Recent Changes

Friday, April 7

  1. 5:34 am

Sunday, March 9

  1. page product_matrix edited ... Tim Martha https://sites.google.com/site/nilsferrand/parade-actions Nils Ferrand and col…
    ...
    Tim
    Martha
    https://sites.google.com/site/nilsferrand/parade-actions
    Nils Ferrand and colleagues also proposed some follow up activities (https://sites.google.com/site/nilsferrand/parade-actions)
    TOC-End-Users-needs-assessmentEnd-Users' needs assessment
    Aim
    Getting the final target stakeholders of PAR, mainly farmers, citizens and local CBOs, to be exposed to the PAR design and use issues, and be able to express their own requirements and criteria for designing and implementing PAR.
    How
    0. organize means
    1. Agree on a common international methodology combing "push" and "pull" with very adequate methods, like maybe drama, role playing games, movie showing, etc
    2. select target groups worldwide, using the partners network
    3. Implement globally the assessment
    4. Gather and analyse results
    5. Feedback results to all participants in communities and publish results
    Who
    PAR experts for the method
    Any PAR implementers
    Communities
    Cost
    4 PM for the managing group + 2PM per CS for local management + 3 1/2 day per participant in communities
    Risks
    Difficult balance push/pull - Method design impossible - Limited extension - No added value of results
    When
    2014-1015
    TOC-High-level-Consensus-conference-on-PARHigh-level Consensus conference on PAR
    Aim
    A decision makers consensus conference on PAR --> would bring high level decision makers (CG board, donors representatives, academic top leaders) to assess the pros and cons of PRA through an instructed and structured debate in front of a pool of experts
    How
    0. agree and organize means
    1. Get top level decision makers to agree on the principles
    2. Select the panel (high level decision makers)
    3. Agree on the process and content, agenda
    4. Select experts and "witnesses" from case studies
    5. Organize logistics
    6. Make and animate and monitor the consensus COnference
    7. Write conclusion and disseminate through public events
    Who
    consensus conference experts for the method and facilitation
    PAR experts for the expert panel
    High level decision makers / policy makers interested in PAR vs non PAR
    Other "witnesses"
    Cost
    3 PM for organization + 6 PDs for all participants + 2 PM for post-valuation
    Risks
    decision makers refuse to engage - poor debate - no conclusive outcome
    When
    2015-1016
    TOC-Systematic-experimental-assessment-of-PAR-processes-and-valueSystematic experimental assessment of PAR processes and value
    Aim
    A set of very structured controlled experiments to test and compare the process, outcomes and constraints for different PAR approaches, tools, methods, in different contexts, using the principles of randomized trials + policy experiments & field experiments
    How
    0. agree and organize means / select partners and participants
    1. select target PAR methods / tools / issues
    2. decide methodology for experiments with external experts, including the monitoring protocol and definition of value assessment
    3. design and pre-test methods for the experiments
    4. select and organize local test contexts
    5. implement the local tests including results collection
    6. post-process and synthesize results per experiments
    7. aggregate and compare
    8. publish
    9. revise, repeat, extend
    Who
    expert scientists in experiments, social or biophysical
    PAR experts - methods designers and implementers
    local partners in Case studies
    Cost
    high per case, per experiment
    Risks
    diversity and multiplicity of treatments - ethics - complexity of methodological design - relation between controlled vs. realism - multiple value assessment
    When
    2015-1018
    Systematic comparative protocols of existing cases
    Aim
    Reviewing and post-evaluating existing case studies using a common method
    How
    0. Organize means and partners
    1. decide list of target methods / cases
    2. decide methods for evaluation
    3. select target case and organize partnership
    4. go there and implement ex-post evaluation
    5. collect and process results
    6. analyze
    7. publish
    Who
    PAR experts
    M&E experts
    PAR cases implementers / holders
    local case studies partners
    Cost
    4 PM for structuring + 2 PM per case for evaluation + 6 PM for synthesis
    Risks
    lost memory - reconstruction - difficult to agree on common M& E - unwilling partners for ex-post evaluation - complexity and diversity of processes - disentangling factors
    When
    2014-2016
    General meta-PAR workflow
    Aim
    A generic methodological workflow for thinking, choosing and implementing methods with and for stakeholders from the different perspectives --> help both scientists and policy makers to consider why and how PAR should or shouldn't be used
    How
    0/ organize means and partners
    1. Revise past experiences (cf other PARADE actions)
    2. revise litterature on the same
    3. build an abstract general model of PAR & R4D processes with actors, info flows, conditions
    4. build an operational decision support tool (computer based or not) based on this model
    5. test this tool and evaluate it
    6. disseminate through demonstration exercices with real users
    Who
    experts in PAR
    process modellers
    decision support systems developers
    guinea pigs users
    Cost
    12 PM for model and framework + 6 PM for tool development + 6 PM for test
    Risks
    complexity of the model - acceptance of the decision trajectories - user friendliness / compliance of the decision tool - adoption
    When
    2014-2016
    page-comments

    (view changes)
    6:17 am
  2. page product_matrix edited ... Tim Martha https://sites.google.com/site/nilsferrand/parade-actions Nils Ferrand and coll…
    ...
    Tim
    Martha
    https://sites.google.com/site/nilsferrand/parade-actions
    Nils Ferrand and colleagues also proposed some follow up activities (https://sites.google.com/site/nilsferrand/parade-actions)

    (view changes)
    6:16 am
  3. page writeshop edited ... Product matrix - what the group agreed to produce Roadmap of products (picture from Jo Cadilh…
    ...
    Product matrix - what the group agreed to produce
    Roadmap of products (picture from Jo Cadilhon - click the image for large size):
    Thursday
    0800 - 0900
    Breakfast
    0900
    Objectives and outputs of these 2 days
    Focus on products identified in first days
    Terry Clayton
    1100
    Break
    1130
    Product development
    Terry Clayton
    1300
    Lunch
    1400
    Product Development
    Participants
    1530
    Break
    1600-1730
    Product Development
    Evening
    ?
    Friday
    0800 - 0900
    Breakfast
    0900
    Progress review
    Terry Clayton
    1100
    Break
    1130
    Product development
    Participants
    1300
    Lunch
    1400
    Product Development
    Participants
    1530
    Break
    1600-1730
    Summary, next steps
    Katherine and Beth
    Evening
    ?

    (view changes)
    6:13 am
  4. page product_value edited Participatory Agricultural Research: Approaches, Design and Evaluation WriteshopWriteshop Expe…

    Participatory Agricultural Research: Approaches, Design and Evaluation
    WriteshopWriteshopExpert Meeting and Writeshop
    Oxford, 12-13 December 2013Oxford, 12-13 December 2013
    PAR profilesPAR value propositions
    See other productsSee other products
    During the workshop, we asked groups to identify what the PAR ‘value proposition’ might look like.
    If you want to run fast, run alone; if you want to run far, run together.
    (view changes)
    6:12 am
  5. page product_journeys edited Participatory Agricultural Research: Approaches, Design and Evaluation Expert Meeting and Write…

    Participatory Agricultural Research: Approaches, Design and Evaluation
    Expert Meeting and WriteshopExpert Meeting and Writeshop
    St Anne's CollegeSt Anne's College
    Oxford, 9-13 December 2013Oxford, 9-13 December
    Personal Journeys
    See other products
    How participatory agricultural research changes us
    Compiled and documented by Terry Clayton at the ‘Participatory Agricultural Research: Approaches, Design and Evaluation’ (PARADE) workshopOxford, 9-13 December 2013
    ...
    own lives.
    Blogpost
    Read the full stories here:
    (view changes)
    6:12 am
  6. page product_matrix edited ... Oxford, 9-13 December 2013 Product Matrix ... agricultural research : Marina (Marina) …
    ...
    Oxford, 9-13 December 2013
    Product Matrix
    ...
    agricultural research : Marina(Marina)
    The contribution
    ...
    the SLOs : Marc(Marc)
    The PAR community of practice - what will it look like
    PAR tool typology (Tracy)
    PAR state of the art review / conceptual framework (Tracy)
    ...
    participatory agricultural research: Saaresearch (Saa)
    Strategy paper
    ...
    participatory agricultural research: Nicoleresearch (Nicole)
    Roadmap for
    ...
    participatory agricultural research: Katherineresearch (Katherine and BethBeth)
    PAR value proposition (from the workshop)
    ...
    and approaches : Terry(Terry)
    PAR personal
    ...
    changes us : Terry(Terry)
    Blogposts from the meeting
    ...
    out of it: Joit (Jo)
    Presentations at the expert meeting
    The writeshop 'roadmap" (full size inage)
    (view changes)
    6:11 am
  7. page product_matrix edited ... Blog piece on PARADE, what I got out of it: Jo Presentations at the expert meeting The writ…
    ...
    Blog piece on PARADE, what I got out of it: Jo
    Presentations at the expert meeting
    The writeshop 'roadmap" (full size inage)
    The final output from the clustering activity on Thursday:
    Framework
    (view changes)
    6:09 am
  8. page product_value edited Participatory Agricultural Research: Approaches, Design and Evaluation WriteshopWriteshop Oxfo…

    Participatory Agricultural Research: Approaches, Design and Evaluation
    WriteshopWriteshop
    Oxford, 12-13 December 2013Oxford, 12-13 December 2013
    PAR profilesPAR value propositions
    See other productsSee other products
    During the workshop, we asked groups to identify what the PAR ‘value proposition’ might look like.
    If you want to run fast, run alone; if you want to run far, run together.
    PAR:
    Improves engagement of research in development; of development in research
    Is intrinsically appealing but evidence needed
    Fosters multi-disciplinarity
    Helps to sustain benefits
    Recognizes the role of research in the bigger picture
    Helps realize famers’ reality (opportunities and constraints related to innovations)
    Increases the likelihood of addressing the needs of stakeholders
    Provides different tools that help break monotony of a traditional R&D process
    Facilitates getting access to the voicex of people we are trying to help
    Helps ensure that work done in development has relevance for real people
    allows better understanding of accountability and better buy in by communities
    allows communities to get involved in defining research protocols and development options
    can allow real empowerment of communities; change views of themselves; gives greater confidence to beneficiaries
    Allows engagement of other stakeholders crucial for effective R&D (policy makers, market actors)
    Allows researchers to reflect back on how they should do research
    Enhances ownership of research process by farmers
    Increases impact, relevance that continues; sustainability
    Has potential for local empowerment
    Validates effectiveness of research
    Enables
    Strengthen the technologies developed by ensuring relevance and increasing actual use
    Provides learning for everyone involved
    Provides safe space for people to explore their view
    Builds confidence
    Builds trust
    Brings in demand by ultimate beneficiaries
    Increased likelihood of innovation
    Increases likelihood of sustainability
    Creates ownership of the natural resources where people are living.
    Reminds people that agricultural development is more than technology
    Brings out issues and innovation that might have been left out of more classic approaches.
    Is Fun!
    Is Humanizing: changes you as a person.
    Helps us embrace error.
    Is an opportunity to co-learn.
    Helps farmers feel valued.
    Caveats
    We think that participation has led to cognitive, behavioral and economic changes in beneficiaries lives, BUT we feel that we cannot prove this according to scientific standards like control treatments.
    How do participatory approached assist in achieving outcomes?
    Assumption that regardless of outcome, participations in and of itself is good.
    Is there evidence that participation produces good results?
    To what extent does participation help achieve a set of goals (SLOs)?
    For managing natural resources, decisions have to be participatory. When it comes to reducing poverty, improving public health, there is little evidence it works.
    Participate and be relevant.
    Only a few people end up ‘participating’?
    Possibility to manipulate the process in favor of what researchers want to achieve
    Dangers:
    Lack of safeguards
    Manipulation
    Rubber stamping
    Costs can be high
    Scaling up can be difficult
    What does participation bring to agricultural research that nothing else does?
    Participatory Agricultural Research: Opening a window on the social dimension of change.
    Participatory Agricultural Research: Changing the nature of research.
    Participatory Agricultural Research: Tools for dealing with life as it is.
    Participatory Agricultural Research: Tools for connecting research silos.
    Participatory Agricultural Research: Tools for changing minds.
    Participatory Agricultural Research: Tools for embracing error.
    Participatory Agricultural Research: Tools for sharing world views.
    Participatory Agricultural Research: Creating shared understanding.
    Participatory Agricultural Research: Understanding complexity.

    (view changes)
    6:06 am
  9. page product_matrix edited ... Strategy paper for advocacy on participatory agricultural research: Nicole Roadmap for the de…
    ...
    Strategy paper for advocacy on participatory agricultural research: Nicole
    Roadmap for the delivery of an initial framework on participatory agricultural research: Katherine and Beth
    PAR value proposition (from the workshop)
    PAR profiles - of tools and approaches : Terry
    PAR personal journeys - how PAR changes us : Terry
    (view changes)
    6:04 am

More