Title: FSSP/Population Council Case Study Project : Intra-household dynamics and farming systems research and extension : case study format : Draft 1/17/85
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00089850/00001
 Material Information
Title: FSSP/Population Council Case Study Project : Intra-household dynamics and farming systems research and extension : case study format : Draft 1/17/85
Series Title: FSSP/Population Council Case Study Project : Intra-household dynamics and farming systems research and extension : case study format : Draft 1/17/85
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Poats, Susan V.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00089850
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.

Full Text





Drafted by Susan Poats

Based on discussions from

group B, IHH/FSR/E Advisory

committee meeting 1/8/85.

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

activities, but which can also "stand together and alone" for the

wider audience not experiencing the cases in a training context.

The first five sections of the case study will comprise

the following areas:

1. Country and project background

2. Initial diagnostic survey or sondeo results

3. Plans for experimentation and monitoring

4. Results of experiments and monitoring

5. Evaluation, adaptation and dissemination

Analysis will be withheld from these sections permitting users to

analyse the data and come to their own conclusions as part of the

learning process. Section 6 will then present an analysis and

discussion of the case as a whole, this time from the perspective

of the "omniscient author." Desired content for each of these

units will be elaborated in greater detail below.

In addition the the narrative pieces, the case study will

include two other sections. One will be a concise executive

summary oriented to policy and decision makers. The other will

contain sets of guiding or probing questions to be used during

training activities to elicit participant analysis of the case

study data through small group discussion. These questions will

be formulated by the advisory and editorial committee for the

case study project, based on an analytical framework and a set of

"generic" questions to the issue of intra-household dynamics and

the FSR/E process, which will be written by a sub-committee of

the advisory committee.

Section 1. Country and Project Background

This section must be written from the perspective of 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. The section should include two or three pages of relevant

information about the history, economy, culture and political

conditions in the country including particularly those features

which are important context to the project (especially trends--

known at the time of project design--which are affecting

agriculture and family structures, such as the roles of men,

women and children, education, migration, or landlessness).

This section should include a brief description of the

institutions affecting agriculture and livestock production

(relevant ministries, services, pricing, place of agriculture in

the overall economy, etc.)

Project background may be woven into country background or

treated separately, whichever works better. 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.

Section 2. Initial Diagnostis Survey or Sondeo Results

This section will present in narrative and tabular form

(in annexes) the data collected during the sondeos or surveys

conducted as part of the first diagnostic phase of the project.

Again, it will be important to present the data as it was known

to the project team at the time they collected and used it to

design their first experimentation cycle. The section should

include any review of appropriate secondary literature, as was

done by the team. If in fact, relevant secondary literature was

available to the team, especially regarding gender variables or

intra-household organization, and was not used in the diagnosis

at this stage, and the information could have altered the way the

experimentation or monitoring phases were set up, then this

information could be summarized in a brief, separate section, to

be used by trainers in an appropriate place. The description of

all the elements should be clear, but include no evaluative


The section should begin with a brief methodological

description stating how the data were obtained. Was secondary

literature used? 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 description should

contain details concerning the following areas (listed below)

depending on the quality of the diagnosis conducted by the FSR/E

team. Again, it must be stressed that the information presented

should not go beyond the bounds of what was known by the team at

the end of their first diagnostic survey phase.

A. Physical factors affecting crop or livestock

production: rainfall, temperature, seasonal variation in

weather, topography, soil type, tillage capacity and fertility,

availability of irrigation.

B. Agronomic information: principal crops, cropping

patterns, cropping calendar including maps of field layouts,

rotation patterns for different groups (e.g. women's fields,

men's fields, joint fields). Information could/should indicate

who "knows" this information.

C. Livestock information: principal animals, role in

household economy, numbers, ownership, relationship to crop

production activities, sources of food for livestock,

destinations of livestock products.

D. Household reproduction requirements: provision of

food, shelter, water, fuel, education including the time or cash


E. Economic information: (1) role of agricultural

production in the household ecomony; other sources of livelihood

especially if relevant for understanding time and cash

constraints or incentives, including questions of timing, risk,

stability; (2) with reference to particular crops grown,

subsistence vs. cash use (nutritional value? relative importance

to household income? additional uses of a crop such as fodder,

thatch, fuel, etc.), yields including variability, marketing

structures, pricing, input prices and availability, time

allocation budget by household members. In time allocation

information, information could/should include the seasonality of

tasks associated with specific activities.

F. Intra-household information: This is a difficult

section and needs to include what is relevant, what was revealed

by the diagnosis made by the FSR/E team, without overload.

Relevancy may be affected by explicit project objectives and/or

objectives introduced by the author and clearly stated as such.

(1) Concerning household organization, the section should

describe the major types of household including family structure,

membership and size, relevant variation; relationship of this

unit(s) to larger structures (kinship, community), and if

relevant, patterns of obligations affecting availability of

resources to agriculture or disposition of production. Again,

the section should not be overloaded, but should include the

information used by the team to determine appropriate units of

analysis for the experimental design stage. Household

information learned later in the process should not be introduced

here, but brought out in appropriate chronological order.

(2) The section should also include a description of activities,

resources required and benefits of (i) cash and subsistence crop

and livestock production, (ii) any other primary income

activities, and (iii) household maintenance. Questions which can

be addressed in this section include: 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

tasks, pooling or nonpooling 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 labor? Is there an

operative "family survival strategy" implicit or explicit in the

assignment of tasks and responsibilities?

In this section, activities described should include task

allocation 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, information/education, technology/inputs, markets; and (b)

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

income from sales, income from local or migrant wage labor, etc.

G. Farmers' (men and women) view of agricultural

constraints and objectives, Is the household head's view similar

to that of its members?

Section 3. Plans for Experimentation and Monitoring

This section should detail the analysis made by the FSR/E

team of their diagnostic activities, define the problems they

discovered, describe the experiments planned and how they were

arrived at (ex-ante analysis of available technology,

prioritization of problems identified), and discuss any

monitoring, focused surveys, verification surveys, variable theme

surveys or continued characterization of the farming system and

farm households) planned to parallel the field level

experimentation. The section should include specific explanation

of how and why (or why not, if that is the case) the team

incorporated information from the household, and describe the

unit(s) of analysis selected. The section should contain

examples of trial protocols, experimental layouts, and data

collection sheets or field book samples. Description should

include how the recommendation domain(s) (or research domains,

depending upon the terminology used) were defined, how

cooperating farmers within each domain were selected, and what

"type" of trial was selected (exploratory, researcher-managed,

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

Section 4. Results of Experimentation and Monitoring

This section should present the results of the

experimental and monitoring activities described in the previous

section. This would include summary tables of trial outcomes,

monitoring results, and any other observations made during the

trial procedures. If a number of trials and monitoring

activities were implemented during the experimental phase of the

project, then it may be necessary to select only a few to include

in this section. It is important that only the data be presented

here; no evaluative comments should be included.

Section 5. Evaluation, Adaptation, and Dissemination

This section should begin with a brief description of how

the analysis of the experimental and monitoring data was

conducted. The analysis should follow with as much information

as possible summarized in tabular or other form. The case study

authors) should present as accurately as possible the evaluation

of the experiments as it was arrived at by the FSR/E team. This

should include decisions on the "successfulness" of the

technology tested, how the specific agriculture technology might

need to be altered, for whom is the technology appropriate, where

and how subsequent testing and experimentation phases might take

place, how the technology could impact on the household and its

members and on other sub-components of the household farming

system, and how the technology could affect other households

within the research domain and the general farming system.

Depending on how far advanced the case study project is, this

section could also present results from further testing of the

technology, adaptations made to the technology by farmers,

researchers or extensionists, how the technology was

disseminated, adoption rates, or, depending on the case, why the

technology was not adopted. Recommendations at a policy level,

derived from the FSR/E experiments, should also be included.

Section 6. Analysis and Discussion

The final section provides an analysis and discussion of

the project as a whole by the case study authorss. Results of

any project evaluations to date should be included in this

section. In a training situation, this section would be withheld

from the trainees until all other sections have been used to

stimulate analytical discussion. It will be used for self-study

and as a teaching aid to trainers. The section should be

concise, confining itself to the most important points impinging

on the design of agricultural technology or experiments which

affect household members interest in or capacity for undertaking

changes in agricultural technology. It could include conceptual

and speculative analysis concerning tradeoffs of different

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 also be

made for improvements in "how" or "what" information is gathered,

particularly with reference to intra-household questions. The

discussion should include comments on systems for 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 views of all

household members assessed as the experiments and testing


Your comments and suggestions on the case study format presented

here are welcome.

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