11.5.1 Developing, Introducing and Analyzing the Ethnic Farmer
Research and Extension Network (EFREN)
11.5.1.1 Drawing on CEWs to be Central Actors in EFREN
The previous sections have elucidated upon the CEWs’ multiple roles, performing
as facilitators, mediators and brokers in order to satisfy both the government’s
agenda and farmers’ demands. Moreover, CEWs act as the government’s ‘knowledge deliverers’, those responsible for ‘training and educating’ farmers by transferring technology and disseminating relevant policies to the rural population. On the
other hand, CEWs are also confronted with the farmers’ struggles to improve their
living standards and sustain their livelihoods; therefore, they also act in part as
‘knowledge facilitators’, giving advice on the reorganization, discovery and resolution of production issues and providing relevant information on postharvest,
market, inputs’ and other services to farmers. Performing these central roles,
CEWs can be considered ‘critical nodes’ in the knowledge system, though the
dual-role they play often places them in a conflicting position as regard to governmental directives which do not necessarily correspond to farmers’ needs. Therefore,
how to reconcile the government’s development policies and farmers’ demands is
the most severe challenge faced by many CEWs. However, it can be assumed that
changing the operational practices of these ‘critical nodes’ may cause a change in
the daily realities of extension at the field level, without changing the system’s
fundamental structure, which is a unique chance to harmonize the expectations of
the two sides and transform the CEWs role into a facilitator who can make a
difference.
11.5.1.2 Action Research in Setting-Up EFREN
To achieve a close linkage between knowledge and its use, we chose an action
research approach that allowed the development of EFREN as an institutional
innovation within a process of direct and continuous interaction with local actors,
and in the existing institutional context. In this action research process we sought to
combine action and reflection in participation with others, to pursue knowledge
creation alongside the quest for practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to
individual persons and their communities (Reason and Bradbury 2001). To this end,
our action research also focused on cultivating relationships for joint learning and
action, and the action researcher took on the additional role of an educator (BrydonMiller et al. 2003).
Our approach combined the principles of participation, experimentation and
observation, those which underlie our action research practice of continuous loops
of analysis and adjustment. In the pilot commune of Muong Lum in Yen Chau
district, approximately 50 farmers from two ethnic groups (the Black Thai and
Hmong), one CEW and several representatives from the commune’s local authorities
454
I. Schad et al.
Research and Extension Network (EFREN)
11.5.1.1 Drawing on CEWs to be Central Actors in EFREN
The previous sections have elucidated upon the CEWs’ multiple roles, performing
as facilitators, mediators and brokers in order to satisfy both the government’s
agenda and farmers’ demands. Moreover, CEWs act as the government’s ‘knowledge deliverers’, those responsible for ‘training and educating’ farmers by transferring technology and disseminating relevant policies to the rural population. On the
other hand, CEWs are also confronted with the farmers’ struggles to improve their
living standards and sustain their livelihoods; therefore, they also act in part as
‘knowledge facilitators’, giving advice on the reorganization, discovery and resolution of production issues and providing relevant information on postharvest,
market, inputs’ and other services to farmers. Performing these central roles,
CEWs can be considered ‘critical nodes’ in the knowledge system, though the
dual-role they play often places them in a conflicting position as regard to governmental directives which do not necessarily correspond to farmers’ needs. Therefore,
how to reconcile the government’s development policies and farmers’ demands is
the most severe challenge faced by many CEWs. However, it can be assumed that
changing the operational practices of these ‘critical nodes’ may cause a change in
the daily realities of extension at the field level, without changing the system’s
fundamental structure, which is a unique chance to harmonize the expectations of
the two sides and transform the CEWs role into a facilitator who can make a
difference.
11.5.1.2 Action Research in Setting-Up EFREN
To achieve a close linkage between knowledge and its use, we chose an action
research approach that allowed the development of EFREN as an institutional
innovation within a process of direct and continuous interaction with local actors,
and in the existing institutional context. In this action research process we sought to
combine action and reflection in participation with others, to pursue knowledge
creation alongside the quest for practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to
individual persons and their communities (Reason and Bradbury 2001). To this end,
our action research also focused on cultivating relationships for joint learning and
action, and the action researcher took on the additional role of an educator (BrydonMiller et al. 2003).
Our approach combined the principles of participation, experimentation and
observation, those which underlie our action research practice of continuous loops
of analysis and adjustment. In the pilot commune of Muong Lum in Yen Chau
district, approximately 50 farmers from two ethnic groups (the Black Thai and
Hmong), one CEW and several representatives from the commune’s local authorities
454
I. Schad et al.