Main-streaming participatory and cross-disciplinary approaches in animal science research in ...

12 Pages·2007·0.63 MB·English

African Journal of Agricultural Research Vol. 2 (4), pp. 119-130, April 2007
Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJAR
ISSN 1991- 637X © 2007 Academic Journals

Full Length Research Paper

Main-streaming participatory and cross-disciplinary
approaches in animal science research in developing
countries

Jens Aagaard-Hansen1*, Carl Erik Schou Larsen 2, Niels Halberg3, Carsten Nico Hjortsø4,
Quentin Gausset5 and Jolly Kabirizi6

1DBL – Centre for Health Research and Development, Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, Faculty of Life Sciences,
University of Copenhagen, Denmark
2 Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
3, Department of Agroecology and Environment, University of Aarhus, Denmark
4 Centre for Forest and Landscape Denmark, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
5 Institute of Anthropology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
6Namulonge Agriculture and Animal Production Research Institute, P. O. Box 7084, Kampala, Uganda

Accepted 23 March 2007

Conventional research approaches have lost considerable momentum after their astonishing achieve-
ments during the green revolution. The negative side of focusing rigorously on production improve-
ment was eminent around 1980 and led to considerations of environmental, gender and equity aspects -
making agricultural development much more complex than previously. In the search for new ways of
addressing the persisting problems of food insecurity and malnutrition, new ways should be explored.
Based on the experiences from three international, African research projects, the article argues the
case of participatory action research and cross-disciplinarity as some of the key elements in future
animal science research in developing countries. The benefits are outlined as well as the challenges for
the researchers and the donor agencies.

Key words: Action research, agriculture, agro-forestry, animal science, cross-disciplinarity, developing
countries, livestock systems, paradigms, participation, poverty.

INTRODUCTION

The need for change

In spite of the global trend of urbanisation, the majority of List of abbreviations
the world’s population still lives in the rural areas, which
serve as the source of most of the world’s food. And in ASPS- Agricultural Sector Programme Support; CNSF-Centre
spite of decades of development aid and agricultural National de Semences Forestières; Danida-Danish Interna-
tional Development Assistance; DBL – Institute for Health
research as well as increased globalisation of food
Research and Development DIAS-Danish Institute of
systems, there is still a pathetic (and in some places even
Agricultural Sciences; ENRECA - Programme for Enhancement
increasing) state of poverty and food insecurity (Halberg
of Research Capacity in Developing Countries; FAO-Food and
et al., 2006; Knudsen et al., 2006). Even though yields
Agriculture Organization; IA-Institute of Anthropology; IDS-
International Development Studies; IRP-Improved Ruminant
Production; KVL-Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University;
LRSP-Livestock Systems Research Programme NARO-
*Corresponding author E mail: jah[a]life.ku.dk National Agricultural Research Organisation; PETREA- People,
Trees and Agriculture; RandD-Research and Development ;
120 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

RasD-Research as Development; RfD-Research for Deve- further spreading of these ideas by presenting and dis-
lopment; SUFR-Strategic Utilisation of Feed Resources for cussing experiences obtained in three agricultural resea-
Small holder Dairy Production; UZ-University of Zimbabwe rch collaboration projects in Africa.

of dairy cows, productivity in pig and broiler production
have almost doubled over the last 40 years, this has Innovative research approaches: the trends

mostly happened in the ‘western’ part of the world and in
South East Asia. Most of the African agriculture1 and Participatory action research: ensuring relevance

large groups of smallholder farmers in other developing
countries have been left out of this improvement (FAO, The international breakthrough for a farmer-oriented app-
2000). The gap between the most productive and least roach came with the release of Robert Chamber’s book,
productive farming systems has increased twenty fold in ‘Rural Development. Putting the Last First’ (1983). Within
the last 50 years. The reasons are many, e.g. poverty, the area of farming systems research, the participatory
population growth, low educational levels, limited access approach means involvement of local farmers’ and
to knowledge of improved farming methods in combina- extension workers’ knowledge and experience in problem
tion with poor market linkages. Other important factors identification, choice of solutions (typically technical or
are wars, poor governance, climatic changes, epidemics management oriented changes in the local farming sys-
and global trade imbalances, especially in agricultural tems) and adjustment of technology to local agro-ecolo-
products like food and textiles. gical and socio-cultural conditions.
In areas with rapid economic growth, smallholder far- Action research3 is an activity that aims at helping local
mers are increasingly marginalised and out-competed people to solve an immediate, problematic situation and -
(Delgado et al., 1999). The FAO (2003) foresee that at the same time - to build general knowledge through
many smallholder farmers will have limited possibilities application of scientific methods (O´Brian, 1998). The aim
for the purchase of manufactured fertilisers and livestock is to move from the old Research and Development (R
feeds due to their high costs relative to output prices, due andD) paradigm (where the two activities were detac-
to increased risks or simply due to unavailability. At the hed), via Research for Development (RfD) to a new Res-
same time, there is an increasing demand for livestock earch as Development (RasD) paradigm (where the two
products and this is projected to continue for the next activities are joined).
several decades (Delgado et al., 1999; Rosegrant et al., Action research typically starts with a diagnostic phase
2001). This will open potential market opportunities for involving relevant stakeholders in the analysis of the
smallholder livestock farmers if they can find the link to problematic situation and subsequent ideas for potential
the markets and produce at competitive prices and qua- improvement are developed in collaboration with the sta-
lity as well as meet the increasing bio-safety standards keholders, and an action plan is made based on consen-
(Kristensen et al., 2004). Therefore it is highly relevant to sus within the stakeholder group in the farming systems
conduct research on how to improve smallholders’ live- researched. While the stakeholders implement the selec-
stock production using cheap and preferably locally avail- ted interventions, researchers help monitoring the sys-
able resources. However, many research institutions tems in a planned and systematic way that ensures the
have been slow in responding to changes and are at pre- best possibilities for interpretation of the results. Based
sent not adequately geared to address the prevailing on the researchers’ and the stakeholders’ observations,
development issues within livestock production in deve- the first cycle ends with reflections on the outcomes of
loping countries. the interventions and a new description of the system. If
As it was recognised that agriculture production was the problems addressed are not entirely solved or other
multidimensional and intertwined with the socio-cultural problems have arisen, a new cycle of problem identifica-
context, research questions could no longer be properly tion, planning of interventions, action and observation
addressed by using the traditional experimental and and reflection is carried out (O´Brian, 1998; Wadsworth,
mono-disciplinary approaches. We contend that a new 1998).
research paradigm is needed utilizing the potential of From a traditional research point of view, participatory
participatory action research and cross-disciplinary appr- action research has two major challenges:
oaches.2 The objective of this article is to contribute to

research questions within agriculture became increasingly more
1 This includes animal husbandry, soils science, forestry, complex leading to an increased interest in ‘farming systems
horticulture, aquaculture and natural resources management. research’ approaches.

2 The call for changes in research approach and methodology is 3 Though the two concepts are closely interlinked, action
by no means new. It was debated already in the 1970s as research may or may not be participatory.
Aargaard-Hansen et al. 121

• The problem of personal involvement of the Level two
researcher in the process (Alrøe and Kristensen,
Interdisciplinary. Researchers work jointly but still from
2002).
disciplinary-specific basis to address common problem.
• The problem of generalisation of results (van de Fliert

and Braun, 2002).

Level three
The former is based on the concern that the researcher

is so involved in the change process that she/he can not Transdisciplinary. Researchers work jointly using shared
keep an ‘objective’ perspective. The latter concern ques- conceptual framework drawing together disciplinary-
tions the ability to replicate the results. The fact that specific theories, concepts, and approaches to address
action research focuses on actual problems in their con- common problem.
text (complex social and agronomic systems) is a chal- When engaging in cross-disciplinary work, it is advisa-
lenge when trying to generalise, which is an important ble from the onset to define the intended level of integra-
purpose of conventional science. However, several ways tion. Some of the research projects that claim to be
of generalising participatory action research can be men- interdisciplinary probably only reach the multidisciplinary
tioned. Defoer et al. (1998) try to generalise methodo- level while truly transdisciplinary research is seldom
logies (e.g. how to use indigenous knowledge of soil seen. However, as pointed out by Aagaard-Hansen and
fertility) and Gladwin et al. (2002) present a method to Ouma (2002) there is a dynamic process within a (long-
quantify farmers decision making vis-à-vis adoption of term) research project whereby the collaboration may
agro-forestry by establishing decision trees based on gradually develop from multidisciplinarity to interdiscipli-
statistical testing. Kristensen et al. (1997) develop tools in narity or maybe even transdisciplinarity.
relation to decision aids for advisors and models for A cross-disciplinary approach can provide more useful
researchers. Snapp et al. (2002) assess different types of answers to the pertinent problems of the smallholder far-
inference from on-farm controlled experiments (e.g. com- mers because it applies a more holistic view. More-over,
paring feeding levels, breeds or varieties). However, a collaboration between different disciplines increases the
detailed discussion of the pros and cons of case studies possibility of raising new and innovative research ques-
is beyond the scope of the present article. tions and provision of cross-fertilisation in terms of
In essence, participatory action research serves the methodologies and theories of direct academic benefit
main purpose of ensuring relevance to the smallholder per se (Aagaard-Hansen, 2003; Gausset, 2004).
farmers’ day to day problems. According to Aagaard-Hansen (2003), the challenges
of cross-disciplinary work fall within two different dom-
ains: intra-project issues (relating to the individual scien-
tists’ different backgrounds leading to different percep-
Cross-disciplinarity: providing better answers
tions of ontology, epistemology and research ethics), and

extra-project factors referring to structural issues beyond
Problems are usually multidimensional and interlinked.
the control of the individual project.4
Pursuing solutions calls for application of combined
In essence cross-disciplinary research serves two pur-
methodologies as well as mobilisation of new areas of
poses, to provide more practically applicable results and /
expertise and application of theoretical frameworks which
or to nurture more interesting research per se.
transcend traditional professional boundaries.

Cross-disciplinarity is perceived as a cover term for
different types of disciplinary collaboration. According to Three Cases: Exploring New Ways
King and Brownell (1966), a discipline can be seen as a
complex phenomenon with social as well as cognitive In the following, three case studies will provide a basis for
aspects, “a community, a network of communications, a
tradition, a particular set of values and beliefs, a domain,

a mode of enquiry, and a conceptual structure”.
4 The ‘extra-project’ challenges, which often hamper
Rosenfield (1992, 1351) distinguishes between three
efforts to work cross-disciplinary, relate to levels beyond
different levels of cross-disciplinary collaboration:
the influence of individual researchers and projects.

These are contextual and usually constraining factors

such as organisational structures of institutions of higher
Level one education, career structures and donor agencies’ ability
to assess and evaluate cross-disciplinary research
Multidisciplinary. Researchers work in parallel or sequen- proposals as well as their readiness to pay for the
tially from disciplinary-specific base to address common additional cost and time entailed by cross-disciplinarity
problem. (Becher and Trowler, 2001; Aagaard-Hansen, 2003).
122 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

further discussion of challenges and benefits of participa- Background and implementation process
tory action research and cross-disciplinary collaboration.
The three case studies were all implemented in Africa In 1990 Zimbabwe had only experienced ten years of
and were funded by the Developmental Research Coun- independence and the research focus as well as the
cil in the Danish International Development Assistance course curriculum of UZ (reflecting a traditional positivis-
(Danida). In 2002 a workshop was held in Arusha, Tanza- tic and reductionistic scientific worldview) was still to a
nia, where researchers from the three projects met to large degree oriented towards the large commercial and
discuss their experiences. The following presentation and predominantly white owned agricultural production sector.
analysis draws heavily on discussions and results from At KVL, radical changes in the approach to teaching were
this workshop (Larsen et al., 2002). taking place during late 1980s and early 1990s. During
this period the university went from a classical lecturing
curriculum to more problem-based learning giving a grea-
“Improved ruminant production” (IRP) in Zimbabwe
ter responsibility to the students for their own learning
(1990-2000)5
process. In spite of this development, research at KVL

was still mainly based on traditional approaches.
Institutions involved
The research focus during the initial phase (1990-93) of

Department of Animal Science, University of Zimbabwe IRP was primarily supply driven and farmers, when invol-
(UZ), Harare, Zimbabwe ved, played a rather passive role as ‘technology testers’.
Department of Animal Science and Animal Health, The The research was mono-disciplinary and mainly concen-
Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University (KVL), trated on nitrogen metabolism and cattle feed evaluation
Copenhagen, Denmark reflecting the focus of the research team. This initial pha-
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences (DIAS), Tjele, se was a learning period for all the involved institutions
Denmark and scientists. During the first phase the farmers were
not too happy with the role they had been given. There-
fore, more active involvement of farmers, especially in the
Objectives farming system part of the research, was initiated. During
the second phase (1994-97), the research agenda was
The general objective was to improve livestock production broadened considerably to include milk production, drau-
and productivity of communal land in Zimbabwe. ght power, reproduction and also farming system resea-
The specific objectives were to: rch - the reason for this mainly being the inclusion of new
students and scientists both in Denmark and Zimbabwe.
• Support projects in the communal areas in Zimbabwe Also links to other activities in the region was streng-
with the aim of improving livestock productivity thened in this phase, especially Sokoine University of
• Provide assistance from KVL/DIAS to postgraduate Agriculture in Morogoro, Tanzania, where KVL had been
training in Zimbabwe and opposite involved in institutional capacity building during the
• Provide short term training of UZ staff in Denmark 1980s. In addition, links were made to other livestock
• Provide assistance from KVL/DIAS in establishing oriented ENRECA projects. Gradually the project became
research facilities at UZ Mutually to give seminars at more participatory, action oriented and cross-disciplinary
the involved institutions, on topics related to animal than in first phase.
science and production In the third phase (1998-2000) research moved from
• Support publication and the distribution in the being primarily supply-driven to much more demand-dri-
communal areas of the knowledge gained through ven. At the same time the farming system approach
the research cooperation came more into focus. Farmers themselves initiated res-
earch committees in the different research sites. Through
improved dialogue, farmers revealed that among other
things poultry and small ruminants were higher priority for
5 The project was one of the first projects funded through them than cattle feeding.
Danida’s Programme for Enhancement of Research

Capacity in Developing Countries (ENRECA). The goal of
Central participatory and cross-disciplinary lessons
this programme is to strengthen the research capacity of
learnt
developing countries aiming at (i) supporting research of

significance for social and economic development, (ii) It took time to change attitudes and behaviours of the
improving the capacity for utilizing the results of interna- involved scientists towards accepting that a system-orien-
tional research, and (iii) improve the quality and the rele- ted approach presupposes formation of cross-disciple-
vance for the surrounding society of teaching at the uni- nary research teams, and that true participation of farm-
versities.
Aargaard-Hansen et al. 123

ers is a prerequisite for conducting relevant applied rese- Background and implementation process
arch. The changes in attitudes and research approaches
were seen to be at least as important as the production From its outset, PETREA was defined as an action
enhancement achieved by the project. research project and was planned to be conducted in
Despite enhanced dialog with the farmers throughout cross-disciplinary teams mixing natural and social scien-
the project’s lifetime, it is still questionable if the change tists and involving Burkinabe, Tanzanian and Danish
in focus also brought an adequate change in level of researchers. It had a strong participatory focus and the
participation from all actors. Thus, the change of research ambition to work in close collaboration with local farmers.
focus following the participatory approaches was not The project consisted of two phases. The first phase
followed by a similar change in the involvement of resea- (2001-2002) aimed at identifying opportunities and cons-
rch expertise and establishment of cross-disciplinary traints for improving the use of tree products, and the
teams. The core scientist group remained the same second phase (2003-2005) at designing solutions to
throughout the project with overlapping competences. identified constraints. A third phase to test the suggested
Funding did not allow involving additional scientists and solutions was never implemented due to changes in
none of those already involved in the project were inter- Danida’s priorities and lack of funds.
ested in leaving to give room for new profiles. Only on the During the first phase a number of different data recor-
students’ (MSc and PhD) side, there were new profiles ding methods were applied reflecting the various discip-
like system researchers and agro-economists engaged. lines’ research traditions and their focus on different di-
mensions of the overall theme. A number of interviews
were carried out including tree ranking exercises. Other

data recording included the collection of manure and
“People, trees and agriculture” (PETREA), Burkina
establishment of botanical inventories in order to evaluate
Faso and Tanzania (2001-2005)
the feeding of livestock. The many participating discip-

lines were reflected in the very high number of different
Institutions involved
data recording methods covering the same topic, namely

the types of trees and shrubs being the most important in
Centre National de Semences Forestières (CNSF),
the villages. Cross-disciplinarity was attempted in the
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso Faculty of Forestry and
data-recording phase by co-ordinating the schedules so
Nature Conservation, Sokoine University, Morogoro, Tan-
that socio-economists and natural scientists were present
zania Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning and
in the villages in the same weeks and had daily discus-
Department of Animal Science and Animal Health, Royal
sions of methods and results.
Veterinary and Agricultural University (KVL), Copen-
During the second phase, some researchers started
hagen, Denmark Institute of Anthropology (IA), University
devising solutions to the needs and problems identified
of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark International
during the first phase. In Burkina Faso, after presenting
Development Studies (IDS), Roskilde University, Ros-
the result of the first phase, they were also asked to add-
kilde, Denmark
ress problems that no researcher felt qualified to study,

such as the problem of commercialising mango and cas-

hew. As the first phase had been very short, and as new
Objectives
researchers were integrated in the team, most partici-

pants continued to study or get more knowledge on iden-
The development objective was to secure and improve
tifying needs and problems. However, some never reac-
the livelihood of rural people in the selected countries in
hed the point where they felt confident to suggest and try
Africa by adding to their agricultural production in a
some solutions. If the first phase was characterised by
sustainable manner through increased use of trees and
common fieldwork of the whole team and intensive cross-
shrubs. The specific objectives were to:
disciplinary discussions, the second phase was charac-

terised by fieldwork in smaller groups or solitary, partly
• Contribute to an increased understanding of rural
because of the difficulty to organise common fieldwork of
people's utilisation of trees and shrubs in specific
bigger groups, and partly because of the variety of prob-
localities in the selected countries
lems that had to be addressed. In addition, scientists
• Develop and test locally adapted techniques and
focused on the problems that were closer to their own
strategies of how to bring trees and shrubs into wider
field of expertise.
use by rural people according to their needs and

priorities
• Strengthen the Danish resource base by promoting an Central participatory and cross-disciplinary lessons
interdisciplinary approach to research in people, trees learnt
and agriculture
The teams of researchers met a number of challenges
124 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

due to the participatory and cross-disciplinary ambitions. Systems Research Programme (LSRP), Agricultural
An initial challenge was to agree on how much informa- Sector Programme Support (ASPS), Danida Danish Insti-
tion could be assumed from previous mono-disciplinary tute of Agricultural Sciences (DIAS), Foulum, Denmark
studies, and how important it was to start from scratch
without any prejudice. Moreover, the level of involvement
Objectives
of local African scientific partners (with a traditional

mono-disciplinary background) in determining the direc-
The development objective of the ‘Livestock Systems
tion of the research was discussed. Different strategies
Research Programme’ (LSRP) was to increase produc-
were applied. In Burkina Faso, the team started afresh to
tivity and income that smallholders, both men and wo-
identify tree needs with a variety of methods. In Tanza-
men, derive from environmentally sustainable agricul-
nia, however, the research was more in line with existing
tural production. The immediate objective was to develop
experiments on tree boundary planting.
appropriate technologies adapted to Ugandan agricultural
Research design constituted another area of discus-
production for improved animal husbandry management,
sion. Should researchers make detailed research plans
animal nutrition and animal health. The specific object-
before going in the field, running the risk that these would
tives were to:
be ill-suited to local needs, or is it acceptable to go

‘unprepared’ but ‘open-minded’ into the field and impro-
• Characterise smallholder dairy production systems
vise, considering the local context? To avoid conflicts, a
• Verify feed inadequacies (identified through district
tacit agreement developed that each researcher should
diagnostic survey of 1999)
prepare her/his research as she/he wished and that it
• Improve the feed resource base
would be judged on its results. This led to a certain over-
• Provide models for replication
lap in research, but it also allowed researchers to triangu-

late their data.

Researchers differed in commitment regarding practical
Background and implementation process
application of research findings. Some scientists pre-
ferred to limit their contribution to fundamental research. Danida included the LSRP as part of the first phase of the
Others made suggestions, but did not commit themselves ASPS in Uganda. The idea was to build capacity in far-
to try them in the field, running thereby the classic risk of ming systems oriented research and competences of on-
making ‘top-down’ advices that were ill adapted to the farm research methodology within the existing livestock
local context. Yet others tried to turn their suggestions research institutions in Uganda. The project on small
into practice, and to test them in the field in order to be holder dairy production systems was one of the first ate-
able to gain first-hand knowledge of the feasibility of their mpts of the NARO researchers to carry out action resea-
solutions. An important lesson learned was that the more rch based on farm studies. The NARO staff in colla-
researchers commit themselves to work together with the boration with local extension staff carried out the main
farmers to solve their problems, the easier it was to work part of the research whereas Danish researchers contri-
in cross-disciplinary teams; and the more ‘participatory’ buted with technical and methodological expertise. The
their research would be, the more it resonated with local project had a strong element of research capacity streng-
needs. Yet, the lack of commitment or the uneasiness of thening.
some researchers to engage in action research and be An initial problem identification phase led to a focus on
accountable to local farmers led to a slow drifting apart of the lack of feed for the dry season where milk prices are
the different researchers, who engaged increasingly in high (Mubiru et al., 2001). After consultation with local
mono-disciplinary research which was difficult to integrate extension workers and farmers, it was agreed that the
in a holistic vision to solve problems. project should aim at finding solutions for improving the
feeding in the dry season suitable for use by the small-
holders and that this testing should be done on a number
“Strategic utilisation of feed resources for of small farms in Masaka. Farmer involvement was seen
smallholder dairy production” (SUFR) in Uganda as crucial and a number of farms were selected for tes-
(2000-2002). ting each of four interventions including the use of inter-
cropping elephant grass and legumes for improved pro-
tein supply.
Institutions involved The participatory approach consisted of involvement of
farmers in the problem identification process, selection of
Department of Animal Science (DAS), Faculty of Agricul- interventions and assessment and evaluation of the tes-
ture, Makarere University, Kampala, Uganda Namulonge ted technologies. This approach ensured that inappro-
Research Station, National Agricultural Research Organi- priate technologies could be filtered out at an early stage
sation (NARO), Ministry of Agriculture, Uganda Livestock and it facilitated a rapid adaptation process for the propo-
Aargaard-Hansen et al. 125

sed interventions and led to a rapid detection of unfore- The project was followed up by two separate projects,
seen problems. one which continued the specific research in appropriate
fodder production technologies (Kabirizi et al., 2004), and
one which focused more on comparison of different
Central participatory and cross-disciplinary lessons
small-holder dairy systems and their economic and nutri-
learnt
ent accounts (Halberg et al., 2004).

The project included a feedback workshop with the
farmers commenting on results, lessons learnt and – not Challenges and benefits
least – what problems they would like the project to solve
All three cases provide examples of the challenges and
in the future (Mubiru et al., 2002). The results of the
benefits experienced as researchers with mono-discipli-
project increased knowledge among farmers (e.g. record
nary backgrounds engage in cross-disciplinarity and
keeping and management) and led to more interaction
participatory action projects. Put simply, we contend that
between farmers and extension officers and researchers
these two approaches pose a number of challenges du-
as well as among farmers themselves.
ring the various stages of the research process, whereas
An independent assessment of LSRP (Laker and Bas-
the potential additional benefits appear mainly as out-
hasha, 2004) found that the participating farmers eval-
comes of the research projects in terms of solutions to
uated the smallholder dairy project positively and were
practical problems and/or innovative research findings.
happy with the results even though not all the proposed
The main points are summarized below (Table 1).
changes were economically attractive from farmers’ point
The three research projects differ as to how participa-
of view.
tory action research approaches and cross-disciplinarity
Another cycle of planning and interventions would have
were applied. From the outset the IRP project in Zimba-
been preferable in order to fully utilise the results, but this
bwe was mono-disciplinarily planned, but during the
was not feasible at the time.
implementation a demand for action research and cross-
The project was cross-disciplinary from the onset, invol-
disciplinarity emerged. The PETREA case was explicitly
ving fodder production agronomists and specialists in
designed to rely on such approaches, though the there
livestock production and feeding. The fact that these
was a trend towards mono-disciplinary research. From
researchers worked together in the problem identification
the start the SUFR project in Uganda involved some
phase and visited farms together was one of the reasons
degree of cross-disciplinarity, and action research was
for the identification of appropriate technologies that were
stressed in terms of on-farm experimentation.
feasible from both agronomic and livestock science view-

points. In particular, the use of simple farm level models
Challenges
integrating the different disciplinary knowledge (in this

case the potential fodder production and the fodder
Problem identification and project planning
needs and resulting milk production integrated in a

spreadsheet) helped to create a mutual cross-disciplinary The three projects had different aspirations as to the level
understanding of the most relevant interventions. How- of local involvement in the planning. The IRP case shows
ever, the project would have benefited from closer an example where the ‘problem-owners’ were increa-
collaboration with socio-economists and marketing spe- singly involved in defining the research problem as the
cialists, who might have helped to test other marketing project adopted a farming systems perspective and far-
strategies and the economic importance and limitations of mers’ participation was enhanced through research com-
the proposed interventions. In the process, the resear- mittees. This development, which was possible due to the
chers were conscious about the challenge of generalizing long time span of the project and flexibility of some of the
participatory action research.6 researchers, was perceived to enhance project relevance
and lead to more applicable results. The PETREA project

shows how ‘local needs’ may constitute may constitute a
6 Different dimensions of generalisation were achieved in the significant challenge to cross-disciplinary research, for
LSRP in Uganda (Kimmins et al., 2004): (i) up-scaling and instance whether villagers should tell researchers what to
spreading of new inputs (e.g. new poultry breeds and vaccines);
study, and if they should be allowed to decide that some
(ii) up-scaling and dissemination of generic systems (e.g.
introducing new zero grazed goat keeping including
stables and feed supply strategies); (iii) generalising observe livestock health status and assessing the needs
technical solutions for specific types of livestock systems for treatment); (v) improving scientific knowledge
(e.g. the applicability of using maize Stover and lablab regarding the biological, technical and socio-economical
feeding in zero-grazed dairy systems through farmers characteristics of smallholder livestock systems (e.g. the
leaflets, etc.); (iv) generalising working methods and degree of diseases, the profitability of different inter-
improved daily farm management (e.g. simple ways to ventions, etc.).
126 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Table 1. Main trends of participatory action research and cross-disciplinary aspects in the three cases.

IRP (Zimbabwe) PETREA (Burkina SUFR (Uganda)
Faso & Tanzania)
Participation Time line Introduced gradually From start From start involvement in
initial problem analysis and
subsequent in choice of
intervention
Challenges The research focus Conflict of interests in Research focus strongly
changed following local community influenced by the initial
Problem identification demands expressed livestock feeding viewpoint
through participatory among the participating
and project planning
approaches. Similar researchers

changes in the
involvement of research
Involving farmers in
expertise were only Need for researchers to
selecting methods to test
Project partly achieved engage in local and still get publishable and
implementation community. Conflict of balanced results
interests between
research and
development interests
Benefits It became a more mutual Research driven by Increased knowledge of
learning process and farmers’ needs and farmers and collaboration
collaboration with wishes. But phase 3 with extension workers.
farmers greatly (application of results) Improved feeding products.
improved. More relevant was never funded Increased enthusiasm
improvements developed among farmers.
in breeding and feeding
Farmers’ experiences and
problems addressed during
Researchers learned the research process, more
new skills rapid adaptation
Cross-disciplinarity Time line Started mono- From start, between From start, between
disciplinary, later wish to social and natural agronomists and livestock
establish cross- science specialists (gender aspects
disciplinarity only included but specialists not
materialised on student well integrated)
side (not scientist)
Challenges Many, from design of Problematic issues
study to ways of doing interpreted from narrow
fieldwork and devising viewpoint of crop-livestock
Problem identification
solutions interaction
and project planning

Time consuming Little extra expertise was

included during the project
Project implementation even though
implementation
The old team of more disciplines were
scientists did not want to needed (specialists in
leave to give room for marketing and economy)
new disciplines. No
budget for adding more
disciplines
Benefits Improved ability to meet Holistic approach, Improved mutual
the broader priorities of avoiding common understanding between
farmers. Researchers disciplinary prejudices. livestock and agronomy
learned new skills researchers
Aargaard-Hansen et al. 127

researchers were unnecessary, and ask them to be times obstructive to the research activities planned and
replaced by other people specialised in topics that were executed by the scientists, either because farmers did not
more useful for local needs. The fact that the disciplinary understand the purpose or did not feel that it was in their
composition of the PETREA team was chosen in Den- interest. Gradually involving the farmers more actively
mark before the project started precluded this possibility. and already in the planning process cleared a lot the
The PETREA team has drawn the attention to the defini- frustration away and led to a shift in research focus more
tion of the term ‘community’. Could the chief or the village in line with farmers’ priorities. Although that let to a poorer
council legitimately take decisions for the rest of the vil- match between the involved scientists’ competences and
lage? Could researchers build their research on the the actual research agenda, no changes happened in a
apparent consensus attained in a village meeting atten- team of scientists involved. Instead the mismatch was
ded by 5% of villagers? Since migrants and women were partly compensated by involving both Danish and Zim-
seldom represented in such institutions, the PETREA res- babwean students with different research backgrounds
earchers adopted participatory methods to ensure talking and disciplines. Due to the phased nature of the project,
to all interest groups. But this raised another type of there was opportunity for making change in the core team
problem, as differentiating different local interests meant of scientists to better reflect the multi-dimensional nature
getting involved in local power struggles between existing of the on-farm research. However, the original team of
social groups (Gausset, 2005; Gausset et al., 2005). scientists wanted to continue as a team which left very
In the SUFR case, initial problem analysis was based little financial and intellectual room for new scientist from
on consultation with local extension workers and farmers. different disciplines to join in as full team members.
Although this approach may not be perceived as high- Contact was made to other scientists, but the openness
profile participation, the subsequent on-farm involvement to changes was too limited to be attractive. The flexibility
and obtained results were evaluated positively by far- and ability to work outside the frame in order to under-
mers. During the problem identification phase some of stand the complexity of the problems and target research
the farmers had also pointed to other problems in their better to the ‘farmers’ needs were somewhat limited in
farming activities, especially the poor market access and the final stages of the research project due to the mono-
the unstable prices. The agronomists and livestock res- disciplinary character of project management team.
earchers ‘interpreted’ this problematic issue into a ques- The PETREA project had to be implemented within a
tion about improving milk production in the dry season, relatively short time with a priori defined team of resear-
where prices were higher, using fodder conservation. chers. In short term, phase-funded projects like the PET-
This made the problem researchable from their viewpoint REA, researchers have an incentive to demonstrate the
and expertise. While this was entirely relevant and provi- vital necessity of precisely their discipline in the later
ded some sustainable solutions, this focus did not in phases of the project. During the data collection in the
reality address the marketing problems involving econo- PETREA project schedules were co-ordinated so that
mists or other marketing specialists in the research. A socio-economists and natural scientists were present in
truly cross-disciplinary effort would have needed extra the villages in the same weeks and had daily discussions
resources, which were not foreseen in project budget. of methods and results. This approach was seen as fun-
There is a need to involve the poorest farmers in the damental to enhance integration between scientists and
research process in a realistic way, not least in the pro- is highly recommended (Gausset et al., 2003; Gausset,
blem identification phase. The general experience in the 2004). The PETREA project experienced difficulties in
three projects was that the majority of farmers could not establishing a common database with access for all parti-
set research priorities on their own, but could prioritise cipants including the local researchers. Issues of data
their needs with assistance from researchers or exten- rights should be dealt with before starting the data recor-
sion workers. Their involvement could come through a ding.
process like the one described for action research in the In PETREA it was assumed that focusing on a common
SUFR project and some of the sub-studies of IRP. problem and common solutions would force scientists to
collaborate with one another to understand a complex
reality and would force them to collaborate with local
Project implementation smallholder farmers to address real problems in a useful
way. In practice, lack of commitment to and difficulties
From all three cases it is obvious that working within a associated with action research led to different resear-
participatory and cross-disciplinary project is a time con- chers increasingly engaging in mono-disciplinary resea-
suming and conflictive endeavour. rch. Because all project resources were bound (divided
In IRP, the idea of working participatory was not so among participants) at the beginning of the project, it was
difficult to accept for the involved scientists because they difficult to change the balance between disciplines (or
clearly saw the need for learning from the farmers and introduce new relevant disciplines) in the second phase.
other stakeholders. In the first phase farmers seemed at This has partly to do with the demands from the donor for
128 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

very detailed research plans at the outset of the project, ond phase. Lack of clear distribution of responsibility and
which was not compatible with the participatory and resources as well as the late and weak involvement of
explorative approach attempted in PETREA. the local researchers were seen as major reasons. In
In PETREA, the researchers discussed to which extent PETREA there were different attitudes to how much the
the researchers should have developed full fledged pro- scientists should engage themselves in the change pro-
tocols before going to the field. This is a concrete exam- cesses. Some scientists preferred to limit their contribu-
ple of the challenge of harmonizing different disciplinary tion to fundamental research. Others made suggestions,
methodologies, but also of the potential benefits in terms but did not commit themselves to try them in the field. Yet
of data triangulation. others tried to turn their suggestions into practice, and to
The cross-disciplinary design of PETREA led to a test them in the field in order to be able to gain first-hand
situation where the effort of simply co-ordinating the diffe- knowledge of their feasibility. Thus, the project encom-
rent researchers’ field studies and combine the results passed the whole range from RandD to RasD. It is impor-
was immense. This left few resources to involve the local tant that project priorities and researcher obligations be
stakeholders in the overall problem definitions and selec- clearly negotiated at the outset.
tion of interventions to be tested and it points to the The assessment of SUFR highlighted the fear that the
importance and complexity of project management. technologies would not spread among new farmers due
The evaluation conducted within SUFR (Laker and to lack of extension staff and difficulties in procuring the
Bashasha, 2004) identified a number of factors which legume seeds for the crop mixtures (Lasker and Basha-
supported the sustainability of the efforts. The farmers sha, 2004) - challenges that might be taken up by the
were involved fully in the implementation of the project, strategy for improved farmer extension in Uganda7. In
and there was a discernible feeling of ownership. The SUFR the researchers became very involved with the
research area and subsequent interventions were high specific farmers and solving their problems and only in
priority to most of the farmers. New knowledge built upon the second project phase were generalised results achie-
indigenous knowledge that the farmers already had. ved. In SUFR there was a commitment to RasD, which
District production officials were involved in the selection led to some of the positive results for the participating
of the project site and the beneficiaries. On the negative farmers (such as better overall management).This also
side some of the ‘control farmers’ did not fully understand points to the tension inherent in (participatory) action
why they were involved in the project. research between solving concrete local problem and the
need to generalise the findings for use by others later
with the aim of developing well functioning technologies
Benefits
(Kimmins et al., 2004). Involving extension workers direc-

tly in the research process, as in SUFR, increase the
A critical point in applied research is to ensure adequate
likelihood of dissemination and spread of results.
reporting back to ‘problem-owners’. In IRP the dissemina-
In general, participatory action research and cross-dis-
tion was initially mainly in terms of published scientific
ciplinarity is relatively time consuming. This also applies
articles and changes in university curricula. By end of the
to the dissemination of results. In the PETREA case the
second phase, the results were presented to and valida-
lack of funding for a third phase led to failure to imple-
ted through discussed with farmers, while involvement of
ment some of the developed solutions. Also in SUFR the
the extension service was low. Sustainability was not
time frame constituted a limitation to proper generalise
obtained due to the political instability and later chaos in
results and ensure dissemination.
Zimbabwe following the land reform process which coin-
In both IRP and PETREA it was stressed that it was to
cided with the last phase of the project. In IRP the appro-
a significant degree a learning process for the involved
ach went from using farmers as ‘technology testers’, over
researchers on how to organise and benefit from cross-
being in passive dialogue to changing the research priori-
disciplinary collaboration. The PETREA project indicated
ties to follow farmers’ needs. A more long-term dissemi-
that these personal and professional competences can
nation took place when the Zimbabwean, former Ph.D.
only be developed through practice.
students took up senior positions in the national agricultu-

ral research and education system in Zimbabwe. It can
be said that the IRP project went from a Research and

Development (R and D) approach to a Research for
Development (RfD) approach, but never reached nor 7 This could also have been attained using participatory
intended to reach the Research as Development (RasD) extension efforts such as farmer groups either as local
approach. organisations or in the form of farmer livestock schools,
The PETREA experienced problems with the reporting where farmers meet regularly to discuss and learn to
of findings of the first phase back to the stakeholders in observe and evaluate their systems and thereby start to
order to get their feedback in time to influence on the sec- raise their own questions to investigate (Minjau et al.,
2003).