• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Preface
 Sample training course schedul...
 Volume I: Diagnosis in FSR/E
 Volume II: Design techniques for...
 Volume III: Analysis and interpretation...






Title: Diagnosis, design and analysis in farming systems research and extension
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00053819/00001
 Material Information
Title: Diagnosis, design and analysis in farming systems research and extension
Alternate Title: FSR/E Training Units: Volume I, II, and III Trainer's Manual
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Farming Systems Support Project
Affiliation: University of Florida -- Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences -- Farming Systems Support project
Publisher: Farming Systems Support Project, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Publication Date: December 1987
 Subjects
Subject: University of Florida.   ( lcsh )
Agriculture   ( lcsh )
Farm life   ( lcsh )
Farming   ( lcsh )
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00053819
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: oclc - 17763059

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Preface
        Page i
        Page ii
    Sample training course schedules
        Page iii
        Page iv
        Page v
        Page vi
        Page vii
        Page viii
        Page ix
        Page x
        Page xi
        Page xii
        Page xiii
        Page xiv
        Page xv
        Page xvi
        Page xvii
        Page xviii
        Page xix
        Page xx
        Page xvi
        Page xvii
    Volume I: Diagnosis in FSR/E
        Unnumbered ( 25 )
        Unnumbered ( 26 )
        Introduction
            Introduction
        Introduction, B
            Page 1
            Page 2
            Page 3
            Page 4
            Page 5
            Page 6
            Page 7
            Page 8
        Unit I
            Page 9
            Page 10
            Page 11
            Page 12
        Unit II
            Page 13
            Page 14
            Page 15
            Page 16
        Unit III
            Page 17
            Page 18
        Unit IV
            Page 19
            Page 20
            Page 21
            Page 22
            Page 23
            Page 24
            Page 25
            Page 26
            Page 27
            Page 28
            Page 29
            Page 30
            Page 31
            Page 32
            Page 33
            Page 34
            Page 35
            Page 36
        Unit V
            Page 37
            Page 38
            Page 39
            Page 40
            Page 41
            Page 42
            Page 43
            Page 44
        Unit VI
            Page 45
            Page 46
            Page 47
            Page 48
            Page 49
            Page 50
            Page 51
            Page 52
            Page 53
            Page 54
            Page 55
            Page 56
        Unit VII
            Page 57
            Page 58
            Page 59
            Page 60
            Page 61
            Page 62
            Page 63
            Page 64
            Page 65
            Page 66
            Page 67
            Page 68
            Page 69
            Page 70
            Page 71
            Page 72
            Page 73
            Page 74
            Page 75
            Page 76
            Page 77
            Page 78
            Page 79
            Page 80
        Unit VIII
            Page 81
            Page 82
            Page 83
            Page 84
            Page 85
            Page 86
        Unit IX
            Page 87
            Page 88
            Page 89
            Page 90
            Page 91
            Page 92
            Page 93
            Page 94
    Volume II: Design techniques for on-farm experimentation
        Unnumbered ( 122 )
        Unnumbered ( 123 )
        Unnumbered ( 124 )
        Unnumbered ( 125 )
        Unit I
            Page 1
            Page 2
            Page 3
            Page 4
            Page 5
            Page 6
        Unit II
            Page 7
            Page 8
            Page 9
            Page 10
            Page 11
            Page 12
            Page 13
            Page 14
            Page 15
            Page 16
            Page 17
            Page 18
            Page 19
            Page 20
            Page 21
            Page 22
            Page 23
            Page 24
            Page 25
            Page 26
        Unit III
            Page 27
            Page 28
            Page 29
            Page 30
        Unit IV
            Page 31
            Page 32
            Page 33
            Page 34
            Page 35
            Page 36
            Page 37
            Page 38
            Page 39
            Page 40
            Page 41
            Page 42
            Page 43
            Page 44
            Page 45
            Page 46
            Page 47
            Page 48
            Page 49
            Page 50
        Unit V
            Page 51
            Page 52
            Page 53
            Page 54
            Page 55
            Page 56
            Page 57
            Page 58
            Page 59
            Page 60
            Page 61
            Page 62
            Page 63
            Page 64
            Page 65
            Page 66
            Page 67
            Page 68
    Volume III: Analysis and interpretation of on-farm experimentation
        Unnumbered ( 194 )
        Unnumbered ( 195 )
        Unnumbered ( 196 )
        Unnumbered ( 197 )
        Unit I
            Page 1
            Page 2
        Unit II
            Page 3
            Page 4
            Page 5
            Page 6
        Unit III
            Page 7
            Page 8
            Page 9
            Page 10
            Page 11
            Page 12
            Page 13
            Page 14
            Page 15
            Page 16
            Page 17
            Page 18
            Page 19
            Page 20
            Page 21
            Page 22
            Page 23
            Page 24
            Page 25
            Page 26
            Page 27
            Page 28
            Page 29
            Page 30
            Page 31
            Page 32
            Page 33
            Page 34
            Page 35
            Page 36
            Page 37
            Page 38
            Page 39
            Page 40
            Page 41
            Page 42
            Page 43
            Page 44
            Page 45
            Page 46
            Page 47
            Page 48
            Page 49
            Page 50
            Page 51
            Page 52
            Page 53
            Page 54
            Page 55
            Page 56
            Page 57
            Page 58
            Page 59
            Page 60
            Page 61
Full Text











DIAGNOSIS DESIGN AND ANALYSIS
IN FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND EXTENSION


FSR/E TRAINING UNITS: VOLUME I, II, and III
TRAINER'S MANUAL











Prepared By:

Farming Systems Support Project
International Programs
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611






Technical Editor:
John Caldwell, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Tim Frankenberger, University of Arizona
Technical Editor Economics Section:
Dan Taylor, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Coordinating Editor:
Lisette Walecka, University of Florida


DECEMBER, 1987


The Farming Systems Support Project (FSSP) is a cooperative agreement
between the University of Florida and the United States Agency for
International Development, Cooperative Agreement No.
DAN-4099-A-00-2083-000, Project number 936-4099.












TRAINER'S MANUAL: VOLUME I, II, AND III



TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE.................... ....... ...................................... i

SAMPLE TRAINING COURSE SCHEDULES........................................ iii

Volume I: DIAGNOSIS IN FSR/E

Introduction, B.........................................Volume I: T-l

Unit I.... .........................................................Volume I: T-7

Unit II..................................................Volume I: T-13

Unit III ................................................Volume I: T-17

Unit IV..................................................Volume I: T-19

Unit V..................................................Volume I: T-37

Unit VI..................................................Volume I: T-45

Unit VII.................................................Volume I: T-51

Unit VIII................................................................Volume I: T-81

Unit IX................................................... Volume I: T-87

Volume II: DESIGN TECHNIQUES FOR ON-FARM EXPERIMENTATION

Unit I.................................................. Volume II: T-1

Unit II...................................................Volume II: T-7

Unit III................................................. ..Volume II: T-27

Unit IV................................................Volume II: T-31

Unit V .................... ........ ..................... Volume II: T-49

Volume III: ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF ON-FARM EXPERIMENTATION

Unit I...................................................Volume III: T-l

Unit II..................................... ...........Volume III: T-3

Unit III...............................................Volume III: T-7












FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND EXTENSION TRAINING UNITS
VOLUME I, II AND III: TRAINER'S MANUAL

PREFACE
The set of materials included in the collection of FSR/E training units
has been assembled by the FSSP to provide support for training in FSR/E
methodology. As Farming Systems practitioners are aware, the first step in
the FSR/E process is diagnosis. The same is true of developing training
programs or courses. The first step is to find out what is needed by the
potential trainees (audience). Performing a needs assessment should
proceed all training, and a training course should be planned based on the
needs assessment. Needs will vary by participants, location, familiarity
with FSR/E, and a multitude of other factors. The FSSP realizes that due
to the variability of needs from one short course to the next, the design
of a "standard" course would not be the best approach to providing support.
Instead, the development of training resources on a range of skills
necessary for the implementation of the FSR/E approach was envisioned.

The training units were developed to provide flexibility in course
design. By picking and choosing the relevant units or parts of units,
based on the needs of the clientel, the trainer has the opportunity to
provide a wide variety of short courses. The collection of training units
provides an array of information on FSR/E, from diagnosis to the analysis
of on-farm trials, from which a trainer can draw to develop short courses
and workshops on a variety of aspects of FSR/E. It is not presented as a
course outline. Each training course or workshop will differ depending on
the objectives, content, trainees, trainers and other elements of a
training activity.

Trainers should become familiar with the glossary of terms. Many terms
are used with very specific meanings. This does not imply that other
meanings are not valid in ordinary conversation. It simply means that in
this set of training units, the terms have specific meanings to prevent
confusion. This way, trainers and participants can be sure that everyone
has the same understanding about the concepts and methods to which the
terms refer. For example, in general conversation, the word "intervention"
can have many meanings. It may refer to a new extension program, or to a
change in fertilizer price. When discussing design and analysis of on-farm
trials the term "intervention" is used as a type of treatment, a
technological or management change from the "average" farmer practice in a
given domain, designed to solve a production problem.

This example shows several reasons the definitions in this volume are
very specific. First, the words "treatment" and "technological or
management change" show that this definition relates specifically to
on-farm production trials. Second, the words "designed to solve a
production problem" show that the intervention is part of FSR/E. That is,
this phrase shows that it must be based on diagnosis, because production
problems are identified in diagnosis. Third, the definition is linked to
other definitions. The words "treatment" "average farmer control,T
"domain", and "production problem" all also have specific definitions in
the glossary and in this volume. These words are also defined with











specific meanings for FSR/E on-farm trials.

Besides flexibility, another basic premise for the development of the
training units was the need for participatory activities. Activities
encouraging participation and hands-on experiences accompany most of the
training units and are included in this manual. Corresponding trainee
instructions appear in each volume. There is a need for many more of these
types of activities and we encourage you to submit any activities which you
have used and would like to see included in future editions of the training
units to the FSSP. Address your comments to:

FSSP (Training Units)
International Programs
3028 McCarty Hall
University of Flor-ida
Gainesville, FL. 32611

As a basis for understanding the process of the development of these
training units, and their intended use, the following criteria were
established.

1. Objectives the objectives of the training units and specific
sub-units are skill oriented emphasizing developing the abilities of field
level practitioners to apply the Farming Systems Research and Extension
methodology.

2. Content the content of the training units is technical in nature,
addressing specific "tools" to be used by practitioners in FSR/E.

3. Process the training processes to be included are to be varied
and essentially experiential in nature, allowing for maximum participation
by the participants.

4. Audience the training units are to be directed toward field level
practitioners who will have had, ideally, at least a certificate level
education and who will have had no more than two years field experience.
While the training.units will be directed toward this specified audience,
trainers will be encouraged to adapt the materials therein to other levels
as they feel necessary. Any units, sub-units or sections requiring
pre-requisites for their use are clearly indicated at the beginning of each
unit.

5. Trainers the training units have been developed with the idea
that they will be used by at least two trainers (one FSR/E content expert,
one training specialist). These trainers will be expected to have language
capability in the language of delivery, be at least diploma level, and have
FSR/E experience (at least previous participation in the course being
delivered).

Essentially, the training units are designed as participant manuals.
These manuals are supplemented by trainers' notes where ever possible. We
encourage you to photocopy the manual as needed. The only item which we
cannot authorize photocopying permission is Peter Hildebrand and Federico
Poey, On-Farm Agronomic Trials in Farming Systems Research and Extension,












1985 which is published by Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., Boulder,
Colorado. This publication can be ordered from Lynne Rienner Publishers,
Inc., 948 North Street, Boulder, Colorado 80302. It is distributed outside
of North and South America and Japan by Frances Pinter (Publishers) Ltd, 25
Floral Street, London WC2E 9DS, England.

As mentioned earlier, your feedback is essential for the future
improvement of the training units. A general evaluation form is included
at the end of this section for your convenience. Please feel free to
elaborate. Thank you for your support in this effort.

SAMPLE TRAINING COURSE SCHEDULES

Planning a training course or program is multi-faceted. A trainer must
not only be able to prepare a well balanced program of instruction, but
must ensure that the logistical support exists to allow for a smooth
running operation. Programatically, a trainer (training team) must assess
their audience, define global and specific objectives, provide logical
sequencing and variety in activities in micro-planning, as well as provide
for an evaluation.

We will not attempt here to discuss all the intricacies of planning for
a training course. However, we are including three sample schedules of
Farming Systems Research and Extension courses which have been delivered in
the past which may help you in your own planning. Remember, however, that
each course is a unique activity and should be a reflection of each
audience's need and level.






I _I I I I I I I
7:30 I BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST
8:30 I I I I _I I I
Illolcomo, Intro's lEvaluato Previous IEvaluato Previous ISondoo In Tho lEvaluato Pro- IHrito up of IRoading and I
I1-orkshop Scho- IDayl Day's Obj. IDay IFiold 4 Groups to Ivious Day ISondoo Ro- IFree Time I
Iduleo Objoctivesil IDay's ObLoctives 14 Villagos with IDay's Objectiveslports lAll Day Ic
IThis Heck's Ob- IRocommendation Do-I IPPMU enumerators II I I
Ijoctivost Day's Imains and LovoragolSondoo In The I IPreparo oral I I
lobjoctivos IPoints: Casamanco IFiold 4 Groups to I ISondco Reports I I I
I lExamplo 14 Villages with I Iwith Visual Aidsl I I
Ihby FSR/E: Usingl IPPMU enumerators I IPrioritizo Pro- I I
IThe Gambia ex- IFormal and Inform-i Iblems I
lamplo lal Survey Expor- I IBegin Sondco Re-I I
liencos of Group I I ports I
S___ I I I I I I I
11:00 BREAK I BREAK BREAK BREAK I BREAK
11:30 I __ I ___ > 1
ICaso Study Ilntroduction to IContinuo Sondoo IContinue Sondoo IContinue Sondoo I I I
ICasamanco ISondoo Techniques lExorcise lExorciso IReports-35 min. I I I
I I Iper group, in- I I I
SI I I Icluding discus- I I I
I I I I Ision I I
IQuestions and I I I II I I
Discussion on I I l Evaluation and I I I
Icaso study (Modoling tho Farm-i I rap up of Hook I > I o
I ling System I I I I ii
overview of week II I I I

2:00 I Lunch/Rest/Road I Lunch/Rost/Road ILunch/"ost/Read Lunch/Rost/Road I Lunch/Rost/Readl LUNCH LUNCH
5:00 I I I I I I
IRoading time IExamplos and prac-]Continuo Sondeo IContinue Sondoo IReading & Free I
I Itico in use of lExorciso lExorcise and Re- ITimo
I Sondoo techniques I Iturn to homo baso I I
I I I I I I
I ILogistics of I I I
| ISondo I I
I I I I I I I
7:00 I DININER I DINNER I DINNER I DINNER I DINNER DINNER I DINNER
80
8:00 I I I_ II I _
IAssign FSR Teams ILand Tenuro in Up-IGroup Discussion IGroup Discussion Party
I Ipor Volta or Carl lof Sondoo-Rocordorlof Sondoo I I
I ICarfiold & IPM IUpdates Notos I
I I__I I I I I


I MONDAY 4/7 1 TUESDAY 4/8


I HEDNESDAY 4/9 I THURSDAY 4/10 1 FRIDAY 4/11 I SAT 4/12 I SUN 4/13 1








_, _, I I I I I
I BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST
I __ I I I I I -_- I
IRcview last weekslEvaluato Previous I' ialuato Previous IFiold Hork to finolEvaluato Previ- IHrito up of I PAGE 12
lobjcctivcsi statolDay IDay Ituno on farm triallous Day Groups' Do- I- I
Ithis weeks objec-IDay's Objectives IDay's Objectives Idosign four vil-IDay's objectivoslsign plans I DRAFT 13
Itivcsi Day's ob- I I _Ilagos, one PPMM I I I I
Ijectivos IDosigni conceptuallPlacing Treatincntslenumorator in eachlFinish Visual I IRoading and
I Idosign choices Ion Fieldsl Ivillago laids for design I I Free Time I
ITochnical Over- I Ireplicationsi why I Ireport I I All Day
Iview of OFE I Idosign I II III


ISmall Group Re- I
Sports on Design I


I I I I___ I I
1 BREAK I BREAK I BREAK I BREAK I BREAK BREAK
I I I I I I I
IGroup Exorcise onlTreatment Solec- ITypos of Design; IContinue field IHaximum of 35
IOFE based on Gam-Ition and Specifi- IIPH and Livestock Iwork and return tolminutos/group I
!bia Case Studies Ication I home base I
I I
IGroup Reports 15 I I
Ilinuto each, four I I II
Groups I__ I lEvaluation and
I IAlloy cropping and I IHrap of Hook 2
I Ilivostock in FSRE I I
I I I I I


I I I I I I I I
2:00 1 Lunch/Roa/RRost I Luch/Read/Rost I Lunch/Raad/Rost Lunch/Road/Rest I Lunch/Road/Rost Lunch I Lunch
5:0 I I I I -I
IRaading Chapters IRoading Ch III do-lLogistics of FioldlSmall group work IReading and Freel Reading
II & II of Design Isign manual| Ilild-lIork Ion design problem I Time I and
i!anual Icbarnd & Pooy I I I I Free I
BI Bgin Small Group I Time
I I jIork 4 groups


7:00 I
8:00 1 DINNER I DINNER I DINNER DINNER DINNER
IAnimal Traction I Zairo Slides (Continuo Small (Continue Small
I Slides I IGroup work IGroup design work I
I I I I I I I I


7:30
0:30


11:00
11:30


C)O
030
aP



rt
>0

cmO
1)3
3 (II
crp


- -`-'II---


I WEDNESDAY 4/16 I TIIURSDAY //17 I FRIDAY 4/18 I SAT. 4/19 I SUN. 4/20 1


i MONDAY 4/14 I TUESDAY 4/15


I
I


I


I


I





I MONDAY 4/21 I TUESDAY 4/22 I HEONESDAY 4/23 THURSDAY 4/24 I FRIDAY 4/25 I WEEKEND I PAGE 83
I_ I__ I_ II I I DRAFT 83
7:30 I BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST 14/26-4/27 I H
8:30 I I I I I II 0
IHcek's objoctiveslEvaluation of IEvaluation of IEvaluation of lEvaluation of 1 0
0Day's objectives IProvious Day IProvious Day IProvious Day IProvious Day I I
SIDay's Objectives IDay's Objectives IDay's Objectives 1(ay's Objectives I I
I ____I I I _Dopartures I
IFarmer Partici- IBiological Analy- lEconomic Analysis Intrahousohold IGroup Reports of I I
Ipation Isis concepts IConcepts analysis: appli- lovorall analysis I I
IFarmor Hanagemont Ication in socio- I I >
ITrial Implcmcnta- Ilogical analysis I I I
Ition: Examples I lof on-farm trials IDiscussions by I I
Ifrom the Philip- II I IGambians of what I I
Ipines and Latin I I I Ihas happened in I I
IAmorica I I 13 yrs of FSR work
I I I I I _I
11:00 I BREAK I BREAK I BREAK I BREAK I BREAK
11:30 I ___ I I I I_
IData Collection I Biological lEconomic Analysis I continued llWorkshop wrap-up I
I I Analysis I Examples I land Evaluations
ISmall Group As- I Examples I Group Assignment
Is vment Data I IBiological/Econ-
IC action Forms I lomic/Social
< I I Analysis of Trials
I I I I I I
iI i
I I I I I I I

2:00 Lunch/Rost I Lunch/Rest I Lunch/Rest I Lunch/Rest Lunch/Rest
5:00 I I I I I I
SPresentation of IReading and H.H. IRoading and H.H. IGroup Assignment I De-irturos
SData Collection Ion Biological An- Ion Economic Anal- IHork
Forms lalysis lysis I
I I I I I I I
IReading on days INB may require INB may require INB may require I
STopic Icalculator Icalculator Icalculator
SI I I I
I I I I I I I
I _________ _____I ____ ____I __ _____I ___I
7:00 IDINNER & Land Ten-
8:00 I DIINER DINNER lure in Upper Voltal DINNER BANQUET DINNER
IAV
I I I I I __I I


_~___~__ ___


I ~ _~___ .. ... . . .... ... .






SAMPLE SCHEDULE # 2


FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH/EXTENSION METHODS


SHORT COURSE


AUGUST 11 29, 1986


PROGRAM


WEEK 1 DIAGNOSIS


Sunday Eve.
Aug 10


Monday
Aug 11


7:00-9:00PM


AM 8:30-9:00
9:00-10:00


BREAK
10:15-11:00

11:00-12:00

LUNCH
PM 1:30-4:30


Bar-B-Que and social at the
University Inn (poolside).

Logistics J. Dean
Introduction to Course and
FSR/E P. Hildebrand (Ref:
Perspectives.., Chap. 1)

Introductions of Participants
and Trainers.
Team Formation (Ref: Vol I;
Unit I. TU)
With Teams
The Farm as a System and Part
of a System; Team Exercise.
TMS 201 J. Dean (Ref: Vol
I; Unit II. TU &
Perspectives.., Chap. 2.)


Components of a Farming System and
Interactions Between Them (Ref:
Perspectives.., Chap. 3.)


AM 8:30-9:30
9:30-10:30

BREAK
10:45-11:45


LUNCH
PM 1:30-2:30


2:30-3:30

BREAK
3:45-4:45


4:45-5:00


Crops K. Buhr
Animals J. Conrad (Ref:
Conrad Handout)

Pests and Pest Management C.
Barfield (Ref: Barfield
Handout)

The Household; Allocation of
and Access to Resources S.
Poats
Eliciting Decision Criteria -
C. Gladwin

Hierarchy of Constraints
Economic Considerations C.
Andrew
Short Review. Hand'out
Dominican Republic materials
and assign readings.


Tuesday
Aug 12


page 1









DIAGNOSIS (continued)


Wednesday
Aug 13


Interviewing


AM 8:00-9:00

9:00-10:00
10:00-11:00

11:00-12:00
LUNCH
PM 1:30-2:30

2:30-5:00


Presentation


AM 8:30-10:00
10:30-12:00

LUNCH
PM 1:30-2:30

2:30-


The "Sondeo"

AM 8:00-9:00



9:00-12:00


LUNCH
PM 1:30-2:30


2:30-3:30

BREAK
3:45-5:00


Farmers


Team Interviews with D.R.
Farmers
Team Meetings for Synthesis
Team Interviews with D.R.
Farmers
Team Meetings for Synthesis

Team Interviews with D.R.
Farmers
Team Synthesis of Interview
Results and Report
Preparation (concentrate on
alternatives)

of Sondeo Reports

Presentation of Team Reports
Synthesis of Team Reports -
Group Exercise

Outline of Group Report -
Group Exercise
Review and Evaluation of Week.
L. Walecka
Discussions


TGIF


Saturday
Aug 16


Free day.


WEEK 1


*SAMPLE


page 2


Introduction to the "Sondeo" -
J. Dean. (Ref:.Vol I; Unit
VI. TU & Perspectives..,
Chap. 4.)
Interviewing Techniques C.
Gladwin (Ret: Vol I; Unit
VII. TU & Spradley)

Dominican Republic Case Study:
Task Definition Group
Exercise
View Dominican Republic Slide
Sets

Determination of Interview
Topics List Team Exercise


Thursday
Aug 14


Friday
Aug 15









WEEK 2 DESIGNING AND CONDUCTING ON-FARM RESEARCH


MONDAY
Aug 18


SAMPLE SCHEDULE #2
page 3


AM 8:00-8:15

8:15-9:00

9:00-10:15





10:15-10:30
10:30-12:00




12:00-1:30
PM 1:30-3:00

3:00-3:15
3:15-5:00


Goals and Objectives of Week's
activities.
The Philosophy of Agricultural Research
K. Buhr.
Philosophy of On-farm Research
three domains
working with variability not against it
relationship between OFR and station
research P. Hildebrand (Ref: OFAT,
Chap. 1)
BREAK
Problem Identification The Paraguay
case study will provide practical
exercises throughout the week in design
and analysis of OFR. J. Dean and team
(Ref: Vol I; Unit IX. TU)
LUNCH
Problem Prioritization and Selection -
(Ref: CIMMYT-Tripp)
BREAK
Evaluation Criteria (framework) The
importance of a framework for the
evaluation criteria to be used to
measure the trial results needs to be
established before moving into
specifics of trial design. By the end
of this session, the participants
should have a clear idea of the major
considerations for designing effective
trials based on relevant evaluation
criteria. S. Poats (moderator) K.
Buhr, J. Conrad, C. Barfield, P.
Hildebrand and C. Gladwin (Ref: Vol II;
Unit V.B.3, pg. 307 TU)








WEEK 2

TUESDAY
Aug 19


WEDNESDAY
Aug 20


SAMPLE SCHEDULE #
Spage 4
DESIGNING AND CONDUCTING ON-FARM RESEARCH (cont'd)


AM 8:00-10:00







10:00-10:30
10:30-12:00








12:00
PM 2:00-4:00



4:00-4:45
4:45-5:00


AM 8:00-10:15


10:15-10:30
10:30-12:00


What? Selecting Treatments Team
Exercise: J. Conrad (moderator)
Nature of trial (exploratory,
refinement, researcher managed, farmer
managed) Nature of subject (plants,
animals, pests)(Ref: Vol II; Unit
II.C.1,2,4, D.1,2 TU) & Perspectives..,
Chap. 5.)
BREAK
Design of On-Farm Research K. Buhr
(Lead), J. Conrad, C. Barfield, P.
Hildebrand (Ref: OFAT, Chap. 2-4.)
Where? Characterization of targeting
for Research Domain
How? Experimental Design (Animals,
Plants, Pests, etc.)
Who? Researcher or Farmer managed?
How many? Number of Locations
LUNCH
Design of Trials Team Exercise
Paraguay Case Study; Practicum 2.
(Ref: Vol II; Unit III TU. Used from
10:30 AM until 4:00 PM)
Plenary Session Team Reports
Presentation of Paraguay's Trials and
short discussion.


The Logistics of On-Farm Trials E.C.
French. How to carry out trials (the
nitty gritty uf managing trials, farmer
cooperation, "horror stories", etc.).
(Ref: Vol II; Unit IV. TU & Handout)
BREAK
Continuing Characterization P.
Hildebrand (Ref: Perspectives.., Chap.
6 & Vol II; Unit IV.A TU)
Minimum Data Set
Definition of Recommendation Domain
Determination of Diffusion Domain

Analyzing and Interpreting Results C.
Barfield (moderator), K. Buhr, J.
Conrad (Ref: OFAT, Chap. 5-7.)
Review of evaluation criteria
What Tools Are Available?
ANOVA (Use and Interpretation)
M-STAT (Ref: Vol II; Unit V. TU)







SAMPLE SCHEDULE #2
WEEK 2 page 5
WEEK 2


THURSDAY
Aug 21


12:00
PM 1:30-5:00



AM 8:00-12:00

12:00


PM 1:30-5:00


SATURDAY
Aug 23


Analyzing and Interpreting Results
(cont'd) P. Hildebrand
Modified Stability Analysis
Confidence intervals (risk analysis)
(Individual Practice)
LUNCH
Partitioning Research Domains into
Recommendation Domains P. Hildebrand


Effect of Numbers of Locations on Design
and Results P. Hildebrand
LUNCH
(NOTE: Reference for Thursday and Friday
AM will be the Paraguay Case Study)
Economic Analysis of On-Farm Trials P.
Hildebrand (Ref: Vol II; Unit V. B.2.
TU)


Field trip to North Florida. Visit Live
Oak AREC. Visit on-farm trials. Visit
O'Lena State Park.


xiii


FRIDAY
Aug 22




SAMPLE SCHEDULE #2
page 6
DESIGNING AND CONDUCTING ON-FARM TRIALS (cont'd)


WEEK 3


MONDAY
Aug 25


Economic Analysis of On-Farm Trials
(cont'd) P. Hildebrand (Ref: Vol II;
Unit V. B.2. TU)
LUNCH
Economic Analysis of On-Farm Trials
(cont'd).



Making Recommendations P. Hildebrand,
et. al.
Validation trials
Extension implications in
recommendation and diffusion domains
Evaluation of Section L. Walecka
LUNCH


IMPLEMENTATION, MANAGEMENT AND INSTITUTIONALIZATION


TUESDAY
Aug 26


WEDNESDAY
Aug 27


PM 1:30


AM 8:00-12:00

12:00
PM 1:30-3:00

3:00

4:00


Introduction and Overview C. Andrew
and K. McDermott (Ref: Perspectives..,
Chap. 7 & OFAT, Chap. 8.)

Presentation of tools for analysis:
brainstorming, force field, decision
and function trees, etc. C. Andrew
and K. McDermott (Ref: Handout)
FSR/E in the Research/Extension System -
C. Andrew
Zambia Case Study. Discussions of
conceptual framework for Case Study. -
S. Poats.


Processing and synthesizing the Zambia
Case Small group exercise
LUNCH
Presentations of Zambia Case Analysis -
Small Groups
General Discussions of Zambia Case Study
- Group exercise
Overview of Management Exercise for
Thursday Morning C. Andrew


AM 8:00-12:00


12:00
PM 1:30-5:00




AM 8:00-11:30




11:30-12:00
12:00


TUESDAY
Aug 26






SAMPLE SCHEDULE #2
page 7


WEEK 3


THURSDAY
Aug 28


Management Exercise C. Andrew and K. McDermott


AM 8:00-9:30
9:30-10:30
10:30-11:00
11:00-12:00
12:00
PM 1:30-3:00




AM 8:00-10:00

10:00-11:00
11:00-12:00


Small Group Activity
Small Group Reports
BREAK
Group Planning Activity
LUNCH
Institutional Models for Implementing
FSR/E: Advantages and Disadvantages -
S. Poats


General Discussion and Review of Course
- Group
Evaluation of Course L. Walecka
Presentation of Certificates.


Participants depart Gainesville.


NOTES ON REFERENCES:

1. TU Training Units; Farming Systems Support Project (FSSP);
University of Florida; Gainesville, Fla.; 1986.
A. Vol I Diagnosis
B. Vol II On-Farm Research
2. Perspectives Perspectives on Farming Systems Research and
Extension; P.E. Hildebrand, Ed.; Lynne Reiner
Publishers; Boulder, Colorado; 1986.
3. OFAT On-Farm Agronomic Trials; P.E. Hildebrand and F. Poey;
Lynne Reiner Publishers; Boulder, Colorado; 1985.
4. CIMMYT "The Planning Stage of On-Farm Research: Developing a
List of Experimental Treatments"; CIMMYT Draft
Training Document; 1985.


Friday
Aug 29









SAMPLE SCHEDULE # 3


Farming Systems Research & Extension
Shortcourse
Gainesville, Florida
September 27 to October 14, 1987


Date
Sunday Sept 27

7:00 9:30 PM Reception

Monday Sept. 28


8:00
9:00
10:00
10:15

11:00
12:00 1:30
1:30
2:30
3:15
3:30


SAMPLE SCHEDULE # 3
page 1


Activities


Why FSR/E (in Africa)?
Workshop objectives logistics
Break
Origins of FSR/E
FSR/E in the dev. & transfer of technology
Performance of traditional research & extension
Lunch
Steps in FSR/E
The farm as a system
Break
Modeling the farm as a system


Tuesday Sept 29


8:00
9:00
10:00
10:15
11:00
12:00-1:30
1:30
2:15
3:00
3:15
4:30


Presentation of models
Grouping farmers
Break
Exercise (Ex): grouping farmers
Presentation of ex. results (grouping farmers)
Lunch
Data collection methods
Ex: determining appropriate data collection methods
Break
Informal survey: reconnaissance, diagnostic, techniques
Reading Burkina Faso case study


Wednesday Sept 30


8:00
8:30
9:15
10:00
10:15
12:00-1:30
1:30
2:15
3:15
3:30
3:45
4:45


Interview skills
Interviewing role play
Interview guidelines; Use as report outline
Break
Preparation of interview guideline
Lunch
Present & synthesize guidelines
1st interview
Break
Discuss 1st interview
Second interview
Discuss 2nd interview & organization of reports


xvii









SAMPLE SCHEDULE # 3
page 2


Thursday Oct. I


8:00
9:00
9:30

10:30
10:45
12:00-1:30
1:30


3rd interview
Discuss 3rd interview
Discussion of Burkina Case Calendar & other
tools
Break
Preparation of reports
Lunch
Preparation of reports (continued)


presentation


Friday Oct. 2


8:00
10:00
10:15
11:30

12:00-1:30
1:30
2:30
3:30
3:45


Monday Oct. 5

8:00
8:30
9:30
10:15
10:30
11:30
12:00 1:30
1:30
2:00
2:15
3:00
3:15
4:00

Tuesday Oct. 6


8:00
8:30
9:15
10:00
10:15
11:30
12:00-1:30
1:30
2:30
3:30
3:45


Presentation of reports
Break
Synthesis of reports & comparison to FSR/E team results
Synthesis of diagnostic week
Use of diagnostic in planning
Lunch
Define problems, constraints, causes
Prioritize problems & constraints
Break
Present priority problems


Identify potential solutions
Identify potential solutions for Burkina problems
Present potential solutions
Break
Evaluate potential solutions
Present evaluation of potential solutions
Lunch
Present evaluations of potential solutions (cont)
Capacity to implement potential solutions
Evaluate capacity to implement potential solutions
Break
Triage: choice of technologies
Read modified stability analysis



-I/
On-farm testing
Ex: Xanadou
Experimental design
Break
Design trial for technology chosen Burkina Faso
Presentation of experimental designs
Lunch
Discussion of experimental designs
Elements of statistical analysis; ANOVA
Break
Relationship between station, multi-locational and on-farm
experiments; and survey research


xviii









SAMPLE SCHEDULE # 3


Wednesday Oct. 7


8:00
10:15
10:30
12:00-1:30
1:30
3:00
3:15
4:30


Integrated analysis and the use of evaluation criteria
Break
Read modified stability analysis and Mantaro Valley case
Lunch
Modified stability analysis (MSA)
Break
Calculation of MSA for yield data
Presentation of MSA yield results


Thursday Oct 8


8:00

9:00
10:00
10:15
11:30
12:00-1:30
1:30
3:00
3:15
4:30


Characterization & identification of recommendation
domains.
Number of locations & stabilizing effect of range
Break
Ex: number of locations & effect of range
Presentation of ex. results
Lunch
Distribution of confidence intervals
Break
Ex: distribution of confidence intervals
Presentation of ex. results


Friday Oct. 9


8:00
8:30
10:00
10:15
10:45
12:00-1:30
1:30
2:15
3:00
3:15
4:30


Saturday Oct. 10



Monday Oct. 12


8:00
10:00
10:15
12:00-1:30
1:30
2:00
3:15
3:30


.Economic analysis using MSA
Ex: MSA using economic criteria
Break
Presentation of ex. results
Ex: confidence internals using economic criteria
Lunch
Presentation of ex. results
Use of MSA to derive response surfaces
Break
Ex: derive response surfaces from MSA
Presentation of ex. results


Field Trip


Partial budgeting
Break
Ex: Partial budgeting
Lunch
Partial budgeting-marginal analysis
Ex: marginal analysis
Break
Presentation of partial budgeting results


xix


page 3






SAMPLE SCHEDULE # 3
page 4


Tuesday Oct. 13

8:00 Institutionalization of FSR/E
10:15 Break
10:30 Ex: Institutionalizing FSR/E
12:00-1:30 Lunch
1:30 Presentation of ex. results
3:00 Break
3:15 Read Colombia case study

Wednesday Oct. 14

8:00 Discussion of Colombia case study in small groups
10:00 Break
10:15 Discussion of Colombia case study in plenary session
12:00-1:30 Lunch
1:30 Synthesis of shortcourse
2:30 Written evaluations
3:00 Break
3:30 Verbal evaluation

7:30 Banquet


JALWPS:64


xx












EVALUATION (FEEDBACK)


Your comments are encouraged. Please feel free to write your comments
and send them to the FSSP at the address listed on the back of this form.
Being specific about the unit, sub-unit or sections which you are
discussing will assist us in our efforts to provide quality materials.


(optional) NAME:


DATE:


LOCATION:

1. How did you find the units most/least useful?

most:


least:


2. In planning to use this unit subunitt, section) again what would you:

expand:

add:

shorten:

omit:


3. How useful were the existing activities provided in the unit? Please
list the activities and indicate whether or not you chose to use them
and why or why not.


UNIT


ACTIVITY


USED (YES/NO)


REASON


4. What supplementary materials did
in the unit(subunit, section)?


you find useful that


were not listed


PLEASE MAKE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, OR SUGGESTIONS. THANK YOU!


_ __


TRAINER































INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS
FSSP(TRAINING UNITS)
3028 MCCARTY HALL
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 32611


xxii











VOLUME I
DIAGNOSIS IN FSR/E





















VOLUME I: INTRODUCTION




Each unit in this volume has several activities that will enable FSR/E
team members to build skills related to diagnosis in FSR/E. The units
themselves are arranged in order such that the materials presented later in
sequence may depend on material presented earlier. In those cases, the
units will have prerequisites indicating that the trainer should ensure
that the trainees have the background information necessary to benefit from
the unit. Other units require no previous knowledge.

Not every activity in a unit needs to be used in a given workshop, nor
has the manual been designed as such. The trainer can choose the
activities most appropriate to the training situation, or use the
activities as models and construct his/her own exercises with local data.
Many of these exercises have been used successfully in previous workshops.
They are intended to provide trainers in FSR/E with options and ideas for
providing a stimulating learning experience in FSR/E workshops.












TRAINER'S NOTES
VOLUME I
INTRODUCTION, B
ACTIVITY ONE
MATRIX OF RESEARCH AND EXTENSION POSSIBILITIES

OBJECTIVE:


After completing this exercise, participants will be better able to:

1. Identify the total number of potential research and extension
possibilities in their country or region.

2. Explain how grouping farm households and farm household members reduces
the number of research and extension possibilities.

3. List bases for grouping farm households and household members.

4. Show graphically in matrix form how grouping reduces the total number
of potential research extension priorities.

INSTRUCTIONS:

This activity can be done with the trainer in front of the whole group
of participants. The trainer asks questions for each step, to elicit
the information from the participants which the trainer writes-on the
blackboard. In this way, the trainer develops this matrix from
information supplied by the participants. The participants should be
encouraged to write the same information on a piece of paper at the
same time as the trainer writes it on the blackboard, so that the
participants also build the matrix step-by-step.


An example, using a fictitious name, but based on a
which this exercise has been used several times, is
Trainee Handout I: Introduction B, Activity One #1.
the matrix that results step-by-step.


real country in
used below, and in
This figure shows


Part A: Potential total number of producing units Trainer notes:


1. Ask participants how the region or country is divided.
the top of a blackboard (or on a piece of paper turned
names of all the administrative units (either extension
the region or country, that are largest in size.


Write across
sideways) the
or political)


Example:


In Malambia, the largest units are called divisions.
experiment station is responsible for 3 divisions.


The coastal


2. Ask participants what the largest units are divided into. Write
underneath each name of the largest units all the names of the next
largest subunit. Count up how many total subunits there are in the
whole region.

Introduction B
page T 1











Example:

In Malambia, the subunits are called districts. There are 21 districts of
the 3 divisions.

3. Ask approximately how many villages there are in the whole region or
country, and in each subunit. Depending on what participants know,
answers may be either:

a. The total number of villages in the whole region:
Divide that number by the number of subunits in the whole region,
to obtain the average number of villages per subunit; or

b. The number (average or range) of villages in each largest unit:

(1) Divide that number for each unit by the number of subunits in
each unit, to obtain the average number of villages per
subunit; in each unit;

(2) Add up the numbers of villages in all the largest units, to
obtain the total number of villages in the whole region; or;

c. Each subunit on an individual basis;
Add up the number of villages in all the subunits, to obtain the
total number of villages in the whole region;

The number, as an example, under one subunit in each-unit:
1,2,3,...., n;
where n is the number of villages in that subunit, obtained by either
calculation method a, b, or c above.

Example:
In Malambia, there are about 700 villages in the 3 divisions. With 21
districts, this works out to about 33 villages per district
(calculation method c).

4. Ask participants approximately how many households (average or range)
there are in each village. Multiply that number by the total number of
villages, to obtain the total number of households in the region.

Example:
In Malambia, villages typically have 50 to 100 households. This gives
35,000 to 70,000 farm households in the 3 divisions.

5. Finally,

a. Ask how households are composed. Answers will vary depending on
various factors, such as;

(1) Whether households are polygamous, extended across
generations, or nuclear;
(2) The extent of out-migration;
(3) The extent of non-family members sharing the same household.


Introduction B
page T 2












b. Next ask which household members farm. Ask whether each member
which farms does so independently or jointly with another
household member or members which manage an activity (such as,
male farmers with their own land or animals; female farmers with
their own land or animal; joint male and female farmers together
managing the same land or animals; etc.).

c. Then determine the average number of household producing units per
household, and write, as an example, under a couple of villages in
a couple of subunits, symbols for each producing unit:

Multiply the average number of household producing units by the total
number of farm households for the entire region or country, to obtain the
total number of producing units.

Example:

With 3 types of producing units (female farmers, male farmers, and joint
male and female land), there are 105,000 to 210,000 total kinds of
producing units. If each household consists, on the average, of 2 female
farmers, 1 male farmer, and a set of joint male/female activities, then
there are 175,000 to 350,000 total actual producing units. One might also
note that the same person (for example, a female farmer, might be a member
of 2 producing units: herself, on land she controls individually, and a
joint male/female unit.



Part B: Potential total number of research and extension possibilities

1. Ask the participants:

a. What kinds of resources do the different producing units have?
Write each (example: land; labor; capital: wells, implements,
etc.) on a separate line in the left-hand column on the
blackboard.
b. What kinds of crop production activities do the different
producing units have? Write each (example: sorghum, rice,
tomatoes, etc.) on a separate line in the left-hand column
underneath the resources.
c. What kinds of animal production activities do the different
producing units have? Write each (example: cattle, goats,
poultry, etc. ) on a separate line in the left-hand column
underneath the crop activities.
d. What kinds of household activities do the different producing
units have. Write each (example: food preparation, fuelwood
gathering, basket weaving, etc.) in the left-hand column
underneath the animal production activities.
e. What aspects of the socio-economic environment affect the
different producing units. Write each (example: market access,
access to government or private voluntary extension personnel
PVO's, etc.) in the left-hand column underneath the household
activities.

Introduction B
page T 3











2. Have the participants count the total number of:

a. Crop and household activities:
Multiply that number by the total number of producing units, to
obtain the total number of individual agricultural production
activities for which research and extension produce information;

b. Resources, household activities, and socio-economic environment:
Multiply that number by the total number of producing units, to
obtain the total number of individual support activities for
research and extension produce information;

c. Add the results of the 2 calculations (a and b above), to obtain
the total number of individual activities for which research and
extension produce information.

Example:
Trainee Handout I: Introduction, B Activity One #1 shows 3 kinds of
crop activities, and 3 kinds of animal production activities (this is an
abbreviated, incomplete list, for illustrative purposes only).
Mulitplying the sum of these types of agricultural production
activities, 6, times 105,000 producing units gives 630,000 individual
agricultural production activities for which research and extension
produce information.. If we use the higher end of the range, 210,000
producing units, the multiplication gives 1,260,000 individual
agricultural production activities. In addition, the handout shows 2
kinds of capital resources, 3 kinds of household activities, and 2
socio-economic environmental factors, for which research and extension
could provide information. Multiplying the sum of these activities, 7,
times 105,000 210,000 gives 735,000 1,470,000 individual support
activities involving resources, household production, and environmental
factors, for which research and extension also produce information.
Adding the number of individual agricultural production activities and
the number of support activities gives a grand total of 1,365,000 -
2,730,000 individual activities for which research and extension
provide information. Obviously, each extension person works with more
than one kind of activity, and with more than one producing unit. Yet,
we sometimes hear that each farmer (producing unit) is different.
Clearly, for research especially, there must be some grouping to
determine priorities, and to enable research to generate information
that can benefit many farmers.

Part C: Grouping to reduce the total number of agricultural research and
extension activities

1. For each type of producing unit, ask participants which
agricultural production and support activities are important for
the first kind of particular producing unit (for example, female
farmers in the first village), and check underneath female farmers
for the first village all the rows corresponding to the important
activities. Leave blank those which are not important. Continue
this for several more columns of types of producing units (male
farmers in the same village; female farmers in a village in
another division; etc.).

Introduction B
page T 4











2. Ask participants which activities are connected, using for example
the activities for female farmers. Draw vertical lines linking
activities of the same producing unit which are connected
(example: cash from rice sales used for tomato fertilizer).

3. For each type of producing unit, ask participants which activity
Sis most important for the livelihood of the first type of
producing unit, and star that activity (example: rice for female
farmers in the first village). Ask which activity is the greatest
constraint, and put a box around that activity (example:
implements for plowing).

4. Ask participants to find similarities in types of activities,
types of linkages between activities, and priorities and
constraints;

5. Ask participants to count how many groups of producing units with
similarities there are;
Ask participants to compare that number with the total number of
activities which research and extension produce information for.

6. Lead participants in a discussion of:

a. The implications of this difference in numbers;
b. What research and extension personnel need to know to do valid
grouping.

Use this discussion as a way to introduce the FSR/E sequence of
diagnosis, design, testing, and extension, relating the FSR/E
sequence to the steps of a scientific method.























Introduction B
page T 5















TRAINER'S NOTES
Volume I: I
ACTIVITY ONE:
FSR/E: DISCIPLINES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Summary description: This is a group discussion activity that encourages
participants from different disciplines to discuss their own, as well as
other disciplines'- roles in the diagnostic process of FSR/E. This exercise
is most effectively used after participants have almost completed the
workshop since they will then have more appreciation for the contributions
that each discipline can make to an FSR/E program.

OBJECTIVE:

After completing this activity participants will be able to:

Assess the role of each discipline at each stage of the FSR/E process.

TIME: 1 hour

MATERIALS:

1. Trainee Handout I:I Activity One #1, "FSR/E: Disciplines and
Responsibilities"

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Divide participants into small multidisciplinary groups (no larger than
six persons). It is best to have multidisciplinary groups because it
enables cross-discipline interaction and minimizes the opportunity for
any one individual or discipline to dominate discussion. If
participants are grouped by discipline there is little chance to
interact with other participants having a different perspective.

2. Explain the task to the groups: The task of each group is to decide
what the role of each discipline is at a particular stage of FSR/E and
to complete the table "FSR/E: Disciplines and Responsibilites" with as
much information as they can. During their discussion they are to
consider the extent of interdisciplinary interaction that is occurring
in their group. (30 minutes)

PROCESSING:

1. The accompanying table has six rows. If you have fewer groups, combine
some of the rows so that the number of rows equals the number of
groups.

2. Ask the groups to share their findings in a plenary session. Each
reporter should copy one row of the table filled out by his/her group
on newsprint or on the blackboard until the table is completed. You
should review the entries and ask if the trainees agree or if they have
.additional suggestions to make. A completed chart FSR/E Disciplines

Volume I: I
page T 7










and responsibilities is provided for your information and convenience.

3. If time permits you should facilitate a discussion of the
interdisciplinary interaction within the groups. Some questions you
could pose to begin discussion include:

Is this the first time you've worked in an interdisciplinary
effort? Could you have determined each discipline's role without
representatives of that discipline present? How did you feel
interacting with several other disciplinary perspectives?

4. The completed chart "FSR/E Disciplines and Responsibilities" is
provided for your information and convenience.







































Volume I: I
page T 8




















VOLUME I: I
ACTIVITY ONE:
FSR/E DISCIPLINES AND 'ESPONSIBILITTFS
rSl/t ACTIVITY TASKS AG. ECOCNIST AG. SCIENTIST
nExamning i D ne farmer Evaluate economic Evaluate physical
Existing Data groups in a resource biological
i Preliminary given area by: differences differences in
definition of I Using secon- within farmer environmental and
farmer groups dary data: groups and among cropping systems
reports, sur- areas. within & among
veys, soils, farmer areas.
climates, socio.
logical, etc.
2. Informal
and possibly
formal
interviews
with extension
officers, agents
and other key
informants
WRITE REPORT


Informal Survey Informal, Semi- Outline sampling describe cultural
directed method Propose practices. Suggest
dialogue interviewing potential improve-
between team method. Analyze ments for increa-
and farmers, farmer priorities, sing productivitiy
Describe resource Observe Incidence
diagnose problem constraints, and effects of
c constraints, management pests on crop
Identity oppor- strategies, production
tunities call Screen proposed WRITE REPORT
is other improvements for
researchers economic
when needed. In- feasability.
clude detailed WRITE REPORT
experimental plan
in final report.

Formal Survey Design Design Design
questionnaire questionnaire questionnaire
Outline sampling outline sampling Train enumerators
method fieldwork method fieldwork for agronomic
organization organization Train tasks. Propose
Train enumerators/Pre analyses for
enumerators. test questionnaire agronomic aspects
Pretest supervise data
questionnaire, analysis.
Supervise data
analysis.
WRITE REPORT

Plan Experiments Pre-test Demonstrate Site selection
hypothesis economic Experimental
site selection viability of design levels of
experimental proposed fixed and
design levels improvement. experimental
of fixed and Assure levels of variables. No
exper. non-experimental sites,.reps/site.
variables, variables are at Length of
No sites. renal farm practices. experiment. Asse
site. State Assess responsibilities
responsibility responsibilities farmers/
of researchers/ of farmer 6 researchers.
farmers research Decide Prepare monitor
monitoring plan. which economic plan, fieldback
Decide data to data are required prep.
collected, in experiment.
Arrange variables
fieldback. to farmer
resources.


TRAINER'S NOTES
Chart #1


MRNAL LIVESTOCK EXTESI ON
SOCIOLOGIST SCIErTIST SPECIALIST
AtmOPOLIGIST
Understand Evaluate Evaluate
historical physical/ Diff. in
development of biological extension
ethnic groups in differences program
areas. Evaluate in within and
cultural, environment among farmer
historic and groups and
differences livestock areas.
within areas, systems
within &
among farmer
groups and
areas.


LOCALAE/X
INFORMAfNT

Give local
point of view
sources of
information
confirm
findings in
secondary
reports.


SOutline sampling Describe Liaison with Ideas fo:
method Propose livestock exter. agent testing/
interviewing practices at village hypoth
methods social/ suggest level for local intro-
processual potential planning duction, lo-
analysis of Improve- meetings and cal measures
farmer priori- ments for interviews, and terms of
ties, strate- increasing Evaluate reference.
gies con- produc- technical
straints. tivity. package for
Screen proposed Analyze farmers.
improvements crop-live- Propose
for see. stock changes.
acceptability interaction
WRITE REPORT WRITE REPORT WRITE REPORT

Same as Ag. Design Liaison with Arrange
economist plus question- exten. agent interviews,
identify poten- naire Train for organi- introductnr.
tial problems enumerators zing farmer
in social domain for live- interviews.
& begin collec- stock-re- Design ques-
ting more com- lated tasks.tionnaire
plete relevant Propose field work
data on specific analyses organization
problem areas, for live-
stock re-
lated
data.

Analyse social Same as Outlining Suggest
acceptability agronomist role of ext. local
of proposed but for agent in priorities
improvement livestock maintaining Advise on
Assess respon- experiments experiment, nature of
sibilities of Coimunicate agreement
farmers & ex- proposed required
tension re- station between
searchers in experiments farmers and
experiments. to station the team.
same as above researcher.


!ss


N


Conduct


Experiments Extension agents Monitor economic
Maintain data collection in
experiments exp.
team, supervises
experiments.
Periodic
farmer eval of
exp.

Evaluate Program Analyze Plan economic
experimental analysis
results. Plan interpret results.
next step.
Feedback to
results where
needed.


Lead in crop
supervision and
and monitoring
of experiments.
Discuss progress
of trial with
farmer.

run statistical
analysis
Compare results
with data
collected.
Interpret research
results. Plan
next step in
research process.


Lead in farmer Lead in Train exten- Local eval.
eval. during supervision sion agents feedback
season. Conduct and moni- to set up & during pro-
ocus*4. tudies torinq of maintain cess.
to trNes*tigte livestock experiment.
problem areas experiments.
as they arise.


Assess social Analyze and Assess possi-
impact Analyze Interprest abilities for
social comonent experi- introd. re-
of outcome, mental suits into
results, extension
program.


Volume I: I
page T 9


it


r.













TRAINER'S NOTES
Volume I: I
ACTIVITY IWO:
RECOGNIZING DISCIPLINARY CONTRIBUTIONS IN FSR/E


Summary Description: This is a small group activity which is designed to
allow the participants to discuss possible solutions to a problem from
various disciplinary perspectives. It also allows the participants to
assess their own reactions to working with persons from other disciplines.

OBJECTIVE:

After completing this activity participants will be able to:

Better appreciate the contributions several disciplines can make to the
FSR/E process.


TIME: 45 minutes

MATERIALS:

1. Trainee Handout I:I Activity Two #1, "Case Study: Murewa District in
Zimbabwe"

2. Newsprint and marker, board and chalk.

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Have the participants form small multidisciplinary groups (no more than
five in a group). Tell the participants to read the case study on
agricultural production in Zimbabwe. The case study is provided as
Trainee Handout I:I Activity Two #1.

2. Explain the task: As the participants read the case study tell them.to
think about possible solutions to the problems from various
disciplinary perspectives. When they finish reading the case study,
have them brainstorm possible solutions. You should emphasize that
this is a brainstorming activity and not a discussion activity. All
solutions are to be accepted without judgement, that is, no solution
should be considered as wrong. The idea is as much to stimulate
interdisciplinary interaction as to come up with the correct solutions.
(20 minutes)

PROCESSING:

After the participants have sufficiently brainstormed and completed the
above task, you should : 1) Ask the plenary group to suggest several
solutions and list these on the board or newsprint. 2) Discuss the
process, their reactions and feelings. Some possible questions that
will help you might include:



Volume I: I
page T 11












- How did you feel working with several other disciplines?
- Did you feel that any one discipline dominated the group?
- Do you think having other disciplinary perspectives increased your
understanding of the problems?
- Do you think having other disciplinary perspectives increased your
understanding of the proposed solutions?
- Do you think the proposed solutions were more appropriate to the
farmers' circumstances than the ones you thought of yourself or
only considering your discipline?











































Volume I: I
page T 12












TRAINER'S NOTES
Volume I:II
ACTIVITY ONE:
BUILDING A STRUCTURAL MODEL OF A FARMING SYSTEM


Summary description: This exercise is especially interesting in a regional
workshop where representatives from different countries are present. For a
workshop where all participants are working in the same area, the trainer
can organize the activity so that each group deals with a different
recommendation domain or farmer group.

OBJECTIVE:

After completing this activity participants will be able to:

Develop a structural model of a farming system.

TIME REQUIRED: Two hours

MATERIALS AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS:

1. Paper and pencils

2. Newsprint and markers, blackboard and chalk

3. An overhead plastic sheet or slide of a structural model is
useful but not necessary. Especially useful is a series of
slides or sheets which show how a model is constructed,
beginning with simple components and adding overlays which
increase the complexity of the system.

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. It is assumed that the structural model has already been presented and
discussed in a short lecturette.

2. Divide the participants into interdisciplinary groups of 3 6 persons.

3. Explain to them the purpose and summarize the procedures of the
exercise.

4. Ask the groups to interview any group member about farming in his/her
area. The first question should be "what is farming like in your
area?" The conversation should develop naturally from there. Allow
ten minutes for the interview.

PROCESSING:

1. A reporter from each group presents a three minute summary of the
group's findings from the interview.

2. Intervene at this time and explain that we have heard verbal
descriptions of a particular farming system from each group. Next you



Volume I: II
page T 13











will seek to use this information as well as supplementary information
to prepare a structural model of the farming system that was verbally
described.

3. Participants go back into their same groups and each group prepares a
structural model for a representative farm from their home area. (30
minutes). The group puts the model on blackboard or large sheet of
newsprint.

4. Each group then presents their structural model to the plenary session,
highlighting the interactions among enterprises, between enterprises
and the environment (e.g., market, support institutions, etc.) and the
competition among enterprises for the family's resources. (5 minute
presentation per group)









































Volume I: II
page T 14












TRAINER'S NOTES
Volume I:II
ACTIVITY TWO:
DEVELOPING A PROCESS MODEL FOR UNDERSTANDING
A FARMER'S CIRCUMSTANCES

OBJECTIVE:
After participating in this exercise trainees will be able to:

Analyze farmer management strategies from the farmer's point of view to
understand the rationale behind the practice and alternative practices.

TIME REQUIRED: One hour and thirty minutes

MATERIALS:

1. Paper and pen
2. Blackboard and chalk or flip chart and markers


INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Divide the trainees into interdisciplinary groups. This exercise works
best when members of each group are familiar with farming in the same
area. If all participants are working in the same area, have each
group focus on a different cultural practice.

2. Ask participants to prepare a process model of the farmer management
strategy concerning a selected practice. Table I:II. 1 and Table I:II.
2 from the discussion of this unit can be used to help. Table I:II. 2
describes the information categories in some detail and Table I:II. 1
provides an example of the model. Participants should:

a. Identify a recommendation or practice which is known to increase
yield but which is not followed by all farmers in the area. For
example, most farmers may broadcast their sorghum, although it is
recommended that farmers plant in rows.

b. Think about farmers' principal objectives, environmental aspects,
resources and constraints which may influence the farmers'
decision concerning the practice. For example, labor constraint
at planting time makes it difficult to plant in rows.

c. Explain farmer management strategy concerning the alternatives
available.

d. Consider possibilities for improving any of the listed options
and/or introducing new options.


PROCESSING:

1. Have each group give a presentation. Emphasize the above mentioned
points.



Volume I: II
page T 15












TRAINER'S NOTES
Volume I: III
ACTIVITY ONE:
DISCUSSION OF THE TEXT: LOCAL ANALYSIS OF INSTITUTIONS AND LEADERSHIP

OBJECTIVE:

After completing this activity participants will be able to:


1. Understand the role of local institutions and leadership in FSR/E.

2. Describe institutions and leaders in their own region.

3. Analyze how these institutions and leaders can support an FSR/E
program.

MATERIALS:

1. Paper, pencils

2. Blackboard and chalk, or newsprint and markers


TIME: One hour

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Participants should read the text before the training session.

2. In small groups, participants should perform the following tasks:
(these are listed on the trainee instruction sheet).

Discussion Questions:

a. Name (or list) local institutions and leaders from your own regionss.

b. Name some informal leader from the regions) you know best. What is
the basis of this individual's power?

c. Discuss whether in the regions) you know best there are institutions
or centers of power with which an FSR/E operation should not be
publicly associated.

d. For the regions) you know best, consider which institutions or leaders
could retard FSR/E methods and appropriate technologies.

e. What institutions and leaders could best promote methods and
technologies in those regions?

f. How should FSR/E personnel approach each of these institutions and
leaders in order to obtain and maintain necessary endorsement and
support?


Volume I: III

page T 17











PROCESSING:


1. The trainer should focus discussion on the points in the above
questions. Care must be exercised in discussing them because some of
those institutions and centers of power might be represented among the
trainees. Above all, the trainer must be careful not to suggest
institutions or leadership that might be so represented.

2. Trainers can elect to discuss these points in either plenary or
small-group gatherings. If all trainees have field experience in the
same region of a country, discussions in a plenary session would be
feasible. If there is no common regional field experience, the trainer
may want to group trainees by region and ask each group to discuss the
above points. A rapporteur from each group would then report to the
plenary gathering, where there could be further discussion. It would
also be possible to group trainees (by discipline, by institutional
affiliation, or randomly) for discussions, even if they do have a
common regional experience.




































Volume I: III


page T 18












TRAINER'S NOTES
Volume I: IV
ACTIVITY ONE:
LIMITATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary description: This is an individual activity that allows for group
discussion following individual reading time. It provides the participants
the opportunity to reflect on differences between/among farmers that are
not just related to physical factors or geographical considerations.

OBJECTIVE:

After completing this activity participants will be able to:

Explain why geographic or physical factors alone may not be sufficient
for grouping farmers.

TIME: 30 minutes

MATERIALS:

1. Reading of text for I:IV.
2. Paper, pencils.
3. Blackboard and chalk; or flip chart and markers


INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Ask trainees to study their instruction sheets and ask each person to
work independently for fifteen minutes reading the text and considering
the questions noted.

2. Here are some recommendations that are offered to farmers:

- Drought resistant lowland maize highly responsive to N
- Short strawed, high yielding barley

Consider the following questions for discussion:

- What farmers would find the recommendations appropriate?
- Which kinds of farmers might find that such recommendations would not
meet their needs?

Note that if the trainees have not had a chance to read or examine the
unit before the class session, considerably more time may be needed for the
initial reading of the material.

PROCESSING:

1. After fifteen minutes ask the group who would benefit and who would not
benefit from each technology. Ask one question at a time in order to
avoid confusion and allow maximum interaction. Get several responses
with reasons for the selection before moving on to the next question or
technology so that a range of ideas will be expressed and discussion


Volume I: IV
page T 19












facilitated.

2. It is important to get participants to reflect on differences in
farmer's circumstances that are not related to the agro-ecologic zone.
It would be good to replace the two recommendations in this exercise by
examples of technologies or recommendations currently diffused by
extension in the location where the workshop is conducted or at least
to use recommendations more familiar to the participants. For example,
in Sierra Leone examples concerning rice or use of animal traction
would be relevant; in Zaire, cassava.

Sample responses are provided as general guidelines to help you
during this discussion.

DROUGHT RESISTANT LOWLAND MAIZE HIGHLY RESPONSIVE TO NITROGEN:

Farmers would benefit who:

1. Irrigate on very sandy soil

2. Use manure

3. Have access to fertilizer and capital to buy it.


Farmers would not benefit who:

1. Live in zones of high rainfall with sufficient rain throughout the
growing season or who have high water.holding capacity soils.

2. Lack the capital to buy fertilizer.

3. Live in high altitudes.


- SHORT STRAWED, HIGH YIELDING BARLEY:

Farmers would benefit who:

1. Have access to markets.

Farmers would not beneift who:

1. Use the straw for animal bedding or feed.












Volume I: IV
page T 20












e I TRAINER'S NOTES
Volume I: IV
ACTIVITY TWO:
RELEVANT CHARACTERISTICS RELATED TO FARMER PRODUCTION PROBLEMS

Summary description: This is a group discussion activity that encourages
participants to draw on their own knowledge and experience with farms, and
farm families in their area. It will help the participants to define
characteristics related to farmer production problems which may be
important in defining farmer groups.

OBJECTIVE:

After completing this activity participants will be able to:

Define farmer characteristics of various kinds that are related to
farmer production problems.

TIME: 1 hour

MATERIALS:

1. Trainee Handout I:IV Activity Two #1, "Variables That May Be Useful in
Grouping Farmers"

2. Paper, pencils


INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Divide the participants into small groups (no larger than 6 persons).

2. Explain the task to the groups. Tell them to think about the farmers
they know in their area. How do they, their families, and farms vary?
Have them discuss and list, on a blackboard or newsprint, the
information which a FSR/E project might need to know about a farmer,
farm family, and farm in order to understand clearly how their problems
might be different from others' problems. Ask them to group
characteristics into natural circumstances and socio-economic
circumstances.

PROCESSING:

1. Consolidate the participants' list(s) onto a master list on blackboard
or flip chart. Although discussion may occur at this time, it should
not take up a lot of the time (15 minutes), rather you should, be
interested in getting a compilation of participants ideas.

2. Ask the participants to study trainee handout I:IV Activity Two #1
"Variables That May Be Useful in Grouping Farmers". Ask the
participants to review and refine their list after reviewing the
handout. Give them 5 minutes to compare the lists and add or substract
their variables to those on this list.



Volume I: IV
page T 21











3. Go through several of the variables from each set that have appeared on
the trainees' list and the handout and have the trainees discuss what
they mean in terms of influence on problem or influence on solution (10
minutes).


4. Referring to the starred (*)variables, pose the following questions for
discussion: (10 minutes)

What does tell us about the circumstances and
problems a farmer might face in your area?

What are possible solutions to these problems? What results does a
farm family need to have to solve these problems?
(10 minutes).


3. Possible answers to starred variables:



* possible possible resources
variables problems solutions required

rainfall early end early cycle harvest
pattern/ to rains variety labor when
quantity required

slope soil erosion digging labor
ditches

animals dry season silage surplus fodder
raised feeding for storage or
cash
land inability group credit social
tenure to get credit or use of cohesion,
livestock as livestock
collateral
access lack of cash technologies land and
to credit to purchase not requiring labor to
inputs cash inputs use non-cash
technologies










Volume I: IV
page T 22











TRAINER'S NOTES
Volume I: IV
ACTIVITY THREE:
FARM SIZE

Summary Description: This is a small group discussion activity to help
participants link one differentiating variable to other variables that are
important in problem definition and solution. It is best that the members
of each group are from a similar geographical division or region. If
participants are all from different areas, have them do this activity
individually and ask for volunteers to present their information.

OBJECTIVE:

After completing this activity participants will be able to:

Link one variable that differentiates farmers to other variables that
are important in problem definition and solution.

TIME REQUIRED: 1 hour

MATERIALS:

1. Trainee Handout I:IV Activity Three #1, "Farm Size in Pichincha,
Ecuador"

2. Paper, pencils

3. Blackboard and chalk, or flipchart and markers


INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Divide the participants into small groups and have each group choose a
reporter. These groups should be based on geographical criterion (if
the participants are from several countries by country; if all the
participants are from one country by region).

2. Explain the task to the groups. Give out the trainee handout I:IV
Activity Three #1: "Farm Size in Pichincha, Ecuador". Have the
participants read the short paragraph and study the accompanying table
provided in the handout.

a. Tell them to discuss what farm size means in their own region.

b. Have them list the key characteristics of farm size as they apply to
their region and answer the following questions.


Would farm size be a good way to begin to group farmers in your
area? Why? Why not?

Can you think of a recommendation?



Volume I: IV
page T 23











PROCESSING:


1. After you have given the groups 30 minutes for discussion, bring the
participants back together in one large group and have a reporter from
each group give a summary of the groups findings.

2. Encourage the use of audio-visuals. Each group should prepare a table
similar to that in the handout, showing differences and similarities of
farms of different sizes in their own region.

3. Possible response to discussion question 2:

In the Gnalia area of Guinea, both small and large farmers use the same
rice varieties. Large farmers prefer to prepare their land with
tractors, citing timeliness. Small farmers prefer oxen or hand
tillage, which gives a better seedbed and thus less weeding and higher
yields.






































Volume I: IV
page T 24












TRAINER'S NOTES
Volume I: IV
ACTIVITY FOUR:
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND FARMER GROUPS


Summary Description: This is a small group discussion activity that helps
the participants to identify problems and to distinguish between problems
and solutions. This exercise can also be performed by the participants
individually. The advantage to doing it in a group is that a discussion
within the group at the time of answering the question might help some of
the participants clarify immediately the difference between a problem and a
solution.

OBJECTIVE:

After completing this activity participants will be able to:

1. Identify problems in order to distinguish problems from solutions.

2. Identify the general types of problems farmers face that influence the
way farmers are grouped.

MATERIALS:

1. Trainee Handout I:IV Activity Four #1, "Problem Definition"

2. Paper and pencils

3. Blackboard and chalk, or newsprint and markers


TIME REQUIRED: one hour

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Divide the participants into small multidisciplinary discussion groups.

2. Explain the task. Give out Trainee Handout I:IV Activity Four #1
"Problem Definition", and ask the participants to read it. Have the
groups discuss the questions in the handout, and list their answers,
with reasons, on a blackboard or newsprint. Tell them to be prepared
to present their group's ideas in the plenary.

PROCESSING:

1. After fifteen minutes, bring the groups together and ask for the
answers to the questions from one group. Review the answers asking,
for each example, if another group had a different response. This will
facilitate a discussion that will clarify the difference between a
problem and a solution.





Volume I: IV
page T 25












2. Alternatively, you could ask for the answers from individuals in the
plenary. Be sure to ask if someone else has a different response so
that you can facilitate a discussion that will clarify the difference
between a problem and a solution.

3. Possible answers to discussion questions.

1. No Farmer practice, therefore a solution to a problem or constraint


2. B Inefficient use of land and capital since the large amounts of
applied fertilizer are not significantly increasing yields.

3. A Limit production

4. No There is no indication that weeds are limiting production and
the farmers may have higher priorities for their capital than
.buying tools if they are even available

5. A Limit production

6. No Solution to a problem

7. B Inefficient use of land and labor, under-exploitation of
resources

8. No No. of farmers planting late is the solution to a problem; low
availability of tractors.

4. It is not necessary to conduct this exercise in small groups. If time
is short, the trainer can lead the plenary session through the exercise,
asking for volunteers for each question. This should take about 20
minutes.






















Volume I: IV
page T 26












TRAINER'S NOTES
Volume I: IV
ACTIVITY FIVE:
IDENTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS AND FARMER GROUPS

Summary description: This small group exercise gives the participants some
exposure to analyzing the characteristics of farmers within two farmer
groups and considering the implications of each of these characteristics
for solving a problem: nitrogen deficiency in maize.

OBJECTIVE:

After completing this activity participants will be able to:

Show that the same problem could have different experimental solutions
applied depending on farmer characteristics.

TIME REQUIRED: One hour

MATERIALS:

1. Trainee Handout I:IV Activity Five #1, "Identifying Solutions to
Farmers Problems"

2. Paper and pencils

3. Blackboard and chalk, or newsprint and markers

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Divide into the participants into small groups.

2. Explain the task. Have the participants read the short description and
accompanying questions on Trainee Handout I:IV Activity Five #1,
"Identifying Solutions to Farmers Problems". In the small groups, ask
the participants to answer the following question, which appears on the
handout:

What are the implications of each of these differences concerning the
potential solutions to the nitrogen deficiency problem?

3. The groups should be told to be prepared to exchange results with other
groups in a plenary session. Answers should be written on newsprint or
a blackboard for discussion.

PROCESSING:

1. Lead the plenary session in comparing responses from each group. You
should encourage discussion of areas where groups differ in their
findings.






Volume I: IV
page T 27











2. It is not necessary to divide participants into groups. If time is
short, you can lead the plenary session through this exercise, asking
for volunteer responses for each characteristic. This should take
about 20 minutes.

3. Participants need to be encouraged to look beyond what appears to be
the only, the best, or the most obvious solution. One possible
solution may appear to be the best from a technological perspective,
but may be less acceptable to the local client group than other
approaches.

4. You may want to warn participants in advance that one of the
characteristics may have no implications at all on the choice of
potential solutions.

5. Some suggested responses include:

Group A Group B

Credit Access to credit No access


Fertilizer more appropriate to A since they can use credit to buy it.
Rotation and manure more appropriate to B since no cash expense is
required.

Road access Close to road Far from road

Fertilizer more appropriate to A since transport is possible. Rotation
and manure more appropriate to B since transport from outside area is not
as important.

Livestock Few Many

Manure is more appropriate for B since they have livestock.
To the extent manure can substitute for fertilizer, fertilizer may not be
needed for B. Rotation may be useful in both groups, but especially in A
where no manure is available.

Men working in Many Very few
town

If men working in town implies more cash available for the
farm, then fertilizer may be more appropriate for A. Labor probably more
short in A, thus manuring may not be possible.

Rainfall 1200 mm. 500 mm.

Fertilizer probably more appropriate in A since there is less
risk to losing the investment in fertilizer in case of drought. Manure
more appropriate in B since it will help improve soil structure and
moisture retention. Rotation may be useful in both.




Volume I: IV
page T 28














Group A


Soil texture Fine Coarse

More leaching of fertilizer in coarse texured soil thus may not be
appropriate.


Principal cash
crop Coffee Cotton

No obvious implications if cash crop land not part of cropping sequence
that includes maize. Not all characteristics have to have implications!

Principal
Maize farmers Women Men

Not clear what the implications will be but there probably are some!
Do women have access to cash for fertilizer in A? Who has the rights to
manure use from the livestock?

Manure use fuel None

Manure use more appropriate for B. No implications on possibilities
for fertilizer and rotations.

Slope 10-30% 0-5%

Solution for A needs to take into account potential erosion hazard.

Bean residue Left on ground Fed to livestock

Chemical use in group B may increase animal output through increased
crop residue.

Method of Land
Preparation Hand Oxen

If animals are greater in number in B than in A, then manuring more
appropriate in B.











Volume I: IV
page T 29


Group B












TRAINER'S NOTES
Volume I: IV
ACTIVITY SIX:
DEFINING FARMER GROUPS

OBJECTIVES:

After completing this activity participants will be able to:

1. Define farmer groups in areas they know well.

2. Formulate questions on the process of defining farmer groups.

3. Relate different problems to different farmer characteristics in a
holistic way.

TIME REQUIRED: 1-1/2 hours

MATERIALS:

1. Trainee Handout I:IV Activity Six #1, "Question List for Grouping
Farmers"

2. Paper and pencils

3. Blackboard and chalk, or newsprint and markers

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Divide the participants into small groups and tell them to select a
reporter for their group.

2. Explain the task. Ask the groups to consider how farmers might be
grouped in a selected area. Tell them to spend about 30 minutes in
their group answering the questions given on trainee handout I:IV
Activity Six #1: "Question List for Grouping Farmers." The handout
indicates a suggested plan for the allocation of their time as follows:

Groups should allocate their time as follows:

Part A: Listing the principal characteristics of farms in the area (10
minutes).

Part B: Grouping farmers according to characteristics, problems and
research opportunities (15 minutes).

Part C: Changes in farmer groupings as you move in a particular
direction (10 minutes).








Volume I: IV
page T 31










PROCESSING:


1. In the plenary session, each group will summarize its findings in a 5
minute presentation. The reporter should be sure to summarize the
group's findings for all three parts. He/she should also be sure to

a) summarize the key variables the group used for
separating farmers into groups

b) relate those variables to particular problems faced by farmers

2. This exercise is the most difficult one in this unit. It should be
preceded by a clear and fairly lengthy discussion of the concepts and
examples of defining farmer groups. The biggest problem that trainees
have had with this exercise is deciding which variables are the most
critical in distinguishing one farmer group from another. You should
closely monitor the progress of each group during the work session.

3. Ideally, the members of a group should each be conversant with a single
area so that they can work together on defining farmer groups in that
area. If this is not possible, two alternative approaches are
possible. First, you can ask one member of each group to serve as the
informant and.the group asks the informant questions to define farmer
groups in an area he/she knows well. Alternatively, you can redesign
this exercise having trainees split up into pairs with one trainee
responding to the questions of the other and vice versa. In the
plenary session you can ask for volunteers to come forward and explain
their findings.

4. In a recent workshop, trainers used a random method for grouping
trainees in this exercise, and then changed a few of the groups to make
sure that there was a good balance of disciplines. However, they did
not make sure that there was a balance in terms of experience of the
trainees. As it turned out, the most experienced trainees were
concentrated into two groups. These two groups gave excellent reports,
the other two groups struggled through the exercise and gave very weak
reports. This shows that it may be useful to form your groups to make
sure that there is a balance of experience as well as disciplines.

5. Suggest that each group draw a small map to illustrate the change in
farmer group as one moves away from the area in part C.

6. Example of a solution to this exercise:

A. Principal characteristics of farmers in Middle Kirinyaga, Kenya.

1. .Principal crops: maize and beans, for cash ard food
2. Soil: red loam
3. Topography: fairly flat, some slope
4. Rainfall: two seasons: 600 mm. in first, 400 mm. in second.
5. Altitude: 1200 m.
6. Land tenure: ownership, most have land titles
7. Market access: very good, good roads
8. Land preparation: some own oxen, others borrow or rent.


Volume I: IV
page T 32











9. Farm size: 2-5 ha.
10. Family type: nuclear, avg. size of household is 8.
11. Busiest time of year: April and May for weeding.

B. Defining farmer groups within the area

Income is the primary variable causing differences in farmer
groups and problems in the area. Low income farmers plant late or
before the rains and thus have greater risk of crop failure. High
income farmers tend to have oxen or ready cash to rent oxen when
the rains start. High income farmers also use more improved
inputs (seed, fertilizer).

C. Where groups change

Moving north, altitude increases, slope increases, rainfall and
the length of the rainy seasons increases, and population density
increases. Coffee is the principal cash crop, maize and beans are
grown only for food. All land preparation is by hand hoe. Market
access, soil type, and family type are the same as in the lower
area.

Whereas improved land preparation to conserve moisture is an
important research priority in the lower area, this is not a need
in the higher area, where rainfall is abundant. Shorter cycle
maize varieties are needed in the lower area to avoid drought, in
the upper areas, long cycle varieties are needed to take advantage
of the long rainy season.

Alternative Method:

1. Ask the participants to think individually about recommendation domains
in their home area or an area they know well. Tell them to:

a. List the principal characteristics of their village.
b. Identify as they move in a given direction from the village when
the recommendation domain changes and discuss the reasons.
c. Investigate the possibility that there is more than one
recommendation domain within the village. Where a recommendation
boundary exists, ask the participants to explain why the
difference is so important and how the difference in
recommendation domains is likely to lead to differences in
research programs for farmers in the two RD's (45 minutes).

2. Have the participants pair up and ask each participant to give a short
description of his/her recommendation domain analysis to his/her
partner (15 minutes).

PROCESSING

1. Reconvene the plenary session and have several volunteers present
descriptions of the recommendation domains they have identified (15
minutes).



Volume I: IV
page T 33












TRAINER'S NOTES
Volume I: IV
ACTIVITY SEVEN:
IDENTIFYING RECOMMENDATION DOMAINS

Summary Description: This exercise allows the participants to work
individually and in pairs giving them the opportunity to identify
recommendation domains in areas they know well. It gives them a chance to
formulate questions on the subject after analyzing the recommendation
domain concept themselves. This exercise also lets trainers know if
participants have understood the concepts involved.

OBJECTIVE:

After completing this exercise, the participants will be better able to:

1. Identify recommendation domains in areas very familiar to the
participant.

2. Formulate questions on the subject after analyzing the recommendation
domain concept themselves.


INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Ask the participants to think individually about recommendation domains
in their home area or an area they know well. Tell them to:

a. List the principal characteristics of their village.

b. Identify, as they move in a given direction from the village,
when the recommendation domain changes and discuss the reasons.

c. Investigate the possibility that there is more than one
recommendation domain within the village. Where a recommendation
domain boundary exists, ask the participants to explain why the
difference is so important and how the difference in
recommendation domains is likely to lead to difference in
research programs for farmers in the two RD's. (45 minutes)

2. Have the participants pair up and ask each participant to give a short
description of his/her recommendation domain analysis to his/her
partner. (15 minutes)

PROCESSING:

1. Reconvene the plenary session and have several volunteers present
descriptions of the Recommendation Domains that they have identified.
(15 minutes)







Volume I: IV
page T 35












TRAINER'S NOTES
Volume I: V
ACTIVITY ONE:
COLLECTING INFORMATION FROM KEY INFORMANTS

OBJECTIVES:

After completing this activity participants will be able to:

Identify local knowledgeable individuals who can help provide
information necessary for a successful FSR/E program.

MATERIALS:

1. Paper, pencils

2. Blackboard and chalk,or newsprint and markers.

TIME: 30 minutes

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Divide the trainees into small groups. Have the groups discuss the
following questions:

Who are.some of the people in your area who can give you useful and
accurate information about local farmers and their circumstances?

What are some things the identified people may know that are important?

What are some things they may know that are important but that they may
not want to tell you about?

Ask the groups to list these people by role (not name), list the
information they can give and the potentially sensitive issues they may
not be willing to discuss.

Tell them to specify what makes the roles identified knowledgeable and
informed.

PROCESSING:

1. Have a representative from each group-discuss the group's findings.

2. Be sure that key informants are listed by role, not name.

3. If a trainee says that one should talk to Mr. X, probe to find out who
Mr. X is and what makes him knowledgeable about farmers in that area.
Encourage generalized thinking about roles and the knowledge that stems
from those roles.





Volume I: V
page T 37












Possible Solutions:


Key Informant

Market trader


Input supplier






School teacher


Male Farmers


Things they may know

Period of high and
low prices

Market constraints

Market standards and
characteristics


How many farms use
each type of input
Where they are from,
Characteristics of
buyers. Trends in
input use. Constraints

Start and end of hunger
season
Health problems
Busiest time of crop
calendar

Activities of male
farmers


Sensitive things

Costs, returns,
marketing margins
smuggled quantities
and items
Prices


Profits


Activities of
females


4. Instead of dividing into small groups, trainees
informants while trainer lists them on a flip chart
blackboard.


may suggest key
or


Volume I: V
page T 38












TRAINER'S NOTES
Volume I: V
ACTIVITY TWO:
DETERMINING INFORMATION GATHERING METHODS

OBJECTIVE:

After completing this activity participants will be able to:

Select data collection methods appropriate to obtaining different types
of information.

MATERIALS:

1. Trainee instructions indicating types of data collection methods and
hypotheses with suggested answers.

2. Trainee Handout I:V Activity Two #1, "Observational worksheet".

TIME: Approximately one hour

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Divide the trainees into interdisciplinary groups of 3 5 persons.

2. Give them the following instructions:

For each of the following hypotheses, choose the type of data
collection most appropriate to testing the hypothesis. Be prepared to
explain why you selected that method.

3. There is usually more than one way to obtain a particular type of
information. Researchers must ask themselves what is the most
appropriate method for obtaining the information given their needs and
circumstances. Since these may vary according to the individual's own
perceptions, there are rarely "correct" answers to these questions.
Rather, trainees need to explain the reasons they select a particular
method based on the resources they have, the reasons they may require
the information, and the nature of the information to be collected.
These points should be made clear to the trainees before beginning the
exercise.

PROCESSING:

1. Ask participants to put their responses on the blackboard.

2. Review responses with the plehary session.

Some possible answers:

Virtually every hypothesis should be explored first by searching
through secondary data sources. Those involving farmer practices and
characteristics should also be explored through key informants.


Volume I: V
page T 39











1. Informal survey is sufficient if a precise percentage is not
required.

2. Secondary data, specifically, rainfall data. If not available,
key informants may be helpful. If not available, researchers
should consider beginning a special study to collect data on
rainfall.

3. Experiment could provide accurate information.

4. Experiment

5. Formal survey is best when cross-tabulation of data is required
(e.g., variable A by variable B, here it is area by cotton).

6. A special study would be most useful here. Researchers could
interview a group of lenders, a group of borrowers, and a group
of others who are neither lenders or borrowers but are familiar
with the system.

7. Experiment

8. A formal survey is best when accurate quantitative data is
required.

9. Informal survey. Also possible in a formal survey but probably
cheaper, quicker, and more reliable in an informal survey.

10. Secondary data. If not available, key informants may be helpful
in getting a rough estimate of population relative to twenty
years earlier.

11. Secondary data to find out from other areas the effect of stiff
strawed barley as a sheep feed. If information is unavailable,
feeding experiments may be required.

12. Informal survey, since the reasons may be complicated and/or
sensitive.

ALTERNATIVE METHOD:

This can also be done as an individual exercise with the responses
being elicited from the plenary session.












Volume I: V
page T 40











TRAINER'S NOTES
Volume I: V
ACTIVITY FOUR:
USE OF DATA SUMMARY TOOLS

Summary description: This activity helps to develop descriptive and
observational tools for use in FSR/E activities.

OBJECTIVES:

After completing this activity, participants will be able to:

Use five data summary tools for describing a farming system:

a. farm map
b. enterprise calendar
c. food availability calendar
d. livestock feed calendar
e. sexual division of labor

TIME: about one hour

MATERIALS:

1. Paper, pencils

2. Newsprint and markers are preferred, blackboard and chalk can also be
used.

3. Overhead slides showing an example of each of the above tools.

4. Trainee handout I:V Activity Four #1, "Composite Farm Map of a Typical
1 Carreau (1.29 ha.) Farm in Jacmel area, Haiti".

5. Trainee handout I:V Activity Four #2, "Crop Calendar for Northern
Kilosa district, Tanzania".

6. Trainee handout I:V Activity Four #3, "Food Availability Calendar for
Middle Kirinyaga, Kenya".

7. Trainee handout I:V Activity Four #4, "Feed-Availability for Livestock
in Vihiga, Kenya".

8. Trainee handout I:V Activity Four #5, "Sexual Division of Labor,
Gnalia, Guinea".

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Before beginning this exercise, show examples of each tool to the
participants, using overhead slides or flip charts. Pass out an example of
each tool to each participant. Spend three to five minutes on each tool
explaining how it is drawn up and how it could be used to develop an
understanding of the farming system. The notes below provide background
material on some tools which may be used for the presentation:

Volume I: V
page T 41'










a. Farm Map: drawing a map of the farm is useful both during and
after the interview. Drawing a map during an interview helps the
researcher to focus questions on a field by field basis. This is
necessary because farmers often use different cropping practices on
different fields. Drawing a farm map is especially useful when a
farmer has many different fields, each with different crops. Notes
on cropping practices and the characteristics of each particular
field can then be filled in next to the field on the map.

b. Enterprise Calendar: The enterprise'calendar shows the flow of
activities, labor use, inputs, planting, and harvesting times for
each crop throughout the year. Livestock and off-farm enterprises
should also be included if they are seasonal or have seasonal peak
and slack periods. The calendar highlights the competition among
different crops and enterprises in using the scarce resources which
the family has available. For example, the accompanying calendar
from Kilosa, Tanzania shows the peak period for labor is from
January through March when land preparation, planting, and weeding
are taking place for maize and cotton, and rice is being planted
and weeded.

c. Food Availability Calendar: This tool is especially useful for
areas where food shortages are an important problem facing farmers.
The food availability calendar shows which produce is coming into
the family at which times, the periods of the year when food
shortages are most likely, and the foods farmers substitute when
their preferred foods are not available. The food availability
calendar from Middle Kirinyaga, Kenya, shows the substitutes for
the principal food staples, maize and beans.

d. Feed Availability Calendar for Livestock: This calendar is similar
to the food availability calendar shown above, except that
livestock feed and not human food are shown. The calendar in
Figure 4 shows the number of farmers using ten different cattle
feeds and supplements and the months in which they are available.
The table is useful for showing the scope for increasing the use of
feeds during the period when grazing is most lacking, February
through April.

e. Sexual Division of Labor Table: This table shows the marked sexual
division of labor in the Gnalia area, Guinea. In many areas, as in
this one, certain crops and operations are associated with one or
the other sex. In proposing changes in the system, it is important
that the group most affected by the change be consulted and that,
if appropriate, extension efforts should be focused on that group.
For example, groundnut research and extension in Gnalia should
focus on females.

2. Divide the participants into five interdisciplinary groups, one for
each of the above tools. Be sure that there is as least one livestock
specialist in the group developing the livestock feed calendar.
Participants will have the opportunity to develop models from farm
interviews in the informal survey exercise (see Unit VII). Groups of 3 5
persons are optimal. Have each group select a reporter. Assign a

Volume I: V
page T 42












different technique to each group on a random basis.


3. Assign the task to the groups. Ask the group to do two things:

a. Tell the participants to use the tool to describe a farm with which
the group or a member of the group is familiar. If all members of
the group are from the same area, they can work together in
developing the chart. If they are from different areas, they
should select one person who provides the information about his/her
own area while the others construct the chart. The group should
put its results on a large piece of newsprint. (Approximately
twenty minutes).

b. Have the participants use the tool to develop a list of key points
which the chart illustrates. Develop a list of hypotheses
concerning the problems that farmers face. These should also be
put on newsprint. (Approximately ten minutes).

PROCESSING:

1. Have the reporter from each group give a five minute presentation to
the plenary session showing the chart they developed and how it was
useful for illustrating key aspects of the system and for drawing up
hypotheses about farmer problems. It is not possible to predict which
key points and farmer problems will arise from use of a tool but the
following points are frequently mentioned;

Farm Map: shortage of fallow, rotations which compromise soil
fertility, fragmentation of holding, intercrops which compete with
each other for sunlight, moisture, or nutrients.

Crop Calendar: peak season labor bottlenecks, periods of cash
constraints, of food shortage, of slack season, possibility of
introducing shorter or longer cycle varieties.

Food Availability Calendar: period of food shortage, nutrition
problems, marketing problems.

Feed Availability for Livestock: period of feed shortage, livestock
nutrition problems, competing use of crop residue for soil
improvement and livestock feed.

Sexual Division of Labor Table: "Male" crops and operations, "Female"
crops and operations.











Volume I: V
page T 43












TRAINER'S NOTES
Volume I: VI
ACTIVITY ONE:
EXISTING INFORMATION FOR GETTING STARTED IN FSR/E

OBJECTIVE:

After completing this activity participants will be able to:

Review available data sources useful for the FSR/E process.

TIME REQUIRED: 1 hour

MATERIALS:

1. Flip charts, felt tip pens

2. Trainee Handout I:VI Activity One #1, "Types of Existing Information"

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Divide the participants into small multidisciplinary groups.

2. Explain the task. Have the participants discuss the various types of
data that are available in their countries. Ask them to list the
sources that they know on a flip chart.

3. After the participants have discussed the types of data and made a
list, give them trainee handout I:VI activity one #1, "Types of
Existing Information." Tell them to compare their list with the chart
provided.

4. Have the participants discuss the following questions in their small
groups. Note that the trainees have these questions written on their
instruction sheet.

Discuss the following questions:

How detailed does such data have to be useful?

What kinds of things about farmers and their problems does such
secondary data suggest?

What information does an FSR/E program need that such data do not
provide?

PROCESSING:

1. When you bring the groups back together, you may want to make a list of
types of information the participants have listed by asking for
examples from the entire group rather than having each group report
individually this would take too long. Since the lists will have
been compared with the handout in the small group, it may be sufficient
to ask if there was any other type of information not listed on the

Volume I: VI
page T 45











handout that one of the groups identified.


2. You should then facilitate a discussion of where to find the
information (this could be done when you make the master list referred
to above). What type of information did you list, where would you get
it? A suggested flip chart organization is presented here:

Type of information Source
Topographical map Geography Institute

During this discussion you may want to encourage use of innovative
sources and types of information. For example, if aerial photos and
topographical maps are not available, maybe it would be possible to
hire a small plane and fly over the area with a copy of a regular map
to get an idea of the landscape. Aerial surveys using video cameras is
another excellent way of obtaining detailed information of an area in a
short period (Hutchinson et. al., 1986). Sometimes rainfall data from
a research station may not be representative of the area but a mission
from the area collects its own rainfall data. Not much time should be
spent doing this.

3. The discussion questions from the handout will need to be discussed.
The questions of how much data and what can it tell me are important.
There is a tendency for everyone to get caught up in detail.

The important points to stress are:

a. All information is interesting, only some of it will be really
useful. FSR/E teams must be able to state a reason or utility for
the secondary data they collect. If it sits on a shelf, it's
irrelevant.

b. Since the purpose of the diagnostic is to describe the farming
systems) and identify constraints to production, very detailed and
quantitative information may not be as helpful as more general
information that gives an overview of the project area.

c. Secondary data may not provide information on farmers' goals and
objectives and their decision-making processes. It may also not
provide information on subsistence agriculture, the livestock
subsystem and associated household tasks and enterprises all of
which would be important to the FSR/E team.

d. Teams should prioritize their need to collect and organize
themselves to be able to locate relevance information in a timely
manner.








Volume I: VI
page T 46











TRAINER'S NOTES
Volume I: VI
ACTIVITY 'WO:
PUTTING RAINFALL DATA INTO A USEFUL FORM


Summary description: This is a practical activity that gives the
participant practice in taking raw rainfall data and putting it into a form
useful for analysis and interpretation. If data is available, it would be
most interesting for the participants to work on data from the region or
country where the workshop is being held.

OBJECTIVE:

After completing this activity participants will be able to:

Analyze rainfall data and construct graphs useful for interpretation.

TIME:

1 hour (mini-lecture 20 minutes to describe data analysis procedure, 40
minutes for analysis).

MATERIALS:

1. A hand out showing monthly rainfall data for a period of 10-15 years.
One is provided in this manual, Trainee Handout I:VI Activity Three #5,
"Rainfall data for San Pablo." However, if you have data available on
the local area, it would be best to use the local data.

Sample of the format that rainfall data sheets should have:


MONTH

Years J F M A M J J A S O N D Rainfall totals

1960
1961
1962
1963
1964



2. Trainee handout I:VI activity two #1, "Process for analyzing rainfall
data" which explains the equations and procedures required.

3. Graph paper and pencils


Volume I: VI
page T 47










INSTRUCTIONS:


1. This exercise should be preceded by an explanation of the data analysis
procedure and the Trainee Handout I:VI Activity Two #1 should be
studied by the participants (approximately 20 minutes).

2. Give the participants the rainfall data sheets that you will be using
for the exercise. Trainee handout I:VI Activity Three #5 provides data
for San Pablo, however, as indicated above, you may wish to use data
from the area you are in.

3. Tell the participants to use the data provided to determine the monthly
median, .25 and .75 level of rainfall. Remind them that the Trainee
Handout I:VI Activity Two #1, "Process for analyzing rainfall data"
provides information on how-to do this.

4. Ask the participants to construct and label a graph of the median, .25
and .75 levels of rainfall. A sample graph is provided as Trainee
Handout I:VI Activity Three #3, "Rainfall at San Pablo" and you may
wish to use it in explaining the process.

5. After constructing the graph, have the participants study it briefly
and consider what information you can get from this type of graph.
What does it tell you about farmers' circumstances and problems?

Alternatives: The process is time consuming to rank the months etc. so
if there are more than 15 years of data it may not be a worthwhile
exercise. You could instead:

a) calculate the entire data set yourself and have the
participants do only 1 or 2 months so they'll know the
process.
b) have a "team" offer to do it for everyone and have them
present their results to the group and focus your activity on
discussing the usefulness of rainfall data.
c) do this exercise using activity three or four and this
exercise could be eliminated.

PROCESSING:

1. You will want to have the participants discuss the questions stated in
number 5 of the instructions. Keep some of the following information
in mind when discussing these questions:

a) This method of analysis is very crude. It does give an idea of
risk incurred by farmers particularly when combined with
evapo-transpiration data.

b) You can only make statements about the rainfall in the years for
which you have data. For example, you can say "at San Pablo, from
1963-1981 3/4 of the years had less than 34mm of rainfall in
August."


Volume I: VI
page T 48











c) It also gives an idea of rainfall distribution throughout the year
and the more years of data you have to work with the better.

2. Some ideas to bring up during the discussion of the questions posed
include:

a) This type of graph will give some indication of the variability of
rainfall over time and one can infer whether or not farmers' need
to adapt practices which protect them from risks due to climatic
variation. For example, if the start of the rainy season is late
once every four years or more, farmers may use a staggered planting
schedule rather than waiting for the first major rains.

b) The time of the year and duration of dry seasons will affect the
choice of potential second season crops and even drought resistant
first season crops.

c) Climatic variation and conditions will also affect food processing
and storage technologies and choices made by farmers. In some
areas with poor road conditions, marketing will also be affected.

































Volume I: VI
page T 49











TRAINER'S NOTES
Volume I: VI
ACTIVITY THREE:
CASE STUDY OF MAIZE PRODUCTION, IMBABURA, ECUADOR

Summary description: This small group exercise is designed to give the
participants an opportunity to try to use rainfall data to help predict
prospects for successfully introducing a new crop variety.

OBJECTIVE:

After completing this activity participants will be able to:

Use rainfall data to help predict prospects for successfully
introducing a new crop variety.

TIME: 1 hour

MATERIALS:

1. Trainee handout I:VI Activity Three #1, "Case Study and Rainfall Data,
Imbabura Province, Ecuador"
2. Trainee handout I:VI Activity Three #2, "Rainfall at Ibarra"
3. Trainee handout I:VI Activity Three #3, "Rainfall at San Pablo"
4. Trainee handout I:VI Activity Three #4, "Monthly Rainfall Data for
Ibarra"
5. Trainee handout I:VI Activity Three #5, Monthly Rainfall Data for San
Pablo."
6. Paper, pencils
7. Blackboard and chalk, or newsprint and markers

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Divide the participants into small groups.

2. Give out trainee handout #1, "Case study and rainfall data, Imbabura
Province, Ecuador", trainee handout #2, "Rainfall at Ibarra", trainee
handout #3, "Rainfall at San Pablo", trainee handout #4, "Monthly
Rainfall Data for Ibarra", trainee handout #5, Monthly Rainfall Data
for San Pablo" and ask the participants to study the information given.

3. Explain the task. Tell the groups to discuss the possibilities and
problems for introducing the early-maturing maize, "INIAP 101," to this
area.

4. Ask them to list these possibilities and problems -- on a blackboard
or flipchart.

5. They should also discuss and list what other secondary data would be
helpful in making this decision.

6. Discuss and list other types of information -- from formal or informal
surveys or other approaches -- that would contribute to the
decision-making process.

Volume I: VI
page T 51











7. You should indicate that they will be asked to give their group's
recommendations and discuss their conclusions with their colleagues in
a plenary meeting.

PROCESSING:

1. Bring the groups back together and have the groups present their
recommendations and conclusions. You should try to stimulate
conversation about other helpful types of secondary and survey data.













































Volume I: VI
page T 52











TRAINER'S NOTES
Volume I: VI
ACTIVITY FOUR:
USING EXISTING INFORMATION TO DEVELOP HYPOTHESES ABOUT FARMERS' PROBLEMS

Summary description: This exercise presents data on rainfall, market
prices, planting and harvesting dates, and asks participants to draw up
hypotheses from these data concerning farmers' problems. Working in
groups, participants need to consider many factors in the development of
their hypotheses. If time is short, this exercise can be done without
dividing into groups. In this case, the trainer can lead the plenary group
through the exercise, eliciting answers to each question.

The trainer should note that the planting and harvest data shown in the
price chart represent the fundamentals of a crop calendar. Crop calendars
are presented in I:V Activity Four.

OBJECTIVE:

After completing this activity participants will be able to:

Use existing information to develop hypotheses -- preliminary
conclusions for testing about farmers' problems.

TIME: 45 minutes (can be done in an abbreviated manner in 20 minutes)

MATERIALS:

i.' Trainee handout I:VI Activity Four #1, "Rainfall Profile for Middle
Kirinyaga"

2. Trainee handout I:VI Activity Four #2, "Maize and Bean Prices in Middle
Kirinyaga, 1979 81.

3. Paper, pencils

4. Blackboard and chalk, or newsprint and markers

INSTRUCTIONS:

The rainfall and market price data used in this exercise are from the
Kirinyaga District, Kenya. The area is located at an altitude of about
1200 meters, topography is flat to mildly sloping, and soils are deep
loams. The area is inhabited by limited resource farmers, farming about 2
to 5 ha. per family. The principal crops grown are maize and beans, which
are also the most important food staples. Oxen are used for cultivation,
but are rented from other farmers.

1. Divide the participants into groups and ask them to examine the
handouts. Give the participants trainee handouts I:VI Activity Four
#1, "Rainfall Profile for Middle Kirinyaga," and trainee handouts I:VI
Activity Four #2, "Maize and Bean Prices in Middle Kirinyaga, 1979
-81." They show average monthly rainfall data and monthly maize & bean
prices respectively. Note that the price chart also includes planting
Volume I: VI
page T 53











and harvesting dates.


2. Ask the participants to prepare a list of their own hypotheses about
farmer problems. Indicate that the list of questions in the trainee
instructions will help the trainees to make hypotheses.

3. Tell each group to list its hypotheses on large sheets of newsprint or
on the blackboard. And to be prepared to present their work to the
larger group.

The students should be given 20 minutes to complete the above three
steps.

PROCESSING:

1. Each group should be asked to give a five minute report to the plenary
group on their findings.

2. Some possible hypotheses arising from the data are shown below:

(a) Drought hazards and rainfall reliability:

Drought is a much greater problem during the October-November
rainy season; three years out of 10 rainfall is below 50mm in
October and below 40mm in November. The brevity of the rainfall
period in both seasons highlights the importance of planting early
to take full advantage of the available moisture. An early end to
the rainy season may also be an important problem.

(b) Food shortages:

In general, prices at harvest time are low and rise to a peak just
before the following harvest. Extremely high food prices just
before the harvests may indicate food shortages. For example,
between the harvest January-March, 1980 and June-July, 1980,
prices of maize and beans increased 200% to 300%. This drastic
rise in price may have reflected a shortage of food among local
households. The shortages appear to be most severe during the
month before harvest.

(c) Seed shortages:

In several seasons, prices are highest during planting (e.g.,
beans in April, 1981, and maize in April, 1980). This may be
because farmers are purchasing seed on the open market at planting
time, driving up the price.

(d) Importance of home produced food.

Given the high price fluctuations, farmers are likely to put a lot
of emphasis on supplying home produced food rather than buying
food in the market.



Volume I: VI
page T 54












(e) There appear to be high returns to storing maize and beans at
harvest time and reselling them just before the next harvest when
prices are high. Farmers may not be doing this because they lack
cash, or because they lack the means to store crops, or because
they have cash needs which force them to sell their crops at
harvest, even though they know they will run out of food before
the following harvest.

(f) Farmers' busiest times of the year are likely to be during land
preparation/planting in March and November. Weeding may also be
constraining but no information is given. There may be
competition for draught power between the owners of the oxen and
the renting farmers, creating a shortage at critical periods.

Alternative: The trainer can elicit hypotheses from the group as
a whole.






































Volume I: VI
page T 55











TRAINER'S NOTES
Volume I: VII
ACTIVITY ONE:
INTERVIEWING SKITS

Summary description: This activity focuses on developing interviewing
techniques. This exercise can be very funny and serves to lighten the
workshop. You might want to schedule this for an afternoon session, these
sessions are generally the ones in most need of livening up! Make good use
of costumes and props. The interviewer in the mock bad interview in one
workshop came out in orange shorts, a pink shirt, and a walkman on his
head.

OBJECTIVES: After finishing this session, participants will be able to:

1. Identify common informal interviewing problems and correct them.

2. Identify appropriate interviewing methods to use in an informal survey.

TIME: 30 to 45 minutes

MATERIALS:

1. Newsprint and markers or blackboard and chalk

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Tell participants that several trainers will enact a skit
depicting a farmer interview. Ask participants to note the strengths
and weaknesses of the interviewing methods they observe and how the
interview could be improved. You may want to ask a participant to play
the role of a farmer in the skit.

2. Act out the "skit" for a mock bad interview.

3. After the skit, ask the participants to state the strengths and
weaknesses they observed.and how the interview could have been
improved. List the problems and proposed improvements on a blackboard
or flip chart.

4. Tell participants to now observe the next skit and to again note the
strengths and weaknesses of the interviewing methods.

5. After the skit, again ask the participants to state the strengths and
weaknesses they observed. List these on a blackboard or flip chart.

PROCESSING

1. Discuss the lists. Comments on the interviews are included here for
your convenience. Be sure to include local names and places in the
skit.

2. Examine the scripts for these skits and the accompanying comments. The
numbers on the sheets of comments correspond to the numbers of the



Volume I: VII
page T 57












lines of the skit. You may want to be sure that all the comments noted
on the comment page are brought up by participants following each skit.
These comments are meant to serve as a guide and should in no way limit
participants comments.




















































Volume I: VII
page T 58













Skit for Mock Bad Interview

1. Interviewer:


I'm here with the government Ministry of Agriculture -and
from (local town name) to talk with a few small farmers. Are
small farmer? About how much money do you make in a year?


I've come
you a


2. Farmer:

Where did you say you are from? The Ministry of Agriculture in (local
town)? I have a cousin who works there, Eddie Wilson, do you know him?

3. Interviewer:

No, I don't know him. Do you plant tomatoes?

4. Farmer:

Yes.

5. Interviewer:

Do you use insecticides on your tomatoes?

6. Farmer:


Well, ah, uh, yes. You know, we have a big problem out
credit program. We filled out forms about three months


7. Interviewer:


I'm not here for the credit program.
planted those red peas in a straight
that, you'd get a much higher yield.


here with the
ago and


Say, you really should have
line instead of haphazard like


8. Colleague:

You know, there may be good reasons for planting beans like that. They
get better ground cover and that controls erosion and makes for less
weeds.

9. Interviewer:


Yeah, but his yield would be higher if he planted in
Research has shown that. And besides, if he planted
wouldn't need to use so much seed.


straight lines.
in lines he


10. Colleague:

That research was done on Canadian Wonder cultivars. That research may
not be relevant for this variety under these conditions.


Volume I: VII
page T 59












11. Interviewer:

That may be true, we'll check it out back at the station.
kind of fertilizer do you use?


Say, what


12. Farmer:

I'm not sure of the name, I bought it in town.

13. Colleague:

How about potatoes, do you grow potatoes?

14. Farmer:

I used to but not anymore.

15. Interviewer:

Did you stop because of marketing problems?

16. Farmer:

Yes, that was the reason.

17. Interviewer:

What rotation do you follow?

18. Farmer:

I start out with potatoes and then plant wheat or barley depending on
the market. And also, for which one I can get seed. In the third year
I plant beans; sometimes two crops if I can get the first crop in early
enough.

19. Interviewer:


Slow down, I can't get this down
OK!


so quickly!


Volume I: VII
page T 60


-












COMMENTS ON SKIT FOR A MOCK BAD INTERVIEW


Interviewer


Farmer


Comments


1. Sits down without
offering seat to
farmer; doesn't offer
cigarette; not polite
no introduction.

1. Starts by asking
how much income.


Remains standing,
answers questions.




Farmer uncomfortable;
tries to avoid giving
answers.


1. Asks questions about
fertilizer, but
doesn't breakdown
question. You need
to specify what, when.
Do you use fertilizer?
On which crops? What
fertilizer did you use
on your maize this year?
What quantity did you
apply this year?


Be polite to farmer. Show
respect. You must introduce
yourself to the farmer and
explain the purpose of your
visit.

Do not start with sensitive
questions.


It helps to be specific about
crop, quantity, field, year.


2- 5
Asks questions, but
skips from topic to
to topic, not follow-
ing up on anything.

5. Uses technical
language.



7. Lectures to farmer.


Farmer answers
questions as well
as he can, but is
confused.

"Ah, Well, ah."
Farmer doesn't
understand.


Farmer listens
politely.


7. Interrupts farmer.


Try to exhaust a topic. If
in a group, help the person
with their topic before
throwing in your own question.

Do not use technical language,
e.g., insecticide, unless you
are sure farmer is familiar
with term.

This is not the time to do
extension; you are here to
learn. However, extension
advice may be appropriate at
the end of an interview in
certain situations.

Do not interrupt farmer. Take
an interest in what he says,
even if it does not seem
directly relevant to your
interest. However, internal
discussions may be
unavoidable when translators
are used.


Volume I: VII
page T 61












(continued)


Interviewer


7 11
Researchers discuss
a topic among them-
selves

9. Is drought a
problem?
(Interviewer is
not interested.)
he interrupts,







12. Researcher asks
for name of fert-
ilizer; gives up
when farmer can't
respond.


Farmer looks S
bored, then offended. f


Yes. When there is F(
early drought I have D
to replant my maize, q
change density. If ii
late drought, I have qi
to plant other crops. f
(Give details.) Farmer
is interrupted in middle
of interesting topic.
Has to answer different
question.

Farmer is frustrated. B(


ave internal group discussion
or after the interview.


follow up on what farmer says.
don't stick to a set of
questions. Take an interest
n what farmer says. Why
questions may be appropriate
or probing.






before beginning survey, find
ut local names for inputs
Ich as fertilizer. For
example, sulphate of ammonia
ay be "the fertilizer
resembling sugar." Be
innovative. For example, the
warmer may still have the box
ith the name & quantity on it
which the fertilizer came in.


17 -19


Asks detailed
questions (about
weeding); writes
everything down.


Farmer gives answers
but is impatient as
he waits for every-
thing to be written
down.


Sometimes you can write in
front of farmer, sometimes
not. Take short notes.
Divide responsibilities.
Review immediately after
interview.


Volume I: VII
page T 62


Comments


Farmer













Skit for a Mock Good Interview

1. Interviewer Good morning, Mr. Jones. My name is from the
Hillside Research Center. Yesterday I was over talking
with Mr. Dean, your extension agent, and he said you'd be
harvesting your potatoes today. He thought you might be
able to help me out a bit with some work I'm doing on crop
rotation with potatoes.


2. Farmer: Well, I've got to finish this row up first.....

3. Interviewer: Well, I can give you a hand and then you can take a break
for a few minutes. Is that ok?

4. Farmer: Sure!
(five minutes later)

5. Farmer: Why did you say you're here?

6. Interviewer: I've started working recently with the Hillside Research
Center. Have you ever been over there?

7. Farmer: Been by there, but never really had a chance to visit.

8. Interviewer: Well, the Center's been doing work for a long time on
potato fertilizer levels and they've noticed that
farmers around here use much less fertilizer than the
county recommendations. We see a lot of people using a
variety of rotation systems, so we thought we'd compare
how well these systems work. What kind of crops do you
rotate with your potatoes?

9. Farmer: I sometimes plant beans after potatoes -- but it depends
upon the piece of land I'm on. On this lowland field,
which is very fertile, I'll plant another crop of potatoes
before I switch to beans but on my upland field, I can
only get one crop of potatoes before I switch to beans.

10. Interviewer: You mean because the upland field is less fertile?


11. Farmer:

12. Interviewer:


13. Farmer:

14. Interviewer:


Yes, that's right.

That's pretty interesting. You don't mind if I take some
notes do you so I don't forget?

Go right ahead.

Do you always plant two crops of potatoes in a row on this
field?


15. Farmer:


Well, not always.
seed potato here.


You know, we have a big problem storing
Sometimes my seed goes bad and if I


Volume I: VII
page T 63


I-















16. Interviewer:




17. Farmer:


don't have money to buy new seed, I plant beans.........

(30 minutes later)
Well, I think I've taken up enough of your time this
morning. Mr. Dean told me that your neighbor, Mrs. Smith,
also grows potatoes. Could you tell me how to get to her
house?

Sure. Why don't I take you over there to meet her?


18. Interviewer: Ok, That would be very helpful, thanks. Let's go.

Exit.


Volume I: VII
page T 64


I














Comments on a Skit for a Mock Good Interview


Interviewer Action

1. Introduces him/
herself to the
farmer

3. Helps farmer
harvest potatoes



3-10
Listens attentively
Shows respect and
interest in what
farmer says.

10. Follows up a
"what" question
with a "why"
question.


Farmer


Farmer reticent
at first,
gradually
loosens up.


Farmer becoming
more interested
as interviewer
becomes more
interested.


Comments

Introduces him/herself
Shakes hands. Explains
purpose of visit.

Don't be afraid to get
your hands dirty.


Follow up on farmer.


Important to understand
logic behind farmers'
practices.


10,12.
Asks question to
confirm under-
standing and comment
on what farmer is
saying.

12. Asks permission
to take notes.


14. Asks question
specifically
about field
where they are.


Farmer responds
looking at field
that the question
is about.


Comment on what the
farmer says to show you
are interested and
that you follow what is
being said.

Always ask farmers'
permission before
taking notes. Keep
note taking to a
minimum.

Questions concerning
cropping practices
should be field-
specific, since prac-
tices may differ from
field to field. When
asking about a specific
field, it is best to
ask the question while
visiting that
particular field.


Volume I: VII
page T 65













TRAINER'S NOTES
Volume I: VII
ACTIVITY TWO:
DRAWING UP INTERVIEW GUIDELINES

Summary description: This activity is a prerequisite for activity four and
five. It is expected that this exercise will be used to develop guidelines
for an informal survey exercise to take place as part of a one-day informal
survey in a one week diagnostic workshop. If this exercise is to prepare
for a full scale informal survey, more time should go into preparing
interview guidelines.

OBJECTIVE:

After completing this activity participants will be able to:

Draw up guidelines for conducting an informal survey

TIME: 45 minutes

MATERIALS:

1. Paper and pencil
2. Blackboard and chalk or newsprint and markers

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. This activity is a prerequisite for I:VII Activity Four, "Interviewing
Extension Agents Posing as Farmers", and I:VII Activity Five, "Informal
Survey of Local Farmers." Before beginning this exercise, it is
necessary to introduce the concept of interview guidelines to the
participants. Interview guidelines are a list of fairly detailed
topics which researchers use to conduct an informal survey. They are
not a list of questions. Rather, questions must arise from the
interview process itself in response to farmers comments and the
researchers own observations. It is also important to point out that
topics such as crops, livestock, or farming systems.are so broad that
they are not useful as interviewing guidelines.

Examples of interview guidelines are found in Collinson, 1980, and
Frankenberger and Lichte, 1985. It is probably not a good idea to pass
out a copy of the guidelines to participants until after this exercise;
let them try to develop the guidelines from their own experience rather
than from secondary sources. Before starting, it would be useful to
give them an example of detailed.guidelines for a specific topic, e.g.,
maize husbandry or cropping calendar. Allowing the participants to
develop the guidelines will give them an appreciation of the complexity
of the farming systems.

2. Divide participants into interdisciplinary groups of four to six
persons.






Volume I: VII
page T 67













3. Ask the groups to draw up interview guidelines for an informal survey.
Guidelines should be brief, no more than five fairly specific topics,
each of which is broken down into four or five sub-topics. Have a
reporter from each group put their list onto a blackboard or flip chart
to present to the plenary session.

PROCESSING:

1. Have the participants present their findings in a plenary session.

2. You may want the informal survey exercise to encompass additional
topics not brought up by the participants in their group lists. For
example, in a recent workshop composed solely of male participants, not
one group chose to look into female activities or intra-household
activities. The trainers asked a group to volunteer to look into these
issues.

3. You may want the informal survey exercise to encompass all important
aspects of the farming system. In this case, ask the plenary session
to compare the topics selected by the groups with the topics on a
master list. Where more than one group has selected the same topic,
ask one of the groups to substitute a topic not selected by any group.
The advantage of this approach is that group reports following the
informal survey exercise will together cover all important aspects of
the farming system. This is particularly useful for informal survey
exercises lasting more than one day or if the workshop organizers want
to write up the results of their informal survey exercise.




























Volume I: VII
page T 68













TRAINER'S NOTES


Volume I: VII
ACTIVITY THREE:
PRACTICE INTERVIEWING EXERCISE: INTERVIEWING EXTENSION AGENTS
POSING AS FARMERS

Summary Description: This activity focuses on developing skills in
interviewing by simulating farmer interviews.

OBJECTIVES:

After completing this activity participants will be able to:

Conduct effective informal FSR/E field interviews with farmers.

TIME REQUIRED: About 2 hours

MATERIALS AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS:

1. Paper and pencils
2. Extension agents to pose as farmers.

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Trainers should identify ahead of time and brief extension agents on
their roles in this exercise. Agents are asked to pose as specific farmers
they know who are fairly representative of the area they work in. Ideally,
they should represent farmers from the area where the informal survey will
take place, or a similar area. If this is so, the exercise serves to
acquaint participants with the survey area as well as for practicing
interviewing techniques.

For a group of 24 participants, six extension agents would be
sufficient. From the standpoint of simulating a real farmer interview and
giving everyone more practice, more extension agents would be preferable.
This of course, means more organizing work and also a longer exercise since
there will be more interviewing groups and more reporting time will be
necessary. Also, it may be difficult to recruit enough individuals to play
the role of farmers.

Briefing of agents is critical. They must be reminded that for the
purposes of the exercise they are farmers, not extension agents. They must
understand that the objective of the exercise is to improve the
interviewing skills of the participants and that they should not be afraid
to give a participant difficulty if they are asked an improper or vague
question. They should also be asked to make mental notes of interview in -
order to make a presentation at the end of the exercise highlighting
interviewing mistakes made by participants.

A suggested schedule of activities follows:

a. Groups meet to discuss their interviewing strategy. They discuss who
will introduce the group to the "farmer", what will be said to the "farmer"



Volume I: VII
page T 69













as introduction, what the rules will be as to which member asks questions,
etc. Using the interview guideline they drew up in the previous exercise,
they decide a plan to address these issues. Advise them that their first
interview should be fairly general, to get an overview of the farming
system. In the second interview, they should focus on selected topics and
problems of interest. (10 minutes)

b. First interview. Interview can take place anywhere, out of doors, in
separate rooms, etc. Participants should pretend the interview is taking
place at the farmer's house. (20 minutes)

c. Participants discuss their interviews in their own small interview
groups. They review both the form and the content of the interview. They
plan topics to discuss during the second interview, Which will take place
with the same "farmer" they just interviewed. They thus get practice in
focusing on problem areas identified but not well undertsood during the
first interview. During the same time period, the "farmers" meet to
discuss and list the strengths and weaknesses in the interviewing
techniques of the trainees. (15 minutes)

d. Second interview. Be sure that each group interviews the same
extension agent twice. This will ensure that the group uses the
information from the first interview to explore topics in greater depth in
the second interview. (20 minutes)

Each group discusses its interview, selects a reporter, prepares a
short summary of the content of the interview and critiques their own
interviewing technique. The extension agents also meet in a group, select
a reporter, and prepare a critique of the interviewing methods used on
them. They evaluate the technique by stating how comfortable they would
have felt during the interview if they had really been a sample farmer. (15
minutes)

Each group gives a ten minute report on content and technique of their
interview. (50 minutes)

A representative of the extension agents gives their report. (10
minutes)

In countries with weak linkages between research and extension, this
exercise may be useful for helping to reinforce those links. In
most countries, researchers have a higher status than extension
staff. In this exercise, their roles are reversed --researchers are
trainees and extension agents are the information givers and, in
effect, the evaluators.

ALTERNATIVE METHODS:

a. If extension agents are not available for this exercise, anyone with
knowledge of farming in the area may be substituted. For example,
it may be possible to interview employees of the training center who
own farms in the area.

b. Another alternative, which is decidedly inferior to the above



Volume I: VII
page T 70











method, is for the participants to practice interviewing each other.
The problems with this approach are:

1. Participants may not take the exercise seriously.
2. Participants do not learn anything about the area they will be
entering for their informal surveys with farmers.
3. Most participants will probably not have their own farms. They
thus will be forced to fabricate a farm, family, set of
decisions, data on production, marketing, etc. as the
interview proceeds. This poses obvious problems.

c. A third alternative is the mock sondeo exercise developed by the
University of Hawaii at Manoa. This exercise is very similar to the
first one described in Activity Three. The participants divide up
into interview teams and interview farmer impersonators. For more
information, see H. McArthur, Philipp, Wilson, and Yost. 1985. A
Training Package Simulating FSR&D, Site Survey, Sondeo, and Research
and Design Activities. College of Tropical Agriculture and Human
Resources, University of Hawaii at Manoa. Module II.

d. A fourth alternative is to send one or two team members from each
group to a different extension agent posing as a farmer. When the
team reassembles after the interviews, they can summarize
information from several different interviews. Combing information
from several different sources closely resembles actual conditions
during an informal survey.






























Volume I: VII
page T 71














TRAINER'S NOTES
Volume I: VII
ACTIVITY FOUR:
INFORMAL SURVEY OF FARMERS

Summary Description:

This exercise is the most important exercise of unit I:VII. and
requires a great deal of preparation. In this section, instructions are
presented and in the following section, several examples of surveys
organized as part of completed workshops are presented. The trainer can
use these examples to decide how best to organize a field exercise in his
or her own area.

OBJECTIVE:

After completing this activity participants will be able to:

1. Conduct an effective informal survey.

2. Use the modeling, observation measurement, and interviewing techniques
from previous exercises in a real-life situation.

TIME REQUIRED:

Minimum of 1 1/2 days

MATERIALS:

1. Paper, pencils
2. Small steno-type notebooks
3. Raingear
4. Food
5. Transportation
6. Flipchart and Markers

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. The afternoon preceding this exercise, a trainer (or preferably one of
the participants who helped organize the exercise) should give a
presentation summarizing the objectives and logistics for the exercise.
Interviewing groups then spend about 30 minutes planning their farm visit,
based on their experience interviewing extension agents in the previous
exercise. They discuss both the form and the content of the interviews,
including revising their guidelines, deciding who among them will do the
introduction, who will ask questions, etc.

2. Each interviewing group of 2-4 participants interviews two farmers for
the farm survey exercise, one in the morning and one in the afternoon.
Between visits, the interviewing group meets briefly to discuss the form
and the content of the interview. On the form of the interview, they
discuss problems that occurred and how to avoid them during the next
interview. On content, they outline the principal findings of the morning
interview and topics they wish to pursue in the afternoon interview.



Volume I: VII
page T 73




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs