The practice of participatory research and gender analysis in natural resource management

Abstract

Stakeholder participation is expected to improve the efficiency, equity, and sustainability of natural resource management research and development (R&D) projects by ensuring that research reflects users’ priorities, needs, capabilities, and constraints. Use of participatory methods and tools is growing rapidly; however, there is little systematic evidence about what participation actually means in practice, or about what difference it makes. Based on an inventory of 59 self‐described participatory R&D projects in the area of natural resource management, this article characterizes the typical project and analyzes how stakeholders are selected, how they participate in the research process, and what their involvement means for project costs and impacts. The results suggest that, while projects are generating a range of direct and indirect benefits for participants, more careful attention needs to be paid to achieving equitable impacts. Current practices may lag behind best practices in key areas, such as power sharing and participant selection, and may therefore be missing important contributions from women and other marginalized groups.

Stakeholder participation in agricultural research projects: a conceptual framework for reflection and decision-making

“…For instance, the potential for collective action among participating stakeholders can be enhanced in the course of the research. Yet, the short time frame of many research projects is often not very conducive to the formation of new organizations or strengthening of existing groups (Johnson et al 2004). Another factor to be considered under this attribute is that there may be forms of social capital pre-existing in the targeted communities that can be crucial for the success or failure of the research project, but may be difficult to influence by project staff.…”

“…Empirical studies show that participatory methods are primarily applied in applied and adaptive stages of agricultural research, i.e., where knowledge is geared towards action (e.g., Cornwall and Jewkes 1995;Weltzien et al 2000;Johnson et al 2004;Lilja and Dixon 2008;van Asten et al 2009). Basic research-i.e., experimental or theoretical research aimed at acquiring knowledge for understanding of certain phenomena without any particular application of the research in view-appears to have less potential for adopting a participatory approach.…”

“…The primary focus of development-oriented agricultural research is the generation of technical and institutional innovations and improved practices (Johnson et al 2004). Conventional research projects may provide ''turnkey'' solutions that can be observed on demonstration plots or on farms of experimental farmers.…”

“…Notwithstanding the polarized debate on the value of participation in the 1990s, participatory approaches in international and national research centers have encountered both successes and failures (Bentley 1994;Scoones and Thompson 1994;Lilja et al 2001;Probst 2002;Johnson et al 2004;Lilja and Dixon 2008;van Asten et al 2009). Since the turn of the millennium it has become evident that the claim of ''the more participation, the better'' articulated by the forebears of participatory rural appraisal (PRA) and participatory technology development (PTD) in the 1980s and early 1990s would need to be replaced by a more grounded discussion of the specific potential and shortcomings of participatory and conventional methods in a particular research setting.…”

Triangulation in participation: Dynamic approaches for science-practice interaction in land-use decision making in rural China

“…Such approaches are particularly crucial in the field of land-use planning, where solutions to complex land-use problems often involve multiple disciplines, scales and actors. By integrating different local and scientific knowledge sources, it may be possible to develop a more rigorous understanding of the future (Johnson et al, 2004), and thus increase the possibility of application of the research results into decision making. However, there is often a gap in these approaches.…”