11.5 Establishing and Expanding Ethnic Farmer Research
and Extension (EFREN) Groups as an Integrated
Approach to Joint Knowledge Generation
The previous section showed that some quite promising experimentation has taken
place in terms of partnering for learning, and utilizing enlarged spaces for participation through innovation system transition. However, the limitations discussed
show that targeting a farmer community with a concrete partnership in mind and a
more or less fixed learning agenda is likely to be problematic. One of the most
important lessons to be learned from the cases analyzed is that beyond mere
participation in learning activities, local control over the learning agenda is central
to self-determination and credible partnering in knowledge formation. Moreover,
the central role of communal extension workers (CEWs) became very clear
throughout the previous sections, and although the CEWs’ limitations were clear
in this case – specifically in terms of client-group orientation and in the dissemination of extension content that sometimes lacked adaptation – drawing on them as a
resource that was already well-embedded in the local context proved to be the most
effective method to use without an alternative being available.
Responding to these insights gained and as a supplement to the research
approaches applied therein, researchers from the sub-project set-up an action
research component aimed at designing and piloting a more integrative approach
to farmer learning, bringing together farmers from the different ethnic groups and
drawing entirely on locally available knowledge actors and resources. The
approach used was built-up of the following fundamentals, in order to move
towards more local, adaptive and demand-driven extension messages:
• Support individuals in understanding themselves as learners through open and
regular discussion (including discussions about the learning style itself) and
through the process of critical reflection
• Encourage individuals to expand their learning experiences and value peer
exchange as a source of knowledge
• Create a learning environment in which tolerance and diversity can naturally
unfold as a basis for inter-ethnic learning
• Gradually withdraw from the role of being an active facilitator and empower
individuals to increase their responsibilities by making the learning cycle selfsustaining, and
• Draw on locally available resources so that institutional uptake by the public
extension system will be possible following successful pilot trials.
We inclusively view institutional innovations in agricultural extension as a new
way of organizing, arranging and managing the knowledge generation and transfer
process; therefore, in the following subsection, we will first outline how we interpreted
our role as action researchers when initiating these processes of change, and describe
the basic setting for the novel extension approach we named the Ethnic Farmer
Research and Extension Network (EFREN). The last subsection presents an early
assessment of EFREN.
11 Rethinking Knowledge Provision for the Marginalized: Rural Networks. . .
453
and Extension (EFREN) Groups as an Integrated
Approach to Joint Knowledge Generation
The previous section showed that some quite promising experimentation has taken
place in terms of partnering for learning, and utilizing enlarged spaces for participation through innovation system transition. However, the limitations discussed
show that targeting a farmer community with a concrete partnership in mind and a
more or less fixed learning agenda is likely to be problematic. One of the most
important lessons to be learned from the cases analyzed is that beyond mere
participation in learning activities, local control over the learning agenda is central
to self-determination and credible partnering in knowledge formation. Moreover,
the central role of communal extension workers (CEWs) became very clear
throughout the previous sections, and although the CEWs’ limitations were clear
in this case – specifically in terms of client-group orientation and in the dissemination of extension content that sometimes lacked adaptation – drawing on them as a
resource that was already well-embedded in the local context proved to be the most
effective method to use without an alternative being available.
Responding to these insights gained and as a supplement to the research
approaches applied therein, researchers from the sub-project set-up an action
research component aimed at designing and piloting a more integrative approach
to farmer learning, bringing together farmers from the different ethnic groups and
drawing entirely on locally available knowledge actors and resources. The
approach used was built-up of the following fundamentals, in order to move
towards more local, adaptive and demand-driven extension messages:
• Support individuals in understanding themselves as learners through open and
regular discussion (including discussions about the learning style itself) and
through the process of critical reflection
• Encourage individuals to expand their learning experiences and value peer
exchange as a source of knowledge
• Create a learning environment in which tolerance and diversity can naturally
unfold as a basis for inter-ethnic learning
• Gradually withdraw from the role of being an active facilitator and empower
individuals to increase their responsibilities by making the learning cycle selfsustaining, and
• Draw on locally available resources so that institutional uptake by the public
extension system will be possible following successful pilot trials.
We inclusively view institutional innovations in agricultural extension as a new
way of organizing, arranging and managing the knowledge generation and transfer
process; therefore, in the following subsection, we will first outline how we interpreted
our role as action researchers when initiating these processes of change, and describe
the basic setting for the novel extension approach we named the Ethnic Farmer
Research and Extension Network (EFREN). The last subsection presents an early
assessment of EFREN.
11 Rethinking Knowledge Provision for the Marginalized: Rural Networks. . .
453