Visualizing this information, the researchers drew a diagram on a large piece of
paper and placed it in the middle of the group. In the center of this diagram a card
had been placed representing the household, around which other cards were placed
depicting the crops grown, plus animals and machines used. In a subsequent step,
arrows representing the flows of labor, money, food and nutrients were added to the
diagram. After just over an hour, the outline model of the farm had been completed,
visualizing a complex and dynamic local system of resource flows. The creation of
this visual model generated intense and condensed communication, thereby
allowing for the generation of a wealth of qualitative data in a very limited time,
that which could then be readily shared among group members.
Contrary to initial assumptions, the diagram included two motors, one of which
was used to power a boat and a plow, and the second to run a rice mill and a
threshing machine, and renting-out the threshing machine and combustion-powered
plow were seen as important contributors to farm income. Some of the most
valuable information; however, emerged immediately after the diagramming session had taken place when a respondent stated his desire “to talk about income”.
This respondent made a number of points. First, he said that by attending a 3-year
agricultural high school program, as well as having done previous work for the
extension service, he had gained knowledge which allowed him to apply mineral
fertilizers more efficiently than his peers. He also claimed to be fattening his pigs
much faster than his peers using purchased fodder concentrates and by feeding
different kinds of fodder to pigs of different ages. He added that his poorer peers
had asked him for advice, but did not have the money to invest, plus that he kept his
pigs out on a stead about 2 km away from the village, in order to avoid disease,
which is a major problem with pig rearing. He said he had also tried cultivating
potatoes but stopped because there was no market. Other farmers, in contrast, were
not growing potatoes because they were not used to eating them. Finally, he
claimed that, unlike his peers, he knew how to calculate the costs and returns
involved in investments and therefore could repay any subsidized credits that he
had taken up in the past.
In this case then, a PRA tool generated a wealth of information about a system of
resource flows in a short period of time, plus prepared the way for an animated
discussion to take place regarding the differences between ‘poor’ farmers and the
clearly elite respondent. By pointing out his above-average level of formal education, his work as a change agent in the extension service, his ability to test an
agricultural innovation and his comparative wealth as indicated by his use of
motorized tools, he ended up highlighting the contrast between his own success
and status and the lot of his poorer fellow villagers. Thereby, the research team
gained a valuable insight into innovation dynamics and markers of status which far
exceeded the original intention of the diagramming session. However, for this to
happen, it was necessary to treat the diagramming session as part of a larger
encounter and communicative event, and for this to contribute to the research
projects in question, the ‘extra’ information gained had to be documented in detail,
followed-up on and verified during later visits to the village.
9 Participatory Approaches to Research and Development in the Southeast. . .
329
paper and placed it in the middle of the group. In the center of this diagram a card
had been placed representing the household, around which other cards were placed
depicting the crops grown, plus animals and machines used. In a subsequent step,
arrows representing the flows of labor, money, food and nutrients were added to the
diagram. After just over an hour, the outline model of the farm had been completed,
visualizing a complex and dynamic local system of resource flows. The creation of
this visual model generated intense and condensed communication, thereby
allowing for the generation of a wealth of qualitative data in a very limited time,
that which could then be readily shared among group members.
Contrary to initial assumptions, the diagram included two motors, one of which
was used to power a boat and a plow, and the second to run a rice mill and a
threshing machine, and renting-out the threshing machine and combustion-powered
plow were seen as important contributors to farm income. Some of the most
valuable information; however, emerged immediately after the diagramming session had taken place when a respondent stated his desire “to talk about income”.
This respondent made a number of points. First, he said that by attending a 3-year
agricultural high school program, as well as having done previous work for the
extension service, he had gained knowledge which allowed him to apply mineral
fertilizers more efficiently than his peers. He also claimed to be fattening his pigs
much faster than his peers using purchased fodder concentrates and by feeding
different kinds of fodder to pigs of different ages. He added that his poorer peers
had asked him for advice, but did not have the money to invest, plus that he kept his
pigs out on a stead about 2 km away from the village, in order to avoid disease,
which is a major problem with pig rearing. He said he had also tried cultivating
potatoes but stopped because there was no market. Other farmers, in contrast, were
not growing potatoes because they were not used to eating them. Finally, he
claimed that, unlike his peers, he knew how to calculate the costs and returns
involved in investments and therefore could repay any subsidized credits that he
had taken up in the past.
In this case then, a PRA tool generated a wealth of information about a system of
resource flows in a short period of time, plus prepared the way for an animated
discussion to take place regarding the differences between ‘poor’ farmers and the
clearly elite respondent. By pointing out his above-average level of formal education, his work as a change agent in the extension service, his ability to test an
agricultural innovation and his comparative wealth as indicated by his use of
motorized tools, he ended up highlighting the contrast between his own success
and status and the lot of his poorer fellow villagers. Thereby, the research team
gained a valuable insight into innovation dynamics and markers of status which far
exceeded the original intention of the diagramming session. However, for this to
happen, it was necessary to treat the diagramming session as part of a larger
encounter and communicative event, and for this to contribute to the research
projects in question, the ‘extra’ information gained had to be documented in detail,
followed-up on and verified during later visits to the village.
9 Participatory Approaches to Research and Development in the Southeast. . .
329