• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Introduction
 Attachments
 Summary of evaluations
 Synopsis of projected case...
 Case writers' workplans
 Workshop participant list
 Workshop schedule
 Case study format
 Conceptual framework
 Objectives and anticipated workshop...
 Advisory committee list






Title: Intra-household dynamics and farming systems case studies project: Case Studies Writers Workshop, June 9-12, 1985
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055425/00001
 Material Information
Title: Intra-household dynamics and farming systems case studies project: Case Studies Writers Workshop, June 9-12, 1985
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Feldstein, Hilary
Poats, Susan
Farming Systems Support Project ( Contributor )
Ford Foundation ( Contributor )
Publisher: Farming Systems Support Project; Ford Foundation
 Subjects
Subject: Farming   ( lcsh )
Agriculture   ( lcsh )
Farm life   ( lcsh )
 Notes
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00055425
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Attachments
        Page 3
    Summary of evaluations
        Page 4
    Synopsis of projected case studies
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Case writers' workplans
        Page 9
    Workshop participant list
        Page 10
    Workshop schedule
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    Case study format
        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
    Conceptual framework
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
    Objectives and anticipated workshop output
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
    Advisory committee list
        Page 54
Full Text

June 18, 1985


INTRA-HIOUSEHOLD DYNAMICS AND FARMING SYSTEMS

CASE STUDIES PROJECT

To: Advisory Committee, FSSP, ,Population Council, Ford Foundation

From: Hilary Feldstein and Susan Poats

Re: Case Studies Writers Workshop, June 9 12, 1985
Briarwood Conference Center, Monument Beach, Massachusetts

The objective of the workshop was to bring together the material offered by
the case writers and their projects with the framework and format proposed by
the Case Studies Project.
Participation
To the workshop were invited the writers of the six cases selected by the
Advisory Committee and five additional writers whose cases might be written
depending on the quality of their material and funding. Of the original cases,
Okali, Alley Farming in Nigeria (15), decided not to participate because she
will be unable to collect the additional data which she felt would make the case
worth doing. Also unable to attend was Dianne Rocheleau, ICRAF/CARE
agroforestry project in Kenya (18). She had found a co-writer, but at the last
moment, she too was unable to attend. Arrangements have been made for Susan to
brief her both in Florida and in Nairobi and to make her first payment
contingent on completing the objectives of the workshop.
Chase (1), Altieri (29), Purdue/Safgrad/Burkina Faso (Nagy, Sibiri; 5, 35),
Wollenberg (9), Salinger and Sadat (Cameroon, 2 & 25),.and Michael (46) were
also asked to participate in the workshop, some of them contingent on finding
their own funds. Ultimately Gregory Robin came on behalf of the CARDI project,
Joseph Nagy for the Burkina Faso/SAFGRAD project, and Lini Wollenberg for her
Philippines project. A full list of the participants is attached.
Workshop Preparation
In advance of the workshop, participants were sent a copy of the case study
formal and a matrix of the kind of data they would need. A few, depending on
time, also received copies of the Conceptual Framework and the HIID book, Gender
Roles in Development (the WID case studies). Generally, time was too short
before the workshop to get all materials out.
Mary Anderson was hired to co-run the workshop and worked with me in
advance in determining the objectives and the flow of activities. We
established as objectives that each case writer leave with a statement of
pedagogical objectives, an outline of the three sections which stated what data
would be included, a narrative showing how the data would be used to support the
objectives (the preliminary to the teaching note) and a work plan. Judy Meline
at FSSP arranged the travel for Baker, Nagy, Wollenberg, and Chabala, the others
taking care of themselves for reimbursement by the Population Council. Judith
Bruce arranged for an advance of $8000 to me from the Population Council to
establish a separate account for the project to take care of workshop expenses.
Susan Poats spent two days with me before the workshop to go over the plans as
well as other parts of the project. We also put together a library of material
on case writing and IHH/FSR/E to take with us. Kate Cloud, Rosalie Norem, and
Federico Poey arrived along with the participants.
After considerable checking around, at relatively short notice, we secured
the Briarwood Conference Center on Buzzard's Bay near the Cape Cod Canal. They
arranged for a van to pick up participants at the Ramada Inn at the airport.
The Conference Center arranged for the rental of a xerox and five typewriters.









The Workshop
The schedule of the workshop as it actually unfolded is attached. The
first activity was going through a case, the Indonesian case from the HIID book.
Though some people were uncomfortable with it originally, ultimately it paid off
in terms of their understanding of how the cases were to be used.
The next set of activities were to introduce them to the conceptual
framework and how to write a case, ending with each writer trying to state the
main points of his or her case in terms of pedagogical objectives. This was
followed by one on one work between a resource person and a writer in reworking
the pedagogical objectives and beginning to outline the three sections of the
case.
The rest of the conference was spent alternately between individual writing
and review of cases with the resource group. For this the resource group split
into two groups (one from FSSP and one from the HIID series in each group, see
schedule) which reviewed the cases of each of the writers the resource people
had begun with. Because Federico had the particular mandate to insure the cases
are appealing to agronomists, he also reviewed the cases from the other group.
This seems to have worked very successfully, allowing feedback from several
points of view to the case writer while providing individual focus and
continuity. It was a fruitful exchange. There was a lot of very good material
in most cases, and this allowed us to draw out the best stories from each case.
See synopsis of cases which is attached.
By 11:00 on Wednesday, all the writers had completed at least first drafts
of the pieces they had been asked to complete and appear relatively comfortable
with the task ahead. We closed with a group meeting to make some final points
about the writing of the cases, discuss the other parts of the project being
developed (see notes from April meeting), and filling out of evaluation forms.
A summary of the evaluation is attached. There are only six responses because
Jacqueline Ashby had to leave Tuesday evening to meet commitments in Colombia.
Results
Overall, the workshop seems to have gone well and at least part way
achieved its aim to help case writers line up their material with the
requirements of the project. See the summary for writers' comments. The proof
will be in the writing.
The facility was very pleasant, the food good. The management, Rev. Swain,
worked hard to meet our need for equipment, including a last minute request for
large blackboards. The price was low, in large part because we made our own
beds, used paper plates, etc. The shortage of good lighting in the rooms and
desk space was a common complaint and for some, doubling up was a hardship. The
atmosphere and the flexibility of all the participants compensated for these
problems, but it may not be appropriate to use again. The low cost of the
facility allowed more generosity in terms of xeroxing and providing travel for
participants. This needs further exploration anddiscussion if we have a second
round.
The cases look very good, each one with good points to make about the
usefulness of incorporating IHH variables into FSR/E, that happening at
different stages. The one which least fits is the one from the Philippines, but
we have constructed it so it makes a good point about the shortfalls of social
research if the technical is not included and how an FSR/E approach could build
upon what has been done. A very quick synopsis of the cases and the agreed upon
workplans for their completion are attached.
Final Note
I will he away until July 6. I am still looking for comments to
incorporate into the Conceptual Framework. I hope to work on that and flesh it
out during August.







ATTACHMENTS:


Summary of Evaluations
Synopsis of Projected Case Studies
Case Writers' Workplans
Workshop Participant List
Workshop Schedule
Workshop Evaluation Sheet
Case Study Format
Conceptual Framework
Objectives and Anticipated Workshop Output
Memo to Workshop Facilitators and Resource Persons
Memo to Case Writers
Advisory Committee List











SUMMARY OF EVALUATIONS

CASE STUDY WRITERS WORKSHOP

1. What session(s) proved most useful to you? Why?

The three on one teaching sessions rated highest (5 out of 6), for providing
an opportunity for focus, specific feedback, pressure to produce. Others
mentioned were Mary's session on case writing (1), the conceptual framework
session (2), outlining the case (1), organization of pedagogical objectives (1),
and the case study (1; note: did not know it at the time).

2. What sessions) were least helpful? Why?

Combination of plenary and small group discussions on Indonesia (2), having
writers introduce pedagogical objectives of their cases (2, not well enough
organized to to that yet); and one too long but topic not remembered.

3. What suggestions do you have for other workshops of this kind?

Better lighting, desks, single accommodations (2); making materials available
further in advance of the workshop (4); chance to critique or work with other
writers cases in order to get idea of how they complement one another and to
help each other sort out problems (2); more emphasis on case study writing
techniques (1); more emphasis on relationship between pedagogical objectives,
case outline, and how one develops study questions (1); use the HBS cases rather
than the Gender Role cases (1); better tying together of conceptual framework
with format and finalizing of framework with writers at the workshop (1); more
time comparing case approaches and less time on a single case.

CHART: Need More Won't Know
Advice/Support Until I Try Feel Sure
Collecting &
Organizing Inform.
1. Pedagogical Objectives 1 5
2. Case Materials 1 4
3. Case Organization 1 4 1
4. Data Selection Decisions 3 3

Writing Case Materials
1. Cases 1 4
2. Teaching materials
1. Study Questions 2 1 3
2. Study Plan 2 3 1
Pizzaz, Gimmicks, Dullness 1 1









INTRA-IIOUSEHOLD DYNAMICS AND FARMING SYSTEMS
CASE STUDIES PROJECT

Synopsis of Projected Case Studies 6/13/85

Botswana, ATIP, Doyle Baker
This is perhaps the most difficult case, as some of the issues raised by
ATIP as'a result of the IHIH (read female headed household) research could have
negative policy consequences for those households. The context is unusual for
Africa in that remittances enter every household providing a near minimum of
subsistence and the government has resources from other diamonds, etc. such that
it has substantially subsidized agricultural inputs and health care. During the
three years of the project, there has been a severe drought making a number of
desirable trials impractical. The case leads the reader through a process of
parallel activities, continuous leveraged trials of tillage/planting and a
comprehensive set of socio-economic surveys in which data is disaggregated by
household types and/or by gender. The theme of the project has been the
difficulty of getting any successful results from the leveraged trials; the
increased understanding of factors that differentiate between farmers ability
and willingness to undertake arable agriculture (access and control of draft
animals; availability of other sources of income including remittances). One
agronomic outcome is to put in place non-leveraged trials for post-establishment
conditions for households with draft constraints, usually female headed.
Another outcome has been to move further into the policy arena, suggesting that
policy recognize the different possibilities of different recommendation
domains, i.e. resources to better off and more interested farmers can contribute
to national production; resources to less well off households (of .which the
majority are female headed and without access to draft) will help household
incomes, but not necessarily be contribution to national production goals. The
theme of the case as stated in the last iteration is to emphasize the importance
of socio-economic research which includes IHH1 to defining agronomic and policy
issues. The resource people feel there may be more data and possibilities
inherent in the data than the project has considered, but are waiting on the
completed analysis of the more recent surveys (which will be 'done for the first
draft).

Burkina Faso, SAFGRAD, Joe Nagy
This case will go carefully through a straight FSR/E process as applied to
3 sample villages in Burkina Faso. The first section will cover background and
the information from the initial diagnostic survey leaving to students the task
of playing that data against the framework and making their own analysis of the
situation. Section II gives project analysis which was to go with trials on
tie-ridging as low cost and using available on-farm resources including labor.
This section will include the trials with tie-ridging and fertilizer use showing
positive agronomic results, but lack of interest by various members of farm
households because of labor constraint; labor for tie ridging was provided
principally by women and children. Section III will go into new trials with a
mechanical tie ridger, requiring capital resources available to a minority of
households and students will evaluate the implications of this strategy. There
may also be material on differences between men and women's plots, but Joe needs
to dig that out.









CARDI, St. Lucia, Greg Robin and Visantha Chase
The CARDI case builds on the use of an Area Focused Survey, i.e. a
diagnostic survey with considerable socio-economic data including IHH variables,
to look at a single valley. In addition to economic and agronomic
stratification, the survey showed serious nutritional deficiencies and that a
high proportion of the households (38%) were female headed. The decision was
made, recently, to transfer a self-sustaining home gardening system being
instituted in a nearby island, Domenica, to Mabouya Valley. The case will
illustrate the use of the Area Focused Study approach; allow consideration of
home gardens as part of a farming system and the importance of female inputs in
such a system; and will examine the implications of transferring a successful
system from one location to another. Federico's work on this case was
particularly helpful in channeling at least the case, and perhaps the upcoming
extension of technology in Mabouya, into a more experimental direction
concerning the improvement of varieties and practices used in home gardening.

Colombia, CIAT, Jacqueline Ashby
This case will show why IIHH variables were important to the testing and
evaluation of a production technology, beans, and how they were recognized.
Specifically this relates to recognizing the importance of identifying desirable
consumption characteristics of different users: the urban market and the
subsistence consumer. The importance of understanding desirable consumption
characteristics has economic implications in that women cook for hired labor and
their cooking task and time is affected by the kinds of beans used. The case
will also illustrate a methodology for including participation by multiple
members of the household in testing and evaluation.

Indonesia, Sitiung, TROPSOILS, Vicki Sigman and Carol Colfer
The strongest element of the TROPSOILS case is the use of the entire,
multi-disciplinary research team to undertake a time allocation study of the
activities of household members in this transmigration site. This study has led
to a decision to have trials on forage as forage-gathering was a prime labor
constraint, and undertaken principally by women and children. Home gardening
also emerges as important in terms of both men and women's time and a nutrition
survey done during the same time period suggests the value of its improvement.
Because Vicki herself has not yet been to the field, but.is going soon to work
with Carol, we left the case with a series of questions about how the different
pieces have fit together in time and in effect on each other.

Philippines, Lake Balinsasayao, Lini Wollenber,
The Lake Balinsasayao project is intended to provide the government with
assistance in promoting forest conservation on government lands in the face of
increasing migration to the area and in insuring an equitable distribution of
benefits. There were two diagnoses undertaken resulting in a large body of
agroclimatic and socio-economic data, as well as statements concerning farmer
preferences, which students can compare as to methodology and results. A second
set of more focused studies--production & consumption, cropping systems,
fishing, nutrition, and land use decision making--followed. Each used different
methodologies for getting at questions of time allocation and again this will be
an exercise for comparing the approaches as to resource costs and benefits. One
issue will be the degree to which resource constraints affect the definition of
research domains. The relationship of a parallel set of field activities--
continuing community organization, literacy programs, demonstration plots, etc.-
-to the research is also explored. The third section reports the results of the


_l__i__ ~i~Z-LI-I_Y~~- .;-I-11_1--~UY-II----L-i_-- --iLI1~-i- -;l--i.. i~i*--_iL~i^_L1L-~.jI__ i_-~









field interventions and plans for further interventions and ends with the tasks
of reviewing the interaction between research and field activities and of
looking at what has already been done in view of reorganizing as an FSR/E
project.

Zambia, ARPT, Charles Chabala and Robert Nguiru
This case is a classic. The first section will give the country
background, including the institutionalization of FSR/E in Zambia, and the
original diagnosis of the area leaving to students the task of identifying
research priorities. One element of that information is the heavy labor of
women in their (separate) bean fields. The second section details actual trials
undertaken by the project as a result of the original diagnosis: one on
intercropping beans with maize to take advantage of the traction being used on
family (male headed) maize fields and thereby reduce women's labor as well as
the fertilizer that was already being applied to the maize. A second set of
trials was on maize for increased yields. Though both trials showed the
experiments to be successful in agronomic terms, neither was acceptable to the
farmers. In the case of beans, the integration of mens and women fields
resulted in losses to women of the income they got from the sale of small
surpluses and women objected. In the case of both beans and corn, the
consumption and processing characteristics were not taken into account and
therefore the varieties were rejected. The third section covers a Labor Survey
designed to get more information on time allocation and men's and women's
resources and benefits with respect to particular crops. An interesting aspect
of the survey is the methods used to get women's views in light of cultural
constraints (and institutional difficulties). The results of that survey are
the subject of a final set of tasks to determine what research to.tackle next.



It should be noted that these synopses are tentative, based on current drafts
and the emphases in any might shift as further work is done and the writers get
further into their data.









File: CSW.IRKPLAN


PlJECI
Botswana
Burkina Faso
CARD
Colanbia
Indonesia
Kenya
Philippines
Zambia


NAME
Baker
Nagy
Robin
Ashby
Sigman/Colfer
Rocheleau
Wollenberg
Chabala/Nguiru


JULY 1985 AUGIST SEPI TMBR OCITBER
t15 1st draft t15 hsf comic
tl 1st draft t15 hsf coam
t15 1st draft tl5 hsf canm t15 2nd draft t15 2nd conn





t25 1st draft t25 hsf conna t15 2nd draft
tl 1st draft tl hsf comn tl 2nd draft


NOWVHE R DECEMBER JANUJARY86 FEBRUARY CO~ NTIS
tl 2nd draft
tl 2~d draft* t* Fr.version?


t30 1st draft t28 hsf corm t3/15 2nd draft
tl 1st draft t5 hsf cmnnent tApril 2nd draft


t* to Berkeley
eIaves Ilcanber


Page 1
6/12/85







CASE STUDIES WRITERS' WORKSHOP

PARTICIPANT LIST as of 6/4/85


Resource People
Mary Anderson


Hilary Sims Feldstein


Susan Poats


Kathleen Cloud



Rosalie Norem




Federico Poey


Carmen Linares

Case Study Writers
Jacqueline Ashby


Doyle Baker


Charles Chabala


Joseph Nagy

Gregory Robin

Vicki Sigman
Carol Ann Dickson

Eva "Reni" Wollenberg

----still pending----
Barbara Michael


Christine Okali

Yasmin Rita Sa'Adat


Workshop Director
Independent Consultant, Co-Author HIID Case Studies
book, Gender Roles in Development

Managing Editor, Case Studies Project
Independent Consultant

Associate Director, Farming Systems Support Project,
University of Florida

Member, Advisory Committee Case Studies Project
Co-Author Gender Roles in Development, Research
Associate, INTERPAKS, University of Illinois

Member, Advisory Committee Case Studies Project
Associate Professor, Department of Home Economics, Iowa
State University; Director, FSSP Training for Trainers
Workshop.

Member, Advisory Committee Case Studies Project
AGRIDEC, Co-Author On-Farm Agronomic Trials in Farming
Systems Research and Extension

Administrative Assistant


International Fertilizer Development Center/CIAT
Phosphorus Project, Colombia

Agricultural Technology Improvement Project (ATIP),
Botswana

Adaptive Research Planning Team (ARPT), Zambia;
University of Illnois

SAFGRAD, Purdue University project, Burkina Faso

Mabouya Valley, St. Lucia, CARDI, West Indies

TROPSOILS Project, Indonesia; University of Hawaii


Lake Balinsasayao Integrated Agroforestry Project,
Philippines

Livestock project, So. Kordofan, Sudan; University
ofKansas

Alley Farming, ILCA, Nigeria


Sodecoton project, World Bank; Cameroon





PARTICIPANT ADDRESSES


Dr. Mary Anderson
26 Walker Street
Cambridge, Mass. 02138

Ms. Carmen Linares
Grassy Pond House
Rindge, NH 0.3461

Dr. Jacqueline Ashby
CIAT
Apartado Aereo 6713
Cali, Colombia, S.A.

Mr. Doyle Baker
ATIP
P.O. Box 991
Mahalapye, Botswana

Mr. Charles Chabala
1109 South Fourth Street #22
Champaign, Illinois 61820

Dr. Joseph Nagy
Ouagadougou I.D.
U.S.A.I.D.
Washington, D.C. 20523

Mr. Gregory Robin
CARDI
P.O.Box 971
Santa Lucia, West Indies

Dr. Vicki Sigman
Dr. Carol Ann Dickson
University of Hawaii at Manoa
College of Tropical Agriculture
and Human Resources
Gilmore Hall 13A
3050 Maille Way
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822

Ms. Eva Wollenberg
Pesam UPLB
College Laguna 3720
Philippines


Feldstein, Poats, Cloud, Norem, Poey on Advisory Committee List











POPULATION COUNCIL/FSSP CASE STUDIES PROJECT

TRAINING WORKSHOP SCHEDULE

Briarwood Conference Center June 9 12, 1985



Conference Objectives: Products to be left with the Managing Editor

1. Statement of Pedagogical Objectives

2. Outline of Teaching Note

3. Outline of three sections of case

4. Work plan



Sunday, June 9

2 pm. Transportation from Logan Airport to Briarwood Conference Center

5 pm. Informal get together

6 pm Dinner

7:15 Evening meeting

HSF: Introductions

Objectives of the workshop

Logistics/schedule of workshop

MA: Introduction to Case Study Method and Indonesian case

Overnight assignment: Analytic Framework and Indonesian Case from HIID book,

Gender Roles in Development

Meeting of Resource group



Monday, June 10

7:30 Breakfast

8:30 Small Groups Discussion of Indonesian Case (lhr.l5min)

9:45 Break


schedule p.]









Monday, June 10, continued 0.< C-J 4+ pa.

10 am Plen y Discussion of Indonesian Case (1-1 1/2 hr)

11:15 Concept al Framework for Case Studies Project

Social Sc nce perspective: Poats

Agronomic pe spective: Poey

Intra-househol perspective: Cloud

Overall concept al framework: Feldstein

12:30 Lunch

1:30 How to Write a Case

Pedagogical Objective Anderson
\ c jru-kr.
Each case introduced b -egP aga- e n s-eees (1hr.40 min)

3:30 Closing and assignment

4:00 Meet in pairs with resource person to write out pedagogical objectives

6:00 Dinner

Overnight assignment: Outline of case and how this would support pedagogical

objectives



Tuesday, June 11

830-. Meting uf Resuurce Gruou

9:00 Meet in paired groups to work on rough outlines, narratives, and

inclusion and positioning of data.

12:30 Lunch

1:30 Group Meeting. Anderson

2:30 Work on material in paired groups and individually: refinement of outline

of three sections and teaching notes.

5:30 Open bar and dinner

Overnight assignment: Further development of detailed outline for paired group

critique in am; completion of work plan.


schedule p.2






Case STudy Writers Workshop

Revised Schedule: Monday June 10

8:30 Small group discussions of Indonesian Case

10 am Plenary Discussion of Indonesian Case

11:15 Break

11:30 Reading: Conceputual Framework

Case STudy Format

12:30 Lunch

1:30 Presentation of Conceptual Framework & Task:

Eeldstein, Norem, Poats

2:30 Break

2:45 How to Write a Case: Anderson

Pedagogical Objectives

Each case introduced by case writers (5 min. each)

4:30 Meet in pairs with resource person to-write out

pedagogical objectives

6:00 Social half hour

6:30 Dinner

Overnight assignment: Outline of cases and how this would support

pedagogical objectives

8:30 Resource Group meets, small library









Wednesday, June 12

9:00 Final meeting of paired groups for critiquing and making final outline of

three sections and teaching note; completion of workplan.

11:00 Final meeting of whole group

--round up

-presentation of larger issues, options for projects

12:00 Leave for lunch enroute to Boston


schedule p.3






61'Q 14~cC4~ nt&ja ~Le LLL~O &~i C2~C


L/V I -.C)


ayd &
I.
*2. Ca,<2ai. a/&oi
3 CaeQ,
3. 92t-Q &-qii 4





I.C 0 AI

/. 1Aw /

/ &fc~-"9 'r^Z^o'


27L <7i/t


ano.


LVYVLM ~v V


cy vruv ~rrrW


;Ly/c^








I vpV4- s hi-~W z(r~ -~/4 ~rC4 ~yr 4


-2.- \ LVv SL k ) lsrv re.v ?


3. W*d~~i- sLll~SB" a ,In;zre ~F\. ~t~eZL V~fSjC~1\F~
hC-- ~~ ~c~~nd\\


~-~3










FSSP/POPULATION COUNCIL CASE STUDY PROJECT

"INTRA-HOUSEHOLD DYNAMICS AND FARMING SYSTEMS

RESEARCH AND EXTENSION"



CASE STUDY FORMAT: DRAFT 5/10/85





Drafted by Hilary Feldstein
Based on earlier draft by Susan
Poats, discussions from
group B, IHH/FSR/E Advisory
Committee meeting 1/8/85, and
comments from Frank Conklin,
Pauline Peters, Rosalie Norem, Mary
Rojas, and Susan Almy (U. Fla.).


INTRODUCTION

This series of case studies on "Intra-Household

Dynamics and FSR/E" is designed primarily for the

training of agricultural researchers, those who are in lead

positions through their institutions or as team members in

carrying out farming systems research, determining

researchable problems, designing and evaluating experiments

for improvements in agricultural or livestock production,

and determining the means for disseminating positive

research results. The cases will also be used for the

training of other development practitioners and students

interested in agricultural and rural development.



* See Annex A for a discussion of "Data on Intra-Household

Dynamics"


case study' format 1







The overall objective of these cases is to demonstrate

the utility of an explicit consideration of intra-household

variables to farming systems research and extension. The

principle underlying the format described below is that

people learn best by themselves making an analysis of a set

of data available to them. The cases will be "data sets".

No one case can or will cover all aspects of farming systems

research and extension. They will cut projects at different

points and be from quite different settings. Collectively,

they will provide exercises in incorporating the collection

and analysis of intra-household variables into specific

tasks and objectives of farming systems research and

extension; such as:

(a) in determining what and how data will be collected

during the diagnostic stage;

(b) in determining the recommendation or research

domains in terms of ecologic, agronomic, or socio-economic

constants and variables;

(c) in understanding all of the constraints to

production relating to labor, resources, and incentives;

(d) in predicting changes in the use of factors of

production resulting from introduced technologies;

(e) in determining researchable problems priorities

for research, desirable characteristics of new varieties,

inputs, or practices, etc.;

(f) in designing farmer-managed and researcher-managed

on farm trials;


case study format 2








(g) in ascertaining the views of all of those involved

in production and the uses (sale, consumption, etc.) of the

fruits of production on the advantages and disadvantages of

the technologies being tested.

(h) in determining the success of a particular

experiment; and

(i) in planning for the dissemination of successful

technologies.



GUIDELINES

The format for each of the case studies will be derived

from a time-series perspective of the four basic stages

intrinsic to the Farming Systems Research and Extension

(FSR/E) process. Rather than presenting in narrative form

the sum total of information about the specific area and

project, as is done with other case studies such as the HIID

and earlier Population Council series, the time-series

format will provide the user with information as it was

known by the farming systems team at the particular time

and stage of the FSR/E process. In effect, this will allow

the user to experience the "unfolding" of a situation and

thereby provide a more realistic "hands-on" experience in

the analysis of household processes within the actual

context of a farming systems project.

Case study authors will be required to write the case

in brief (5-10 pp.) narrative sections with appended tables

of figures which can be used as separate modules in training


case study format 3








activities, but which can also stand together and alone for

the wider audience not experiencing the cases in a training

context.

The core of the case study will be three sections

covering the following areas:

1. Country and project background and initial diagnostic

survey or sondeo results

2. Experimentation and monitoring

3. 'Evaluation, adaptation and dissemination

Analysis will be withheld from these sections permitting

users to analyze the data and come to their own conclusions

as part of the learning process. Desired content for each

of these units will be elaborated in greater detail below.

In addition to the narrative pieces, the case study will

include two other sections. One will be a set of teaching

notes which includes pedagogical objectives, study questions

specific to the case, and a narrative case analysis and

teaching plan. The second will be a concise executive

summary oriented to decision makers.

The case studies will be written to support, enrich,

and use a set of "generic" questions which relate the issue

of intra-household dynamics to FSR/E process. These

questions or guidelines will be applicable to all the cases

and part of an overarching analytical framework on the

linkage between intra-household dynamics and FSR/E. These

questions will be formulated by the advisory and editorial

committee for the case study project.


case study format 4









The argument of the case studies is that intra and

inter-household processes are intrinsic to farming systems.

What is required to enrich and improve the'FSR/E process is

that these processes be observed, recorded, and used in the

analysis. The explicit focus on intra-household issues

will be established in a framework paper and a set of

generic questions. The case will be written according to

the stages of the FSR/E process and will include in each

section the intra-household data so that they constitute

part of the larger body of data from which student will

analyze the case.

For each of the sections described below there are six

"rules" which should govern what is included.

(1) the material to be presented should be data in

narrative and tabular form, not analysis.

(2) data to be presented should be what was known at

the time the project was designed. Political,

institutional, or other changes which occurred later, and

which may have caused changes in project direction should be

introduced later, at the appropriate sequence in the

"unfolding" of the case or in the teaching note;

(3) methodology for data collection should be included

in abbreviated form. This will vary according to the stage

of FSR/E. Were there reviews of secondary literature?

House to house surveys? Observations, interviews, group

meetings? Who was interviewed, surveyed, etc. according

to age, sex, position in the household, position in the


case study format 5








community? Was the data purposefully collected on a

disaggregated basis? Why? How? What were the conditions

of the survey, e.g. time taken; language used, who did the

interviews?

(4) relevant intra-household information should be

included as data. This may include descriptions of

household structures (females:headed household vs. joint;

size and composition where these may vary, for examples,

according to life cycle, etc.); gender disaggregated data on

time and task allocation, access to resources; and relevant

inter-household linkages between households or between

individual members of households and other groups. These

data, as known or identified by the project should be

incorporated in the subsections B-E, below. See notes in

Annex A.

(5) "analysis" should be included when it forms part

of the data set for the case. For example,

experimentation and monitoring design will have resulted

from the project's analysis of available data; that analysis

or set of opinions is a source of data for the case and

therefore should be included along with the assumptions and

priorities which underlay the decisions.

(6) material to be included is that which is most

relevant to the case. This will generally be conditioned

by the constraints of the project's priorities (as a given).

Where appropriate, data will be included which could lead

to a reassessment of project priorities, for example data

which seriously undermines the original project assumptions.


csse tj-y' fc-'- .-t -








Section I. Country and Project Backcround and initial

diagnostic survey or sondeo results

The section should include two or three pages of

relevant information about the history, economy, culture and

political conditions in the country, particularly the

features which have an important bearing on the project. Of

especial interest would be trends that are known at the time

of project design which were affecting agriculture or family

organization, such as education, migration, or landlessness.

This section should include a brief description of the

institutions affecting livestock and agricultural production

(relevant ministries, services, pricing policies, place of

agricultural productions in the overall economy, and so

forth.

Background information on the project may be woven into

that on the country or treated separately, whichever is

more appropriate. This should include the initiatives and

rationale for the project, a description of the relevant

institutions sponsoring and implementing the project, their

objectives and commitment, their overall capacity, the

resources and personnel available to the project, and any

other factors which establish constraints or opportunities

on the design of agricultural research or extension. This

section should also include specifications of the target

groups (small subsistence farmers, commercial farmers),

areas (semi-arid, newly irrigated), or crops (maize, rice)

as appropriate.


case study format 7








The descriptive (diagnostic and verification) phase

will be presented in narrative and tabular form (in

annexes). The section should begin with a brief

methodological description stating how the data were

obtained. Was secondary literature used? Were any

questionnaires or sampling procedures used? What kinds of

interview questions and sampling were used in the sondeo?

Was any other means of obtaining information utilized? The

information following the methodological descriptions should

contain details concerning the following areas (listed

below) depending on the quality of the diagnosis conducted

by the FSR/E team.

A. Physical factors affecting crop or livestock

production: rainfall, temperatures, seasonal and annual

variation in weather, topography, soil type, tillage

capacity and fertility, availability of irrigation, and

pests.

B. Acro.o-ic information: principal crops including

trees, if appropriate, cropping patterns, cropping calendar

including maps of field layouts, rotation patterns

(including those between different land users as well as

land uses). Information should indicate what are the

management decisions (which field to plant with what, when

to plant) and who makes the decisions. Also to be included

are management choices on such-issues as fertilization,

mechanization, pest control, crop spacing and information on

who makes the decisions.


cas.- stuy fcrmTrt 8








C. Livestock information: principal animals, numbers,

ownership, role in household economy, relationship to crop

production activities, sources of food for livestock, uses

of livestock products.

D. Household reproduction requirements: provision of

food, shelter, childcare, water, fuel, clothing, education,

including the requirements of time and cash or in-kind

income.

E. Economic information: There are two sets of

information required here. (1) First are the costs and

returns on particular crops or livestock production at

issue, including questions of risk and variability. This

should include information on the use of the product for

subsistence or sale for cash; information on nutritional

value; multiple uses of crop such as fodder, thatch, fuel,

as well as for sale; yields; marketing; pricing; time

allocation by household members; and the responsibility for

inputs and opportunity for benefits of individual household

members with respect to production and use. (2) Second is

the place of these crops/livestock in the individual and

household economy. This would include income and

expenditure patterns for members of households, including

non-agricultural sources of income, especially if relevant

for understanding time and cash constraints, resources or

incentives. In other words, what drives people's investment

decisions: what resources can or will they bring to bear

and what incentives have they to do so. Time allocation


case study format 9









information could/should include the seasonality of tasks

associated with specific activities. Inputs information

should include prices, availability, and means of access to

land, hired or unpaid labor, cash and in-kind credit.

F. Farmers' (men and women) Views: What are their views

of the constraints on agricultural or livestock production?

What are their objective? Who was asked? Are there

differences of opinion within households or within the

community?

Note

This section may be overlong. Depending on the stage

of the actual project and the material available, it may be

appropriate to omit section III below and instead break this

section into two parts. Section 1A then would give

information in the country and the project area including

what is "known" about men and women's roles in the farming

systems and any trends which may be affecting those roles.

The task for the students would be to design a set of

questions and means of collecting data for the diagnostic

stage which, in addition to eliciting the production

information, would provide information on the actual types

of households in the area, and the roles of all household

members with respect to the crops at issue and any competing

demands for labor or resources. Section 1B would be results

of the survey as actually carried out by the team.


case study format 10








Section II. Experimentation and Monitoring J oft~aooi oUMno sL

The focus of this section is the research design and

the on-farm experimentation and results. This section has

four parts: the project's own analysis of the diagnostic

work, an experimentation and monitoring plan/design, what

actually happened during the implementation, and the results

of the experiments.

The section should begin with the analysis made by the

FSR/E team of the results of their diagnostic activities.

What are the recommendation or research domains and the

basis for their selection? What are the problems they

discovered, the priorities established, and the experiments

planned? (This is an example of where the project's

analysis can be considered "data").

The section would go on to describe how cooperating

farmers within each domain were selected, what "type" of

trial was selected (exploratory, researcher-managed,

extension-managed, farmer managed, combinations, other),

specifications of the farmer's contributions, number of

visits by research personnel and their interaction with the

members of the farm household and neighbors. It should also

include any monitoring activities, focused surveys, variable

theme surveys or continued characterization of the farming

system and farm households) planned to parallel the field

level experimentation. Who is to do the monitoring or

surveys, what information is to be sought, and how the

information is to be brought together and analyzed should be


case study format 11









stated. Annexes to this section would include examples of

trial protocols, experimental layouts and data collection

sheets or field book samples.

Descriptions of what happened during implementation

should be confined principally to those elements which

differ from or cause variations in the planned

experimentation and monitoring. What happened during

planting, in the sequencing of trials? How were the

experiments actually monitored? Ended? Were there results

not included in the reports?

The final part of this section would report the results

of the experimentation and monitoring activities. This

would include summary tables of trial outcomes, monitoring

results, and any other observations made by team members of

participation and evaluation by different members of the

household and locality. For instance, team members may

notice they are not talking to the person who does the work,

but overlook the impact of that analysis on results. That

"noticing" belongs here. If a number of trials and

monitoring activities were implemented during the

experimental phase of the project, it may be necessary to

select only a few to include in this section.



Section III. Evaluation, Adaptation, and Dissemination L v xoe'c.A

This section focuses on the project's evaluation of the

experimentation, any adaptations made or recommended, and

the planned or actual dissemination of results. The section


case study format 12








should begin with a brief description of how the analysis of

the experimental and monitoring data was conducted: the

data included in the analysis, the persons carrying out the

analysis. The analysis should be accompanied by as much

information as possible and summarized in tabular or other

form. Emphasis here is on the conclusions and plans of the

FSR/E team. These should include an assessment-of the

"success" of the technology tested, any recommendations for

the alterations of specific agriculture technology and the

designation of for whom the technology is appropriate. It

may also include the team's recommendations on where and how

subsequent testing and experimentation phases might take

place, how the technology could affect the household and its

members (men, women, children) and other sub-components of

the household farming system, and how the technology could

affect other households and individuals within the research

domain and the general farming system.

Depending on how far advanced the project is, this

section could also present results from further testing of

the technology; adaptations made to the technology by

farmers, researchers or extensionists; plans or steps taken

to disseminate the technology; adoption rates, or the

opinions of researchers and farmers on why the technology

was adopted. The description of plans for dissemination

should include the designation of target groups (if made)

and the specific mechanisms by which such groups or farmers

generally will be reached.


case study format 13










TEACHING NOTES

The teaching notes are developed separately from the

case. Using the generic questions and the case study theme

as an overall framework, the final section provides an

analysis and discussion of the project as a whole by the

case study authorss. The notes would include a recommended

set of study questions for each section to be used by

trainees in analyzing the case. In a training situation,

this section would be a teaching aid to the trainers and

withheld from the trainees until all other sections have

been used. It will also be used for self-study.

For Section I the task of the students will be to

determine (1) recommendation or research domains, (2)

production constraints, (3) priority problems, and (4)

design of experimentation and monitoring phase. It will

also provide the opportunity for students to discuss the

quality and appropriateness of the intra-household data

developed up to this point. Determining production

constraints and the priority problems is the heart of the

analysis and is the opportunity for the laying out the

tasks, resources and incentives of all household members;

for questioning assumptions about the availability of family

labor and resources and the interests of its various members

in specific improvements. Designating the recommendation

domains and designing the experiments and monitoring system

lay the groundwork for future project work. The thematic

question addressed is whether the recommendations rest on


case study format 14








assumptions which are grounded in an empirical understanding

of how farm households work in this setting, and whether

they build in opportunities for refining that understanding.

Section II lays out the analysis of the FSR/E project

team and may differ from that of the students. It also

describes what experimentation and monitoring was put into

place, the actual implementation (and problems) and the

technical results and observations related to the

experiments. It is the students' task to (1) analyze the

experimental results and observations as to their "success",

and (2) make recommendations for adaptation, further

testing, and/or dissemination. It also provides the

students an opportunity to critique the research design of

the FSR/E team. Have all household members involved in

farming been heard? What are the tradeoffs between

different points of view about the new technologies? This

may lead to suggestions for other changes in the project,

such as seeking opinions on the new technology from a wider

range of people in the project setting or developing designs

for technologies that will offset unanticipated labor

constraints met by the original experiment (e.g. grain mills

to ease the processing load of abundant harvests).

The tasks for students in Section III will be

principally to critique the evaluation and recommendations

of the FSR/E team and the implementation or plans for

disseminating the successful technologies. What did the

team consider successful and what criteria did they apply?


case study format 15









Were recommendations for further adaptation or new

experiments appropriate? Why? Will the means used for

disseminating these finding be successful? This is also the

opportunity for reviewing the entire project and its

evolution and determining at which points and the manner in

which intra-household questions contributed to more

successful design, experimentation, and dissemination.

The notes should be concise, focussing on the most

important points impinging at each stage of FSR/E, on the

design of agricultural technology or experiments which

affect household members' interest in or capacity for

undertaking changes in agricultural technology. This could

include discussion of possible tradeoffs among approaches

taking into account additional household information, or

even information which was known by the FSR/E team, but

overlooked during their own analyses. Suggestions could

on-going monitoring and adjustment, and some description of

what an efficient and adequate system would look like. The

latter could attempt to deal with such questions as: How

are the view of all household members assessed as the

experiments and testing proceed?


case study format 16










ANNEX A

DATA ON INTRA-HOUSEHOLD DYNAMICS

The term "intra-household dynamics" may provide difficulties conceptually

to some readers. It is not used here as a rigid term with precise

specifications. It is used as an attempt to open up the concept of "a

household" as conventionally 'used in development planning and farming systems

research and extension. Such "a household" is seen as male-headed, unitary, a

fixed production and consumption unit, and a structure within which -resources

and benefits are shared equally among its members. While such a structure may

be an accurate or appropriate unit of analysis in the description of some

farming systems, in many it is not. Therefore the term "intra-household

dynamics". For this series, "intra-household dynamics or variables" is used to

capture differences in household structures, in networks of relationships,

and/or in roles as defined by gender, age, or position. Different types of

households or different categories of members within households (as defined by

age, sex or position) may differ substantially in their interests,

responsibilities, resources, and links to the wider community. In turn, these

differences may be important in determining what resources can or will be

brought to bear on improving agricultural or livestock production.

Therefore, there are (at least) three areas of information which may be

relevant to understanding intra-household dynamics and the link to farming

systems. These variables may not be equally relevant to every case, but are all

presented here to raise questions for the writer or researcher as to what is

most important in a particular case. These are: (a) household structures; (b)

gender disaggregation of data; (c) links of individuals or households to wider

groupings.

Household structures: This would present information on what are


annex a I











considered "households" (locally and by the project team) in a particular

farming system and variations from that model. This includes information

oncomposition and size, variation over the life cycle, nuclear or compound

units, the existence of single parent units, characteristics related to

outmigration of particular groups defined by age and sex. This may be important

in the selection of appropriate units of analysis for the experimental design

stage. The case should state what 'types of households' are recognized and used

by the project team and whether there are other significant types not so used.

Gender disaggregation of data: In section I, B-E, data will be presented

on the activities, resources required and benefits of (i) cash and subsistence

crop and livestock production, (ii) any other important income activities,'and

(iii) household maintenance. Running throughout the narrative activities

described should include task and time allocation by age and sex (and where

relevant, position in the household) for different stages of crop and livestock

production, harvesting, processing, and trading and for the major tasks of

household reproduction. Description of access and control should include (a)

resources: land (ownership, use rights), labor, cash or in-kind inputs (e.g.

fertilizers, manure), information/education, technology/inputs, markets; (b)

benefits: commodities produced (stored for subsistence or sale), income from

sales, income from alternative economic activities; and (c) expenditures

including responsibilities fnr household consumption or other payments such as

for school fees or for ceremonial purposes.

inter-household linkages: This would describe relationships between the

household or any of its members to larger groupings (kinship, community) which

include patterns of obligations affecting availability of resources to

agriculture or disposition of production. Are any such larger units appropriate

as a unit of analysis/recommendation domain or as a vehicle for undertaking










experimentation or evaluation?

In Section 1 as each activity is described the following questions should

be addressed with respect to age, sex, and position (head of a compound

household, village leader, etc.): which household member undertakes the

activity? Who has access and/or control of the resources (land, labor, cash,

etc>) and the benefits of production? Is there flexibility and

interchangeability of the tasks, pooling or non pooling of income? Is there an

observable pattern of decision making on farm management, agricultural or other

investment (especially assets, working capital), use of produce (storage, sale,

gifts), use of hired or family labor? Do particular members of the household

have specific obligations towards family maintenance to be met out of own-

account activities? Is there an operative "family survival strategy" implicit

or explicit in the assignment of tasks and responsibilities and is this shared

by all members of the household?

In Section 2 of the case studies, experimentation and monitoring, an

important theme is the participation of members of farm households in testing

and monitoring of experimental technologies. Which members carried out trials?

Who kept records? Whose opinions were solicited and how? At what points were

views solicited? Were members involved in discussing the overall evaluation of

results? Are those doing different tasks and those processing the crop

consulted? What new constraints have revealed themselves and do they involve

different members of the household? What are suggested changes in the

technology being introduced?

Section 3, evaluation, adaptation, and extension, builds on the questions

raised earlier and whether they have yet been recorded and addressed. It also

introduces the question of extension and whether that is directed to all the

parties critical to agricultural production.


annex a 3













Conceptual Framework

IISF/Draft/5/24/85



Intro:

A. These build upon the conceptual framework developed for the

HIID Case STudies on Gender Roles in Development, but are recast to

fit the specific requirements and process of farming systems research

and extension.

B. There are two basic arguments underlying this framework:

1. That intra- and inter-household variables are embedded in

farming systems and will have an effect on and be affected by changes

in these systems. We know that in every society men and women do

different things and that these differences are often deeply embedded

in social and cultural norms. We also know that in many cases,

despite the persistence of the expressed norms, the roles are in flux.

The task is to observe and record these variables and use that data as

part of the analysis leading to the design of new technologies and

experiments intended to improve farm production. Knowledge of gender

and age roles or other intra-household variables enriches an

understanding of the constraints and incentives inherent in farm

management decision-making and therefore will contribute to improved

research. Experimental modifications will be better targeted towards

production constraints and opportunities, and ultimately receive wider

acceptance.

2. That FSR/E is an iterative process, one which explicitly

calls for continuous assessment and redesign. And it is not linear,

there are overlapping cycles of activity. This means there must he a


conceptual framework p. 1













continuous flow of knowledge, including most importantly, the views of

the farmers (men and women) whose systems) will he affected. Because

participation and continuous evaluation and adaptation are key, the

framework for looking at intra-household variables must take into

account the requirements at different stages of the project. In this

framework we cut the process into four segments: (1) diagnostic, (2)

design, (3) testing and evaluation, and (4) adaptation,

recommendation, and dissemination.

C. Intra-household Dynamics, Intra-household variables: what are

they?

1. In the first instance these mean information on

activities, i.e. task and time allocation and access and control of

resources disaggregated by gender and age and often by position in the

household, and an understanding of how tightly or flexibly such

distinctions are maintained.

2. They also refer to the existence of different kinds of

'household' organization which may vary according to time (life cycle

changes) or other factors (female headed households, de facto,de jure;

polygamous families; etc). These household types may themselves be

appropriate recommendation domains if relatively homogeneous with

respect to farm management systems and production constraints.

3. The inclusion ot inter-household variables refers to the

fact that in many communities networks of relationships of households

or of members of households to other units are at least as, and .often

more, important than that within households, particularly in receiving

or being obligated to the sharing of resources. Examples are kin

groups-or community groups.


conceptual framework p. 2













The Framework:

There are five areas of knowledge important to farming systems

research and extension to which a consideration of intra-household

dynamics can make a contribution. To understand a farming system and

farm management decisions, one needs to know about labor, resources,

and incentives. This is the data upon which models of farming systems

are based. To understand farmers' views of their system and of

experiments carried on with their cooperation,farmers are included at

each stage. It is important to understand the degree to which women

and men are included at each stage and the mechanisms for their

inclusion. Finally, one needs to know 'so what', i.e. the results of

the experiments and which variables were important to dealing with

particular constraints. The first four categories correspond

directly to the requirements of farming systems research; the last to

the need of particular projects and the field in general to learn more

about the importance of these variables to improving agricultural

research. Their relationship is expressed in Fig. 1, attached.

For this framework we can use a matrix, Fig 1. Across the

horizontal axis are four stages of farming systems research and

extension: (1) diagnosis--the collection of information about a

farming system in order to determine appropriate recommendation or

research domains, to describe their farming systems and constraints,

and to determine research priorities; (2) design-the designation of

research priorities and the means for undertaking the research on the

basis of evidence gathered during the diagnosis, and predictions about

the affects of changes on constraints and other variables. Are the

assumptions underlying these predictions empirically grounded? or the


conceptual framework p. 3













subject of verification during trials?; (3) testing and evnliiation--

the implementation of on-farm trials and monitoring and analysis of

results; (4) recommendation, adaptation, and dissemination--the

conclusions drawn from (a series of) on-farm trials including a

determination of the success of a given technology, the grounds upon

which its success or lack of success is measured, its effects on other

areas of the farming system; suggestions concerning further

adaptation, and the recommendations concerning its dissemination

Including to whom and the means by which information will be directed.

Down the vertical access are the five categories of information

listed above: labor, resources, incentives, inclusion and results. It

is the argument of this set of case studies that in some or all of the

boxes formed by this matrix, an explicit concern for gender or other

intra-household variables is warranted. At a minimum data should he

disaggregated by gender and age, and possibly by position in the

household and 'type of household'. Questions associated with each

'box' are suggested below.



1. Activities; labor allocation:-

In this section we are concerned with who does what. What tasks

are undertaken by men and women which relate to farm production? to

household production? to other productive enterprises including off-

farm wage labor? [ow much time is involved with each task? Are there

seasonal patterns? One should also note the location of the task as,

especially for women with small children or where there are cultural

'limits on the mobility of women, location often influences whether or

not a woman may carry out a task.


conceptual framework p. 4













(a) diagnostic What are the activities (task and time allocation)

of members of the households by gender and age which contribute to

agricultural/livestock production? What time is allocated to other

activities, including household production and off-farm enterprises or

wage? Is availability of labor for particular activities a constraint

on current production?

(b) design What changes in labor allocation are associated

with/are desirable from technological improvements being tested?

Whose labor is affected? Will there be increases or decreases in wage

labor requirements and who will be affected?

(c) testing and evaluation What changes in labor allocation, in

time or task, are actually associated with on-farm experiments? Do

these contribute to or detract from increases in productivity or

income for this enterprise? for other enterprises including household

production? Do they fit what was predicted in the design?

(d) adaptations, recommendations, and dissemination: [ave the

changes in labor allocation (time and/or task, location, by men,

women, children) related to the new technology been taken into account

in determining its success? or in further adaptations? Is the new

information required in learning about this technology being directed

to those who are doing the work?



2. Access & control of resources:

Farm management decisions are influenced or determined by the

availability of and access and control of resources. Such resources

including land (and the terms on which it is available); capital,

including tools and livestock for production or traction; inputs,


conceptual framework p. 5












including seed, purchased or in-kind fertilizers, pesticides, etc.;

cash for purchased inputs or labor; and knowledge. It may also

include access to markets which in turn may be influenced by mobility.

(a) diagnostic What are the resources required for existing

production practices? Who (men, women, children, position in

household, or which households) has access to and/or control of these

resources? Are the absence of particular resources a constraint on

current production? for particular categories of farmers? What are

the income and expenditure streams for men and women including

sources, uses, and timing?

(b) design What change in kind or amount of resources will be

required by each of the technological improvements being tested? Who

has access to or control over these resources? Are technologies being

tested which address resource 'gaps' of particular categories of

people?

(c) testing and evaluation How and to whom have new resources

been supplied? Who has/has not used them? What networks of

relationship or exchange have been used to garner any additional

resources needed? Can further constraints in access to resources by

particular groups be identified as a result of the testing?

(d) adaptation, recommendations, and dissemination: Has the

access or control of resources necessary to the acceptance of new

technologies been taken into account in determining its success? Are

new or modified systems required to insure access to (new) resources

for particular categories of farmers?



3. Incentives:


conceptiunl framework p. 6













What motivates people's decisions about the allocation of labor

and other resources to farm production, home production, and

alternative uses? What incentive is there to change present

allocations? Who benefits? What additional reasons are there? This

may include increases in yields or income, reduction of risk, reduced

labor demands, prestige, obligations to family or other groups,

questions of taste, nutrition, marketability of particular crops.

(a) diagnostic Who (gender, age, position in household) benefits

from the output of current production of each enterprise in terms of

subsistence, income from sales, or other uses? Are there obligations

associated with the output of particular production enterprises? What

are the desirable improvements from the point of view of men, women,

children? (yields, increased resistance to particular environmental

characteristics, reduced labor requirements, taste, nutrition,

marketability?) What non-agricultural enterprises are a source of

income or other benefits to household members and how do they compare

(profitability, reliability, seasonality) with farm production

enterprises?

(b) design Will the technological improvements lead to changes in

the uses of the product and thus in the nature or locus of benefits?

What are the incentives for men, for women, in contributing additional

time or resources necessary for improvements? or for changing

varieties or practices? What tradeoffs may have to be made?

(c) testing and evaluation What incentives/disincentives are

there lor farmers (men and women) to modify practices concerning the

enterprise in question? What incentives/disincentives are associated

with the particular modifications being tested? Are there incentives


conceptual framework p. 7













or disincentives associated with being a cooperating farmer? [low do

the technologies being tested affect individual income streams?

(d) adaptation, recommendations, and dissemination: Are there

outlets for increases in production through increased consumption,

adequate storage, or markets? Are these outlets equally accessible

for all farmers?



4. Inclusion

Farmers are central to FSR/E. This category of information is

designed to get at the degree to which both men and women are included

in the kinds of information gathered (some of which is covered above),

as sources of information, and as actors and beneficiaries. It is

also used to describe the mechanisms by which men and women were

included at each stage: random or targeted interviews? as

interviewers? as collaborating farmers? etc.

(a) diagnosis Have government or non-government services which

have field workers with particular access to women (e.g. home

economics, community development, primary health centers) been

included in the collecting of information during initial and

subsequent surveys? in designating areas of concern? Have women as

well as men been included in formal or informal interviewing in each

'household', in the community at large?

(b) design Are women as well as men included in determining

research priorities and in the overall design of on-farm research? Is

the design explicit in how the views of all household members are to

be included in assessing new technologies and on-farm trials? Are

special efforts to be made to get the views of hard-to-reach Earners?


conceptual framework p. 8













(such as women with small children or.whose mobility is otherwise

limited?)

(c) testing and evaluation Are women as well as men included as

cooperating farmers in on-farm research? For particular enterprises?

fields? In the management of trials? in interviews evaluating the

trials? Are there factors which inhibit the participation of

particular categories of farmers?

(d) adaptation, recommendations, and dissemination Will the

targeting and means used for dissemination encourage participation

from all farmers? Will steps be taken to overcome barriers of some

groups to receiving information on new practices or having access to

new resources required?



5. So what? Results

If the data listed above has been collected and mechanisms have

been put in place to include both men and women, has it made a

difference? Have technological improvements for production been

developed? Are they widely accepted and used by farmers with

improvements in their production? What effect did or does the

consideration of gender or intra- or inter- household variables in the

design of agricultural research have on the improvements in

agricultural or livestock production? Specifically, in

(a) diagnosis Were intra-household or gender variables difficult

to collect? Was their inclusion useful in understanding the farming

system and its production constraints? What data was most useful?

Were there questions which could have been included that would have

provided useful information for the design?


conceptual framework p. 0













(b) design What gender or intra-household variables were taken

into account in design? Did they improve the choice of researchable

topics and research priorities? Did they improve the design (fewer

false starts?)? Were there variables.explicitly not included? What

were the tradeoffs considered? Ultimately, was their exclusion

important, positively or negatively, to the outcomes of the

experiments?

(c) testing and evaluation How were intra-household or gender

variables taken into account in testing and evaluation? In the fields

.used? in the choice of cooperating farmers? In ascertaining opinions

on the technologies being tested? Did this add to the information on

the usefulness (or not) of these technologies? Did this information

lead to design changes and further testing?

(d) adaptation, recommendations, and dissemination Did

adaptations or recommendations take into account the requirements of

or effects on all members of a farming system for whom the enterprise

in question is important? Were these variables taken into account in

targeting and structuring the means of dissemination? Did this result

in greater or lesser adoption by farmers? or particular categories of

farmers?


conceptual framework p. 10







FIGURE 1: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
INTRA-IIOUSEIIOLD DYNAMICS AND FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND EXTENSION


STAGES FSR/E
DATA
CATEGORIES


ACTIVITIES/LABOR
Task & Time
Allocation
Location of Activity
Paid/Un paid


I

DIAGNOSIS


II

DESIGN


ITI

TESTING/EVALUATION


4. 1 r


RESOURCES
ACCESS & CONTROL
Land
Capital: tools,
livestock, etc.
Inputs, Cash
Knowledge

INCENTIVES






INCLUSION
Degree
Mechanisms





SO WHAT?
RESULTS


IV RECOMMENDATION
ADAPTATION, s
DISSEMINATION













Objectives for Cases on Intra-Household Dynamics and FSR/E


Audience

1. Those responsible for administering FSR/E

2. Regional Directors, Field team leaders, Technical Researchers

3. Expatriates providing technical assistance

4. Individuals with a general interest in agricultural or rural development

and FSR/E

And: Decision makers for whom an executive summary will be separately prepared.

Pedagogical Objectives of Case Studies

-increase an understanding of how to conceptualize the activities,

resources, and incentives of all members of a farming system

-develop the analytical skills to systematically categorize information

pertaining to farm production according to gender and age (and household

type, position in household) and apply that to

--a diagnosis of production constraints, opportunities and goals,

-the determination of research priorities and researchable problems,

-the design and evaluation of on-farm trials, and

-the recommendation, adaptation, and dissemination of new

technologies.

--transmit information on the productive roles and incentives of different

family members in agricultural and livestock production systems.

-transmit information on means by which continuous information from

different members of households may be collected and incorporated into

the farming systems research and extension process












INTRA-nOUSEHOLD DYNAMICS AND FARMING SYSTEMS

CASE STUDIES PROJECT



ADDENDA

Case Study Writing Requirements

We expect the writers of the case studies to produce approximately 50 pages of

manuscript plus tables in the following sections:

3 sections for the body of the case study, ca. 10 pp. each

1 Teaching Note, ca..10 pp. each

1 Summary of the case for Decision makers, ca. 5 pp.

See Case Study Format for details



Payments of $1000 will be made after completion of the workshop. $2000 will be

paid upon completion of the case studies.












INTRA-HOUSEHOLD DYNAMICS AMD FARMING SYSTEMS
CASE STUDIES PROJECT



To: Advisory Committee
From: Hilary

Enclosed are a number of materials for feed back or for your
information.

First, I would like to report that the workshop is shaping up very
well. All the projects selected for having the cases written are sending
someone with the possible exception of the Nigeria Alley Farming project.
We are still working on that. Among the 'tentatives' we are still working
on financing and travel arrangements. I shall send more details with a
report of the April meeting in a couple of days.

The conference is going to be held at the Briarwood Conference Center
in Bourne, Massachusetts. It is an Episcopal conference center on the Cape
Cod Canal, facing Buzzard's Bay. We shall be there June 9 noon June 12.
The number is 617-759-3476. Mary Anderson and I will be running the
conference and Susan, Rosalie, Federico, and Kate Cloud will be resource
persons.

For your immediate attention is the item entitled Conceptual
Framework. This is what we will be presenting to the trainees at the
workshop as a guideline for the kinds of information to be included and the
kind of analysis which will be undertaken by the people who use their
cases. I have struggled with the complexity of the information and a
desire for simplicity of format and hope this comes close. Please read
this over and let me know if you have any problems with this as a
framework. To be incorporated, comments must be here by Thursday, June 6.
(You may want to reread the case study format which has gone through one
last revision) It will be presented to the trainees as a draft, to be
cleaned up in language, etc., but that conceptually it has been agreed upon
by the committee as a way to start this process.

Next week I shall send a meeting report, list of participants,
training schedule. In the meantime, if you have any further questions,
please call.

Enclosures:
Conceptual Framework
Case Study Format
Objectives Statement
Writers' Matrix
EOI Matrix organized by region










TO: Participants in Case Study Writing Workshop
FROM: Hilary Sims Feldstein
DATE: May 22, 1985
RE: Preparation of Materials For the Workshop

Case study writing is an art; and particularly so in the format desired by
the advisory committee and sponsors of this project. Our experience with both
the Population Council and HIID case studies series indicates that writers often
have difficulty switching to a quite different format and set of ground rules
from their usual work. These case studies are intended to fit into a broader
conceptual framework concerning intra-household dynamics and farming systems
research and extension. While each project's materials may contain abundant
information on a number of points, the points to be made for this series need to
fit into and support the broader framework.

The objective of the workshop is for each case writer to prepare a detailed
outline of his or her case study and teaching note in conformance with the case
study format and the conceptual framework. Writers will be working with members
of the advisory committee, the managing editor, and a trainer.from the HIID case
studies series, Mary Anderson. We believe the workshop will build consensus
among writers, editors, and project management and will lead to better overall
quality in the case studies as well as decrease the amount of rewriting and
editing usually needed with such an activity.

To help channel your thinking and imagination along these lines, I have
enclosed a copy of the case study format. The format is intended as general
guidance. We recognize that no case conforms completely and it is the task of
the workshop for writers and editors to reach agreement in areas where the fit
is not automatic. The details of the conceptual framework are still in process,
but the overarching objective to which it and the case studies are directed is
to provide material and experiences in including an explicit concern for intra-
household and gender variables at each stage of farming systems research and
extension.

We will be starting the workshop by working through a case from the HIID
series. Copies of that will be sent to you shortly so that you can read it
before arrival. We also would like you to prepare three sets of materials
before arrival to insure you bring the materials you need and that we get ff to
a running start. These are:

1. State what two to four issues your case most effectively illustrates or
raises with respect to the application/incorporation of intra-household
variables in FSR/E. These may be from among the objectives stated on page two
of the Case Study Format or others. Second, state at which stage (or
throughout), these issues were recognized and/or incorporated. The emphasis is
on productive applications of intra-household or gender concerns, not negative
cases. These issues will be the ones around which you will be building your
case.

2. Prepare a matrix of the data available on your project which will be used in
the case study:
(a) The horizontal axis should be a time line of the stages of the
project's activities to date-e.g. diagnostic; researcher- and


I









farmer-managed testing; evaluation; adaptation, recommendations and extension.
Where there is overlap, use separate sheets of paper as necessary.
(b) The vertical axis constitutes categories of the different kinds of data
available: physical, environmental; production data (e.g. existing practices at
the diagnostic stage, experimental results at the testing stage); and socio-
economic data. Intra- or inter-household or gender variables are detailed in a
fourth category and by indicating which data in the other boxes have been
disaggregated by gender.
(c) Fill in the boxes with the data available for each stage. Be very
specific: sample size for various categories, specific crops or other
enterprises included, whether information on labor includes time as well as task
allocation; numbers of replications and treatments in field trials; frequency of
monitoring visits; sources of economic and financial information.
A sample matrix is included for your use. Each project seems to break down
the FSR/E process somewhat differently, so please use your judgment and ammend
the table as necessary. Obviously, not all of the data in your project can be
included. The point is to have on paper an organized summary of-the available
data from your project so that you and those unfamiliar with your project can
work to organize the material for presentation in the case study. Again, the
emphasis is on the aspects of the project where intra-household variables have
been used.
Bring examples of trial protocols, farm records, cropping calendars, etc.

3. Briefly summarize the methodology used to collect intra- or inter- household
or gender disaggregated information at each stage of the project including (a)
size of sample and how selected, (b) form of survey, informal or formal (c)
information sought, (d) time frame, (e) who asked questions, and (f) of whom
(men, women, position in the household) questions were asked.

Finally, I am enclosing a list of general and case specific questions raised
by the Advisory Committee in considering the cases. Please be prepared to
answer these.







MACIJX: FOR1 1

CAITUIRIFS/T'IMINE __E DIAGNOSIC PHASE TESITNG HIASE

PHYSICAL.
BIVM.N'I-rAL
soils, rainfall,
tcrperature,
topography,
pests, etc.



PROlCTICN
types of farm
enterprises,
cropping calendar,
crops/species &
varieties,yields,
production practices;
trials, # replications,
# treatments, etc.



SOCIO-EIlcNIC
units) of analysis
used by project;
resources on- and
of-farm: land, labor,
capital, credit, inputs,
markets; costs &
benefits of enterprises,
other income &
expenditure streams;
differentiation w/i
communities, etc.



PARrICIPATION
OF FARIERS
numbers participating,
form of participation



INITA- OR INhER-HUOLD
(* or star items above
which are disaggregated
by gender, age, position
in household)
variations in household
structures; labor time
& task allocation; access
& control of resources,
decision-making; networks
of exchange or obligation
outside household, etc.


0 ,





f P


?mTkRI: FT1 2

CAThXRIES/TLFlINE EVAUJATICN CHASE ATAPIATIWC, RM3IMATITCNS, DISSEMINATING

nIYSICAL,
ENTVIRMITN'AL
soils, rainfall,
temperature,
topography,
pests, etc.


PRJCTICN
types of farm
enterprises,
cropping calendar,
crops/species &
varieties,yields,
production practices;
trials, # replications,
# treatments, etc.



SOCIO-Em IIC
unit(s) of analysis
used by project;
resources on- and
of-farm: land, labor,
capital, credit, inputs,
markets; costs &
benefits of enterprises,
other income &
expenditure streams;
differentiation w/i
coranities, etc.



PARTICIPATION
OF FARMERS
numbers participating,
form of participation



INT3A- OR INIER-JSEHLD
(* or star items above
which are disaggregated
by gender, age, position
in household)
variations in household
structures; labor time
& task allocation; access
& control of resources,
decision-making; networks
of exchange or obligation
outside household, etc.




S. .


Advisory Committee for Population Council/FSSP Case Studies Project


Dr. Harry (Skip) Bittenbender
Department of Horticulture
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48823
(617) 353-5473

Ms. Kate Cloud
Department of Agricultural Economics
University of Illinois
Champaign, Illinois 61821
(217) 333-5832

Dr. Frank Conklin
Office of International Agriculture
Ore-.:n State University
Corv llis, Oregon 97330
(503) 754-2304

Ms. Nadine Horenstein
o,- 3725 NS

Was.i-nton, DC 20523
(". : "32-3992

Ms. rate McKee
Ford Foundation
32' East 43rd Street
N; Y-r-k, New York 10017
(:1? 573-5345

Dr. Rosalie Norem
Department of Family Environment
Icwa State University
LeBaron Hall, Room 173
A:=7.s, Towa 50011
(515) :94-8608

r'. David Nygaard
Agricultural Development Council
725 Park Avenue
New Yzrk, New York 10021
(212) 517-9700

Dr. Pauline Peters
Harvard Institute for
International Development
1737 Cambridge Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
(617) 495-3785


Dr. F/ederico Poey
AGRIDEC
1414 Ferdinand Street
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
(305) 271-5694

Dr. Mary Rojas
105 Patton Hall
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
& State University
Blacksburg, Virginia 24601
(703) 961-4651

Ms. Hilary S. Feldstein
Managing Editor
Population Council/FSSP
Case Studies Project
RFD 1, Box 821
Hancock, New Hampshire 03449
(603) 525-3772

Ms. Judith Bruce, ex officio
Program Associate
Population Council
1 Dag Hammarskjold Plaza
New York, New York 10017
(212) 644-1777

Dr. Susan Poats, ex officio
Associate Director
Farming Systems Support Project
University of Florida
3028 McCarty Hall
Gainesville, Florida 32611
(904) 392-2309

Dr. Cornelia Butler-Flora, ex officio
Chairman, Technical Cornittee FSSP
Department of Sociology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, Kansas 66506
- (913) 532-6865




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