World Development, Vol. 23, No. 8, pp.

1247-1263, 1995
Copyright 0 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd
Pergamon Printed in Great Britain. All tights reserved
0305-750x/95 $9.50 + 0.00

Participatory Learning For Sustainable Agriculture

JULES N. PRETI’Y*
International Institute for Environment and Development, London, U.K.

Summary. -Emerging evidence for the success on farms of resource-conserving technologies and prac-
tices must not tempt agricultural professionals into making prescriptions about what constitutes sustain-
able agriculture. Sustainability is a complex and contested concept, and so precise definitions are
impossible. The dominant scientific paradigm of positivism has served us well over three to four centuries,
but it is not well suited to contexts where uncertainties are high, and problems are open to interpretation.
Many methodological and philosophical alternatives to positivism have arisen from both the “hard” and
“soft” sciences. These indicate that new understanding and solutions can only arise with wide public and
scientific participation. But the term “participation” has become fashionable with many different intetpre-
tations, some hindering rather than supporting sustainability. New systems of learning are needed, using
participatory methods and criteria for trustworthiness. These have profound implications for agricultural
professionals, who must now actively create a whole new professionalism.

I. RECENT IMPACTS OF SUSTAINABLE untouched by the modem packages of externally

AGRICULTURE supplied technologies. In these complex and remote
lands, some farming communities adopting regenera-
During the past 50 years, agricultural development tive technologies have substantially improved agricul-
policies and practices have successfully emphasized tural yields, often only using few or no external inputs
external inputs as the means to increase food produc- (Bunch, 1991, 1993; GTZ, 1992; UNDP, 1992;
tion. This has led to growth in global consumption of Lobo and Kochendorfer-Lucius, 1992; Krishna, 1993;
pesticides, inorganic fertilizer, animal feedstuffs. and Shah, 1994; SWCB, 1994; Balbarino and Alcober,
tractors and other machinery. 1994; Pretty, 1995).
These external inputs have. however, tended to These are not, however, the only sites for success-
substitute for natural processes and resources, render- ful sustainable agriculture. In the high-input and gen-
ing them more vulnerable. Pesticides have replaced erally irrigated lands, farmers adopting regenerative
biological, cultural and mechanical methods for con- technologies have maintained yields while substan-
trolling pests, weeds and diseases; inorganic fertilizers tially reducing their use of inputs (Bagadion and
have been substituted for livestock manures, com- Korten, 1991; Kenmore, 199 1; van der Werf and de
posts and nitrogen-fxing crops: information for man- Jager, 1992; UNDP, 1992; Kamp, Gregory and
agement decisions comes from input suppliers, Chowhan, 1993; Pretty, 1995). Moreover, in the very
researchers and extensionists rather than from local high input lands of the industrialized countries, farm-
sources: machines have replaced labor: and fossil ers have been able to maintain profitability, even
fuels have been substituted for local energy sources. though input use has been cut dramatically, such as in
The basic technical challenge for those concerned
with sustainable agriculture is to make better use of
these internal resources. This can be done by mini- * An earlier version of this article benetitted from many
mizing the external inputs used. by regenerating insights arising from discussions with colleagues and from
internal resources more effectively. or by combina- practical issues arising during many training workshops,
tions of both. I am particularly grateful to David Blacket, Andrew
Campbell, Robert Chambers, John Devavaram, Irene Guijt,
There is now emerging evidence that regenerative
Sam Joseph, Charles Lane, Neela Mukherjee. Michel
md resourcc-conserving technologies and practices
Pimbert. Niels Roling. David Satterthwaite, John
can bring both environmental and economic benefits Thompson. Altce Welboum and Jim Woodhill. together
for farmers. communities and nations. The best evi- with three anonymous referees. for comments on earlier ver-
dcncc comes from countries of Africa. Asia and Latin sions of this article. Any errors, omissions and misleading
America. where the concern is to increase food pro- statements are. of course. solely my responsibility. Final
duction 111the arc,ts where farming has been largely revision accepted: March 24. 1995.
1248 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

the United States (Liebhardt et al., 1989; NRC, 1989; to clarify what is being sustained, for how long, for
Hanson et al., 1990; Faeth, 1993; NAF, 1994); and in whose benefit and at whose cost, over what area and
Europe (El Titi and Landes, 1990; Vereijken, 1990; measured by what criteria. Answering these questions
Jordan, Hutcheon and Glen, 1993; Pretty and Howes, is difficult, as it means assessing and trading off
1993; Reus, Weckseler and Pak, 1994). values and beliefs (Campbell, 1994a). It also means
All of these successes have elements in common. that we can never be certain about sustainability. The
Farmers have made use of resource-conserving tech- “undecidability theorem,” proved by the logician Alan
nologies, such as integrated pest management, soil Turing in the 1930s captures this essence: the theo-
and water conservation, integrated plant nutrition and rem says that no matter how clever we think we are,
recycling, multiple cropping, water harvesting, and there will always be algorithms (sets of rules) that do
waste recycling. There has been action by groups and things we cannot predict in advance. The only way to
communities at local level, with farmers becoming find out what will happen is to run them (in Waldrop,
experts at managing farms as ecosystems, and at col- 1992, p. 234).
lectively managing the watersheds or other resource Nonetheless, when specific parameters or criteria
units of which their farms form part. Moreover, there are selected, it is possible to say whether certain trends
have been supportive and enabling external govern- are steady, going up or going down. At the farm or
ment and/or nongovemment institutions, often work- community level, it is possible for actors to weigh up,
ing in new partnerships with new participatory trade off and agree on these criteria for measuring
methodologies, which have reoriented their activities trends in sustainability. But as we move to higher
to focus on local needs and capabilities. levels of the hierarchy, to districts, regions and
countries, it becomes increasingly difficult to do this
in any meaningful way.
2. SUSTAINABILITY AS A CONTESTED TERM It is critical, therefore, that sustainable agriculture
does not prescribe a concretely defined set of tech-
Although it is relatively easy to describe goals for a nologies, practices or policies. This would only serve
more sustainable agriculture, things become much to restrict the future options of farmers. Although
more problematic when it comes to attempts to define many resource-conserving technologies and practices
sustainability: “everyone assumes that agriculture have been widely proven on research stations to be
must be sustainable. But we differ in the interpreta- both productive and environmentally sensitive, the
tions of conditions and assumptions under which total number of farmers using them is still small. Part
this can be made to occur” (Francis and Hildebrand, of the problem is that scientists experience quite dif-
1989, p. 8). ferent conditions from those experienced by farmers,
A great deal of effort has gone into trying to define and few farmers are able to adopt whole packages
sustainability in absolute terms. Since the Brundtland of technologies without considerable adjustments.
Commission’s definition of sustainable development Despite the benefits of resource-conserving technolo-
(WCED, 1987), there have been at least 70 more gies, if they are imposed on farmers, then they will not
definitions constructed, each different in subtle be adopted widely.
ways, each emphasizing different values, priorities One example is alley cropping, an agroforestry
and goals. The implicit assumption in many is that it system comprising rows of nitrogen-fixing trees or
is possible to come up with a single correct definition. bushes separated by rows of cereals, which has long
Each author presumably regards his or her effort as been the focus of research (Kang, Wilson and Lawson,
the best. 1984; Attah-Krah and Francis, 1987; Lal, 1989).
But precise and absolute definitions of sustain- Many productive and sustainable systems, needing
ability, and therefore of sustainable agriculture, are few or no external inputs, have been developed. They
impossible. Sustainability itself is a complex and con- stop erosion, produce food and wood, and can be
tested concept. To some it implies persistence and the cropped over long periods. But the problem is that
capacity of something to continue for a long time. To very few, if any, farmers have adopted these alley
others, it implies resilience, and the ability to bounce cropping systems as designed. Despite millions of dol-
back after unexpected difficulties. With regard to the lars of research expenditure over many years, systems
environment, it is used to imply not damaging or have been produced suitable only for research sta-
degrading natural resources. Others see it as a concept tions Where there has been some success, however, is
that means developmental activities that simply take where farmers have been able to take one or two com-
account of the environment. Economies are some- ponents of alley cropping, and then adapt them to their
times said to be sustainable if economic activities do own farms. In Kenya, for example, farmers planted
not harm the natural resource base: to others, sustain- rows of leguminous trees next to iicld boundarm. or
ability simply implies continuing to grow at the single rows through their fields; and in Rwanda, allcyz
same rate. planted by extension workers soon hecamc tlisper4
In any discussions of sustainability, it is important through fields (Kerkhof. IWO).
 PARTICIPATORY LEARNING FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE 1249

But the prevailing view tends to be that it is support these features. It also requires we look closely
farmers who should adapt to the technology. Of the at the very nature of the way we conceptualize sus-
Agroforestry Outreach Project in Haiti, it was said that tainability and how it might be achieved (Pretty, 1994,
1995).
Farmer management of hedgerows does not conform to Since the early 17th century, scientific investiga-
the extension program...Some farmers prune the tion has come to be dominated by the Cartesian para-
hedgerows too early, others too late. Some hedges are not digm, commonly called positivism or rationalism.
yet pruned by two years of age, when they have already This posits that there exists an objective external real-
reached heights of 4-5 metres. Other hedges are pruned ity driven by immutable laws. Science seeks to dis-
too early, mainly because animals are let in or the tops are cover the true nature of this reality, the ultimate aim
cut and carried to animals. ..Finally, it is very common
being to discover, predict and control natural phe-
for farmers to allow some of the trees in the hedgerow to
grow to pole size (Bannister and Nair, 1990, pp. 54-55).
nomena. Investigators proceed in the belief that they
are detached from the world. The process of reduc-
This contrasts starkly with a recent analysis of tionism involves breaking down components of a
complex world into discrete parts, analyzing them,
sustainable agriculture initiatives in Guatemala
and then making predictions about the world based on
and Honduras. A learning group from the NGO,
interpretations of these parts. Knowledge about the
COSECHA, returned to areas where projects had
world is then summarized in the form of universal, or
ended three, four and I5 years previously, and used
time- and context-free, generalizations or laws.
participatory methods with local communities to
This methodology of science has been hugely suc-
investigate changes (Bunch and Lopez, 1994). They
cessful, producing technologies and medicines that
found that those communities in the project areas were
have enabled many people to live safer and more com-
substantially better off economically and socially.
fortable lives than ever before (Funtowicz and Ravetz,
But, surprisingly, many of the technologies known to
1993). It is an approach that clearly works, and as a
be “successful” during the project (those that had
consequence, investigation with a high degree of con-
increased crop yields without damaging the environ-
trol over the system being studied and where system
ment) had been completely replaced by new practices
uncertainties are low has become equated with good
and, in all, some 80-90 innovations were documented.
science. In addition, such science is readily equated
This has led Bunch and Lopez (persona1 communica-
with “true” knowledge, and so the “only proper way”
tion, 1994) to conclude that “technologies are not
of thinking and doing.
sustainable: what needs to be made sustainable is
But it is also this positivist approach that has led to
the process of innovation itself’. the generation of farming technologies that have been
As conditions and knowledges change, so must applied widely and irrespective of local context.
farmers and communities be encouraged and allowed Where it has been possible to influence and control
to change and adapt too. Again, this implies that any farmers, tither directly or through economic incen-
definitions of sustainability are time- and place- tives or markets, agricultural systems have been trans-
specific. As situations and conditions change, so formed. But where neither the technologies have litted
must our constructions of sustainability also change. local systems nor farmers been controlled, then agri-
Sustainable agriculture is, therefore, not simply an cultural modernization centered on positivist science
imposed model or package. It must become a process has passed rural people by.
for learning and perpetual novelty. What the positivist paradigm does not recognize is
that all data are constructed within a particular social
and professional context. This context affects the out-
3. SCIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY comes, and can have a profound impact on policy and
practice in agricultural development.
Although there exist successful applications of sus- Stocking (1993) has described just how the values
tainable agriculture throughout the world, still rela- of the investigators affect the end result when it comes
tively few farmers have adopted new technologies and to soil erosion data. Since the 1930s. there have been
practices. One reason is that sustainable agriculture at least 22 erosion studies conducted in the Upper
presents a deeper and more fundamental challenge Mahaweli Catchment in Sri Lanka. These have used
than many researchers, extensionists and policy mak- visual assessments of soil pedestals and root exposure,
ers have yet supposed. Sustainable agriculture needs erosion pins, sediment traps, run-off plots. river 2nd
more than new technologies and practices, It needs reservoir sediment sampling, and predictive models.
agricultural professionals willing and able to learn Between the highest and lowest esttmates of erosion
from farmers and other stakeholders; it needs support- under midcountry tea. there is an extraordinary maria-
ive external institutions; it needs local groups and tion of some X,000-fold, from 0. I3 t/ha/yr to 1,026
institutions capable of managing resources effec- t/ha/yr (El-Swaify. Ar\yand and Krishnarajah. 19x3.
tively; and above all it needs agricultural policies that NEDCO. 19X-I: Krishnarajah. I S-45).The highc\t C\II-
I250 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

mate was in the context of a development agency a wide range of disciplines and fields of investigation.
seeking to show just how serious erosion is in the The sources include the so-called harder sciences,
Third World: the lowest was by a tea research institute such as physics, biology, chemistry, meteorology and
seeking to show how safe their land management was. mathematics, as well as the softer sciences of philoso-
Thcrc was. however, nothing wrong with the scientific phy, economics, sociology, architecture and organiza-
method: it was more a question of what the researchers tional management’.
dclincd as a problem, and how they chose to investi- Despite this wide ranging list, those arguing for the
gate it. seriousness and importance of developing additions to
A hlmilar case is described by Delli Priscoli (1989) positivism are still in the minority. Many scientists
regarding water and energy in the northwest of the continue to argue strongly that information is first pro-
l’nitcd States. One projection for energy needs duced by science, and only then interpreted and
hhowcd a steady growth to the year 2000: this was applied by the public and policy makers. It is this
t,onductcd by the utility company. Another showed a process of interpretation that is said to introduce
\tcndily downward trend; this was conducted by envi- values and confuse certainties. Yet the results from
njnrncntal groups. Other projections by consultancy any investigation are always going to be open to dif-
ferent interpretations. All actors and stakeholders, and
:t’roup\ were found toward the center. What does this
\:I\’ ahout the data? particularly those with a direct social or economic
involvement and interest, have different perspectives
IC:I~,IIpro+ction u’as done in a statistically ‘pedigreed’ on what constitutes a problem and/or improvement in
tash~on Each was logical and internally elegant, if not an agricultural system.
Ha\\ It’\\ The point is. once you know the group, you will These advances in alternative paradigms have
know Ihc rclntivr position of their projection. The group. important implications for how we go about finding
organlaatlon or institution embodies a set of values. The out about the world, generating information and so
\;duc~ ;Lrc visions of the way the world ought to be (Del11 taking action. All hold that “the ‘truth’ is ultimately a
t’rl5cc)li. 19x9, p. 36).
kind of mirage that in principle cannot be achieved
because the worlds we know are those crafted by us”
Both cast’s illustrate that science is not the neat.
(Eisner. 1990, p. 89). All of which suggests that we
oh.jcctivc collection of facts about nature and its need to reform the way we think about methodologies
proccsscs. The data were clearly constructed by for tinding out about the world. Although these alter-
people with values and human foibles. As Stocking natives are emerging from a wide range of disciplines,
( 1993. p. 12) put it: “What, then, is the right policy there are five principles that differentiate them from
rcsponso?. .Not surprisingly policy makers pick the positivist science (Pretty, 1994).
measurements to suit their needs.” The challenge is The first is that any attempt precisely to define con-
not just that these differences have to be recognized. cepts such as sustainability are fundamentally flawed.
hut that the competing values need to be mediated 50 It is a contested concept, and so represents neither a
;I.C to product agreements between actors with very tixed set of practices or technologies, nor a model to
dtffcrcnt ngcndas. This calls for better forms of active describe or impose on the world. The question of
participation and new platforms for decision making deiining what we are trying to achieve is part of the
that cngapc wider public interests and social move- problem. as each individual has different values.
month (Riilinp. 1994: Woodhill. 1993). Sustainable agriculture is, therefore, not so much a
specific farming strategy as it is an approach to learn-
ing about the world.
-1. ALTERNATIVES AND ADDITIONS TO THE The second is that problems are always open to
POSITIVIST PARADIGM interpretation. All actors have uniquely different per-
spectives on what is a problem and what constitutes
One prohlcm with the positivist paradigm is that its improvement. As knowledge and understanding are
ah~olutist position appears to exclude other method- socially constructed, what each of us knows and
ologics. Yet the important point about positivism is believes is a function of our own unique contexts and
that it is just one of many ways of describing and nna- pasts. There is. therefore, no single “correct” under-
Iy/ing the world. and what is needed is pluralistic standing. What we take to be true depends on the
ways of thinking about the world and acting to change framework of knowledge and assumptions we bring
it I Kuhn. 1970: Fcycrabcnd. 197.5: Vickers. 1981: with us. Thus it is essential to seek multiple perspec-
(‘hcckland. 1981: Reason and Heron. 1986: tivcs on a problem situation by ensuring the wide
tlahcrmas. 19X7: Glddens, 19X7: Maturana and Involvement of different actors and groups.
V:lrel;r. 10X7. Rort, 19X9; Hxvdcn. 1991 : Uphoff. The third is that the resolution of one problem
IW2. Wwiw. 1995 Clwiihm. 1903: Funlow ic/ and inc\ itahly leads to another “problem-situation,” as
K;I\LY/. iO0;: Roling. 10041. Rcccn~ >car\ Iwc vxn prohlcma arc endemic. The reflex of positivist science
IIIC cnlcrgc‘nL,c‘ 01 J rcmwl\ahlc numhcr OI ad\ ;mcc\ 111 14 to s~k to collect sufticient data before declaring
 PARTICIPATORY LEARNING FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE 1251

certainty about an issue or problem. As this position is tice, there has emerged a rich experience of the use of
believed to reflect the “real world,” then courses of participatory methods for just this purpose.
action can become fixed and actors no longer seek
information that might give another interpretation.
Yet in a complex and changing world, there will 5. THE MANY INTERPRETATIONS
always be uncertainties and new interpretations. OF PARTICIPATION
The fourth is that the key feature now becomes the
capacity of actors (professionals, farmers and the pub- There is a long history of participation in agricul-
lic) to learn continually about these changing condi- tural development, and a wide range of development
tions, so that they can act quickly to transform existing agencies, both national and international, have
activities. All should make uncertainties explicit and attempted to involve people in some aspect of plan-
encourage rather than obstruct wider public debates ning and implementation. Two overlapping schools of
about pursuing new paths for agricultural develop- thought and practice have evolved. One views parti-
ment, The world is open to multiple interpretations, cipation as a means to increase efficiency, the central
and so it is impossible to say which one is true. notion being that if people are involved, then they are
Different constructed realities can only be related one more likely to agree with and support the new devel-
to another. opment or service. The other sees participation as a
The fifth is that systems of learning and action are fundamental right, in which the main aim is to initiate
needed to seek the multiple perspectives of the various mobilization for collective action, empowerment and
interested parties and encourage their greater involve- institution building.
ment. The view that there is only one epistemology In recent years, there have been an increasing num-
(that is, the scientific one) has to be rejected. ber of comparative studies of development projects
Participation is an essential component of any system showing that “participation” is one of the critical
of learning, as no change can be affected without the components of success. It has been associated with
full involvement of all stakeholders and the adequate increased mobilization of stakeholder ownership of
representation of their views and perspectives. As policies and projects; greater efficiency, understand-
Sriskandarajah et al., (1991, p. 4) put it: ing and social cohesion; more cost-effective services;
greater transparency and accountability; increased
ways of researching need to be developed that combine empowering of the poor and disadvantaged; and
‘finding out’ about complex and dynamic situations with strengthened capacity of people to learn and act
‘taking action’ to improve them, in such a way that the (Montgomery, 1983; Paul, 1987; USAID. 1987;
actors and beneficiaries of the ‘action research’ are inti- Baker, Knipscheer and Neto, 1988: Reij, 1988:
mately involved as participants in the whole process. Finsterbusch and van Wicklen, 1989; Bagadion and
Korten, 1991; Cernea, 1991: Guijt, 1991; Kottak.
All of this indicates that it is clearly time to break 1991; Pretty and Sandbrook, 1991; Uphoff. 1992;
the domination of the old paradigm of positivism for Narayan, 1993; World Bank, 1994).
science, and so explore the alternatives. This is not to As a result, the terms “people’s participation” and
suggest that there is no place for reductionist and con- “popular participation” are now part of the normal
trolled science. This will continue to have an impor- language of many development agencies, including
tant role to play where system uncertainties are low nongovernment organizations (NGOs), government
and problems are well defined and agreed upon. But it departments and banks (Adnan, Alam and Brustinow,
will no longer be seen as the sole type of inquiry. The 1992; Bhatnagar and Williams, 1992; World Bank,
process will inevitably mean huge transformations. 1994). It is such a fashion that almost everyone says
Thomas Kuhn’s (1970) hugely influential analysis of that participation is part of their work. This has created
paradigm changes in science describes the process many paradoxes. The term “participation” has been
of revolution for case after case. But the process can used to justify the extension of control of the state as
bring big shifts in understanding: “During revolutions well as to build local capacity and self-reliance; it has
scientists see new and different things when looking been used to justify external decisions as well as to
with familiar instruments in places they have looked devolve power and decision making away from exter-
before” (Kuhn, 1970, p. 1I I ). nal agencies: it has been used for data collection as
The fundamental challenge facing agricultural sci- well as for interactive analysis. But “more often than
cntists and development professionals is to tind effec- not, people are asked or dragged into partaking in
tive ways of involving a wider peer community operations of no interest to them, in the very name of
(Funtowicz and Ravetz. 1993) and a greater breadth of participation” (Rahnema, 1992, p. 116).
social and cultural institutions (Woodhill. 1993) in the One of the objectives of agricultural support insti-
business of developing a more sustainable agriculture. tutions must, therefore, be greater involvement with
Fortunately. they do not need to start just with theo- and empowerment of diverse groups of people, as
retical analyses to shift underlying values, From prac- sustainable agriculture is threatened without it. The
1252 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

Table I. A typology of participation: how people participate in development programs and projects

Typology Characteristics of each type

Manipulative Participation is simply a pretence, with “people’s” representatives on
participation official boards but who are unelected and have no power.

Passive participation People participate by being told what has been decided or has already
happened. It involves unilateral announcements by an administration or
project management without any listening to people’s responses. The
information being shared belongs only to external professionals.

Participation by People participate by being consulted or by answering questions.

consultation External agents define problems and information gathering processes, and
so control analysis. Such a consultative process does not concede any
share in decision making, and professionals are under no obligation to
take on board people’s views.

Participation fcr People participate by contributing resources, for example, labor, in

material incentives return for food, cash or other material incentives. Farmers may provide
the fields and labor, but are involved in neither experimentation nor the
process of learning. It is very common to see this called participation,
yet people have no stake in prolonging technologies or practices when the
incentives end.

5. Functional Participation seen by external agencies as a means to achieve project

participation goals, especially reduced costs. People may participate by forming
groups to meet predetermined objectives related to the project. Such
involvement may be interactive and involve shared decision making, but
tends to arise only after major decisions have already been made by
external agents. At worst, local people may still only be coopted to
serve external goals.

6. Interactive People participate in joint analysis, development of action plans and

participation formation or strengthening of local institutions. Participation is seen as a
right, not just the means to achieve project goals. The process involves
interdisciplinary methodologies that seek multiple perspectives and make
use of systemic and structured learning processes. As groups take
control over local decisions and determine how available resources are
used, so they have a stake in maintaining structures or practices.

7. Self-mobilization People participate by taking initiatives independently of external

institutions to change systems, They develop contacts with external
institutions for resources and technical advice they need, but retain
control over how resources are used. Self-mobilization can spread if
governments and NGOs provide an enabling framework of support.
Such self-initiated mobilization may or may not challenge existing
distributions of wealth and power.

Source: adapted from Pretty (1994), Sattetthwaite (1995) Adnan. Alam and Brustnow ( 1992) and
Hart (1992).

dilemma for many authorities is they both need and has commonly centered on encouraging local people
fear people’s participation. They need people’s agree- to sell their labor in return for food, cash or materials.
ments and support, but they fear that this wider Yet these material incentives distort perceptions, cre-
involvement is less controllable, less precise and so ate dependencies, and give the misleading impression
likely to slow down planning processes. But if this fear that local people are supportive of externally driven
permits only stage-managed forms of participation, initiatives. This paternalism undermines sustainability
then distrust and greater alienation are the most likely goals and produces impacts’which rarely persist once
outcomes. This makes it all the more crucial that the project ceases (Bunch, 1983; Reij, 1988; Pretty
judgements can be made on the type of participation and Shah, 1994; Kerr, 1994). Despite this, develop-
in use. ment programs continue to justify subsidies and
In conventional rural development, participation incentives, on the grounds that they are faster, that
 PARTICIPATORYLEARNING FORSUSTAINABLEAGRICULTURE 17-53

they can win over more people, or they provide a Great care must, therefore, be taken over both using
mechanism for disbursing food to poor people. As lit- and interpreting the term participation. It should al-
tle effort is made to build local skills, interests and ways be qualified by reference to the type of partici-
capacity, local people have no stake in maintaining pation, as most types will threaten rather than support
structures or practices once the flow of incentives the goals of sustainable agriculture. What will be
stops. important is for institutions and individuals to define
The many ways that development organizations better ways of shifting from the more common pas-
interpret and use the term participation can be sive, consultative and incentive-driven participation
resolved into seven clear types. These range from toward the interactive end of the spectrum.
manipulative and passive participation, where people
arc told what is to happen and act out predetermined
roles, to self-mobilization, where people take initia- 6. ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS OF LEARNING
tives largely independent of external institutions AND ACTION
(Table 1). This typology suggests that the term “par-
ticipation” should not be accepted without appropriate Recent years have seen a rapid expansion in new
clarification. The World Bank’s internal “Learning participatory methods and approaches to learning in
Group on Participatory Development,” in seeking to the context of agricultural development (see PL4
clarify the benefits and costs of participation, distin- Notes (formerly RRA Notes), 198%present; Pretty et
guished between different types of participation: al., 1995; IDS/IIED, 1994; Chambers, 1994a, 1994b,
“many Bank activities which are termed ‘participa- 1994~; Campbell and Gill, 1991; Mascarenhas rf al.,
tory’ do not conform to [our] definition, because they 1991; NESICUIEUIWRI, 1990; Rhoades, 1990;
provide stakeholders with little or no influence, such Rocheleau et cl/., 1989; Grandin, 1987; KKU. 1987;
as when [they] are involved simply as passive recipi- Scrimshaw and Hurtado, 1987; Conway, 1987;
ents, informants or labourers in a development effort” Rahman, 1984; SPRA. 19X2*). Many have been drawn
(World Bank, 1994, p. 6). The problem with partici- from a wide range of nonagricultural contexts. and
pation as used in types one to four is that any achieve- were adapted to new needs. Others are innovations
ments are likely to have no positive lasting effect on arising out of situations where practitioners have
people’s lives (Rahnema, 1992). The term participa- applied the methods in a new setting. the context and
tion can be used, knowing it will not lead to action. people themselves givmg rise to the novelty.
Indeed, some suggest that the manipulation that is There are now more than 30 different terms for
often central to types one to four mean they should be these systems of learning and action, some more
seen as types of nonparticipation (Hart, 1992). widely used than others’. Participatory Rural
A recent study of 230 rural development institu- Appraisal (PRA), for example, is now practiced in at
tions employing some 30,000 staff in 41 countries of least 130 countries. but Samuhik Brahman IS associ-
Africa found that participation for local people was ated just with research institutions in Nepal, and
most likely to mean simply having discussions or pro- REFLECT just with adult literacy programs. But thlh
viding information to external agencies (Guijt, 1991). diversity and complexity is a strength. It is a sign of
Government and nongovernment agencies rarely per- both innovation and ownership. Despite the different
mitted local groups to work alone, some even acting contexts in which these approaches are used, there arc
without any local involvement. These external agen- important common principles uniting most of them.
cies did permit some joint decisions, but usually con- These systems emphasize the following six elements:
trolled all the funding. - A Defined Methodology and Systematic
Another study of 121 rural water supply projects in Learning Procc\s - the focus is on cumulative
49 countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America found learning by all the participants and. given rhc nature
that participation was the most significant factor con- of these approaches a~ systems of inquiry and inter-
trlbuting to proJect effectiveness and maintenance of action. their use has to he participative. It IS the
water systems (Narayan, 1993). Most of the projects emphasis on visuall/atlon which dcmocrati/cs
referred to community participation or made it a spe- and deepens analysl5.
CItic project component, but only 21 c/c scored high on - Multiple Pcrspcctlvc\ -a central ohJcctivc I\ to
interactive participation. Clearly, intentions did not seek diversity. rather than churactcrl/e complcxlty
translate into practice. It was when people were in terms of average x due\. The ;rs\umption i\ that
involved in decision making during all stages of the different indivdual\ and groups rnakc dillk~t
project, from design to maintenance. that the best evaluations of GtuJtlons. which lead to diI1:rcnt
results occurred. If they were just mvolved in infor- actions. All wws of xtivlty OI- purpose ;Irc hca\!,
mation sharing and consultations, then results were with Interpretation. hla Xld prcJucllce. and lhl\
much poorer. According to the analysis, it was quite lmplich that there :11-cmultlplc Ipo\slhlc Jc\crlption\
clear that moving down the typology moved a project ol any real-world dc‘ti\ it).
from a medium to highly effective category. - Group Learning Procc5\ -- Lull ~n\oI\c lhc
1254 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

recognition that the complexity of the world will and diagramming (Table 2). It is the collection of these
only be revealed through group inquiry and interac- methods into unique approaches, or assemblages of
tion. This implies three possible mixes of investi- methods, that constitute different systems of learning
gators, namely those from different disciplines, and action.
from different sectors, and from outsiders (profes- Participation calls for collective analysis. Even a
sionals) and insiders (local people). sole researcher must work closely with local people
- Context Specific - the approaches are flexible (often called “beneficiaries,” “subjects,” “respon-
enough to be adapted to suit each new set of condi- dents” or “informants”). Ideally, though, teams of
tions and actors, and so there are multiple variants. investigators work together in interdisciplinary and
- Facilitating Experts and Stakeholders - the intersectoral teams. By working as a group, the inves-
methodology is concerned with the transformation tigators can approach a situation from different per-
of existing activities to try to bring about changes spectives, carefully monitor one another’s work, and
which people in this situation regard as improve- carry out a variety of tasks simultaneously. Groups
ments. The role of the “expert” is best thought of as can be powerful when they function well, as perfor-
helping people in their situation carry out their own mance and output is likely to be greater than the sum
study and so achieve something. of its individual members. Many assume that simply
- Leading to Sustained Action - the learning putting together a group of people in the same place is
process leads to debate about change, and debate enough to make an effective team. This is not the case.
changes the perceptions of the actors and their Shared perceptions, essential for group or community
readiness to contemplate action. Action is agreed, action, have to be negotiated and tested. Yet, the com-
and implementable changes will therefore represent plexity of multidisciplinary team work is generally
an accommodation between the different conflict- poorly understood. A range of workshop and field
ing views. The debate and/or analysis both defines methods can be used to facilitate this process of group
changes which would bring about improvement and formation.
seeks to motivate people to take action to imple- In order to ensure that multiple perspectives are
ment the defined changes. This action includes local both investigated and represented, practitioners must
institution building or strengthening, so increasing be clear about who is participating in the data-gather-
the capacity of people to initiate action on their ing, analysis and construction of these perspectives.
own. Communities are not homogenous entities, and there
The participatory methods (sometimes called tools, is always the danger of assuming that those partici-
techniques or instrumentsJ) used in these systems of pating are representative of all views. There are
learning and action can be structured into four classes: always differences between women and men, between
methods for group and team dynamics, for sampling, poor and wealthy, between young and old. Those
for interviewing and dialogue, and for visualization missing, though, are usually the socially marginalized

Table 2. Participatory merhods for alternative systems qf learning and a&on

Group and team Sampling methods Interviewing and dialogue Visualization and
dynamics methods diagramming methods

Team contracts Transect walks Semi-structured interviewing Mapping and modeling

Team reviews and Wealth ranking and Direct observation Social maps and wealth
discussions well-being ranking Focus groups rankings
Interview guides and Social maps Key informants Transects
checklists Interview maps Ethnohistories and Mobility maps
Rapid report writing biographies Seasonal calendars
Energizers Oral histories Daily routines and
Work sharing (taking Local stories, portraits and activity profiles
part in local activities) case studies Historical profiles
Villager and shared Trend analyses and
presentations time lines
Process notes and Matrix scoring
personal diaries Preference or pairwise
ranking
Venn diagrams
Network diagrams
Systems diagrams
Flow diagrams
Pie diagrams
 PARTICIPATORY LEARNING FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE 125s

(see Rocheleau, 1991; Guijt and Kaul Shah, 1995). own science” had on their understanding. motivation to
Rigorous sampling is, therefore, an essential part of act, and willingness to engage in more fruitful ways with
the “experts”.
these participatory approaches, and a range of field
methods is available.
Sensitive interviewing and dialogue are a third ele- 7. THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF FINDINGS
ment of these systems of participatory learning. For It is common for users who have presented findings
the reconstructions of reality to be revealed, the arising from the use of participatory methods to be
conventional dichotomy between the interviewer asked a question along the lines of “but how does it
and respondent should not be permitted to develop. compare with the real data?” (see Gill, 1991, p. 5). It
Interviewing is, therefore, structured around a series is commonly asserted that participatory methods con-
of methods that promote a sensitive dialogue. This stitute inquiry that is undisciplined and sloppy. It is
should appear more like a structured conversation said to involve only subjective observations and so
than an interview. reflect just selected members of communities. Terms
The fourth element is the emphasis on diagram- such as informal and qualitative are used to imply
ming and visual construction. In forma1 surveys, poorer quality or second-rate work. Rigor and accu-
information is taken by interviewers, who transform racy are assumed, therefore, to be in contradiction
what people say into their own language. By contrast, with participatory methods.
diagramming can give local people a share in the cre- This means that it is the investigators relying on
ation and analysis of knowledge, providing a focus for participatory methods who are called upon to prove
dialogue which can be sequentially modified and the utility of their approach, not the conventional
extended. Local categories, criteria and symbols are investigator. Conventional research uses four criteria
used during diagramming, which include mapping in order to persuade their audiences that the findings
and modeling, comparative analyses of seasonal, daily of an inquiry can be trusted (see Lincoln and Cuba,
and historical trends, ranking and scoring methods to 1985; Guba and Lincoln, 1989). How can we be con-
understand decision making, and diagrammatic rep- fident about the “truth” of the findings (internal valid-
resentations of household and livelihood systems. ity)? Can we apply these findings to other contexts
Rather than answering questions which are directed or with other groups of people (external validity)?
by the values of the researcher, local people are Would the findings be repeated if the inquiry were
encouraged to explore their own versions of their replicated with the same (or similar) subjects in the
worlds. Visualizations, therefore, help to balance same or similar context (reliability)? How can we be
dialogue and increase the depth and intensity of certain that the findings have been determined by the
discussion. subjects and context of the inquiry, rather than the
These alternative methodologies imply a process of biases, motivations and perspectives of the investiga-
learning leading to action. A more sustainable agri- tors (objectivity)? These four criteria, though, are
culture, with all its uncertainties and complexities, dependent for their meaning on the core assumptions
cannot be envisaged without a wide range of actors of the conventional research paradigm (Lincoln and
being involved in continuing processes of learning. Cuba, 1985; Kirk and Miller, 1986; Cook and
Some of the changes underway are remarkable. In a Campbell, 1979).
growing number of government and nongovernment Trustworthiness criteria were tirst developed by
institutions, extractive research is being supple- Guba (1981) to judge whether any given inquiry was
mented by investigation by local people them- methodologically sound. Four alternative, but paral-
selves. Participatory methods are being used not just lel, criteria were developed: credibility, transferabil-
for local people to inform outsiders, but also for ity, dependability and conformability. But these “had
people’s own analyses of their own conditions their foundation in concerns indigenous to the con-
(Chambers. 1993a. 1994b, 1994~; Pretty and ventional, or positivist, paradigm” (Lincoln, 1990, p.
Chambers, 1993). 71). To distinguish between elements of inquiry that
The contrast between systems of learning that were not derived from the conventional paradigm, fur-
involve a wider community than just scientists is illus- ther “authenticity”criteria have been suggested to help
trated by a recent example from the development of in judging the impact of the process inquiry on the
the Landcare movement in Australia (Woodhill, 1993: people involved (Lincoln, 1990). Have people been
Campbell. 1994b). Woodhill (1993. p.l) put it this changed by the process? Have they a heightened sense
way: of their own constructed realities? Do they have an
increased awareness and appreciation of the construc-
tions of other stakeholders? To what extent did the
Scientists had been monitonng the problem [salinity] for
n long time nnd producing a range of publications to
investigation prompt action?
Inform farmers. What wns now significant was the way Drawing on these, and other suggesttons for “good-
the farmers talked about the dramatic impact “doing their ness” criteria (Marshall, 1990; Smith, 1990), a frame-
1256 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

work of 12 criteria for establishing trustworthiness tions capturing peoples’ personal perspectives and
have been identified (Pretty, 1994). experiences.
(a) Prolonged and/or intense engagement between (i) Rejlexive journals
the various actors These are diaries individuals keep on a daily basis
For building trust and rapport, learning the particu- to record a variety of information about themselves
lars of the context, and keeping the investigator(s) and sequential changes in methodology.
open to multiple influences. Trust takes a long time (k) Inquiry audit
to build, but can be destroyed overnight. It is The team should be able to provide sufficient infor-
increased by confirming that participants will have mation for a disinterested person to examine the
an input into, and so influence, the learning process. processes and product in such a way as to confirm
(b) Persistent and critical observation that the findings are not figments of their imagina-
For understanding both a phenomenon and its con- tions.
text. Observation increases the depth of under- (I) Impact on stakeholders’ capacity to know
standing and breadth of realities encountered. and act
(c) Parallel investigations and team For demonstrating that the investigation has had an
communications impact, including participants having a heightened
If subgroups of the same team proceed with inves- sense of their own realities, as well as an increased
tigations in parallel using the same methodology, appreciation of those of other people. The report
and come up with the same or similar findings, then could also prompt action on the part of readers who
these findings are trustworthy. This requires regular have not been directly involved.
formal meetings and agreed group norms of These criteria can be used to judge quality, just as
behavior. statistical analyses provide the grounds for judgement
(d) Triangulation by multiple sources, methods in positivist or conventional science. An application of
and investigators an alternative system of learning without, for ex-
For crosschecking information and increasing the ample, triangulation of sources, methods and investi-
range of people’s realities encountered, including gators and participant checking of the constructed
multiple copies of one type of source or different outputs, should be judged as untrustworthy. It will
copies of the same information; comparing the never be possible, however, to be certain about the
results from a range of methods; and having teams trustworthiness critieria. Certainty is only possible if
with a diversity of personal, professional and disci- we fully accept the positivist paradigm. The criteria
plinary backgrounds. themselves are value-bound, and so we cannot say that
(e) Analysis and expression of difference “x has a trustworthiness score of y points,” but we can
For ensuring that a wide range of different actors say that x is trustworthy because certain things hap-
are involved in the analysis, and that their perspec- pened during and after the investigation. The trust-
tives are accurately represented. These perspectives worthiness criteria should be used to identify what has
will not be resolved to a single consensus position. been part of the process of generating information, and
(f) Negative case analysis whether key elements have been omitted. Knowing
For sequential revision of hypotheses as insight this should make it possible for any observer, be they
grows, so as to revise until one set of hypotheses reader of a report or policy maker using the informa-
accounts for all known cases. tion to make a decision, also to make a judgement on
(g) Participant checking whether they trust the findings. In this context, it
For testing the data, interpretations and conclusions becomes possible to state that the “data no longer
with people with whom the original information speak for themselves.”
was constructed and analyzed. Participants have the
opportunity to investigate discrepancies and chal-
lenge findings, to volunteer additional information, 8. TOWARD A NEW PROFESSIONALISM
and to hear a summary of what investigators have
learning and constructed. Without participant The elements of these systems of participatory
checks, investigators can make no claims that they learning, the values, principles, methods and trust-
are representing participants’ views. worthiness criteria, will not be sufficient to provoke
(h) Peer or colleague checking widespread change in institutions and individuals. The
Periodical reviews with peers or colleagues not methods themselves are not neutral of historical,
directly involved in the learning process, so as to social and political context:They may be used to lead
expose investigators to searching questions. to genuine local capacity building and organization. or
(i) Reports with working hypotheses, contextual they may be used to satisfy external objectives alone.
descriptions and visualizaiions These systems of learning are centered on
These are “thick” descriptions of complex reality, approaches that are alternatives to positivism. They
with working hypotheses, visualizations and quota- are more likely to generate information already agreed
 PARTICIPATORY LEARNING FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE 1257

Table 3. Toward a new professionalism for sustainable agriculture

Elements Components of the new professionalism

Assumptions about The assumption is that realities are socially constructed, and so
reality participatory methodologies are required to relate these many and
varied perspectives one to another.

Underlying values Underlying values are not presupposed, but are made explicit; old
dichotomies of facts and values, and knowledge and ignorance, are
transcended.

Scientific method(s) The many scientific methods are accepted as complementary; with
reductionist science for well-defined problems and when system
uncertainties are low; and holistic and constructivist science when problem
situations are complex and uncertain.

Who sets priorities and A wide range of stakeholders and professionals set priorities together; local
whose criteria count? people’s criteria and perceptions are emphasized.

Context of researching Investigators accept that they do not know where research will lead; it has
process to be an open-ended learning process; historical and spatial context of
inquiry is fundamentally important.

Relationship between Professionals shift from controlling to enabling mode; they attempt to build
actors and groups in the trust through joint analyses and negotiation; understanding arises through
process this interaction, resulting in deeper relationships between investigator(s), the
‘objects’ of research, and the wider communities of interest.

Mode of professional More multidisciplinary than single disciplinary when problems difficult to
working define; so attention is needed on the interactions between members of groups
working together.

Institutional involvement No longer just scientific or higher-level institutions involved; process

inevitably comprises a broad range of societal and cultural institutions and
movements at all levels.

Quality assurance There are no simple, objective critieria for quality assurance: crneria for
and evaluation trustworthiness replace internal validity, external validity, objectivity,
and reliability when methods is non-reductionist; evaluation is no longer by
professionals or scientists alone, but by a wide range of affected and
interested parnes (the extended peer community).
Source: adapted from Pretty and Chambers (1993).

and negotiated by various interest groups. As a result, people no longer having confidence in it.
the likelihood of conflicts is reduced. For these rea- It will be important to ensure the constructton and
sons, they can be good for decision makers, as the generation of timely, relevant. agreed-upon informa-
needs and values are explicit: “inquiry that purports to tion and knowledge that will support the quest toward
be value-free is probably the most insidious form of a sustainable agriculture. This raises two challenges:
inquiry available because its inherent but unexamined finding ways of developing both new institutional
values influence policy without ever being scrutinized arrangements and alliances to encourage grcatcr lcarn-
themselves” (Lincoln, 1990, p. 82, quoting Beardsley, ing and wider peer involvement; and a whole new pro-
1980). There will never, however, be any final, correct fessionalism with greater undcrstandtng of the ranpc
answers. There is no absolute trustworthiness, only of scientific methodologies and an cmphaais on rhc
trustworthiness for a given time in a given context. process of learning (and unlearning) itself.
Furthermore, because all the actors can be said to trust The central concept of sustainahlc apriculturc is
a particular body of information at a particular time. that it must enshrtnc new ways of lcarninp about the
this does not mean to say they will always do so. As world. Such Icurning ‘;hould not bc confused with
external conditions change. so their values and crite- “teaching.” Tcachinp implies the transfer of knoul-
ria for judging will also change. The information may edge from somconc who knows to somconc who does
then come to be judged as untrustworthy. with various not know. and is the normal mode of educational cur-
1258 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

ricula (Ison, 1990; Argyris, 1991; Russell and Ison, and reductionist science will work well. But where the
1991; Bawden, 1992, 1994; Pretty and Chambers, problems are poorly defined and there are great uncer-
1993). Universities and other professional institutions tainties potentially involving many actors and inter-
reinforce the teaching paradigm by giving the impres- ests, then the methodology will have to comprise these
sion that they are custodians of knowledge which can alternative methods of learning. Many existing agri-
be dispensed or given (usually by lecture) to a recipi- cultural professionals will resist such paradigmatic
ent (a student). Where teaching does not include a changes, as they will see this as a deprofessionaliza-
focus on self-development and enhancing the ability tion of research. But Hart (1992, p. 19) has put it
to learn, then “teaching threatens sustainable agricul- differently: “I see it as a ‘re-professionalization’,
ture” (Ison, 1990). with new roles for the researcher as a democratic
A move from a teaching to a learning style has pro- participant.”
found implications for agricultural development insti- A systematic challenge for agricultural and rural
tutions. The focus is less on what we learn, and more institutions, whether government or nongovemment,
on how we learn and with whom. This implies new is to institutionalize these approaches and structures
roles for development professionals, leading to a that encourage learning. Most organizations have
whole new professionalism with new concepts, val- mechanisms for identifying departures from normal
ues, methods and behavior (Table 3). Typically, nor- operating procedures. This is what Argyris (1991)
mal professionals have a background in a single calls single-loop learning. But most institutions are
discipline, work largely in ways remote from people, very resistant to double-loop learning, as this involves
are insensitive to diversity of context, and are con- the questioning of, and possible changes in, the wider
cerned with themselves generating and transferring values and procedures under which they operate. For
technologies. Their beliefs about people’s conditions organizations to become learning organizations, they
and priorities often differ from people’s own views. must ensure that people become aware of the way they
The new professionals, by contrast, make explicit learn, both from mistakes and from successes.
their underlying values, select methodologies to suit Institutions can, therefore, improve learning by
needs, are more multidisciplinary and work closely encouraging systems that develop a better awareness
with other disciplines, and are not intimidated by the of information. The best way to do this is to be in close
complexities and uncertainties of dialogue and action touch with external environments, and to have a gen-
with a wide range of nonscientific people (Pretty and uine commitment to participative decision making,
Chambers, 1993). combined with participatory analysis of performance.
It would be wrong, however, to characterize this as Learning organizations will, therefore, have to be
a simple polarization between old and new profes- more decentralized, with an open multidisciplinarity,
sionalism, implying in some way the bad and the and heterogeneous outputs responding to the demands
good. True sensibility lies in the way opposites are and needs of farmers. These multiple realities and
synthesized. It is clearly time to add to the paradigm complexities will have to be understood through mul-
of positivism for science, and embrace the new alter- tiple linkages and alliances, with regular participation
natives. This will not be easy. Professionals will need between professional and public actors. It is only
to be able to select appropriate methodologies for par- when some of these new professional norms and prac-
ticular tasks (Funtowicz and Rave&, 1993). Where the tices are in place that widespread changes in the liveli-
problem situation is well defined, system uncertainties hoods of farmers and their natural environments are
are low, and decision stakes are low, then positivist likely to be achieved.

NOTES

1. Alternatives, additions and challenges to the positivist hypothesis (Lovelock, 1979); alternative economics (Arthur,
paradigm have emerged from a very wide range of disci- 1989; Daly and Cobb, 1989; Douthwaite, 1992; Ekins,
plines, including from chaos theory and nonlinear science 1992); postpositivism (Phillips, 1990); critical systems
(Prigogine and Stengers, 1984; Gleick, 1987; Gould, 1989); theory (Jackson, 1991; Popkewitz, 1990; Tsoukas, 1992);
fractal geometry and mathematics (Family and Vicsek, 1991; constructivist inquiry (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Denzin,
Lorenz, 1993); quantum physics (see many sources, but 1984; Guba, 1990; RBling and Jiggins, 1994; Engel, 1995);
especially theories of Schriidinger and Heisenberg); neural communicative action (Habermas, 1987); postmodemism
networks (Holland ef al., 1986); soft-systems science (Harvey, 1989); adaptive management and operationality in
(Checkland, 1981, 1989; Checkland and &holes, 1990; turbulence (Helling, 1978; Norgaard, 1989; Meams, 1991;
Raling, 1994); postnormal science (Funtowicz and Ravetz, Roche, 1992; Uphoff, 1992); learning organizations and
1993); philosophy of symbiosis (Kurokawa, 1991); historical clumsy institutions (Argyris and SchGn, 1978; Peters, 1987;
sociology (Abrams, 1982); morphic resonance (Sheldrake, Handy, 1989; Shapiro, 1988; Thompson and Trisoglio,
1988): popular epidemiology (Brown, 1987); complexity 1993); and social ecology (Bawden, 1991, 1994; Woodhill,
theory (Waldrop, 1992: Santa Fe Institute, passion): Gaia 1993).
 PARTICIPATORY LEARNING FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE 1259

2. This list of references cannot possibly be comprehen- Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Systems (RAAKS),
sive, as the antecedents and actors involved are too numer- Rapid Assessment Procedures (RAP), Rapid Assessment
ous to mention. The informal journal PLA Notes (formerly Techniques (RAT), Rapid Catchment Analysis (RCA),
RRA Notes) (in issues l-22) has alone published 240 articles Rapid Ethnographic Assessment (REA), Rapid Food
since 1988 based on field experiences in rural and urban com- Security Assessment (RFSA), Rapid Multi-perspective
munities in some 55 countries; and the IDS/IIED (1994) Appraisal (RMA), Rapid Organisational Assessment (ROA),
annotated bibliography contains a listing of some 600 refer- Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), Regenerated Freir&m
ences relating to PRA and RRA. Literacy through Empowering Community Techniques
(REFLECT), Samuhik B&man (Joint trek), Soft Systems
3. A selection of recently emerged terms alternative
Methodology (SSM), Theatre for Development, Training
systems of learning and action include Agroecosystems
for Transformation, and Visualisation in Participatory
Analysis (AEA), Beneficiary Assessment, Development
Programmes (VIPP).
Education Leadership Teams (DELTA), Diagndstico Rurale
Participative (DRP), Farmer Participatory Research,
4. These terms, “tool,” “technique” and “instrument,”
Farming Systems Research, Groupe de Recherche et
imply a functionality that does not exist in practice. A tool,
d’Appui pour I’Auto-Promotion Paysanne (GRAAP),
Mtthode AccClCrke de Recherche Participative (MARP), such as a screwdriver, guarantees an output from an input; a
Participatory Analysis and Learning Methods (PALM), technique, such as how to join together two pieces of wood,
Participatory Action Research (PAR), Participatory is something that can be repeated by skilled practitioners: an
Research Methodology (PRM), Participatory Rural instrument, such as a compass, unerringly measures and indi-
Appraisal (PRA), Participatory Rural Appraisal and cates. No participatory methods can guarantee outputs from
Planning (PRAP), Participatory Technology Department given inputs as they involve the activities of diverse social
(PTD), Participatory Urban Appraisal (PUA), Planning for actors, whose interests and concerns cannot be predicted in
Real. Process Documentation, Rapid Appraisal (RA), Rapid advance (see Checkland, 1989).

REFERENCES

Abrams, P., Hisroriccrl Sociology (Shepton Mallet: Open Journal of AlrernuriveAgricuhure, Vol. S, No. 2 (1990).
Books, 1982). pp. 5 l-59.
Adnan, S., Barrett, A.. Alam S. M. Nural and A. Brustinow, Bawden, R., “A learning approach to sustainable agriculture
People’s Purtrcipurion, NGOs and fhe Flood Action Plan and rural development: Reflections from Hawkesbury.”
(Dhaka. Bangladesh: Research and Advisory Services. Mimeo (Richmond, Australia: University of Western
1992). Sydney, 1994).
Argyris. C.. “Teaching smart people how to learn.” Howard Bawden, R., “Creating learning systems: a metaphor for
B~wress Revitw (May-June. I99 I). institutional reform for development,” Paper for jomt
Agyris C. and D. Schiin. Orgunisu~ionul Learning IIED/IDS Beyond Farmer First: Rural People’s
(Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1978) Knowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension Practice
Arthur, B., “Competing technologies, increasing returns and Conference (University of Sussex: Institute of
lock-in by historical events: the dynamics of allocation Development Studies and International Institute for
order increasing returns.” Ecorlonric Jour&. Vol. 99 Environment and Development, October 27-29, 1992).
(1989),pp. 116-131. Bawden, R., “Systems thinking and practice in agriculture,”
Attah-Krah, A. N. and P. A. Francis, “The role of on-farm Journui ofDuirx Science, Vol. 74 (199 l), pp. 2362-2373.
trials in the evaluation of composite technologies: the Beardsley, P., RedeBning Rigour: Ideology and Sraristics m
case of alley farming in Southern Nigeria,” A,qricrrlrurul Polifical Inyui~, Vol. 104, Sage Library of Social
S\..vems. Vol. 23 (1987). pp. 133-152. Research (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1980).
Bngadion, B. U. and Korten, F. F.. “Developing Irrigators’ Bhatnagar, B. and A. Williams, Participatory Decelopmenr
organisations: a learning process approach.” in M. M. and the World Bunk: Porenfiul Directions ,for Change
Cemea (Ed.), Putting People Fir-s!. Second edition (Washington, DC: World Bank, 1992).
(Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1991). Brown, P.. “Popular epidemiology: community response to
Baker, G.. H. C. Knipscheer and Neto J. de Souzn, “The toxic waste-induced disease in Wobum, Massachussets,”
impact of regular research field hearings (RRFH) in on- Science, Technology und Humun Values. Vol. 12 (1987),
farm trials in northeast Brazil,” .&perirnerltcrl A,qricLr/nwe. pp. 78-85.
Vol. 24 (1988). pp. 281-288. Bunch, R., “EPAGRI’s work in the State of Santa Catarina,
Balbanno, E. A and D. L. Alcober. “Particlpntory watershed Brazil: Major new possibilities for resource-poor farm-
management in Lsytr. Philippines: experience and ers,” Mimeo (Tegucigalpa. Honduras: COSECHA, 1993).
Impacts after three years.” Paper for IIED/ActionAid Bunch, R., Low Input Soil Resrorution m Honduras: The
Conference New Horizons: The Social, Economic and Corrtarrunus Furmer-ro-Furmer Extension Programme,
Environmental Impacts of Participatory Watershed Sustainable Agriculture Programme Gatekeeper Series
Development (Bangalore, India. November 28-December SA23 (London: IIED. 1991).
7, 19941. Bunch. R., Two Eurs of Corn: A Guide fo People-Cenrred
Banmster. M. E. and P K. R. Nnir, “Alley cropping as a sus- Agriculfrrrul Inrprowment (Oklahoma City. OK: World
tainable agricultural technology for the hillsides of Haiti: Neighbors, 1983).
experience of an agroforestry outreach project.” Anrencun Bunch. R. and G. L6pez. “Soil recuperation in Central
1260 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

America: Measuring impacts 4 to 40 years after interven- El-Swaify, S. A., S. Arsyad, and P. Krishnarajah, “Soil loss
tion,” Paper for International Institute for Environment and conservation planning in tea plantations of Sri
and Development and ActionAid New Horizons confer- Lanka,” in R. A. Carpenter (Ed.), Natural Systems for
ence (Bangalore, India: IIED and Action Aid, November Development: What Planners Need to Know (New York:
28-December 2, 1994). Macmillan, 1983). pp. 141-161.
Campbell, A., “Participatory inquiry: Beyond research and Engle, P. G. H., “Facilitating innovation: An action oriented
extension in the sustainability era,” Paper for International approach and participatory methodology to improve inno-
Symposium Systems-Oriented Research in Agriculture vative social practice in agriculture,” PhD Dissertation
and Rural Development (Montpelier, France: November, (Wageningen: Wageningen Agricultural University,
21-25, 1994a). 1995).
Campbell, A., Landcare: Communities Shaping the Lund Faeth, P. (Ed.), Agricultural Policy and Sustainability: Case
and the Future (Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1994b). Studies,from India, Chile, the Philippines and the United
Campbell, L. and G. Gill, “PRA for Nepal: Concepts and States (Washington, DC: World Resources Institute,
methods,” Research Support Series Number 4 1993).
(Kathmandu: HMG Ministry of Agriculture-Winrock Family, F. and T. Vicsek (Eds.), Dynamics of Fractal
International, 1991). Systems (Singapore: World Scientific Pub]. Co., 1991).
Cemea, M. M., Putting People First, Second edition Feyerabend, P., Against Method: Outline of Anarchistic
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). Theory of Knowledge (London: Verso, 1975).
Chambers, R., “The origins and practice of participatory Finsterbusch, K. and W. A. van Wicklen, “Beneficiary
rural appraisal,” World Development, Vol. 22, No. I participation in development projects: empirical tests of
(1994a), pp. 953-969. popular theories,” Economic Development and Cultural
Chambers, R., “Participatory ryral appraisal (PRA): Analysis Chunge, Vol. 37, No. 3 (1989). pp. 573-593.
of experience,” World Development, Vol. 22, No. 9 Francis, C. A. and P. F. Hildebrand, “Farming systems
(1994b), pp. 1253-1268. research-extension and the concepts of sustainability,”
Chambers, R., “Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): FSRE Newsletter (University of Florida, Gainsville), Vol.
Challenges, potentials and paradigm,” World 3(1989),pp.6-Il.
Development, Vol. 22, No. 10 (1994~). pp. 437-454. Funtowicz, S. 0. and J. R. Ravetz, “Science for the post-
Chambers, R., Challenging the Professions: Frontiers for ncrmal age,” Futures, Vol. 25, No. 7 (1993), pp. 739-755.
Rural Development (London: Intermediate Technology Giddens, A., Social Theory and Modern Society (Oxford:
Publications, 1993). Blackwell, 1987).
Checkland, P. B., “Soft systems methodology,” Human Gill, G., “But how does it compare with the ‘real’ data?,”
Systems Management, Vol. 8 (I 989), pp. 273-283. RRA Notes (IIED, London), Vol. 14 (1991). pp. 5-13.
Checkland, P. B., Systems Thinking, Systems Practice Gleick, J., Chaos: Making a New Science (London:
(Chichester: John Wiley, 1981). Heineman, 1987).
Checkland, P. and J. Scholes, Soft Systems Methodology in Gould, S. J., Wonderful L$e: The Burgess Shale and the
Action (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1990). Nuture of History (London: Penguin Books, 1989).
Conway, G. R., “The properties of agroecosystems,” Grandin, B., Wealth Ranking (London: IT Publications,
Agricultural Systems, Vol. 24 (1987). pp. 95-l 17. 1987).
Cook, T. and D. Campbell, Quasi-Experimentation: Design GTZ, The Spark Has Jumped the Gap (Eschbom: Deutsche
and Analysis Issues for Field Settings (Chicago, IL: Rand Gesselschaft fitr Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ),
McNalley, 1979). 1992).
Daly, H. E. and J. B. Cobb, For the Common Good: Guba, E. (Ed.), The Paradigm Diulog (Newbury Park, CA:
Redirecting the Economy Towards Community, the Sage, 1990).
Environment and a Sustainable Future (Boston, MA: Guba, E., “Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of
Beacon Press, 1989). naturalistic inquiries,” Educational Communication of
Delli Priscoli, J., “Public involvement, conflict management: Technology Journal, Vol. 29 (1981). pp. 75-92.
means to EQ and social objectives,” Journal of Water Guba E. G. and Y. Lincoln, Fourth Generation Evuluatiorr
Resource Planning and Management, Vol. 115, No. I (London: Sage, 1989).
(1989). pp. 31-42. Guijt, I., Perspectives on Participation. An Inventory of
Denzin, N. K., Interpretive Interactionalism (London: Sage Institutions in Africa (London: International Institute for
Publications, 1984). Environment and Development, 1991).
Douthwaite, R., The Growth Illusion (London: Routledge, Guijt I. and M. Kaul Shah, The Myth of Community (forth-
1992). coming).
Eisner, E. W., “The meaning of alternative paradigms for Habermas, J., The Philosophical Dtscourse of Modernit>
practice,” in E. G. Guba (Ed.), The Paradigm Dialog (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987).
(Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990), pp. Handy, C., The Age of Unreason (London: Business Books
88-102. Ltd., 1989).
Ekins, P., Real-Life Economics (London: Routledge, 1992). Hanson, J. C., D. M. Johnson, S. E. Peters and R. R. Janke,
El Titi, A. and H. Landes, “Integrated farming system of “The profitability of sustainable agriculture on a represen-
Lautenbach: A practical contribution toward sustainable tative grain farm in the mid-Atlantic region, 1981-1989.”
agriculture,” in C. A. Edwards, R. La], P. Madden, R. H. Northeastern Journal of Agriculrural and Resourc,e
Miller and G. House (Eds.), Sustainable Agricultural Economics, Vol. 19, No. 2 (1990). pp. 9&98.
Systems (Ankeny: Soil and Water Conservation Society, Hart, R. A., Children’s Participarion: FI-om Tokemsm to
1990). Citr.-enship. UNICEF Innocenti Essays No. 4 (Florence:
 PARTICIPATORY LEARNING FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE 1261

UNICEF, 1992). input methods,“AgronomyJournal, Vol. 81, No. 2 (1989).

Harvey, D., The Con&ion of Posrtnodernity (Oxford: Basil pp. 150-159.
Blackwell Ltd. 1989). Lincoln, Y. S., “The making of a constructivist: a remem-
Holland, J. H., K. J. Holyoak, R. E. Nisbett, and P. R. brance of transformations past,” in E. G. Guba (Ed.), The
Thagard, Induction: Processes of Inference, Learning and Parudigm Diulog (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications,
Discovery (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986). 1990) pp. 67-87.
Holling, C. S., Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Lincoln, Y. and E. Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry (Newbury
Management (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1978). Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1985).
IDSIHED, Annotated Bibliography for PRA (Brighton and Lobo, C. and G. Kochendorfer-Lucius, The Ruin Decided
London: Institute of Development Studies and International to Help Us. An Experience in Participatory Watershed
Institute for Environment and Development, 1994). Development in Mahurushtra State, Indiu (Ahmednagar:
Ison, R., “Teaching threatens sustainable agriculture,” Social Centre, 1992).
Gatekeeper Series SA21 (London: BED, 1990). Lorenz, E. N., The Essence of Chaos (London: UCL Press
Jackson, M. C., “The origins and nature of critical systems Ltd. 1993).
thinking,” Systems Practice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (1991). pp. Lovelock, J., Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth (Oxford:
131-149. Oxford University Press, 1979).
Jordan, V. W. L., J. A. Hutcheon and D. M. Glen, Studies in Marshall, C., “Goodness criteria: Are they obJective or
Technology Transfer of Integrated Farming Systems. judgement calls?,” in E. G. Guba (Ed.), The Paradigm
Considerations and Principles for Development (Bristol: Dialog (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990). pp.
AFRC Institute of Arable Crops Research, Long Ashton 188-197.
Research Station, 1993). Mascarenhas, J.. P. Shah, S. Joseph, R. Jayakaran, J.
Kamp, K., R. Gregory and G. Chowhan, “Fish cutting pesti- Devararam, V. Ramachandran, A. Femandez, R.
cide use,” ILEIA Newsletter, No. 2/93 (1993). pp. 22-23. Chambers and J. N. Pretty, “Participatory rural appraisal,”
Kang, B. T., G. F. Wilson and T. L. Lawson, Alley Cropping: RRA Notes (IIED, London), Vol. I3 (1991). pp. 10-47.
A Stable Alternative to Shifting Agriculture (lbadan: IITA, Maturana, H. and F. Varela, The Tree of Knowledge The
1984). Biological Roots of Human Understanding (Boston, MA:
Kenmore, P., How Rice Farmers Clean up the Environment, Shambala Publications, 1987).
Conserve Biodiversity, Raise More Food, Make Higher Meams, R., “Environmental implications of structural
Profits. Indonesia’s IPM - A Model .for Asia (Manila, adjustment: Reflections on scientific method,” IDS
Philippines: FAO, 1991). Discussion Paper 284 (Brighton: IDS, 1991).
Kerr, J., “How subsidies distort incentives and undermine Montgomery, J. D., “When local participation helps,”
watershed development projects in India,” Paper for Journul Policy Anulysis and Management, Vol. 3, No. 1
llED/ActionAid Conference New Horizons: The Social, (1983). pp. 90-10.5.
Economic and Environmental Impacts of Participatory N. A. F., A Better Row to Hoe: The Economic, Environmental
Watershed Development (Bangalore, India: November und Sociul Impuct of Sustainable Agriculture (St. Paul.
28-December 2, 1994). MN: Northwest Area Foundation, 1994).
Kerkhof, P., Agroforestry in Africu. A Survey of Project Narayan, D., “Focus on participation: Evidence from 121
Experience (London: Panos Institute, 1990). rural water supply projects” (Washington. DC: UNDP-
Kuk, V. and M. L. Miller, Reliability and Validity tn World Bank Water Supply and Sanitation Program, Social
Qualitative Research, Qualitative Research Series I Policy and Resettlement Division, World Bank, 1993).
(Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1986). NEDCO, “Sediment transport in the Mahaweh Ganga,”
K. K. U., Rapid Rural Appraisul: Proceedings of un Repon funded by Kingdom of Netherlands to Ministry of
International Conference (Khon Kaen, Thailand: Rural Land and Land Development (Colombo: Hydrology
Systems Research Project, Khon Kaen University, 1987). Divisron, Irrigation Dept. 1984).
Kottak, C. P., “When people don’t come first: Some socio- NES/CU/J%J/WRl, Purticiputory Rot-al Appruisul
logical lessons from completed projects,” in M. Cemea Hundbook (Kenya: National Environment Secretariat;
(Ed.), Putting People First, Second edition. (Oxford: Mass. Clark University; Nairobi: Egerton University;
Oxford University Press, 1991) pp. 431-464. Washmgton, DC: World Resources Institute, 1990).
Krishna, A., “Watershed development in Rajasthan: The Norgaard, R.. “The case for methodological pluralrsm.”
new approach,” Mimeo (Jaipur, India: Watershed Ecologicul Economic.s, Vol. 1 (1989), pp. 37-S7
Development, Government of Rajasthan, 1993). Naoonal Research Council, Alternative Agricultirre
Krishnarajah, P., “Soil erosion control measures for tea land (Washmgton, DC: National Academy Press, 1989).
in Sri Lanka,” Sri Lankan Journal of Tea Science, Vol. 54. Paul, S., Comnnrr~rty Parricipution (Washmgton. DC: World
No. 2 (1985). pp. 91-100. Bank, 1987)
Kuhn. T., The Structure of Sctentific Revoluttons, Second Peters, T., Thrtvrng on Chuor: Handbook /or II Montrgemenr
edition (Chicago: Chrcago University Press, 1962; 1970). Revolutron (New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1987)
Kurokawa, K.. Intercultrtrul Architecture. The Philosophy of Phdlips. D C.. “Postpositivistic science. Myths and real+
Symbiosis (London: Academy Editions, 1991). tres.” m E G. Cuba (Ed.), The Parudigor Diolr,~
Lal. R.. “Agroforestry systems and soil surface management (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990).
of a Tropical Alfisol. I: Soil moisture and crop yields,” PLA Notes (formerly RRA Notes) (London Sustarnablc
Agrofore.stry Systems, Vol. 8 (1989) pp. 7-29. Agriculture Programme, lntematmnal lnstuute for
Liebhardt. W., R. W. Andrew&M. N. Culik, R. R. Harwood. Environment and Development, 1988-present)
R. R. Janke, J. K. Radke and S. L. Rieger-Schwartz, “Crop Popkewaitz, T S.. “Whose future? Whow past’ Notch on crrt-
production during conversion from conventional to low- rcal theory and methodology,” in E. G Cuba (Ed ). The
1262 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

Purudigm Dialog (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Raling, N. G., Platforms for decision making about ecosys-
1990). pp. 4666. tems,” in L. Fresco (Ed.), The Future of the Land
Pretty, J. N., Regeneruting Agriculture: Policies and (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1994), pp. 385-393.
Pructice ,for Sustuinability and Se(f-Reliance (London: Riiling, N. G. and J. L. S. Jiggins, “Policy paradigm for sus-
Earthscan Publications Ltd. and Washington, DC: tainable farming,” European Journal of Agrrcultural
National Academy Press, 1995). Education and Extension, Vol. I, No. I (1994). pp. 23-43.
Pretty, J. N., “Alternative systems of inquiry for sustainable Rorty, R., Contingency, Irony and Solidarity (Cambridge:
agriculture,” IDS Bulletin (IDS, University of Sussex), Cambridge University Press, 1989).
Vol. 25, No. 2 (1994), pp. 37-48. Russell, D. B. and R. L. Ison, “The research-development
Pretty, J. N. and P. Shah, “Soil and water conservation in the relationship in rangelands: An opportunity for contextual
20th century: A history of coercion and control,” Rural science,” Plenary paper for 4th International Rangelands
History Centre Research Series No. I (Reading, MA: Congress (Montpellier, France, April 22-26, 1991).
University of Reading, 1994). Santa Fe Institute, Bulletin of the Sanfa Fe Instifute (Santa
Pretty, J. N. and R. Chambers, “Towards a learning para- Fe, NM: 1987-present).
digm: new professionalism and institutions for sustainable Satterthwaite, D., D. Bajracharya, R. Hart, C. Levy, D. Ross,
agriculture,” IDS Discussion Paper DP 334 (Brighton: J. Smit and C. Stephens, Children, Environment
Institute of Development Studies, 1993). and Sustainable Development (New York: UNICEF,
Pretty, J. N. and R. Howes, Sustainable Agriculture in Environment Division, 1995).
Erituin: Recent Achievements and New Policy Challenges Scrimshaw, S. and E. Hurtado, Rapid Assessment
(London: International Institute for Environment and Procedures for Nutrition and Primary Heulth Care:
Development, 1993). Anthropological Approaches for Improving Programme
Pretty. J. N. and R. Sandbrook, “Operationalising sustainable EfSectiveness (Tokyo: United Nations University; Los
development at the community level: primary environ- Angeles: UNICEF/UN Children’s Fund; and UCLA Latin
mental care,” Presented to the DAC Working Party on American Center, 1987).
Development Assistance and the Environment (Paris: Shapiro, M. H., “Judicial selection and the design of clumsy
OECD, October 1991). institutions,” Southern California Land Review, Vol. 61,
Pretty, J. N., I. Guijt, I. Scoones and J. Thompson, A No. 6 (1988), pp. 1.555-1569.
Truiners Guide to Participatory Learning and Action, Shah, P., “Participatory watershed management in India: The
IIED Participatory Methodology Series No. I (London, experience of the Aga Khan Rural Support Programme,”
International Institute for Environment and Development, in I. Scoones and J. Thompson (Eds.), Beyond Farmer
1995). First (London: IT Publications Ltd. 1994). pp. 117-124.
Prigogine, I. and I. Stengers, Order outof Chaos: Man’s New Sheldrake, R., The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance
Dialogue \cithNature (London: Fontana, 1984). and the Habits qf Nature (London: Collins, 1988).
Rahman, M. A., Grussroots Participation and Self-Reliance Smith, J. K., “Alternative research paradigm and the prob-
(New Delhi: Oxford and IBH, 1984). lems of criteria,” in E. Cuba (Ed.), The Paradigm Dialog
Rahnema, M., “Participation,” in W. Sachs (Ed.), The (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990). pp.
Development Dictionuty (London: Zed Books Ltd. 1992). 167-187.
pp. 116-131. SPRA, Participatory Research: An Introduction (New
Reason, P. and J. Heron, “Research with people: The para- Delhi: Society for Participatory Research in Asia, 1982).
digm of cooperative experiential inquiry,” Person- Sriskandarajah, N., R. J. Bawden, and R. G. Packham,
Centred Review, Vol. I, No. 4 (1986). pp. 456-476. “Systems agriculture: A paradigm for sustainability,”
Reij, C., “The agroforestry project in Burkina Faso: an analy- Association for Farming Systems Research-Extension
sis of popular participation in soil and water conserva- Newsletter, Vol. 2, No. 2 (1991). pp. l-5.
tion,” in C. Conroy and M. Litvinoff (Eds.), The Greening Stocking, M., “Soil erosion in developing countries: where
of Aid (London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. 1988). pp. geomorphology fears to tread,” Discussion Paper No. 241
74-77. (Norwich: School of Development Studies, University of
Reus, J. A. W. A., H. J. Weckseler and G. A. Pak, Towards East Anglia, 1993).
A Future EC Pesticide Pohcy (Utrecht: Centre for SWCB, The Impact qf the Catchment Approach to Soil and
Agriculture and Environment (CLM), 1994). Water Conservation: A Study of Six Catchments in
Rhoades, R., “The coming revolution in methods for rural Western, Rift Valley and Central Provinces, Kenyu
development research,” Mimeo (Manila, Philippines: (Nairobi: Sdil and Water Conservation Branch, Ministry
User’s Perspective Network International Potato Center, of Agriculture, Livestock Development and Marketing,
1990). 1994).
Roche. C., “Operationality in turbulence: The need for Thompson, M. and A. Trisoglio, “Managing the unmanage-
change,” Mimeo (London: ACORD, 1992). able,” Paper presented at 2nd Environmental Management
Rocheleau, D. E., K. Wachira, L. Malaret and B. M. of Enclosed Coastal Seas Conference (Baltimore, MD:
Wanjohi, “Local knowledge for agroforestry and native November 10-13, 1993).
plants,” in R. Chambers, A. Pacey and L. A. Thrupp Tsoukas, H., “Panoptic reason and the search for totality: A
(Eds.), Furmer First (London: IT Publications, 1989). pp. critical assessment of the critical systems perspective,”
14-24. Human Relations, Vol. 45, No. 7 (1992), pp. 637-657.
Rocheleau, D. E., “Gender, ecology, and the science of sur- UNDP, The Benefits qf Divers+. An Incentive Towurd
vival: Stories and lessons from Kenya,” Agriculture and Sustainable Agriculfure (New York: United Nations
Humun Vulues, Vol. VIII, Nos. 1 and 2 (1991), pp. Development Program, 1992).
156-165. Uphoff, N., Learning ,from Gal @at Possibilities .for
 PARTICIPATORY LEARNING FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE 1263

Participatory Development and Post-Newtonian Science Press, 1981).

(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992). Waldrop, M. M., Complexity and the Emerging Science at
USAID, Women in Development: A.I.D. ‘s Experience, the Edge of Order and Chaos (New York: Simon and
1973-1985, AID Program Evaluation Report No. 18 Shuster, 1992).
(Washington, DC: US Agency for International World Commission on Environment and Development, Our
Development, 1987). Common Future (Oxford and New York: Oxford
van der Werf, E. and A. de lager, Ecological Agriculture in University Press, 1987).
South India: An Agro-Economic Comparison and Study of Woodhill, J., “Science and the facilitation of social learning:
Transition (The Hague: Landbouw-Economisch Institut, A systems perspective,” Paper for 37th Annual Meeting of
and Leusden: ETC-Foundation, 1992). The International Society for the Systems Sciences
Vereijken, P., “Research on integrated arable farming and (Sydney: University of Western Sydney, July 1993).
organic mixed farming in the Netherlands,” in C. A. World Bank, “The World Bank and participation,” Report
Edwards, R. Lal, P. Madden, R. H. Miller and G. House of the Learning Group on Participatory Development
(Eds.), Sustainable Agricuhural Systems (Ankeny: Soil (Washington, DC: World Bank, April 1994).
and Water Conservation Society, 1990). Wynne, B., “Uncertainty and environmental learning:
Vickers, G., “Some implications of systems thinking,” in Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive para-
Open Systems Group (Ed.), Systems Behavior, Third edi- digm,” Global Environmental Change (I 992), pp.
tion (London: Harper and Row, with the Open University 111-127.