IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v28y2011i2p179-194.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder participation in agricultural research projects: a conceptual framework for reflection and decision-making

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas Neef
  • Dieter Neubert

Abstract

Recent discourse in the field of participatory agricultural research has focused on how to blend various forms and intensities of stakeholder participation with quality agricultural science, moving beyond the simple “farmer-first” ideology of the 1980s and early 1990s. Yet, most existing frameworks of participation in agricultural research still adhere to a linear typology of participatory research with an inherent claim of “the more participation, the better.” In this article, we propose a new framework that looks at participatory research elements along different dimensions and attributes and thus takes into account the diversity and dynamics of agricultural research projects. The framework provides a basis for agricultural researchers engaged in participatory processes with local stakeholders to decide for which issues and in which phases certain participatory elements could be used in a specific research context. Rather than aiming at maximizing the adoption of participatory methods, it can thus become a tool for optimizing the use of participatory approaches in agricultural research. We conclude that this framework can be a starting point for a more thoughtful integration of participatory elements in agricultural research projects that does justice to the multidimensional and dynamic nature of stakeholder participation in varying contexts. Copyright The Author(s) 2011

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas Neef & Dieter Neubert, 2011. "Stakeholder participation in agricultural research projects: a conceptual framework for reflection and decision-making," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(2), pages 179-194, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:28:y:2011:i:2:p:179-194
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-010-9272-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10460-010-9272-z
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10460-010-9272-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elske van de Fliert & Ann Braun, 2002. "Conceptualizing integrative, farmer participatory research for sustainable agriculture: From opportunities to impact," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 19(1), pages 25-38, March.
    2. Joanne Millar & Allan Curtis, 1999. "Challenging the boundaries of local and scientific knowledge in Australia: Opportunities for social learning in managing temperate upland pastures," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 16(4), pages 389-399, December.
    3. Arun Agrawal, 1995. "Dismantling the Divide Between Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 26(3), pages 413-439, July.
    4. Jeffery Bentley, 1994. "Facts, fantasies, and failures of farmer participatory research," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 11(2), pages 140-150, March.
    5. Pretty, Jules N., 1995. "Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(8), pages 1247-1263, August.
    6. Sumberg, James & Okali, Christine & Reece, David, 2003. "Agricultural research in the face of diversity, local knowledge and the participation imperative: theoretical considerations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 739-753, May.
    7. Murray Bruges & Willie Smith, 2008. "Participatory approaches for sustainable agriculture: A contradiction in terms?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 25(1), pages 13-23, January.
    8. Volker Hoffmann & Kirsten Probst & Anja Christinck, 2007. "Farmers and researchers: How can collaborative advantages be created in participatory research and technology development?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 24(3), pages 355-368, September.
    9. Lisa Price, 2001. "Demystifying farmers' entomological and pest management knowledge: A methodology for assessing the impacts on knowledge from IPM-FFS and NES interventions," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 18(2), pages 153-176, June.
    10. Biggs, Stephen D., 1990. "A multiple source of innovation model of agricultural research and technology promotion," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 18(11), pages 1481-1499, November.
    11. Cornwall, Andrea & Jewkes, Rachel, 1995. "What is participatory research?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 41(12), pages 1667-1676, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elena Pagliarino & Secondo Rolfo, 2021. "Examining Researchers’ Attitudes, Barriers, and Opportunities for Participatory Research: The Case of the Riso-Biosystems Project on Organic Rice," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-24, April.
    2. Kraaijvanger, Richard & Veldkamp, Tom & Almekinders, Conny, 2016. "Considering change: Evaluating four years of participatory experimentation with farmers in Tigray (Ethiopia) highlighting both functional and human–social aspects," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 38-50.
    3. Kummer, Susanne & Leitgeb, Friedrich & Vogl, Christian R., 2017. "Farmers’ Own Research: Organic Farmers’ Experiments in Austria and Implications for Agricultural Innovation Systems," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 6(1), February.
    4. Vogl, Christian R. & Kummer, Susanne & Leitgeb, Friedrich & Schunko, Christoph & Aigner, Magdalena, 2015. "Keeping the Actors in the Organic System Learning: The Role of Organic Farmers’ Experiments," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 4(3 Special).
    5. Kris Wyckhuys & Robert O’Neil, 2007. "Local agro-ecological knowledge and its relationship to farmers’ pest management decision making in rural Honduras," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 24(3), pages 307-321, September.
    6. Harvey James & Iddisah Sulemana, 2014. "Case studies on smallholder farmer voice: an introduction to a special symposium," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 31(4), pages 637-641, December.
    7. Emma Jakku & Peter Thorburn, 2009. "A Conceptual Framework for Guiding the Participatory Development of Agricultural Decision Support Systems," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-12, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    8. Colleen M. Eidt & Laxmi P. Pant & Gordon M. Hickey, 2020. "Platform, Participation, and Power: How Dominant and Minority Stakeholders Shape Agricultural Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-21, January.
    9. Corrado Ciaccia & Marta Di Pierro & Elena Testani & Giancarlo Roccuzzo & Marcello Cutuli & Danilo Ceccarelli, 2019. "Participatory Research towards Food System Redesign: Italian Case Study and Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-12, December.
    10. Pawera, Lukas & Manickam, Ravishankar & Wangungu, Carolyne & Bonnarith, Uon & Schreinemachers, Pepijn & Ramasamy, Srinivasan, 2024. "Guidance on farmer participation in the design, testing and scaling of agricultural innovations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    11. Klerkx, Laurens & Leeuwis, Cees, 2008. "Institutionalizing end-user demand steering in agricultural R&D: Farmer levy funding of R&D in The Netherlands," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 460-472, April.
    12. So Pyay Thar & Thiagarajah Ramilan & Robert J. Farquharson & Deli Chen, 2021. "Identifying Potential for Decision Support Tools through Farm Systems Typology Analysis Coupled with Participatory Research: A Case for Smallholder Farmers in Myanmar," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-20, June.
    13. Reece, J. David, 2007. "Does genomics empower resource-poor farmers? Some critical questions and experiences," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 553-565, May.
    14. Sollis, Kate & Yap, Mandy & Campbell, Paul & Biddle, Nicholas, 2022. "Conceptualisations of wellbeing and quality of life: A systematic review of participatory studies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    15. Pamela Richardson-Ngwenya & Maria Höhne & Brigitte Kaufmann, 2018. "Participatory problem analysis of crop activities in rural Tanzania with attention to gender and wealth: ‘setting the scene’ to enhance relevance and avoid exclusion in pro-poor innovation projects," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 10(4), pages 859-880, August.
    16. Corrine Nöel Knapp & Robin S. Reid & María E. Fernández-Giménez & Julia A. Klein & Kathleen A. Galvin, 2019. "Placing Transdisciplinarity in Context: A Review of Approaches to Connect Scholars, Society and Action," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-25, September.
    17. Misiko, M., 2013. "Dilemma in participatory selection of varieties," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 35-42.
    18. Salembier, Chloé & Segrestin, Blanche & Berthet, Elsa & Weil, Benoît & Meynard, Jean-Marc, 2018. "Genealogy of design reasoning in agronomy: Lessons for supporting the design of agricultural systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 277-290.
    19. Branwen Peddi & David Ludwig & Joost Dessein, 2023. "Relating inclusive innovations to Indigenous and local knowledge: a conceptual framework," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(1), pages 395-408, March.
    20. Murray Bruges & Willie Smith, 2008. "Participatory approaches for sustainable agriculture: A contradiction in terms?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 25(1), pages 13-23, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:28:y:2011:i:2:p:179-194. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.