Research and
Extension Network Paper No. 57. London: ODI.
Ashby, & Sperling, L. (1994). Institutionalizing participatory, client-driven research and technology
development in agriculture. Agricultural Resarch and Extension Network Paper No. 49. London:
ODI.
ASOHCIAL, & Classen, L. (2008). Sharing in Innovation: Reflections on a partnership to improve
livelihoods and resource conservation in the Honduran hillsides. In L. Fortmann (Ed.),
Participatory Research in Conservation and Rural Livelihoods: Doing Science Together. UK: WileyBlackwell.
Ayenor, G., Roling, N., van Huis, A., Padi, B., & Obeng-Ofori, D. (2007). Assessing the effectiveness of a
Local Agricultural Research Committee in diffusing sustainable cocoa production practices: the
case of capsid control in Ghana. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 5(2/3).
Bebbington, A., Merrill-Sands, D., & Farrington, J. (1994). Farmer and community organisations in
agricultural research and extension: Functions, impacts, and questions Agricultural Research and
Extension Network Paper No. 47. London: ODI.
Blankstein, C. S., & Zuvekas, C., Jr. (1973). Agrarian Reform in Ecuador: An Evaluation of past Efforts and
the Development of a New Approach. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 22(1), 73-94.
Bonny, B. P., Prasad, R. M., Narayan, S. S., & Varughese, M. (2005). Participatory learning,
experimentation, action and dissemination (PLEAD): a model for farmer participatory
technology evolution in agriculture. Outlook on Agriculture, 34(2), 111-115.
Cancian, F., & Armstead, C. (2000). Participatory research Encyclopedia of Sociology, 2nd Edition (pp.
2038-2044): Gacl Press.
Ceccarelli, S., Guimaraes, E. P., & Weltzien, E. (Eds.). (2009). Plant breeding and farmer participation.
Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Chambers, R. (1983). Rural Development: Putting the Last First. New York: Longman.
53

Chambers, R. (2008). PRA, PLA, and pluralism: Practice and theory. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.),
The SAGE Handbook of Action Research, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chiu, L. F. (2006). Critical reflection: More than nuts and bolts. Action Research, 4(2), 183-203.
Chung, K., & Lounsbury, D. W. (2006). The role of power, process, and relationships in participatory
research for statewide HIV/AIDS programming. Social Science & Medicine, 63(8), 2129-2140.
Classen, L., Humphries, S., FitzSimons, J., Kaaria, S., Jiménez, J., Sierra, F., et al. (2008). Opening
Participatory Spaces for the Most Marginal: Learning from Collective Action in the Honduran
Hillsides. World Development, 36(11), 2402-2420.
Cornwall, A. (2004). Spaces for transformation? Reflections on issues of power and difference in
participation in development. In S. Hickey & G. Mohan (Eds.), Participation: From Tyranny to
Transformation? (pp. 75-91). London: Zed Books.
de la Torre, C. (2005). Afro-ecuadorian responses to racism: Between citizenship and corporatism. In A.
Dzidzienyo & S. Oboler (Eds.), Neither Enemies nor Friends: Latinos, Blacks, Afro-Latinos (pp. 6174). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Dulitzky, A. (2005). A region in denial: Racial discrimination and racism in Latin America. In A. Dzidzienyo
& S. Oboler (Eds.), Neither Enemies nor Friends: Latinos, Blacks, Afro-Latinos. New York: Palgrave
MacMillan.
Friedman, V. (2001). Action science: Creating communities of inquiry in communities of practice. In P.
Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Action Research, 1st Edition (pp. 159-170).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Friedman, V. (2009). The paradox of participation in action research. Action Research, 7(2), 263-290.
Friis-Hansen, E., & Duveskog, D. (2012). The Empowerment Route to Well-being: An Analysis of Farmer
Field Schools in East Africa. World Development, 40(2), 414-427.
Gaventa, J., & Cornwall, A. (2008). Power and knowledge. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The SAGE
Handbook of Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Greenwood, D., & Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Haggar, J., Ayala, A., Díaz, B., & Reyes, C. U. (2001). Participatory design of agroforestry systems:
Developing farmer participatory research methods in Mexico. Development in Practice, 11(4),
417-424.
Heron, J., & Reason, P. (2002). The practice of co-operative inquiry: Research 'with' rather than 'on'
people. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The SAG Handbook of Action Research, 2nd Edition.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hesse-Biber, S., & Leavey, P. (2006). The Practice of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

54

Hoffmann, V., Probst, K., & Christinck, A. (2007). Farmers and researchers: How can collaborative
advantages be created in participatory research and technology development? Agriculture and
Human Values, 24(3), 355-368.
Humphries, S., Gonzales, J., Jimenez, J., & Sierra, F. (2000). Searching for sustainable land use practices
in Honduras: Lessons from a programme of participatory research with hillside farmers
Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper 104. London: ODI.
Humphries, S., Jimenez, J., Sierra, F., & Gallardo, O. (2008). Sharing in innovation: Reflections on a
partnership to improve livelihoods and resource conservation in the Honduran hillsides. In L.
Fortmann (Ed.), Participatory Research in Conservation and Rural Livelihoods: Doing Science
Together (pp. 316). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
INEC. (2012a). Autoidenticacion de la poblacion. Retrieved April 11, 2012, from
http://www.inec.gov.ec/cpv/?TB_iframe=true&height=450&width=800%27%20rel=slbox
INEC. (2012b). Produccion Agropecuaria Continua. Retrieved August 14, 2012, from
http://www.inec.gob.ec/espac/2011/
Israel, B., Schulz, A., Parker, E., Becker, A., Allen, A., & Guzman, J. (2008). Critical issues in developing
and following CBPR principles. In M. Winkler & N. Wallerstein (Eds.), Community-Based
Participatory Research for Health, 2nd Edition. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Jackman, M. (1994). The Velvet Glove: Paternalism and Conflict in Gender, Class, and Race Relations.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kerr, J., & Kolavalli, S. (1999). Impact of agricultural research on poverty alleviation: Conceptual
framework with illustrations from the literature: Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research.
Le Compte, M., & Schensul, J. (1999). Analyzing and Interpresting Ethnographic Data. Walnut Creek: Alta
Mira Press.
Mangan, J., & Mangan, M. S. (1998). A comparison of two IPM training strategies in China: The
importance of concepts of the rice ecosystem for sustainable insect pest management.
Agriculture and Human Values, 15(3), 209-221.
Markelova, H., Meinzen-Dick, R., Hellin, J., & Dohrn, S. (2009). Collective action for smallholder market
access. Food Policy, 34, 1-7.
Mazón, N., Peralta, A., Murillo, E., Falconi, C., Monar, C., Subia, P., et al. (2008). Comites de investigacion
agricola local (CIALs): Herramienta para generar capacidades locales en investigacion y
desarrollo. Quito, Ecuador: INIAP.
Mazón, N., Peralta, E., & CIAL, C. d. r. M. (2005). El comite de investigacion agricola local (CIAL), una
estrategia para el emjoramiento de la produccion agricola en comunidades rurales: La
experiencia del CIAL "Cuenca del Rio Mira". Quito: Instituto Nacional Autonomo de
Investigaciones Agropecuarias.

55

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd Edition ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Mooney, D. (2007). The economic impact of disease-resistant bean breeding research in Northern
Ecuador. Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Morgan, D., & Krueger, R. (1993). When to use focus groups and why. In D. Morgan (Ed.), Successful
Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art (pp. 3-20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Okali, C., Sumberg, J., & Farrington, J. (1994). Farmer participatory research: Rhetoric and reality.
London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Palis, F. (2006). The role of culture in farmer learning and technology adoption: A case study of farmer
field schools among rice farmers in central Luzon, Philippines. Agriculture and Human Values,
23(4), 491-500.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (3rd Edition ed.). Newbury Park: Sage
Publications.
Rahier, J. M. (1998). Blackness, the Racial/Spatial Order, Migrations, and Miss Ecuador 1995-96.
American Anthropologist, 100(2), 421-430.
Rahier, J. M. (2003). Racist stereotypes and the embodiment of blackness. In N. Whitten (Ed.), Millennial
Ecuador (pp. 296-324). Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.
Reason, P. (2006). Choice and quality in action research practice. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15,
187-202.
Reyes, B. (2011). Assessing the socioeconomic impact of participatory plant breeding in two regions of
Honduras. Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2005). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Sanginga, P., Tumwine, J., & Lilja, N. (2006). Patterns of participation in farmers’ research groups:
Lessons from the highlands of southwestern Uganda. Agriculture and Human Values, 23(4), 501512.
Scoones, I., & Thompson, J. (Eds.). (1994). Beyond Farmer First: Rural people's knowledge, agricultural
research and extension practice. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Steinmaier, N. (2001). Potential of pasture legumes in low-external-input and sustainable agriculture
(LEISA). 2. Farmer adaptation of starter technology by farmer research groups in Luapula
Province, Zambia. Experimental Agriculture, 37(3), 309-317.
Subia, C., Peralta, E., Falconi, E., Pinzon, J., Mooney, D., & Swinton, S. (2007). Diagnostico sobre el cultivo
de frejol arbustivo y el uso de pesticidas en el sistema de produccion, en los valles del Chota y
Mira. Quito, Ecuador: Instituto Nacional Autonomo de Investigaciones Agropecuarias.

56

Todhunter, C. (2003). Action research: A case study. In R. Miller & J. Brewer (Eds.), The A-Z of Social
Research (pp. 5-9). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Traa-Valarezo, X., Sanders, A., Brackelaire, V., & Rojas, C. (2004). Republic of Ecuador: Development
Project for Indigenous and Afro-Ecuadorian Peoples (PRODEPINE), Interim Evaluation.
Retrieved April 8, 2012, from
http://www.ifad.org/evaluation/public_html/eksyst/doc/prj/region/pl/ecuador/ec_PRODEPINE.
htm#1
Weltzien, E., Smith, M., Meitzner, L., & Sperling, L. (2003). Technical and Institutional Issues in
Participatory Plant Breeding--From the Perspective of Formal Plant Breeding: Consultative Group
on International Agricultural Research: Participatory Research and Gender Analysis.
Whitten, N., & Quiroga, D. (1998). "To rescue national identity:" Blackness as a quality of nationalist
creativity in Ecuador. In N. Whitten & A. Torres (Eds.), Blackness in Latin America and the
Caribbean: Social Dynamics and Cultural Transformations (pp. 75-99). Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Witcombe, J. R., Joshi, K. D., Gyawali, S., Musa, A. M., Johansen, C., Virk, D. S., et al. (2005). Participatory
plant breeding is better described as highly client-oriented plant breeding. I. Four indicators of
client-orientation in plant breeding. . Experimental Agriculture, 41(03), 299-319.

57