Combining disciplines in rapid appraisal


Material Information

Combining disciplines in rapid appraisal the sondeo approach
Physical Description:
13 p. : ; 28 cm.
Hildebrand, Peter E
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Participatory rural appraisal   ( lcsh )
Rural development -- Management   ( lcsh )
Agricultural extension workers -- Training of   ( lcsh )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )


Statement of Responsibility:
Peter E. Hildebrand.
General Note:
General Note:
Caption title.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
oclc - 695585704
lcc - HN49.C6 H55 1980
System ID:

Full Text



Peter E. Hild~ebrandl_/'

Several characteristics are critical to an efficient and functioning multi-

disciplinary effort: first, those concerned must be well trained in their own

field, second, they need a working understanding of and not be afraid to make

contributions in one or more other fields. Team members must not feel the need

to defend themselves and their field from intrusion by others. Working to-

gether, all members of the team should view the final product as a joint effort

in which all have participated and for which all are equally responsible. That

means each of them must be satisfied with the product, given the goals of the

team, and be willing and able to defend it.

Perhaps the most critical characteristic required to achieve success of a

multidisciplinary team is this identification with single product in which all

participate. The product can be complex, and involve a number of facets, burt it

should result from the joint effort of the whole team and not contain strictly

identifiable parts attributable to individual team members. Failures of multi-

disciplinary efforts in agricultural institutions frequently result because

teams are organized as committees that meet occasionally to "coordinate" efforts,

but in which the crop work is left to the agronomists, the survey to the anthro-

pologists and the desks to the economists. In these cases there is not a single

identified product, rather, several products or reports purported to be concerned

about the same problem.

Formerly, Agricultural Economist, The Rockefeller Foundation, assigned as
Coordinador de Socioeconomia Rural, Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologia Agrico.1as,
ICTA, Guatemala. Currently, Visiting Professor, Food and Resource Economics
Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Team Efforts in Agricultural Institutes

In the generation of improved agricultural technology for small, tradi-

tional farmers, all multidisciplinary team members must be oriented toward

and identified with "technology" as the "product" of the team (normally just

the agronomists or animal scientists identify with the product). All must be

willing to consider a wide range of variables and constraints and not leave

these worries only to the anthropologists or sociologists. Further, all mem-

bers must be willing to spend some desk time considering alternatives and

their consequences on the clients' goals and not leave this just to the econo-

mists. The agronomists should be capable and willing to critize the economic

or social aspects of the work, and the social scientists, the agronomic as-

pects. In turn, these criticisms should be used to improve the product so that
all can be satisfied with the final result.

In most agricultural institutes agronomists (who usually greatly outnumber

the social scientists) are concerned about too much influence from the socio-

economic group in work at the farm level. This is manifest in resistance by

agronomists to identify too closely with the farmers (even with those on whose

land they conduct trials). It also surfaces with respect to evaluation of

technology. The agronomist is much more comfortable if a final evaluation

follows the farm trial phase of the work where he, himself, makes the eval-

uation. The agronomist, then, decides if a technolgoy is "good". If later,

the farmer evaluates this "good" technology and does not accept it, the

agronomist considers it a problem for the extension service, or of poor in-

frastructure, of low prices, or of lack of initiative on the part of the

farmer himself, but not a problem for the agronomist, who has produced what

he considers to be a "good" product. In this situation, evaluation by the

farmer is equated with influence by socioeconomists, who dare ask the farmer

his opinion and who would tend to take into consideration more variables in-

cluding the present weaknesses in infrastructure, the price level, the farmers'

capabilities, etc., in the development of a technology so that the product of

team's efforts could be used immediately without the need to await development

of other facets of the sector.

The Sondeo: A Team Rapid Survey Approach

The SONDEO is a modified survey technique developed by the Guatemalan

Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology, ICTA, as a response to

budget restrictions, time requirements and the other methodology utilized,

to augment information in a region where agricultural technology generation

and promotion is being initiated.

In order to understand the methodology, it is first necessary to under-

stand how ICTA is organized at the regional level. Each of the regions in

which the Institute functions has a Regional Director who is the representa-

tive of the Director General of the Institute and of the Technical Director.

Within the region, each area in which work is being carried out is in charge

of a "Sub-regional delegate", a technician who has a minimum amount of admin-

istrative responsibilities. All the technicians, from whatever discipline or

program who work in the area,are responsible to him. Thi s multi -di sci pli nary

team is usually comprised of some or all of the following: plant breeders,

pathologists, socio-economist and approximately 4 general agronomists who are

the Technology Testing Team. This group, backed up by the national Coordina-

tors of Programs (corn, beans, etc) and Support Disciplines (socio-economics,

soil management) are responsible for orienting and conducting the generation

and promotion of technology in the area. The work includes basic plant breed-

ing and/or selection on the (usually small) experiment station in the area,

farm trials, tests by farmers of promising technology, evaluation of accepta-

bility of the technology tested by farmers; and economic production or farm

records maintained by farmers with the help of the technicians. In order to

provide the original orientation to the team, the Sondeo, or reconnaissance

survey is conducted by members of the Technology Testing Team who are going

to work in the area, sometimes personnel from an appropriate Program, and a

team from socioeconomics comprised of one or more of the following: anthro-

pologists, sociologists, economists, agricultural economists and/or engi-

neers. Usually, there are 5 people from Socioeconomics and 5 from the Tech-

nology Testing Team who form a 10 man Sondeo team for an area.

The purpose of the sondeo is to provide the information required to orient

the work of the technology generating team. The cropping or farming systems

are described, the agro-socioeconomic situation of the farmers is determined

and the restrictions they face are defined so that any proposed modifications

of their present technology are appropriate to their conditions.

If ICTA is to work in an area that is not previously defined, such as by

the bounds of a land settlement or irrigation project, one of the objectives

of the Sondeo is to delimit the area. This is done by first selecting the pre-

dominant cropping or farming system used by potential target farmers in the

area and later determining the area in which this system is important. The

reason that a homogeneous traditional or present cropping or farming system

is used is that it is this system that ICTA will be modifying with new or im-

proved technology. Hence, having a well-defined, homogeneous system with which

to work simplifies the procedure of generating and promoting technology. The

premise on which selection of a homogeneous cropping or farming system is based

is that all the farmers who presently use it have made similar adjustments to

a set of restrictions which they all face, and since they made the same adjust-

ments, they must all be facing the same set of alrro-socioe~conomic conditions.

Besides delimiting the area of this homogeneous system, the tasks of the

Sondeo team are to discover what agro-socioeconomic conditions all the farmers

who use the system have in common and then identify which of them are the most

important in determining thie present system, and therefore, would be the most

important to consider in any modifications to be made by the team in the future.

Finally, the end product of the Sondeo is to orient the first year's work in

farm trials and variety selection. It also serves to locate future collabor-

ators for the farm trials and for the farm record projects.

Because the farm trials are conducted under farm conditions, during the

first year they provide an additional learning process into the conditions

that affect the farmers and are invaluable in acquainting the technicians with

the realities of farming in the area. The farm records which are also initiated

the first year, provide quantifiable technical and cost information on the tech-

nology being used by the farmers. At the end of the first year's work, then,

the technicians have not only been farming under the conditions of the farmers

in the area, but they also have the information from the farm record project.

For this reason, it is not necessary to obtain quantifiable information in the

Sondeo, which is not a benchmark study. Quantifiable information for impact

evaluation in the area is available from farm records, which increase in value

each year.

The Sondeo Procedure

The primary purpose of the Sondeo, then, is to acquaint the technicians

with the area in which they are going to work. Because quantifiable informa-

tion is not needed, the Sondeo can be conducted rapidly and no lengthy analyses

of data are required following the survey to interpret the findings. No ques-

tionnaires are used so farmers are interviewed in an informal manner which does

not alienate them. At the same time, the use of a multidisciplinary team serves

to provide information from many different points of view simultaneously. De-

pending on the size, complexity and accessibility of the area the Sondeo should

be completed in from 6 to 10 days at a minimum of cost. Areas of from 40 to 150

km2 have been studied in this period of time. The following is a description of

the methodology for a 6-day operation.

Dav 1

The first day is a general reconnaissance of the area by the whole team as

a unit. The team must make a preliminary determination of the most important

cropping or farming system that will serve as the key system, get acquainted in

general terms with the area and begin to search out the limits to the homogen-

cous system. Following each discussion with a farmer, the group meets out of

sight of the farmer to discuss each one's interpretation of the interview. In

this way, the team members begin to get acquainted with how each other thinks.

Interviews with farmers (or other people in the area) should be very general and

wide-ranging because the team is exploring and searching for an unknown number

of unknown elements. (This does not imply, of course, that the interviews lack

orientation). The contribution or point of view of each discipline is critical

throughout the Sondeo because the team does not know before hand what type of

problems or restrictions may be encountered. The more disciplines that are

brought to bear on the situation the greater is the probability of encountering

the factors which are, in fact, the mostFirtical to the farmers of the area.

It has been established that these restrictions can be agro-climatic, economic

or socio-cultural. Hence, all disciplines make equal contributions to the


Day 2

The interviewing and general reconnaissance of the first day serve to

guide the work of the second day. Teams are made up of pairs: one agrono-

mist or animal scientist from the technology testing team and one person from

Socioeconomics who work together in the interviews. The 5 teams scatter

throughout the area and meet again either after the first half-day (for small

areas or areas with good access roads) or day (for larger areas or where access

is difficult and requires more time for travel). Each member of each team dis-

cusses what was learned during the interviews and tentative hypotheses are

formed to help explain the situation in the area. Any information concerning

the limits of the area are also discussed to help in its delimitation. The

tentative hypotheses or doubts raised during the discussion serve as guides to

the following interview sessions. During the team discussions, each of the

members learns how interpretations from other points of view can be important

in understanding the problems of the farmers of the region.

Following the discussion, the team pairs are changed to maximize interdis-

ciplinary interaction and minimize interviewer bias and they return to the

field guided by the previous discussion. Once again following the half-day or

day's interviews the group meets to discuss the findings.

The importance of these discussions following a series of interviews can-

not be over-stressed. Together the group begins to understand the relation-

ships encountered in the region, delimit the zone and start to define the type

of research that is going to be necessary to help improve the technology of the

farmers. Other problems such as marketing are also discussed and if solutions

are required, relevant entities can be notified. It is important to understand

the effect that these other limitations will have if not corrected, on the type

of technology to be developed so that they can be taken into account in the gen-

eration process.

During the second day there should be a notable convergence of opinion

and a corresponding narrowing of interview topics. In this way, more depth

can be acquired in following days on the topics of increasing interest.

This is a repeat of day 2 and always includes a change in the makeup of

the teams after each discussion. At least a minimum of 4 interview-discussion

cycles is necessary to complete this part of the Sondeo. If the area is not too

complex, these cycles should be adequate. Of course, if the area is so large

that a funl day is required for interviewing between each discussion session, then

four full days are required for this part of the Sondeo.

Day 4

Before the teams return to the field for more interviews on the fourth day,

each member is assigned a portion or section of the report that is to be written.

Then, knowing for the first time for what topic each will be responsible, the

teams, regrouped in the fifth combination, return to the field for more inter-

viewing. For smaller areas, this also is a half day. In the other half day,

and following another discussion session, the group begins to write the report

of the Sondeo. All members should be working at the same location so they can

circulate freely and discuss points with each other. For example, an agronomist

who was assigned the section on maize technology may have been discussing a key

point with an anthropologist and needs to refresh his memory about what a parti-

cular farmer said in a brief discussion with him. In this manner the interaction

among the disciplines continues.

Dav 5

As the technicians are writing the report, they invariably encounter points

for which neither they nor others in the group have answers. The only remedy is

to return to the field on the morning on the fifth day to fill in the gaps

found the day before. A half day can be devoted to this activity together

with finishing the writing of the main body of the report.

In the afternoon of this day, each team member reads his written report to

the group for discussion, editing and approval. The report should be read from

the beginning just as it will be when finished. As a group, the team should

approve and/or modify what is presented.

Dav 6

The report is read once again, and following the reading of each section,

conclusions are drawn and recorded. When this is finished, the conclusions are

read once again for approval and specific recommendations are then made and

recorded both for the team who will be working in the area and for any other

agencies that should be involved in the general development process of the


The product of the sixth day is a single report generated and authored

by the entire multidisciplinary team and should be supported by all of the

members. Furthermore, after participating for all six days with each other,

each member should be able to defend all the points of view discussed, the

conclusions drawn and the recommendations made.

The Report

To a certain extent, the report of the Sondeo is of secondary value be-

cause it has been written by the same team that will be working in the area.

Most of the value lies just in the fact that they have written it. By being

forced into a situation where many different points of view had to be taken

into consideration and coalesced, the horizons of all will have been greatly

amplified. Further, the report can serve as orientation for non-participants

such as the Regional Director or Technical Director in discussing merits of

various courses of action. However, it is also obvious that the report will

appear to be one written by 10 different persons in a hurry, which is just

exactly what it is! It is not a benchmark study with quantifiable data that

can be used in the future for project evaluation, rather it is a working docu-

ment to orient the research program, and that served one basic fucntion in

just being written.

The exact format and content of a report of a Sondeo will vary according

to the area being studied and the nature of the crops or livestock enterprises

included. The following is a brief description of an outline of a report re-

cently completed in one area of Guatemala where grains and vegetables

were of primary interest (See Chinchilla, 1979).

Purpose: Describes the reason the Sondeo was undertaken and the dates.

Homogeneous technology: Describes the principal characteristics of the

technology regarding the crops of interest found within the limits of the area

and the important differences outside the area that changed the nature of the

cropping system and defined the limits of the area.

Description of the delimited area: Geographical limits, altitude, soils,

and other important features including a map drawn with the boundaries as pre-

cise as possible.

Land: Land tenure and farm size were important restrictions in the crop-

ping system and were described.

Labor: General labor availability and periods of scarcity and the special

tasks performed by women in the homogeneous system were described.

Capital: The capital flow in the traditional system which provides the

funds for investing in both the basic grains and the vegetables was described

and the poor functioning of the small farm credit system was noted.

Corn: The most important components of the corn production system were


Beans: The role beans play in the system and their lack of general impor-

tance was discussed.

Vegetables: The production system and the marketing of vegetables were


Livestock activity: The special importance of livestock and of the

livestock-crop interaction was discussed.

Conclusions: Conclusions for each one of the above sections were drawn

with special emphasis on their meaning to the future work of ICTA.

Recommendations: Those relevant to ICTA and to other organizations in

the public agricultural sector as well as the private sector.

Because one of the principle purposes of the Sondeo is to guide the ef-

forts of the resident technology generating team, some of the important re-

commendations from this Sondeo are elaborated below. These recommendations

obviously guide the type of technology which will be included in the farm

trials and requested from the experiment station in support of farm trials.

Specific treatments to be included and the experimental designs to be used

are generally left to the team members and the national Program and Disci-

pline Coordinators to determine.

1) Maize is the most important subsistence crop in the area. The farmers tend

to think in terms of a fixed minimum quantity required for the family and the

animals. Because of the competition of the vegetables for labor and capital,

low technology is used in the maize and frequently, land is substituted. This

must be considered in the mix of technology generated.

2) Cropping systems must be devised that rotate or intercrop vegetables with

maize, but not at the cost of reducing maize production. It is also necessary

in these systems to realize that most of the capital and labor will be utilized

on the vegetables and not on the maize.

3) In vegetable technology, priority should be given to disease control and


4) Even though beans are an important subsistence crop, given the importance

of vegetables and the shortages of funds for research, it is recommended that

little emphasis be given to beans in this area at the present time.

5) Because of problems with the small farm credit program, it is recommended

that technology to be generated not be based on the hope of such a program in

the short run.

Concluding Remarks

The disciplinary speciality of each member of the Sondeo Team is not cri-

tical so long as there are several disciplines represented, and, if the Sondeo

is in agriculture, a significant number of them are agriculturalists. At

least some of these should also be from among those who will be working in the

area in the future. The discipline of the Coordinator of the Sondeo is probably

not critical, either, if he is a person with a broad capability, an understand-

ing of agriculture (if it is an agricultural Sondeo) and experience in surveying

and survey technique. However, the Coordinator must have a high degree of multi-

disciplinary tolerance and be able to interact with all the other disciplines

represented on the team.

The Coordinator, in a sense, is an orchestra director who must assure that

everyone contributes to the tune, but that in the final product, all are in har-

mony. He must control the group and maintain discipline. He arbitrates differ-

ences, creates enthusiasm, extracts hypotheses and thoughts from each particul-

pant, and ultimately will be the one who coalesces the product into the final

form. It is, perhaps not indispensable that he has prior experience in a Sondeo,

but it would certainly improve his efficiency if he had.

Selected References

1. Chinchilla, Maria E. 1,979. Condiciones agro-socioeconomicas de una
zona maicera-horticola de Guatemala. Trabajo presentado en la XXV
Reunion Anual del PCCM~lCA, Tegucigalpa, Honduras, 19-23 de Marzo.

2. Hildebrand, Peter E. 1978. Motivating small farmers to accept change.
Prepared for presentation at the conference on: Integrated crop
and animal production to optimize resource utilization on small
farms in developing countries. The Rockefeller Foundation Confer-
ence Center, Bellagio, Italy. October 18-23, 1978. ICTA, Guatemala.

3. .1979. Summary of the sondeo methodology used by
ICTA. ICTA, Guatemala.