ADDING COMMUNITY-LEVEL VARIABLES TO FSR: A RESEARCH PRIORITY
ADDING A COMMUNITY-LEVEL PERSPECTIVE IN FSR
The IARCs have an important role to play in documenting the value of a community-level perspective in agricultural research and development, as well as in developing and testing data-gathering techniques within the capability (present and future) of national programs. IARCs should actively encourage their NSSs to look beyond the farm boundary, at the web of individual ties and organizational structures that bind small holders together and divide them into competing factions.
On the basis of such research by professional NSSs working in a wide variety of societies, important variables can be defined and cost-effective ways of describing them in specific production systems can he devised. Typologies of community types and behavior types (Doherty, Miranda, and Kampen I), "rule-based or decision- based cooperative behavior" can serve as useful guidelines for trying to understand local social processes. As has noted, sociologists need to develop "new sociological knowledge, methodologies for social action, and operational skills" which will contribute to "putting people first" in the development process. The development of such knowledge will require strategic research on the part of NSSs in IARCs.
National-level FSR activities can begin to incorporate sociological considerations even with current knowledge levels. Every FSR program have a sufficient understanding of the social, cultural, political, and economic heterogeneity a community in order to assess the overall position of their "target" farmers within that community. In addition, national-level FSR programs working in areas with communal access to essential resources or working on problems which do not respect farm boundaries should be encouraged to increase their attention to community-level variables and suprahousehold social processes.
There are several ways to initiate an emphasis on the suprahousehold level with relatively little additional input. First, in many areas there is a wealth of anthropological literature which can be consulted (Hansen 1984). If resources permit, a professional social scientist could be hired for a short time to prepare an annotated bibliography, or a review of relevant materials. Second, FSR teams can use
“key informant workshops” explore aspects of local social organization. Social science students, consultant from extension education) can serve as resource people. This approach was successfully used the national FSR team in to learn about local wealth heterogeneity, aspects of production and cross-household animal tenancy arrangements (Grandin
Other topics might include the level at which access to resources is controlled and mechanisms for control. Community heterogeneity can be discussed in broad terms, asking ”How are farmers different from each other in terms of wealth?” Key informants can readily tell the FSR team social organization including the basic social structure (what kinds of people live together, help each other, etc.) and groups active in the area. Third, a key informant technique can be used for assessing wealth rank within a community (Grandin 1980, 1983, 1988). This approach can be applied in any community, as the wealth of a farmer almost invariably affects his access to resources, type of production activities, education level, degree of group participation, and overall influence in the community. The same technique would he easy to employ to determine group participation, ethnic group or clan membership, or other characteristics of farmers which would affect for community cooperation. Subsequent informal and formal surveys should then include information on the factions felt to be important for the proposed direction of research.
If the result of key informant workshops and interviews suggests the household is not a or independent unit, then as Behnke and Kerven (1985) suggest, the dwelling place might be used as the unit of sampling; or if the household is used, its links to other households (both local and urban) can be traced in the on-farm trial phase when researchers have more time to interact with farmers (Tripp 1985).
Finally, reflecting the need for action-oriented research, national FSR teams can begin to observe group interaction and bolster community cooperation as they carry out their duties, by emphasizing group interviews and demonstrations. When possible, discussions with farmers and selection of cooperators should be channeled through suitable local organizations, or if none are available, be used as an opportunity to develop a local self-help organization within the community based on existing groupings and organizational modes. Thus, not only the
farmer, but the entire community may benefit from FSR.
SUMMARY
FSR currently focuses its efforts within farm boundaries, thus limiting technology generation to inputs under the complete control of the producers. The initial focus on the farm-family has matured to include a subhousehold focus with particular emphasis on the sexual division of labor and product. The focus, however, remains within the farm. The applicability of FSR is limited by its lack of attention to
community-level issues, particularly as they affect communal resource control and organization for community-based development. The which have been in the forefront of developing FSR, particularly those working in Africa, have an important opportunity to develop and test methods which will assist national programs to incorporate community-level variables and hence expand their scope for technology generation and dissemination.
NOTES
notable exception is whose FSR program is headed by an anthropologist (cf. ICRAF 1983).
Second Review of the (1981) distinguishes between basic, strategic, applied, and adaptive research. While basic research is “designed to generate new understanding,” strategic research is ”designed for the solution of specific research problems.”
REFERENCES
Anderson, F.M. A strategy for smallholder water on the Ethiopian Highlands. Ababa, Ethiopia: ILCA.
Behnke, and C. Kerven. 1985. FSR and the attempt to understand the goals and motivations of farmers. Farming Systems 22. Nairobi, Kenya:
CIMMYT.
Cancian, F. 1972. Change and uncertainty in a peasant economy. Stanford, CA, USA: Stanford University Press.
Cernea, M.M. (ed.). Putting people first: Sociological variables in rural development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cernea, M.M. and Guggenheim. 1985. Is anthropology superfluous farming systems research? Farming Systems Research (Kansas State University Research Series)
CIMMYT. 1984. Report of an workshop on the role of rural sociology and anthropology in farming systems research and extension. Eastern and Southern Africa Economics Program, Nairobi. Lusaka, Zambia, 24-27 November 1984.
Chambers, R. 1985. Shortcut methods of gathering social information for rural development projects. In (ed.), Putting People First: Sociological Variables in Rural Development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, J.M. and N. Uphoff. 1980. Participations in rural development: Seeking clarity through specificity. World Development
Doherty, Deborah. A preliminary report on group ranching in Narok District. Working paper 350. University of Nairobi: lnstitute for Development Studies.
Doherty, Deborah. Factors inhibiting economic development on Rotian Olmakongo Group Ranch. Working paper 356. University of Nairobi: for Development Studies.
Doherty, Victor, M. Miranda, and Jacob Kampen. 1981. Social organization and small watershed development. In IRRI.
Getz, W.R. and B.E. Grandin. 1986. Livestock in Swaziland cropping systems research and extension training. Morrilton, AR, USA: International.
Grace E. 1984. Bugs, banks, and bottlenecks: Organizational contradictions in the new rice technology. Economic Development and Cultural Change
Grandin, B.E. 1980. Small cows, big money: Wealth and dwarf cattle production in southwestern Nigeria. Dissertation. Stanford University, CA, U S A Department of Anthropology and Committee on Graduate Studies.
Grandin, 1983. The importance of wealth in pastoral production: A rapid method for wealth ranking. Proceedings of the workshop on Pastoral Systems Research. Sponsored ILCA. Ababa, Ethiopia: ILCA, 21-24 March 1983.
Grandin, B.E. East African pastoral land tenure: Some reflections from Maasailand. In J.B. (ed.), Land, Trees and Tenure: Proceedings of an International Workshop on Tenure Issues in Agroforestry. Nairobi, Kenya:
ICRAF.
Grandin, B.E. Proposal for a workshop on R SS, Agritex and other field staff on sociocultural factors affecting agricultural production. Nairobi, Kenya:
ILCA. Mimeo.
Grandin, B.E. Assessing the resource position of small holders: A field manual for wealth ranking. London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Hansen, Art. 1984. Anthropological contributions to recognition and analysis in farming systems research. Paper presented at the Workshop on The Role of Rural Sociology (anthropology) in Farming Systems Research, Lusaka, Zambia, 27 and 29 November 1984.
Hart, R.H. 1986. Research and development strategies to improve integrated crop, livestock and tree systems. Paper presented at the Workshop on Farming Systems Research, Hyderahad, India, ICRISAT, 17-21 February 1986.
Haugerud, Angelique. 1986. An anthropologist in an African research institute: An informal essay. Development Anthropology Bulletin
Hunter, Guy. 1982. Enlisting the small farmer: The range of requirements. ODI, Agricultural Administration Unit. Occasional paper 4. London, U K
ICRAF. 1983. Guidelines for agroforestry diagnoses and design. Working paper 6.
Nairobi, Kenya: ICRAF.
IRRI. Proceedings of the exploratory workshop of the role of anthropologists and other social scientists in interdisciplinary teams developing improved food production technology, Los Banos, Laguna, the Philippines, 23-26 March 1981.
Little, P. 1984. Regional analyses in farming systems research. In Cooperative Agreement on Human Settlements and Natural Resource Systems Analysis.
Massachusettes, U S A Institute for Development Anthropology and Clark University.
Rhoades, R. 1984. Breaking new ground: Agricultural anthropology. Lima, Peru:
Rocheleau, D.E. Land use planning with rural farm households and communities: participatory agroforestry research. Working paper 36. Nairobi, Kenya: ICRAF.
Rocheleau, D.E. Criteria for re-appraisal and redesign: Intra-household and hetween-household aspects of FSRE in three Kenyan agroforestry projects.
Working paper 37. Nairobi, Kenya: ICRAF.
Rocheleau, D.E. 1986. The user perspective and the agroforestry research and action agenda. Paper presented to the A F Seminar Series, University of Florida, 25 February 1986.
Sandford, 1983. Management of pastoral development in the Third World.
London, U K ODI.
Shaner, W., P.F. W.R. Schmehl. 1982. Farming systems research and development: guidelines for developing countries. Boulder, CO, U S A
Press.
H . 1981. Keen farmers on Swazi Nation Land. Economic Planning and Analysis Section. Mbabane, Swaziland MOAC.
Simmonds, Norman, W. The state of the art for fanning systems research.
Washington, DC, USA: Agriculture and Rural Development Department, World Bank.
Tripp, R. 1985. Anthropology and on-farm research. Human Organization
Wake. 1985. In C.B. Flora (ed.), Proceedings of Kansas State University and 1984 farming systems research symposium: Implementation and monitoring. Manhattan, KA, U S A Kansas State University.