recently established, a relatively open interview structure was chosen. Findings
were regularly fed back to the respondents, to enable feedback, and thus, interpretation and validation of the results.
11.4.2 Novel Settings and ‘Common’ Approaches
The four group types outlined below presented institutional innovations to the area,
deviating from ‘common’ (group) extension programs, since they (a) involved a
variety of actors from different organizations cooperating in setting up and
facilitating the group, (b) encompassed a set of new group practices, and (c) departed
from the usual patterns of interaction in what is considered a ‘demonstration model’
in Vietnam.
2
Table 11.2 provides a typology of the studied cases, these being ‘WomUn’,
‘ExtClubs’, ‘NatRes’ and ‘ForRes’, setting out the major characteristics of the
extension delivery, group composition and patterns of interaction. It is important
to stress that the two latter groups ‘NatRes’ (a national research project supported by
the Ministry of Science and Technology) and ‘ForRes’ (a ‘foreign research’ project
within the Uplands Program) were initiated by researchers with backgrounds mainly
in animal husbandry. With regard to the setting-up of the groups, it is relevant that
the initiators of the other two groups WomUn (with the Women’s Union as the
initiator) and ExtClubs (Extension Club – village based self-help initiatives originally set-up and moderated by the OE) were more acquainted with both the area and
the people and therefore, could draw upon previous contacts and existing networks
during the process of group formation.
All groups centered their learning efforts on the introduction of new or improved
breeding practices and had a fixed duration, with the exception of ExtClubs, as they
focused on optimizing the pig husbandry systems of their members for an unspecified period. All groups had in common a set of specific objectives: (1) to stimulate
innovative modes of cooperation between extension agents and farmers, (2) to share
experiences, (3) to identify problems and jointly find solutions, (4) to consolidate
the concept of extension groups in the area, and (5) to serve as examples for the
formation of further groups beyond the project boundaries.
2 In common demonstration models, most typically OE seeks to disseminate complete packages of
innovation – mainly developed off-farm and piloted in lowland areas – through selecting 10–15
farmers who would then be given the necessary equipment, along with concrete handling
instructions. The majority of farmers selected here held influential positions in community life
(such as village heads, heads of mass organizations, heads of the local party cell etc.) because they
were considered to be ideal disseminators once the innovations had proved their effectiveness. The
relatively strict guidelines and management package impeded any experimentation or adjustment
to individual resource endowments, while contacts with the CEW were limited to irregular and
brief inspection visits. Beyond the member selection and the initial instructions, further direct
contacts with farmers concentrated on a mid-term review and a closing procedure (that included a
final assessment), usually after 1 year. There was no further encouragement given for additional
exchange, either between extensionists and farmers, or between farmers.
11 Rethinking Knowledge Provision for the Marginalized: Rural Networks. . .
445
were regularly fed back to the respondents, to enable feedback, and thus, interpretation and validation of the results.
11.4.2 Novel Settings and ‘Common’ Approaches
The four group types outlined below presented institutional innovations to the area,
deviating from ‘common’ (group) extension programs, since they (a) involved a
variety of actors from different organizations cooperating in setting up and
facilitating the group, (b) encompassed a set of new group practices, and (c) departed
from the usual patterns of interaction in what is considered a ‘demonstration model’
in Vietnam.
2
Table 11.2 provides a typology of the studied cases, these being ‘WomUn’,
‘ExtClubs’, ‘NatRes’ and ‘ForRes’, setting out the major characteristics of the
extension delivery, group composition and patterns of interaction. It is important
to stress that the two latter groups ‘NatRes’ (a national research project supported by
the Ministry of Science and Technology) and ‘ForRes’ (a ‘foreign research’ project
within the Uplands Program) were initiated by researchers with backgrounds mainly
in animal husbandry. With regard to the setting-up of the groups, it is relevant that
the initiators of the other two groups WomUn (with the Women’s Union as the
initiator) and ExtClubs (Extension Club – village based self-help initiatives originally set-up and moderated by the OE) were more acquainted with both the area and
the people and therefore, could draw upon previous contacts and existing networks
during the process of group formation.
All groups centered their learning efforts on the introduction of new or improved
breeding practices and had a fixed duration, with the exception of ExtClubs, as they
focused on optimizing the pig husbandry systems of their members for an unspecified period. All groups had in common a set of specific objectives: (1) to stimulate
innovative modes of cooperation between extension agents and farmers, (2) to share
experiences, (3) to identify problems and jointly find solutions, (4) to consolidate
the concept of extension groups in the area, and (5) to serve as examples for the
formation of further groups beyond the project boundaries.
2 In common demonstration models, most typically OE seeks to disseminate complete packages of
innovation – mainly developed off-farm and piloted in lowland areas – through selecting 10–15
farmers who would then be given the necessary equipment, along with concrete handling
instructions. The majority of farmers selected here held influential positions in community life
(such as village heads, heads of mass organizations, heads of the local party cell etc.) because they
were considered to be ideal disseminators once the innovations had proved their effectiveness. The
relatively strict guidelines and management package impeded any experimentation or adjustment
to individual resource endowments, while contacts with the CEW were limited to irregular and
brief inspection visits. Beyond the member selection and the initial instructions, further direct
contacts with farmers concentrated on a mid-term review and a closing procedure (that included a
final assessment), usually after 1 year. There was no further encouragement given for additional
exchange, either between extensionists and farmers, or between farmers.
11 Rethinking Knowledge Provision for the Marginalized: Rural Networks. . .
445