Social Sciences And Farming Systems Research

Methodological Perspectives On Agricultural Development

Jeffrey R Jones, Ben J Wallace, Robert Booth, Robert E Rhoades

• Publisher: CRC Press
• Year: 2019
• eBook ISBN: 9781000311860
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The publication of this book has required the cooperation of many people along the way. From its very conception, the project of bringing together experiences from ongoing Farming Systems Research projects has faced a problem of communication due to the dispersal of the participants. Dr. William Partridge and Lynne Goldstein were instrumental in the initial presentation of the symposium on Social Science participation in Farming Systems Research at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association. Ben Wallace has done an admirable job not only as editor but 8s a ilpoint m-an"- throughout the process or organizirig the conference and preparing the manuscript. He deserves credit tor expediting countless actMties that could never have otherwise been accomplished because of the vagaries or international mails and telecommunications.

Part I
Introduction

1
Social Science in Farming Systems Research

Jeffrey R. Jones and Ben J. Wallace

In the course of the last few decades, world agricultural productivity has shown a marked technical change. The use of agricultural chemicals, machinery and improved seed have been diffused to the most remote outposts of agricultural production through the combined action of national and international development agencies, agricultural research centers and commercial interests. Today's farmers in developed as well as in many less agriculturally developed areas have become adept in the management of new techniques and inputs and in many cases are actively involved in informal experimentation processes to determine optimal combinations for their own agricultural, economic and social conditions (Johnson 1972). The rejection of "improved" technologies by these farmers is often based on a very correct perception that their own "traditional" technologies are superior for their purposes. The development of the FSR approach to agricultural development is a direct response to the recognition not only of the technical expertise of farmers, but also the increasing awareness and respect on the part of development technicians for locally developed production systems and the complexity of their adaptations (Harwood 1979). The fielding of interdisciplinary Farming Systems Research (FSR) teams for research and implementation activities is an attempt to ensure the identification and development of improved agricultural strategies which address the full range of constraints faced by farmers.

As part of its process of maturation, FSR has come to encompass the whole range of agricultural activities. Although first developed for use with annual crops, FSR is applied as well to animal and forestry production, which are also important aspects of small farm management (Gilbert, Norman and Winch 1980; Raintree 1984).

Social scientists have taken on an increasingly important role in the implementation of agricultural development activities. In the tradition of agricultural development, social science had been largely restricted to the participation of agricultural economists. With the recognition that farmers must respond to a broad range of social and economic conditions in the management of their agricultural activities FSR teams include and in some cases are directed by anthropologists and agricultural economists. Social scientists have entered into multiple roles including research, implementation and management, in support of overall of FSR project objectives.

This book grew out of a symposium held in November of 1984, which was convened to discuss the activities of social scientists in FSR. The participants in the symposium worked on FSR projects for regional and international agencies in the direct implementation of agricultural development programs. The primary objective of this book is to make available to a wider audience the results of this conference, and to stimulate the discussion and analysis of the role of social scientists in FSR.

A second objective of this collection of papers is to open a social science discussion of the potential theoretical contribution of FSR. The breadth and volume of FSR project experiences make them a "real world laboratory" to compare individual and social responses to change and development, and at the same time offer a possibility for operationalizing and implementing social science concepts. The changes in world agriculture during the past few decades have radically altered the conditions of third world farmers and an evaluation of experiences in the implementation of development projects will necessarily lead to the re-evaluation of, and improvements in, the concepts and assumptions which underlie models of development.

FSR in International Agricultural Development

Since the 1950's, the implementation of international agricultural development projects was accompanied by a body of critical literature documenting development failures and unwanted side-effects of the development efforts. A collection of papers by Spicer (1952) highlighted social and cultural conflicts in the introduction of new techniques, such as the resistance to new corn varieties because of taste and mechanical properties. Foster's review of technological change identified social conflicts and technical shortcomings in the introduction of new technologies (1962), and Epstein (1973) documented the exacerbation of inequalities in income distribution as a consequence of the use of these technologies[2]. Griffin (1972) documented an even more disturbing "development" outcome, where not only was income inequality emphasized, but total agricultural production in fact decreased with the introduction of technical improvements. These are only a few of many similar critiques which pointed to an alarmingly persistent pattern of unwanted results in agricultural development efforts.

One strategy which had provided the most promising results in agricultural development were the genetic improvement techniques of the "Green Revolution". The possibility of producing genetically improved crops to poor farmers is widely regarded as the best possibility for increasing agricultural yields and improving living standards. International Agricultural Research Centers such as IRRI (the International Rice Research Institute at Los Banos, in the Philippines), CIP (the International Potato Center, at La Molina, Peru), CIMMYT (the International Center for Corn and Wheat Improvement in Mexico), etc., were established in different climatic zones to investigate the possibilities of improving major food crops, such as corn, wheat, rice, beans, cassava, potato, etc. Nevertheless, the techniques developed by these centers were also the object of the criticism that agricultural solutions created social and economic problems which tended to offset their overall benefit.

New methodologies for preliminary research were needed to identify target populations and their general conditions as a means to orient the research of the international centers. This research would have to identify not only the agricultural problems of the intended target populations, but also try to foresee patterns of use and potential problems for new technology. Yield improving research tends to focus on optimal production conditions, despite the fact that the majority of farmers do not work under optimal conditions; since farmers who do work under near optimal conditions are likely to be wealthier than others, yield improvement research for optimal conditions would tend to exaggerate wealth differences. By identifying constraints specific to target populations defined in terms of socioeconomic or agroeconomic conditions, research efforts would have higher probabilities of developing technologies to improve the conditions of those populations.

The problem bequeathed to FSR was, simply stated, to construct an integrated picture of peasant production, formulate strategies for identifying problems for specific farming populations, and then to propose and develop solutions. The strategy of integrating the contributions of biological and social scientists at every stage of the research process is designed to ensure that problems were correctly perceived both in a social and technical sense. While this integration had been discussed and tried previously, the FSR approach made exceptional efforts to guarantee that this integration was functional and not merely cosmetic.

Farming Systems Methodology

Several different approaches to FSR were developed nearly simultaneously at different national, regional and international agricultural research centers and different variants are recognized such as FSR/E (Extension) and FSR/D (Research and Development) depending on the problem focus. The Cropping Systems approach was developed at IRRI as a response to the need perceived at that institution for combined crop rather than single crop production strategies, given the production conditions of South East Asian farmers (Zandstra 1982); Shaner et. al. (1982a) found Cropping Systems Research to be very similar to FSR when a broad set of research selection criteria had been used to establish the need for the cropping systems focus. One of the first agricultural centers that applied FSRM was ICTA (Institute de Ciencia y Tecnologia Agricola) in Guatemala (Hildebrand 1979). At the same time, other centers such as the Tropical Agricultural Research and Training Center (CATIE) (Moreno 1977, Moreno and Saunders 1978, Navarro 1979, Hart 1980), CIMMYT (Byerlee et. al. 1980, Winkelmann and Moscardi 1982) and CIAT (the International Center for Tropical Agriculture in Cali, Colombia) were working along parallel lines and applying the results in their research. The widespread use of FSR in CGIAR centers (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) led to reviews of these activities, one in 1978 by a CGIAR appointed Technical Advisory Committee (TAC 1978), and another by a University based program in 1980 (Gilbert, Norman and Winch 1980). A more encyclopedic review of FSR methodologies was later produced by Shaner, Philipp and Schmehl in 1982a (Shaner et. al. 1982a). The process of consolidation of FSR in its definitive form is far from complete; it can be noted that even in this volume, the team from CIP still finds itself uncomfortable with the FSR label, despite the obvious similarities between the CIP approach and the more generally recognized FSR methodology. The model for FSR discussed here was developed at CATIE and is presented recognizing that it is one of several models developed at different institutions which bear a general similarity. This model is presented because of its detail in the crucial technology testing phase of FSR, and has been discussed in even more detail in the different CATIE publications cited above.

The most significant characteristic of the different FSR approaches is their attempt to take biological experimentation to farmers' fields fairly early in the research process, and to build farmer feedback into evaluations at various points. As technological alternatives are developed, be they new crop varieties, the use of new inputs, or new management techniques, they are taken off the research station to agricultural zones where they are likely to be applied. The observation of the new techniques under local soil, rainfall, and pest conditions may provide an early warning of problems that could have been overlooked at the experiment station. At the same time, an attempt is made to achieve a maximum participation of farmers on whose land trials are planted. In effect, the process requires the identification of agricultural "experts" who understand their local conditions, who have a motivation to discover new production techniques and who are capable of communicating to the researchers their perceptions of the progress of the experiment and its potential applicability to their farm situation.

The need for farmer "experts" in the research process derives from the problems faced in real-life farm management (FSR is seen by some as having clear links to the academic study of farm management (Gilbert, Norman and Winch 1980). When all factors, including environmental conditions, socioeconomic conditions, and farmers' objectives in the management of their farms are taken into account, farm management strategies are extremely complicated. Although university trained experts can afford to specialize in forestry, or annual crop or animal production, the farmer must manage all the components of his farm, not only for production of each component, but to maximize the productivity of the farm as a whole in the context of the interactions between components. The final outcome of alternatives to the farm system and the corresponding interactions throughout the farm can only be known empirically.

As a response to the problem associated with the complexity of peasant farms, FSR became an interdisciplinary concern. This approach avoids the disciplinary bias which may cause the investigation to overlook factors of importance which either overlap the boundaries of disciplines, or which are not strictly biological. The composition of an FSR team is not fixed; it should include biological and social scientists, but within these broad outlines there is a range of variation (see TAC 1978 and Hildebrand 1976 for discussions of team composition).

Social Science Inputs in FSR Research

Agricultural development has slowly come to accept the value of social science research. Where the problems of agricultural development were once conceived as being eminently biological, FSR is now seen to address "1) the interdependences among the components under the farm household's control and 2) how these components interact with the physical, biological and socioeconomic factors not under the household's control" (Shaner et.al. 1982b).

The papers in the present volume were brought together under the conditions that 1) they addressed social, biological and economic issues relating to agricultural development questions and 2) they were carried out in the framework of interactive development and implementation projects. The restrictive concern here is necessary to differentiate FSR from more traditional holistic research in agricultural societies. Numerous social science investigations have looked into the interrelations of physical, biological and socioeconomic factors, but would not be considered FSR; Hill's analysis of West African cocoa growers (1963), Cancian's work on peasant social structure and economics (1965), and the entire school of "cultural ecology" (Netting 1977) all address the broad question of the relation between physical and social factors. These studies, however, were not directed toward the resolution or clarification of specific questions of importance for the implementation of new agricultural technologies.

What is of special interest in this volume is the set of investigation techniques which have been brought to bear on agricultural implementation problems. FSR requires new combinations of research strategies to acquire relevant information in a timely fashion for use within a project framework. This constraint has given rise to some innovations in field work. At the same time, it is striking that certain basic social science research strategies are reinforced by the experience in FSR, reaffirming their fundamental validity and usefulness.

The Research Process in FSR

FSR is an interactive research strategy characterized not only by the use of interdisciplinary teams but also by the integration of experiment station research with socioeconomic inv...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• About the Book and Editors
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Tables
• List of Figures
• Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• Part I INTRODUCTION
• Part II CONCEPTS IN FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH
• Part III CASE STUDIES IN ANNUAL CROP PRODUCTION
• Part IV CASE STUDIES IN LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION
• Part V CASE STUDIES IN AGROFORESTRY
• Part VI CONCLUSIONS
• BIOGRAPHIES OF CONTRIBUTORS