stakeholders can take unexpected turns, putting certain participants in uncomfortable situations, particularly when confronted with power asymmetries. At these
times, the facilitator and the project leader/initiator, who are the guarantors of the
outcomes, may, in respect of the procedural aspects of the process, involve themselves in the internal policy process of the modeling project. Different attitudes can
be observed in the management styles of project leaders, ranging from a very strong
involvement to a laissez-faire style (Barnaud et al. 2010).
The role of the modeler has an impact on the participatory process during the
development phase of the modeling tool, and the opacity and complex technical
nature of the modeling process must also be taken into account (Becu et al. 2011).
During the participatory modeling process, a model will be built, in most cases
based on both empirical knowledge coming from local sources, and knowledge –
sometimes defined as “scientific” knowledge – issued from research circles. During
this process the researcher is; therefore, in theory, a knowledge-bearer like any
other, including the farmer. This can be an uncomfortable position for researchers,
as their knowledge is open to direct criticism, which is something they are not
familiar with, as they are more used to criticism stemming from peer-reviews.
Moreover, they cannot control the outcomes of their research investment in the
ComMod process (which is the case for all the process participants) and must make
concessions with other participants. Therefore, they are open to the criticism
already made by certain parties that participative researchers generate ‘disruptive’
parameters which are harmful to the quality of ‘scientific production’.
In addition, it must be said that in practice the blurring of boundaries between the
roles of project leader, facilitator and knowledge holder can generate bias in the
knowledge sharing process, which is an integral part of the ComMod process.
This occurred in the Mae La Ngun case, where the scientific knowledge resided
in the hydrological model which had been developed by the co-facilitator based on
data collected by the co-investigators. In other words, in projects such as this,
scientific knowledge is sometimes not subject to real discussion and critical review
by the partners or is not sufficiently explained, unlike empirical knowledge, and;
therefore, does not have the same status as other forms of knowledge. The social
and cultural gap that exists between the western researcher and local users in
Southeast Asia may reinforce this form of bias (Castella et al. 2007).
Process of Stakeholder Involvement
The selection of the stakeholders involved in a companion modeling exercise
depends on (1) the research topic and purpose of the study, (2) the project
objectives, linked to the ongoing research and development process in the study
area, (3) the role they are expected to play, linked to their participation, and
(4) factors related to the institutional framework (Mathevet et al. 2011). Dare ´
et al. (2009) proposed the following shortlist from the different elements that should
be taken into account when choosing stakeholders: their knowledge of the research
subject, their representativeness or personal role within the social group, their
9 Participatory Approaches to Research and Development in the Southeast. . .
339
times, the facilitator and the project leader/initiator, who are the guarantors of the
outcomes, may, in respect of the procedural aspects of the process, involve themselves in the internal policy process of the modeling project. Different attitudes can
be observed in the management styles of project leaders, ranging from a very strong
involvement to a laissez-faire style (Barnaud et al. 2010).
The role of the modeler has an impact on the participatory process during the
development phase of the modeling tool, and the opacity and complex technical
nature of the modeling process must also be taken into account (Becu et al. 2011).
During the participatory modeling process, a model will be built, in most cases
based on both empirical knowledge coming from local sources, and knowledge –
sometimes defined as “scientific” knowledge – issued from research circles. During
this process the researcher is; therefore, in theory, a knowledge-bearer like any
other, including the farmer. This can be an uncomfortable position for researchers,
as their knowledge is open to direct criticism, which is something they are not
familiar with, as they are more used to criticism stemming from peer-reviews.
Moreover, they cannot control the outcomes of their research investment in the
ComMod process (which is the case for all the process participants) and must make
concessions with other participants. Therefore, they are open to the criticism
already made by certain parties that participative researchers generate ‘disruptive’
parameters which are harmful to the quality of ‘scientific production’.
In addition, it must be said that in practice the blurring of boundaries between the
roles of project leader, facilitator and knowledge holder can generate bias in the
knowledge sharing process, which is an integral part of the ComMod process.
This occurred in the Mae La Ngun case, where the scientific knowledge resided
in the hydrological model which had been developed by the co-facilitator based on
data collected by the co-investigators. In other words, in projects such as this,
scientific knowledge is sometimes not subject to real discussion and critical review
by the partners or is not sufficiently explained, unlike empirical knowledge, and;
therefore, does not have the same status as other forms of knowledge. The social
and cultural gap that exists between the western researcher and local users in
Southeast Asia may reinforce this form of bias (Castella et al. 2007).
Process of Stakeholder Involvement
The selection of the stakeholders involved in a companion modeling exercise
depends on (1) the research topic and purpose of the study, (2) the project
objectives, linked to the ongoing research and development process in the study
area, (3) the role they are expected to play, linked to their participation, and
(4) factors related to the institutional framework (Mathevet et al. 2011). Dare ´
et al. (2009) proposed the following shortlist from the different elements that should
be taken into account when choosing stakeholders: their knowledge of the research
subject, their representativeness or personal role within the social group, their
9 Participatory Approaches to Research and Development in the Southeast. . .
339