Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Farmers and researchers: How can collaborative advantages be created in participatory research and technology development?

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article examines differences in the research approaches of farmers and scientists and analyzes how these differences are related to the conditions under which both groups engage in experimental work. Theoretical considerations as well as practical experiences are presented to emphasize the great potential of farmer–researcher collaboration for rural innovation. In the first part of the article, the innovative power of farmer research and experimentation is acknowledged by presenting examples such as crop and animal breeding, development of new production systems, farm equipment, and social innovations. Considering the respective comparative advantages of farmers and scientists, and inspired by theoretical concepts in the fields of knowledge management and innovation processes, we discuss five topics for optimizing the collaboration between farmers and scientists in the field of technological innovation: user orientation, decentralization, informal modes of experimentation, externalization of tacit knowledge, and economic considerations. A better understanding of such issues could help researchers to define their own role in the research process, acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of their own and farmers’ research approaches, overcome communication gaps, and find creative solutions for problems that typically occur in the process of participatory technology development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

GTZ:

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit GTZ GmbH, Eschborn, Germany

CIAT:

International Center for Tropical Agriculture Cali, Colombia

References

  • Albrecht, H., H. Bergmann, G. Diederich, E. Großer, V. Hoffmann, P. Keller, G. Payr, and R. Sülzer (1989). Agricultural Extension. Vol. 1, Basic Concepts and Methods. Rural Development Series. Eschborn, Germany: GTZ and Wageningen, The Netherlands: CTA

  • Ashby, J. A., T. Gracia, M. P. del Guerrero, C. A. Quirós, J. I. Roa, and J. A. Beltran (1995). Institutionalising farmer participation in adaptive technology testing with the CIAL. London, UK: Overseas Development Institute, Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper No. 57

  • Ashby J. A., A. R. Braun, T. Gracia, M. P. Guerrero, L. A. Hernández, C. A. Quirós, J. I. Roa (2000). Investing in Farmers as Researchers: Experience with Local Agricultural Research Committees in Latin America. Cali, Colombia: International Centter for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrios E., M. Bekunda, R. Delve, A. Esilaba, J. Mowo (2001). Identifying and Classifying Local Indicators of Soil Quality. Cali, Colombia: International Centter for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentley J. W. (1989). What farmers don’t know can’t help them: The strengths and weaknesses of indigenous technical knowledge in Honduras. Agriculture and Human Values 6(3): 25–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentley J. W. (1994). Facts, fantasies, and failures of farmer participatory research. Agriculture and Human Values 11(2–3): 140–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentley J. W., G. Rodriguez (2001). Honduran folk entomology. Current Anthropology 42(2): 285–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentley, J. W., G. Thiele, R. Oros, and C. Velasco (2004). Cinderella’s slipper. Sondeo surveys and technology fairs for gauging demand. London, UK: Overseas Development Institute, Agricultural Research and Extension Network (AgREN), Network Paper No. 138

  • Berlin B. (1992). Ethnobiological Classification. Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • den Biggelaar C., N. Hart (1996). Farmer Experimentation and Innovation: A Case Study of Knowledge Generation Processes in Agroforestry Systems in Rwanda. Rome, Italy: FAO and Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs S., E. J. Clay (1981). Sources of innovation in agricultural technology. World Development 9: 321–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, A. R., G. Thiele, and M. Fernández (2000). Farmer field schools and local agricultural research committees: Complementary platforms for integrated decision-Making in sustainable agriculture. London, UK: Overseas Development Institute, Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper No. 105

  • Christinck A., E. Weltzien, V. Hoffmann (eds.) (2005). Setting Breeding Objectives and Developing Seed Systems with Farmers. A Handbook for Practical Use in Participatory Plant Breeding Projects. Weikersheim, Germany: Margraf Publishers and Wageningen, The Netherlands: Center for Tropical Agriculture (CTA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cromwell, E., D. Cooper and P. Mulvany (2003). “Defining Agricultural Biodiversity.” In CIP and UPWARD (eds.), Conservation and Sustainable Use of Agricultural Biodiversity: A Sourcebook. Vol. 1, International Potato Centre – Users’ Perspectives with Agricultural Research and Development (pp. 5–12). Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines: CIP-UPWARD

  • Douthwaite B. (2002). Enabling Innovation. A Practical Guide to Understanding and Fostering Technological Change. London, New York, New York: ZED Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus H. L., S. E. Dreyfus (1986). Mind Over Machine: The Power of Human Intuition and Expertise in the Era of the Computer. New York, New York: The Free Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer P. A. (1999). Action Research in Extension Message and Material Development. The Striga Problem of Northern Ghana Revisited. Weikersheim, Germany: Margraf Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerber A., V. Hoffmann (1998). The diffusion of eco-farming in Germany. In N. G. Röling, M. A. E. Wagemakers (eds.) Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture (pp. 134–152). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta A. (1989). Scientists’ view of farmers’ practices in India: Barriers to effective interaction. In R. Chambers, A. Pacey, L. A. Thrupp (eds.) Farmer First. Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research (pp. 24–31). London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta A. (2000). Grassroots innovations for survival. ILEIA Newsletter for Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture (LEISA) 16(2), 5–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Heron J. (1981). Philosophical basis for a new paradigm. In P. Reason, J. Rowan (eds.) Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook of New Paradigm Research (pp. 324–334). Chichester, UK: John Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel E. (1988). The Sources of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Hocdé H., M. Chacón (2000). This is my own innovation: The history of Limpo grass. ILEIA Newsletter for Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture (LEISA) 16(2): 31–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann V. (2001). Das eigene Wissensnetz spinnen: unser Ansatz in der Lehre. In V. Hoffmann (ed.) 50 Years of Hohenheim Extension Studies (p. 97). Weikersheim, Germany: Margraf Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, V. (1996). “Farmers and Researchers Compared: Who has comparative advantages in generating and disseminating agricultural knowledge?” Paper presented at ISNAR, October 3, The Hague.

  • Horton, R., (1967). “African traditional thought and western science. Part I: From tradition to science. Part II: The closed and opened predicaments.” Africa 37: 50–71, 155–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Howes M., R. Chambers (1979). Indigenous technical knowledge: Analysis, implications and issues. Institute of Development Studies (IDS) Bulletin 2(2): 5–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphries, S., J. Gonzalez, J. Jimenez, and F. Sierra (2000). Searching for sustainable land use practices in Honduras: Lessons from a programme of participatory research with hillside farmers. London, UK, Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper No. 104

  • IDS Workshop (1989). Farmers’ knowledge, innovations, and relation to science. In Chambers R., Pacey A., Thrupp L. A. (eds) Farmer First. Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research (pp. 31–38). London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • ILEIA (2000). “Grassroots innovation. Unleashing the creativity of farmers” Newsletter for Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture (LEISA) 16, 2, 4–5

  • Johnson A. W. (1972). Individuality and experimentation in traditional agriculture. Human Ecology 1(2): 149–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller E. F. (1983). A Feeling for the Organism. The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock. New York, New York: W.H. Freeman and Company

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina K. (1981). The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Koreimann D. S. (1976). Methoden der Informationsbedarfsanalyse. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter

    Google Scholar 

  • Kothari B. (2002). Theoretical streams in marginalized peoples’ knowledge(s): Systems, asystems, and subaltern knowledge(s). Agriculture and Human Values 19(3): 225–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leeuwis, C. and A. van den Ban (2004). Communication for Rural Innovation. Rethinking Agricultural Extension. 3rd edition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Publishers and Wageningen, The Netherlands: CTA

  • Lightfoot C. (1987). Indigenous research and on-farm trials. Agricultural Administration and Extension 24:79–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon F. (1996). How farmers research and learn: The case of arable farmers of East Anglia, UK. Agriculture and Human Values 13(4):39–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maurya D. M. (1989). The innovative approach of Indian farmers. In R. Chambers, A. Pacey, L. A. Thrupp (eds) Farmer First. Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research (pp. 9–14). London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirow H. M. (1968). Kybernetik: Grundlage einer allgemeinen Theorie der Organisation. Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler

    Google Scholar 

  • Neef A. (2005). Introduction. In A. Neef (ed.) Participatory Approaches for Sustainable Land Use in Southeast Asia (pp. 3–32). Bangkok, Thailand: White Lotus Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I., H. Takeuchi (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York, New York and London, UK: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Norretranders, T. (1994). Spüre die Welt. Die Wissenschaft des Bewusstseins. Reinbek, Germany: Rowohlt Verlag, 4th edition 2002

  • Noteboom B. (2000). Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economies. New York, New York: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Okali C., J. Sumberg, J. Farrington (1994). Farmer Participatory Research: Rhetoric and Reality. London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Pastakia A., B. Kothari, V. Dherry Chand (2002). Farmer Led Participatory Research. Cases from Western India. Bangalore, India: Books for Change

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi M. (1974). Personal Knowledge. Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1985). Implizites Wissen. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp

    Google Scholar 

  • Potts M., G. Watson, R. Sinung Basuki, N. Gunadi (1992). Farmer experimentation as a basis for cropping systems research: a case study involving true potato seed. Experimental Agriculture 28:19–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Pretty J. (1991). Farmers’ Extension Practice and Technology Adaptation: Agricultural Revolution in the 17th–19th Century Britain. Agriculture and Human Values 8(1–2):132–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Probst, K. and J. Hagmann with M. Fernandez and J. A. Ashby (2003). Understanding participatory research in the context of natural resource management – Paradigms, approaches and typologies. London, UK: Overseas Development Institute, AGREN Network Paper No. 130

  • PROLINNOVA (2003). Progress with PROLINNOVA. Launching the Participatory Design of a Global Partnership Programme. Leusden, The Netherlands: PROLINNOVA

  • Reason, P. (1994). “Three approaches to participative inquiry.” In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 324–339). London, UK and New Delhi, India: Sage Publications

  • Reijntjes C., B. Haverkort, A. Waters-Bayer (1992). Farming for the Future. An Introduction to Low External-Input and Sustainable Agriculture. London, UK: The Macmillan Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Reijntjes C., A. Waters-Bayer (eds) (2001). Farmer Innovation in Africa. A source of Inspiration for Agricultural Development. London, UK: Earthscan Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades R. (1989). The role of farmers in the creation of agricultural technology. In R. Chambers, A. Pacey, L. A. Thrupp (eds) Farmer First. Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research (pp. 3–9). London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades R., A. Bebbington (1991). Farmers as Experimenters. In B. Haverkort, J. van der Kamp, A. Waters-Bayer (eds) Joining Farmers’ Experiments (pp.251–253). London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards P. (1989). Farmers also experiment: A neglected intellectual resource in African science. Discovery and Innovation 1(1): 19–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocheleau D., K. Wachira, L. Malaret, B. Muchiri Wanjohi (1989). Local knowledge for agroforestry and native plants. In R. Chambers, A. Pacey, L. A. Thrupp (eds) Farmer First. Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research (pp. 14–24). London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Röling N. (1990). The agricultural research-technology transfer interface. A knowledge systems perspective. In D. Kaimowitz (ed.) Making the Link: Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer in Developing Countries (pp. 1–42). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Saad, N. (2002). Farmer processes of experimentation and innovation – A review of literature. Cali, Colombia: Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Program, PRGA Working Document No. 21

  • Seamon D., A. Zajonc (eds) (1998). Goethes’ Way of Science: A Phenomenology of Nature. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Sillitoe P. (2003). The gender of crops in the Papua New Guinea highlands. In P. Howard (ed.) Women and Plants. Gender Relations in Biodiversity Management and Conservation (pp. 165–180). London, UK and New York, New York: Zed Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Spranger, J. and M. Walkenhorst (2001). “Ausgerechnet Goethe: Phänomenologie als Schlüssel zur Tiergesundheit.” In Forschungsring für Biologisch-Dynamische Wirtschaftsweise e.V./University of Kassel-Witzenhausen (eds.), Biologisch-Dynamische Landwirtschaft in der Forschung (pp. 117–133). Darmstadt, Germany: Verlag Lebendige Erde

  • Stolzenbach A. (1994). Learning by improvisation: farmers’ experimentation in Mali. In I. Scoones, J. Thompson (eds.) Beyond Farmer First: Rural People’s Knowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension Practice. London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Sumberg J., C. Okali (1997). Farmers’ Experiments: Creating Local Knowledge. Boulder, Colorado and London, UK: Lynne Riemer Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Tchawa P. (2000). Chains of innovation by farmers in Cameroon. ILEIA Newsletter for Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture (LEISA) 16(2): 14–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Turnbull C. M. (1993). Local knowledge(s) and comparative scientific traditions. Knowledge and Policy 6(3/4): 29–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wersig G. (2000). Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologien. Eine Einführung in Geschichte, Grundlagen und Zusammenhänge. Konstanz: UVK Medien

    Google Scholar 

  • Wild J. (1971). MIS als Hilfsmittel bei der Unsicherheitsabsorption und Risikopolitik. In E. Grochla, N. Szyperski (eds.) Managementinformationssysteme (pp. 679–694). Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler

    Google Scholar 

  • Witte E. (ed.) (1972). Das Informationsverhalten in Entscheidungsprozessen. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Jewell Kidd and Helena Livitz for their editing support and anonymous reviewers of the journal for their helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Agricultural Extension and Communication, University of Hohenheim (430A), 70593, Stuttgart, Germany

    Volker Hoffmann & Anja Christinck

  2. German Agency for Technical Cooperation, Windhoek, Namibia

    Kirsten Probst

Authors
  1. Volker Hoffmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kirsten Probst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anja Christinck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Volker Hoffmann.

Additional information

Volker Hoffmann received a degree in Agricultural Economics in 1971 and a PhD in Social Sciences in 1978 from the University of Hohenheim in Germany, where he has been a professor in the Department of Agricultural Communication and Extension since 1992.

Kirsten Probst graduated from the University of Hohenheim in Germany in 1995 with a degree in Agricultural Biology. In 1996 Probst did her post-graduate training at Humboldt University in Berlin, and in 1998 she joined the Department of Agricultural Communication and Extension at the University of Hohenheim. She completed her PhD in 2002 and now works in international cooperation in Namibia.

Anja Christinck studied at the University of Göttingen and the University of Hohenheim in Germany, concentrating on eco-farming and sustainable agricultural practices in tropical countries. She earned a PhD in Agricultural Sciences in 2002. Christinck works for the University of Hohenheim on different projects and as an independent adult trainer, researcher, and author in the field of agricultural social science and communication.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hoffmann, V., Probst, K. & Christinck, A. Farmers and researchers: How can collaborative advantages be created in participatory research and technology development?. Agric Hum Values 24, 355–368 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-007-9072-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-007-9072-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation