11.4.3 Limits to Group Functioning
Not surprisingly, whenever extension activities are announced to smallholders in a
disadvantaged area, there is a large response. Along with the promise of subsidized
or even free production factors (breeding sows, feed concentrate etc.), the prospect
of regular recognition by extension staff is perceived as particularly motivating.
However, tensions emerged in Son La in relation to the implementation and conduct
of the groups. These tensions mainly related to: (A) group composition, the inappropriate communication of ‘soft’ (i.e., joint learning) objectives, the selection of group
representatives and the appointment of facilitators, (B) the type, frequency and
performance of group activities, and (C) inadequacies in basic group settings and
in selection of the study topic.
(A) A rather non-transparent process was originally used for selecting those group
participants to be given membership, with most places going to current and
retired village authority members and with few opportunities for applicants not
holding an official position within the village hierarchy. The tendency towards
biased group composition was further amplified by the direct appointment of a
group representative by the initiators (WomUn, NatRes) or by the responsible
village head (ExtClubs, ForRes), a process that was a disappointment to most
group members, who assumed that the group’s leadership style of administering
and giving/receiving instructions would be rooted in the administrative
functions.
The gender composition of the group was another controversial issue (NatRes,
ExtClubs), for although women carry out most of the work within the pig husbandry
sector, men were preferentially recruited as group members, thus failing to address
the concerns of the actual focus group. The best solution was found in ForRes,
where membership was allocated to households, leaving it up to each family to
decide who to send on group activities. Apart from these issues, all groups ended up
remarkably homogeneous in terms of the members’ ethnic affiliations and preexisting social networks.
It is important to note that each group drew on actors from OE (CEWs or the
AHW in the case of ForRes) to serve as group facilitators (see Table 11.2), thus
dashing members’ hopes of working with higher level extension staff or outside
experts. In the cases of WomUn and ExtClubs, this was due to the direct involvement
of OE in the groups’ initiation, while NatRes and ForRes – as projects initiated
by scientific actors with weak networks in the area – were not able to provide
appropriate alternatives. The major concerns expressed by farmers regarding the
appointment of CEWs were their past experiences of the CEWs’ inadequate professional qualifications and their limited availability due to the lack of incentives to carry
out field visits. They also feared that the long-standing network relations among local
extension staff might favor dominant clans and village elites, consequently excluding
more ‘ordinary’ farmers. None of the projects began by training group representatives
and/or facilitators in group moderation techniques and participatory methods.
448
I. Schad et al.
Not surprisingly, whenever extension activities are announced to smallholders in a
disadvantaged area, there is a large response. Along with the promise of subsidized
or even free production factors (breeding sows, feed concentrate etc.), the prospect
of regular recognition by extension staff is perceived as particularly motivating.
However, tensions emerged in Son La in relation to the implementation and conduct
of the groups. These tensions mainly related to: (A) group composition, the inappropriate communication of ‘soft’ (i.e., joint learning) objectives, the selection of group
representatives and the appointment of facilitators, (B) the type, frequency and
performance of group activities, and (C) inadequacies in basic group settings and
in selection of the study topic.
(A) A rather non-transparent process was originally used for selecting those group
participants to be given membership, with most places going to current and
retired village authority members and with few opportunities for applicants not
holding an official position within the village hierarchy. The tendency towards
biased group composition was further amplified by the direct appointment of a
group representative by the initiators (WomUn, NatRes) or by the responsible
village head (ExtClubs, ForRes), a process that was a disappointment to most
group members, who assumed that the group’s leadership style of administering
and giving/receiving instructions would be rooted in the administrative
functions.
The gender composition of the group was another controversial issue (NatRes,
ExtClubs), for although women carry out most of the work within the pig husbandry
sector, men were preferentially recruited as group members, thus failing to address
the concerns of the actual focus group. The best solution was found in ForRes,
where membership was allocated to households, leaving it up to each family to
decide who to send on group activities. Apart from these issues, all groups ended up
remarkably homogeneous in terms of the members’ ethnic affiliations and preexisting social networks.
It is important to note that each group drew on actors from OE (CEWs or the
AHW in the case of ForRes) to serve as group facilitators (see Table 11.2), thus
dashing members’ hopes of working with higher level extension staff or outside
experts. In the cases of WomUn and ExtClubs, this was due to the direct involvement
of OE in the groups’ initiation, while NatRes and ForRes – as projects initiated
by scientific actors with weak networks in the area – were not able to provide
appropriate alternatives. The major concerns expressed by farmers regarding the
appointment of CEWs were their past experiences of the CEWs’ inadequate professional qualifications and their limited availability due to the lack of incentives to carry
out field visits. They also feared that the long-standing network relations among local
extension staff might favor dominant clans and village elites, consequently excluding
more ‘ordinary’ farmers. None of the projects began by training group representatives
and/or facilitators in group moderation techniques and participatory methods.
448
I. Schad et al.